This is a forum to discuss the North American cryptids known as Bigfoot or Sasquatch, and similar creatures from around the world. Posters are expected to maintain a professional attitude at all times. It is preferred that posters use their real name. Anonymous posts will be deleted. Aliases may be accepted on a case by case basis depending on the merits of the post at my discretion. Abuse will not be tolerated. Please observe common courtesy and stay on topic.
Thank You.
George Karras
Click here to go to New Sasquatch Northwest Message Board Hello everyone Going backout to the bush again
by
Well I am going backout into the bush here in michigan where i live.I am going to see if he or she is still out there.Hunting season started going out to see if there is any fresh tracks out there i will plaster them.I am also planning to stay out a whole night in my camp sight there to see if there is any movement.Our best luck is to have them come to us rather then we try to search him out.I still have not seen any more reports coming out on the bfro sight,I check it every day for fresh sightings.If we can get contact with them,we will set them up with infra red video of the creature.We are kinda of hoping his curiosity will bring him towards us.I have not been out in that area for a while,and this is where we seem to have the best luck of seeing him.I WILL REPORT WHAT OUR FINDINGS ARE.So hang tight and keep the search going for our freind who seems to roam the wilderness.
Mark APosted on Nov 5, 2001, 12:26 PM
from IP address 24.183.111.106
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeI'm always on the lookout for any news from my own state, hope you'll be able to give us some soon! Good luck Mark!
byPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 5:40 PM
from IP address 65.164.254.39
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Is it open during the winter???If so, does anyone know the hours???Open on Sundays????Thanks Willow Creek Bigfoot Museum.......
by PGHPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 12:16 PM
from IP address 198.81.17.172
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeThe Bigfoot Museum at Willow Creek is only open To PGH on November 5
by
the first week of May through the first week of October. They are closed over the winter months.Posted on Nov 8, 2001, 6:48 PM
from IP address 64.210.241.103
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
My apologies. Yours is an unusual first name. I haven't had access to this site for over a week, but I was still wondering if your friend's sightings were in the PNW? It seems to me also that, considering (human) populations are growing exponentially, that sightings seemed to peak in N. Amer. in the 60's & 70's (about when his/HERS occured). In my amateur opinion, this indicates BF pops to be declining (along w/my despised theory that since v-cams became affordable there should be at least a controversial tape, considering the number of sightings). Anyway, belated thanks for your answer. Kisal, ma'am
by BobPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 9:23 AM
from IP address 164.58.10.123
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Homeassigned to the Cultus Creek campground and surrounding parts of the Indian Heaven Wilderness area in the Gifford-Pinchot forest in the state of Washington. He told me they would throw things at him, whoop, howl, and growl when he was working on the Indian Heaven trails; but they didn't bother him in the campground. UNTIL, one snowy night he heard something run across the little porch at the front of his cabin. He opened the door and saw a deer running into the brush to the left of the cabin. He looked to the right to see what was chasing it, and a BF came around the corner of the cabin! He slammed and locked the door, grabbed his shotgun, and climbed up to the loft. He said all night long, and every night afterward, they would come and stare in the windows and pound on the walls--more than one at a time. After about a month of it, he quit the job, and went to work as a fire lookout in a tower. I asked him to file a report, but he refused. He said, "It's ancient history, and I don't want to talk about it anymore." The cabin, except for the foundation, is gone now. He showed it to me when we went on a 2 wk camping trip there. That was the camping trip on which I think a BF visited our camp one night. Yes. He was the Ranger
by KisalPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 3:21 PM
from IP address 63.224.202.239
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I wonder what they were trying to do? Provoke a response? Run him off? I can't imagine sitting in the cabin every night for a month afterward. Your friend has a great deal of nerve. Did he or you ever speculate about what the BF were trying to do? How interesting..
by JanV
A report like this adds a great deal to the credibility of people in remote areas who describe BF banging on the outside of their homes and/or staring into their windows. Thanks for sharing.
Jan
Posted on Nov 5, 2001, 3:58 PM
from IP address 66.43.1.14
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I would love to hear your story, if you don't mind sharing what happened at your campsite (if you've told this a hundred times here before, I apologize, and don't worry about telling it again!) Thanks. Kisal...
byPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 5:46 PM
from IP address 65.164.254.39
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I'm sittin here waitin with baited breath. I have just had heart surgery, so don't make me wait to long. Please do tell. Rob No, No, Kisal, please do tell...
byPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 6:32 PM
from IP address 66.8.153.137
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I've posted it here before, and I don't want to bore everyone to death having to read it again. You can find it on the BFRO's geographic sightings database. Click on the state of Washington, then on Skamania county. You'll find the story about halfway down the list, dated July 1985. It's Report #270. (Note: I submitted the report before I ever discussed BF with my friend. That's why I didn't know his opinion about their possible existance.) I'll tell ya what.....
by KisalPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 7:23 PM
from IP address 63.224.201.90
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
That must have been so exciting (and scary for your son!)...thanks for sharing! Cool!!
byPosted on Nov 6, 2001, 8:08 PM
from IP address 63.144.100.118
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
It was only a class B sighting. No really, what an experience. Must of really made your hair stand up. Hope I can have an experience like that someday. Geez Kisal....
by
RobPosted on Nov 6, 2001, 10:46 PM
from IP address 66.8.153.137
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
This area is just a few miles east of the Skookum Meadows / Skookum Cast site, several of our group's members have camped in this part of GPNF before, myself included. This area is notorious for aggressive BF activity, pushed over and destroyed outhouses along the outer perimeter of camp areas. We had a large tree pushed down towards us from the forested hillside above, about 75yds away, this was Labor Day week of '96, along the east bank of the Lower Lewis River Falls. The initial group scramble scenario was pretty hilarious, with all of the bear hunters in the area, the sounds of the roots breaking sounded like assault rifle / AR-15 type gunfire... Beautiful area though, besides the torrential downpours and various swarms of Yellowjackets and Hornets! There's an area to the southeast referred to as the "Divide" that runs onto the Yakama Indian Res, which is said to be a deadringer for frequent soiled undergarments. It's always good to play it smart there, because you're definitely in Big'm Footin' Egypt in that wilderness!... Good luck and take care! Cultus Creek
by Adrian Ethelbah
AdrianPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 6:22 PM
from IP address 24.255.114.13
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Very interesting. Makes one think of Ape Canyon. Thank you, K
by BobPosted on Nov 7, 2001, 11:53 AM
from IP address 164.58.10.123
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
There is plenty of evidence of bipedalism in ape ancestors, but I suspect you mean proof. Some of the evidence from which I am aware is at best circumstantial. Does that mean we should ignore it. Of coarse not. As I am sure you are aware, as animals mature, they often show signs from a previous stage of development. For example, our fetuses might show signs of gills and they even look like a pollywog. So looking at fetuses provides evidence of ancestral characteristics. You have to be willing to accept what is more likely, not necessarily what is widely believed or what is "proved." Most anthropoids (especially the young) occasionally walk on two legs, Human’s never go through a knuckle-walking stage. Chimpanzee fetuses shortly before birth show humanlike feet. Common chimps often walk bipedallly on muddy terrain, and bonobos are even more bipedal Also, young gorillas and chimpanzees have foramina magna more ventral than adults. This is the opening in the base of our skull where the spinal chord attaches to the brain. If it is more ventral, this indicates a more bipedal locomottion. I hope we can agree on this. I am still wondering why you don’t accept the jaw shape as evidence for bipedalism. Would you care to share, hmmm? Here are some quotes I found "Overall, the more human-like features of australopith hindlimbs are less abundant than the more ape-like features (summarized in Oxnard, 1984, Nota Bene following p. 334; and in Verhaegen, 1990). Moreover, it has been argued that all these human-like features (e.g. the superhumanly broad sacrum, long femoral neck and valgus knee) could have been correlated with some sort of bipedalism in the ancestral African hominoids.. " More quotes "African apes could evolve from digiti-palmigrades (all other primates, including human infants) to knuckle-walkers implies that they went through a phase where the arms were barely used for pronograde locomotion. An intermediate phase of orthograde arm-hanging or brachiation insufficiently explains knuckle-walking since neither orangutans nor hylobatids show traces of knuckle-walking. and bipedal tendencies are very striking in the African apes." "Human ilium probably derived from some primitive member of a preanthropoid. The anthropoid-ape type of ilium is in not likely to be intermediate between the human and lower mammalian forms. Its peculiar specializations are quite as definite as those exhibited by man, so that it appears very unlikely that a true anthropoid-ape form of ilium could have been ancestral to the human type." "Lucy’s arms were much shorter than a bonobo's and lacked knuckle-walking adaptations" What this means to me is that Lucy (Australopithecus Afarenses) (sp). which is only slightly different from the presumed common ancestor between humans and chimps is bipedal with no signs of knuckle-walking. The obvious conclusion is that it is more likely that her recent ancestor was probably bipedal rather than a knuckle-walker. Answers to Vern's comments on ape bipedalism
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 7:37 AM
from IP address 63.113.173.136
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeClarification regarding Lucy (A. Afarensis). I have been very busy so I rushed my answer. Upon reading it, I thought I didn’t explain why I used A. Afarensis as a comparison with Chimp ancestors. Lucy, if memory serves, is thought to be 3 to 4 milllion years old and is bellieved to be a human ancestor by most paleoanthropologists. Lucy was apparently thought to be a good walker though there is some controversy about that. Anyway, based on DNA comparisons, humans and chimps shared a common ancestor some 4 to 8 million years ago. If this is true and if Lucy is our ancestor, then obviously Lucy should be far closer to the Chimps ancestor than are we or even probably the chimpanzee ancestor. The anthropocentric view would be that the common ancestor between Chimps and humans was more Chimplike but it is not a scientific conclusion and I don’t think the evidence supports this. Lucy is generally thought to be a good biped so unless A. Afarensis bipedal locomotion evolved extremely rapidly, then it could be argued that the Chimp ancestor should be more like Lucy or bipedal.. Some clarification
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 2:45 PM
from IP address 63.113.173.136
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
pretty close on the dating. Three to 3.9 m. years with a good degree of confidence, probably +/- 50,000 years. Well...
by VernF
I am not overly trusting of DNA divergence analyses yet. The analysis is not straightforward (IHMO) and there are enough unrefined assumptions to skew the results. I would accept 4 to 8 m. years as a reasonable starting point, but I suspect that when all the evidence is in long after I'm a fossil, 8 will be closer to the truth than 4.Posted on Nov 7, 2001, 11:01 AM
from IP address 64.6.105.6
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I will attempt to address your evidence. Rather than go to bed at a reasonable hour...
by VernF
"plenty of evidence of bipedalism...but I suspect you mean proof."
Not in the sense you use the word "proof." There are few certainties in this field. Let's settle for probabilities.
A couple of preliminary comments are in order. There is a virtual black hole behind 4 million years where evidence of ape evolution is scrappy or nonexistent. The conventional explanation is that apes evolved in a forest environment where acid soil destroyed bones before fossilization could take place. I think there is also a "sampling bias" involved. There are a hundred hominid hunters for every ape specialist. In any event, the lack of fossils makes a lot of arguments, including yours, at least plausible.
Whenever possible, however, we should let the bones talk. There are four fairly solid morphological indicia of bipedalism:
(1) Location of the foramen magnum. This gives a good indication of the angle at which the axis of the head is normally carried with respect to the axis of the thorax. A foramen magnum located well down on the occipital is indicative of bipedalism. In adult apes the f.m. is located about where you would expect it to be for a creature which habitually locomotes with its back at an intermediate angle to the horizon.
(2) The pelvic structure. Apelike ilia are ill-suited for efficient bipedal locomotion because the "high" and "flat" structure requires an excessively long abductor and the location of abductor attachment gives low mechanical advantage. For efficient bipedalism, the ilium must be elongated (in girth) and twisted forward, as it is in humans.
(3) Foot structure. Grasping feet are not efficient bipedal locomotors, and loss of grasping ability seems to go hand in hand with bipedalism. Among other things, we woulg expect to find some mechanism to limit freedom of movement of the phalanges. In the Hadar fossils, for example, we find such a limiting mechanism in the flared mating metatarsals. There can also be other clues that may relate to toe flexibility, such as cross sectional shape of the metatarsals.
(4) Knee joint. In the apes, the tibia and the femur mate (when viewed from the front) at approximately 180 degrees. The proximal end of the femur is attached in its ball and socket joint at such an angle that the entire leg is roughly vertical to the horizon. In humans and all other bipedal species yet discovered, the femur (again viewed from the front) "flares in" and the tibia angles out. In other words, there is a distinct angle between the axis of the two bones. And if you have a distal femur and a proximal tibia with the condyles intact, the proper orientation of the attachment between the two bones is unmistakeable.
When all four of these characteristics are present, the evidence virtually screams "bipedal." Apes have none of them. Admittedly, some of the adjustments necessary to allow efficient bipedalism are modest, but the condition of the ape pelvis is so extreme as to raise questions for me (yes, this is just a hunch) whether ancestral apes were ever bipedal.
Now, it is late here in the E.S.T. zone, and any ape would be a more efficient word processor than I. I will address your specific arguments when time permits, but I thought this discussion to be a necessary precursor for what will follow.Posted on Nov 5, 2001, 9:18 PM
from IP address 205.188.198.162
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
By the way, I had to chuckle about being previously characterized as a maverick and I assure I am not categorically opposed to all scientific orthodoxy. I love biology and evolutionary science though I admit if I don't understand something or if I disagree, I will freely admit it. The whole subject of bigfoot is a pretty good example of that. I too will forego that much needed sleep
by Jim Zenor
First of all I need to limit the definition of ape as Chimps and bonobos (Chimps for short). If you define the term too broadly the comparisons get really out of wack. We are closer to chimps than Chimps are to gorillas and the rest of "apes" are really only distantly related.
You stated, "there is a virtual black hole behind 4 million years where evidence of ape evolution is scrappy or nonexistent." I agree the evidence which we can point to is practically zero for apes (Chimps) so we're left to speculate with what little evidence there is. Assuming Lucy is our ansestor, I think she is the closest known relative to that "ape" ancestor. You can go really far back in time to find alternative possible Chimp ancestors, but considering that Chimps split from us relatively recently, is that reasonable to do so? The other alternative is to throw you hands in the air and say we simply don't know (which is true of course)
You said "The conventional explanation is that apes evolved in a forest environment where acid soil destroyed bones before fossilization could take place." I like to use this argument in explanation of the absence bigfoot evidence also, but the real problem with this explanation is that there are plenty of forest animals which have abundant fossil evidence. Why no apes? Could Lucy (or a Lucy like Astralopithecine be the ancestor of Chimps and if not why not?
You discussed ape morphology and locomotion very well but I guess to me it boils down to the ape pelvis. Clearly it is not a bipedal animal and therefore you would not expect it to have a pelvis adapted to bipedalism. The concept of punctuated equilibrium suggests that rapid evolution of a characteristic is possible if that characteristic is highly adaptive to its niche. I think it could be argued that the chimp pelvis is quite useful in such things as catching Colobus monkeys in trees. A hominid could never do this without a good weapon. Chimps are not waiting in the wings to become human. Ability to travel on land, large size, big brain, and ability to move effectively in the trees are why I think Chimps are successful. Chimps did not survive because they are inferior to us, they survived because they are far superior to us in their particular niche.Posted on Nov 6, 2001, 9:20 PM
from IP address 4.35.177.37
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
about most of what you state in this post, Jim. I wouldn't quibble...
by VernF
Absence of ape fossils? I suspect they are there, and we just haven't found the right strata. This is complicated by the very real question of what geographic regions were populated by apes at any given point in prehistory. And remember that hominid (or protohominid) fossils behind that 4 m. year line are scarce as hen's teeth too.
Lucy as a human ancestor? Australopithecine lineage is still quite murky. I can't give you a head count, but I think the pros, by a slender majority, would vote afarensis out of the human family tree, and categorize it as another dead end experiment. I am open to either possibility myself.
Lucy as a chimp ancestor? I doubt it. Afarensis is reliably dated as recently as 3 m. years. As stated in the "Part II" post, I think this is much too late. I think Lucy's progeny (if any) continued to refine bipedalism. Just as I agreed that the human ilium probably did not evolve from a pelvis resembling that of a modern ape, I don't think that the modern ape pelvis evolved from something looking strikingly like a modern human pelvis, which Lucy's does. If it were not for that striking forward twist in the afarensis ilium, I could envision it better. But these are nothing more than semi-educated guesses.Posted on Nov 7, 2001, 10:46 AM
from IP address 64.6.105.6
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I certainly understand and agree about finding the right fossils in the right strata and that geography is extremely important. If, for example, ape and human ancestors evolved in a place where no strata of that age is presently exposed, there would be no way to discover that evidence. Areas where relatively recent fossils can be found are pretty rare. Although Lucy might have been 3 million, it still seems reasonably possible, though not substantiated in any way with fossil evidence, that a similar animal species might be as old as 6 million or more. That would certainly put it within the correct range. There was a an interesting article or paper which Jim Keegan posted which had the chimp and gorilla lineage coming from A. Afarenses, to A. Robustus and A. Boisei, and then to present forms. My degree is in geology so
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 8, 2001, 6:26 PM
from IP address 4.35.178.23
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
And now, on to the specifics. Jim's evidence, Part II
by VernF
"There is plenty of evidence of bipedalism in ape ancestors, but I suspect you mean proof."
-Not in the sense you use the term. There are few certainties, and lots of possibilities. I'll settle for reasonable probabilities.
"So looking at fetuses provides evidence of ancestral characteristics."
-Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
"You have to be willing to accept what is more likely, not necessarily what is widely believed or what is 'proved.'"
-Agreed.
"Most anthropoids (especially the young) occasionally walk on two legs, Human’s never go through a knuckle-walking stage.'
-Bears can walk bipedally, but very inefficiently. I have seen them do it. My tom cat can walk bipedally, but very inefficiently. He more or less taught himself after I trained him to stand on his hind legs to "shake hands." Surely you do not think it probable that bears and domestic cats are descended from bipedal ancestors. Some of the apes walk bipedally much better than bears and cats, but still inefficiently compared to humans. This can just as well be taken as evidence of "evolved toward but didn't quite get there" as evidence of "got there and then evolved away."
"Chimpanzee fetuses shortly before birth show humanlike feet."
-I don't know that much about fetal chimps and I don't know whether you are discussing osteology or gross external appearance. But let's face it. The feet of adult chimps are not enormously different from those of humans. No one disputes the close affinity.
"Common chimps often walk bipedallly on muddy terrain, and bonobos are even more bipedal."
-See supra.
Also, young gorillas and chimpanzees have foramina magna more ventral than adults. This is the
opening in the base of our skull where the spinal chord attaches to the brain.
-I was not aware of such a differential between adults and young. If the information is correct, you have taught me something new. This would be a point to consider, but I think a pretty weak one. Such a change in relative position can occur only through differential rates of growth of the bones of the skull.
This does clearly occur in chimps, since the bones of the face undergo more growth than the balance of the skull. This results in the fact that adults have a more apelike face than young chimps. Does this mean that ancestral chimps had a more humanlike face? I doubt it. If anything, the reverse seems more likely.
"If [the f.m.] is more ventral,this indicates a more bipedal locomottion. I hope we can agree on this."
-We can. See my prior post.
"I am still wondering why you don’t accept the jaw shape as evidence for bipedalism. Would you care to share, hmmm?"
-Gladly. Teeth and jaws have no locomotive function and their evolution is driven by factors entirely unrelated to locomotive technique. It's that simple. Now, we may find an isolated mandible which correlates to a known bipedal species. In that case we conclude the obvious: we have the jaw of a biped. But the original conclusion that the species was bipedal had nothing to do with jaws or dentition. Keep in mind that until the mid-70s it was hotly debated whether Australopithecus africanus was bipedal. Then postcranial remains settled the issue for most people.
"Here are some quotes I found 'Overall, the more human-like features of australopith hindlimbs are
less abundant than the more ape-like features' (summarized in Oxnard, 1984, Nota Bene following
p. 334; and in Verhaegen, 1990).
-This is very much a judgment call, and there are some differences from species to species. Moreover, the judgment has to be based on a vanishingly small sample of bones, which tends to mask intraspecies variability. I would say that in some respects, such as the knee and hip joints, the bones are strikingly modern. On balance, I don't think this statement has much to do with our argument.
"'Moreover, it has been argued that all these human-like features(e.g. the superhumanly broad sacrum, long femoral neck and valgus knee) could have been
correlated with some sort of bipedalism in the ancestral African hominoids..'"
-Maybe so, maybe no. The question, of course, is whether true bipedalism occurred before or after the split between the ape and australopithecine line, though I suppose that convergent evolution after the split is not utterly impossible. But let's pass on that complication for now. When did rhat split occur? If you can answer that query +/- 50,000 years, I can give you a pretty solid guess on whether there were bipedal ancestral apes. Bear in mind that 100,000 years is plenty of time for radical evolutionary changes. Until someone can confidently answer my question or someone finds more relevant bones with good dates, statements like the above quote don't count for much.
"More quotes 'African apes could evolve from digiti-palmigrades (all other primates, including human infants) to knuckle-walkers implies that they went through a phase where the arms were barely used for
pronograde locomotion.'"
-Not necessarily. Envision relatively long and flexible phalanges for efficient hanging or brachiation, a condition still much in evidence with modern apes. A transition from palm/finger walking to knuckle walking probably makes good mechanical sense, and the behavioral transition can occur without radical anatomical adjustments.
"'An intermediate phase of orthograde arm-hanging or brachiation insufficiently explains knuckle-walking since neither orangutans nor hylobatids show traces of
knuckle-walking. and bipedal tendencies are very striking in the African apes.'"
-Say again?! Are you sure this is correctly transcribed? Let's try to follow this: (a)African apes have bipedal tendencies and (b)orangs don't knuckle walk, so (c)there was no brachiating ancestor. This simply fails the logic 101 test. One could argue that the fact that orangs are almost exclusively brachiators makes it MORE likely that there was a brachiation ancestor, bur the fact doesn't support an argument that a brachiating ancestor is IMPOSSIBLE. By the way, it is perfectly obvious why orangs never transitioned to knuckle walking: there is no need for efficient ground locomotion, since they never leave the trees except in the case of utter necessity.
"'Human ilium probably derived from some primitive member of a preanthropoid.'"
-Maybe, maybe not. See infra.
"'The anthropoid-ape type of ilium is in not likely to be intermediate between the human and lower mammalian forms. Its peculiar specializations are quite as definite as those exhibited by man, so that it appears very unlikely that a true anthropoid-ape form of ilium could have been ancestral to the human type.'"
-Agreed. I suspect that the ilium of the common ancestor was low but flat, without the torsion associated with bipedalism. Speculation? Absolutely, but speculation that is every bit as good as any other.
"Lucy’s arms were much shorter than a bonobo's and lacked knuckle-walking adaptations"
-True. Afarensis was a virtually certain biped. We can state this with confidence due to intact ilia, an almost complete foot, and, most compellingly, a complete knee joint. And let's not forget the Laetoli footprints, confidently dated at about 3.7 m. years, at the older end of the range of dates for afarensis.
"What this means to me is that Lucy (Australopithecus Afarenses) (sp). which is only slightly different from the presumed common ancestor between humans and chimps is bipedal with no signs of knuckle-walking."
-A. afarensis was bipedal, but based on present knowledge, your conclusions regarding the status of the common ancestor are unwarranted. You would obviously like to push the split to the 4-5 m. year range. My intuition is that the split was much earlier. Can you show that your intuition is better than mine?
The obvious conclusion is that it is more likely that her recent ancestor was probably bipedal rather than a knuckle-walker.
-Agreed. Bipedalism seems sufficiently obvious and well developed in afarensis that I have no difficulty in buying a bipedal immediate ancestor.
Maybe I can help your argument. You have not considered and of the older bones found during the 90s. Clearly, the farther back we push bipedalism, the more validity there is to your argument, because if we push it back far enough, we squeeze the rear end of the plausible range of dates for the split. What about A. anamensis? These really haven't been adequately published yet, but the dates that are circulating are 4.2-3.9 m. years. You know as a geologist that Rift Valley dates are usually pretty solid, due to the frequent presence of bracketing layers of volcanic ash which permit K-Ar analyses. This is billed as a probable biped, but so far as I can tell this is based on a single tibia, so this cannot be definitive. Lucy's ancestor you spoke of above? Maybe. And what of Tim White's Ardipithecus ramides? The preliminary date of 5.2 m. years (don't hold me to that one) has been pushed back to 5.8 m. years. Again, these have not been adequately published, so I can't endorse any conclusions about them. But I consider White to be very solid. This has been billed as a "possible" biped, but I am not certain of the specific reasons for that thought. It is noteworthy that White sees sufficiently primative to push this one altogether out of the Australopithecus genus. He is not a wild splitter. Even if the dates and the conclusion of bipedalism hold up, however, I suspect that we have not worked our way back close to the common ancestor.
Gimme bones. More and better fossils. Then we can discuss this intelligently.
Posted on Nov 7, 2001, 9:30 AM
from IP address 64.6.105.6
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Your knowledge on the subject is far greater than mine but I'm still unconvinced about some things Very nicely done, but
by Jim Zenor
You said "I'll settle for reasonable probabilities." That is all I seek.
My main point about chimp babies is that I think they resemble us more than our babies resemble apes in the aspects of our various locomotions. I agree that it is not that greatest bit of evidence but I think it is at least interesting and worth considering when discussing the evolutionary path of ours and chimp locomotion.
As for the foramina magna more ventral than adults. I have heard this in a couple of places. When they argued that the Taung baby (I hope I got that right) was a baby chimp and not an australopithecine, one of the arguments given was that even young chimps have a ventral foramina magna. I looked it up and found a reference. Grafton Elliot Smith wrote in May of 1925, "It is unfortunate that Dart had no access to skulls of infant Chimpanzees....Australopithecus were essentially identical with the conditions met in Chimpanzees and gorillas." I didn't want to quote the whole thing but he was refering specifically to the foramina magna.
You said "Teeth and jaws have no locomotive function and their evolution is driven by fact." I have to disagree stronly about that. It is not only me who does so. I know Dr. Krantz is pretty convinced that the widening of the lower jaw in the back is to facilitate a neck which is necessarily forward in a bipedal animal. The teeth then have to fit in that jaw and I think especially the rear molars might show signs of that jaw shape. I remember reading Von Koenigswald saying that upon finding the first Gigantopithecus tooth. Thus tooth and jaw shape is driven by both locomotive function and food type.
I provided some quotes which were meant to provide evidence not necessarily my opinion. I have given it some thought but I must confess that it is easier for me visualize an animal going from bipedal to knucklewalking than from brachiating to knucklewalking. Still,I think it is possible for an Orangutan to develop knuckle walking from brachiation in the manner you gave. I would guess, if Orangs found their food on the ground, they would probably either evolve to bipedal locomotion or to knuckle walking (I see you said this later so we agree on that point). Clearly, that author thinks that the intermediate stages from brachiating to knucklewalking to be unlikely. To me it seems more complicated but possible.
I still think there is a very good possibility that chimp and gorilla ancestors were bipedal or at least partially bepedal. Is that a reasonable probability? I think it is at least as much as other alternatives. I have to agree, we need more bones and more evidence.
Posted on Nov 8, 2001, 7:33 PM
from IP address 4.35.178.23
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
OK, Jim. You tell me that teeth and jaws evolve in a particular way because of bipedalism. You tell me chimps are descended from a bipedal creature. So how come the teeth and jaws of chimps are classic ape in every possible way? How come afarensis (which we all agree was fully bipedal) has a dental arcade which barely hints at the classic human bow shape and which is barely broader than that of a chimp? Yes, everything has to fit together. And Lucy's mandible was proportioned just fine for her tiny skull, which sat on a cervical spine that entered a bipedally located foramen magnum. The "human" jaw shape results largely from the reproportioning necessary to accomodate relatvely larger molars, relatively smaller incisors and especially from the loss of huge apish canines. Increased human jaw width at the back of the arcade results, IMHO, more than anything from the overall increase in the size of the skull as the larger brain evolved and a somewhat beefier cervical spine thus became necessary. Teeth and jaws
by VernFPosted on Nov 11, 2001, 12:17 AM
from IP address 64.12.102.163
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
reduced in size, the space behind them that was necessary to allow closure of the mouth was lost, causing the face to become 'flattened'. It is not possible to simply remove that space and pull the forward part of the jaw back, because the jawbone is narrower in front of the space than behind it. The back part of the jawbone couldn't become narrower, because the tongue would have interfered with the large molars, making chewing difficult. As a result, it was the forward part of the jawbone that adjusted by becoming broader, creating the u-shaped mandible typical of humans. When the large "apish" canines
by Kisal
A similar situation is intentionally created in children with over- or under-bites or crowded teeth who are being prepared for orthodontic treatment. A premolar (usually the first) is removed to create a space that allows the involved jaw to be broadened as the teeth are pulled back into alignment.Posted on Nov 11, 2001, 2:10 PM
from IP address 63.224.201.175
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I suspect accomidating a more forward neck, smaller canines, placement of our tongue, change in food, and a larger brain all play a part. As you said the pieces have to fit and form does follow function. I don't believe I said that chimp ancestors were bipedal. I think I only argued that they may have been. I suspect that
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 12, 2001, 11:07 AM
from IP address 4.35.177.235
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
<<<<< One could argue that the fact that orangs are almost exclusively brachiators makes it MORE likely that there was a brachiation ancestor, bur the fact doesn't support an argument that a brachiating ancestor is IMPOSSIBLE. By the way, it is perfectly obvious why orangs never transitioned to knuckle walking: there is no need for efficient ground locomotion, since they never leave the trees except in the case of utter necessity. >>>>> orangs
by Brad
Well.. Orangs dont brachiate. Gibbons, Siamangs and some other monkeys do, but Orangs are too heavy to do the hand over hand brachiating locomotion. Also Male orangs do go on the ground more than just out of utter necessity. The big males can get so heavy they have to go to the ground to go from one tree to another in certain locations.Posted on Nov 11, 2001, 5:12 PM
from IP address 66.24.11.50
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
arborial and did not want to quibble and I think you are probably correct but I have seen Orangs doing the hand over hand which typifies gibbon locomotion too. Big males are heavy but they are very strong for their weight. They cannot move from tree to tree as well as gibbons because they are too heavy to move to the small branches at the perimeter of the trees I took the meaning as of brachiating as
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 12, 2001, 10:48 AM
from IP address 4.35.177.235
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
To the unknown people who filmed the "snow walker" video.......please accept my apology for writing your video off as a hoax. M.K.Davis Apology
byPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 6:07 AM
from IP address 64.89.201.165
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Homethat Dr. Jeff Meldrum from BFRO debunked? The one that Europen couple claimed to have filmed? I knew there was a small article about that on the BFRO video archive's. That's why I'm asking. Is this the same one
byPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 6:35 AM
from IP address 152.163.213.203
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
i remember seeing a clip where he said that in fact the subject" takes on a very apelike posture",and sounded like he thought it may be authentic.i wonder what he saw to change his mind?i hope he did debunk it.i would hate to think fox duped him.i feel he is to wise for that,but we all have been fooled before. peace did meldrum in fact debunk this?
by mark tPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 6:20 PM
from IP address 63.253.16.19
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
What kind of proof do you have that this video is not a hoax? Re: "Snow Walker" video.
by SkyfoxPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 10:32 AM
from IP address 24.67.137.155
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I ask is because of Bigfoot tracks that I was fortunate to have come across in an isolated logging road area about 2 years ago. The reason why
by Skyfox
The bigfoot in the "Snow Walker " video has a hard time to walk through the deep snow, drags its feet as some have pointed out, and in my conclusion is a hoax.
The winter tracks that I have seen, which occured only once in my 10 years or so of searching, never had drag marks with every step and the creature walked with relative ease in about 4.5 feet of snow. Each leg was actually lifted off the ground to make a single foot indentation in the snow. No foot dragging occurring at all.
I know of others who have seen their tracks in winter, and have made the same observation.Posted on Nov 5, 2001, 7:54 PM
from IP address 24.67.137.155
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
"The 'Snow Walker Footage' was perhaps the most elaborate hoax footage ever produced. It was created by the unscrupulous, bottom-feeding Fox Television Network (the same network that created the 'Alien Autopsy' hoax video)." Actually, the footage was created for the UPN (Paramount) show, Paranormal Borderland, allegedly by the show's producers. Its origins have nothing to do with Fox Television, although Fox has purchased and used the footage in Snow Walker video
by
their later program on "The World's Greatest Hoaxes."
Comment by author-writer Loren ColemanPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 3:07 PM
from IP address 212.126.133.188
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
ALRIGHT IAM A YANKEE FAN AND PROUD OF IT, WE WILL RETURN NEXT YEAR, LOOK OUT ARIZONA, YOU WANT A MATCH UP, WELL U GOT ONE !!!!!! World Series
by
Posted on Nov 5, 2001, 2:52 AM
from IP address 198.81.16.183
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Homeconsidering I only like football and detest dynasties, I was very I was happy to see invincible NY lose! Wrong site, but
by BobPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 9:27 AM
from IP address 164.58.10.123
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
With many sightings of bigfoot mainly in Washington state, is it safe to say Bigfoot is a seattle mariner fan? If so maybe that would explain why he is hiding, heck I would be ashamed to show my face if I had 116 wins and no ring to show for it, just a little humor for this morning, hope everyone has a good day, laterz bigfoot
by:)
Posted on Nov 5, 2001, 10:10 AM
from IP address 198.81.16.179
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
heh!:) Heh
by BobPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 10:24 AM
from IP address 164.58.10.123
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Hello Everyone!!! How to Capture Osama Bin Laden
by
Do you want to know how the U.S.A. can capture Osama Bin Laden?
I know this is off topic (i.e., Bigfoot) but I think you'll get a nice chuckle out of this one.
Check out this link below!!!
http://members.sigecom.net/theclan/Taliban.html
Dr. J
Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 9:02 PM
from IP address 63.224.198.197
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeMight be a little late to tell everybody, but there is a show on Discovery Channel tonight about the consequences of bushmeat hunting on ape populations in Africa. Bushmeat and apes, on Discovery tonight
by Marc B
It's on at 9pm (Atlantic time)
Kisal was talking about that particular subject just yesterday (see thread below)! Is Kisal a psychic?Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 4:29 PM
from IP address 198.164.200.217
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeNope! My crystal ball is 'out of order'! I just read a lot. LOL! :-)
by KisalPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 4:47 PM
from IP address 63.224.202.245
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I'll try to resume what I saw of the show here. My resume of the show
by Marc B
Traditionnally, african tribes hunted animals (not apes) to feed themselves, and there was sufficient game for all of them. Then came the capitalist logging companies, who brought money and weapons in exchange for food. Then the tribes wanted more money so they killed more game (even apes), to sell to a larger market. Then, one day, there is not enough game left, even to feed the local tribes themselves, so they are left with guns and hunger.
As it is, with all the poverty they face now, they consider the apes to be more useful to them as dead apes. Those who work to save the apes are trying to find ways to make apes more profitable alive for the locals, and they think sight-seeing tourism is such a way.
One point was extremely interesting. They were educating the young locals by explaining to them how the apes are similar to us, humans. It seems they didn't even know the apes had a life in the wild before it was explained to them. This leads me to think that in their mind, they are not 'killing' apes, they are merely harvesting them, like we harvest fruits.
They also spoke of the hypothesis that AIDS comes from chimps. They said it is highly probable that AIDS came from repeated blood contact with chimps cut to pieces by human hunters. My personal thought is that humans were not supposed to kill apes, and AIDS was not supposed to kill humans.Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 6:20 PM
from IP address 198.164.200.232
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Not everyone considers Giganto to be pongid. This abstract is from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1980 Nov;53 4):541-68 Gigantopithecus - pongid or hominid?
by
Morphometric affinities of gigantopithecus.
Gelvin BR
Multivariate analyses, supplemented by univariate statistical methods, of measurements from mandibular tooth crown dimensions and the mandible of Gigantopithecus blacki, G. bilaspurensis, Plio-Plelstocene hominids, Homo erectus, and seven Neogene ape species from the genera Proconsul, Sivapithecus, Ouranopithecus, and Dryopithecus were used to assess the morphometric affinities of Gigantopithecus. The results show that Gigantopithecus displays affinities to Ouranopithecus and to the hominids, particularly the Plio-Plelstocene hominids, rather than to the apes. Ouranopithecus demonstrated dental resemblances to G. bilaspurensis and the Plio-Pleistocene hominids but mandibular similarities to the apes. Results of analyses of tooth and mandibular shape indices, combined with multivariate distance and temporal relationships, suggest that Ouranopithecus is a more likely candidate for Gigantopithecus ancestry than is Silvapithecus indicus. Shape and allometric differences between G. bilaspurensis and the robust australopithecines weaken the argument for an ancestral-descendant relationship between these groups. The results support the hypothesis that Gigantopithecus is an extinct side branch of the Hominidae.
Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 1:32 PM
from IP address 212.126.134.13
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeThis is a bunch of BS, right? The Myakka "Skunk Ape" Photographs
by
http://www.lorencoleman.com/myakka.html
Surprised I haven't seen anybody debunk it yet.Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 12:21 PM
from IP address 207.191.211.187
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeI think the photos might just show a real Skunk Ape - whatever that is. Seem genuine to me
byPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 1:30 PM
from IP address 195.82.216.231
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
It's just a thought, but to me that think has always looked like nothing more than a humongous orangutan, and I wonder if maybe it had escaped (or maybe been released because of his age? He looks old.) from a circus spending the winter in Florida. I also wonder how many Skunk Ape sightings can be attributed to people seeing this guy foraging around Circus animal maybe?
byPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 4:27 PM
from IP address 63.144.100.178
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
if it is an orang then it is a huge one and its coloring is dark for an orang. Also I dont believe an orang would be that elusive. They arent the fastest animals and because of the size of that one it would have to move on the ground a lot where orangs arent that comfortable. so the chances of being seen are relatively high. Its either a.) a genetically altered orang b.) a hoax or c.) a skunk ape circus animal
by BradPosted on Nov 6, 2001, 9:25 AM
from IP address 129.3.17.55
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I don't know if the Florida Skunk Ape is a hoax or not. But,the pictures are identical to a sighting I had in the late 70's here in Western Wa. I was within 30-40 feet from it,and it looked just like the Skunk ape in the pictures. The hair was the same color and length ,and kind of scraggly.The eyes appeared red in the dim light,and it was thin looking, and not over 6 foot tall. I've always thought that this may have been a young one. I know I couldn't believe how much the skunk ape photos looked like what I saw! Grizz "Skunk Ape-Hoax?"
byPosted on Nov 6, 2001, 7:50 PM
from IP address 24.6.152.119
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Hominoids - Pongids & Hominids - Some Taxonomy
byWhat is a Hominoid?
Humans, belong to the same family as the anthropoid (human-like) apes, also known as the "great" apes. No other animals are as close to us: at the DNA level we are 98.4 % identical to chimpanzees and bonobos.
Here is a description of the primate evolutionary tree based on DNA comparisons. Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) are classified as Hominoidae. Other members of this family are the four great apes: chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), bonobo (Pan paniscus), gorilla (Gorilla gorilla), and orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus). The Hominoid family also includes the "lesser" apes: gibbons and siamangs. No other primates are called apes: they are monkeys and prosimians. The Hominoids split off from the other primates (Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, and prosimians) an estimated 23 million years ago.
The latest discoveries in paleontology make early hominids look ever more ape-like thus confirming the validity of comparisons of Homo sapiens with its "living links," the extant anthropoid apes. The split between them and us is now estimated to have occurred a "mere" 6 million years ago. Whereas paleontologists tend to focus on the last 3-4 million years marked by bipedality, brain expansion, and cultural progress, the living links approach reaches back further in time so as to include the evolution of all Hominoids.
Taxonomy of the Primate Order
APES & HUMANS (HOMINOIDEA)
Tail-less primates, with wide chests, and great rotational ability in the shoulders.
HYLOBATIDAE (GIBBONS & SIAMANGS)
Distribution: South-East Asia. Also known as the lesser apes, the hylobatidae are adapted to brachiation, and almost entirely arboreal. They live in territorial, small, often monogamous family units. These are the only primates which really can be said to sing: they have beautiful, complex calls, usually given as male-female duets. Like the howlers of South-America, some species have special throat sacs to enhance the carrying capacity of their calls.
PONGIDAE (GREAT or ANTHROPOID APES)
Distribution: Africa and Asia. The nearest relatives of humans, pongids are characterized by large brains, great intelligence, and large body size. The African apes are so-called knuckle-walkers; the orangutan, which is more arboreal, relies on quadrumanual locomotion. The four extant species are divided into three genera: 1) Pan: the chimpanzee (3 subspecies) and bonobo; 2) Gorilla: the gorilla (3 subspecies), and 3) Pongo: the orangutan (2 subspecies).
HOMINIDAE (HUMANS)
Homo sapiens sapiens is the primate with the largest geographic distribution, by far the largest brain, and the least hair on its body.
Alternative Taxonomy
There are several possible taxonomical systems, and these have changed over time. The following classification is a simplified version of Jolly and White, 1995, Physical Anthropology and Archaeology, Fifth Edition.
This version makes a radical departure from previous standards by placing chimpanzees and gorillas in the same family as humans (Hominidae) and is not widely accepted. Other versions place only humans in this taxon and refer to any human fossil forms as hominid to mark their distinct evolutionary direction. Jolly and White substitute the term hominin to indicate an exclusively human direction.
This message has been edited by RatChief from IP address 209.245.168.174 on Nov 3, 2001 7:36 PM Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 7:19 PM
from IP address 209.245.168.174
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeWhat are the criterias to classify a species in either hominid or pongid? Very interesting, where would the sasquatch fit?
by Marc B
Also, I would love to see the same classification with all the extinct hominids and apes (neanderthal, giganto, etc). There's probably more categories between apes and humans in that one.
By the way Georges, thanks a lot for the information!Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 6:22 AM
from IP address 198.164.200.217
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Neandertal, H. Erectus, H. Habilis, Australiopithecines would all be in the Hominidae family. extinct hominids..
by Brad
Giganto I assume would be in Pongidae because of their Asian origins.
Since I think BF is a descendent of Giganto I would place BF in the Pongid family. A lot of people would say because its bipedal it should be in Hominidae. So I think the classification of BF would vary upon different opinion.Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 6:42 AM
from IP address 66.24.11.50
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I believe Sasquatch probably belongs in the hominid line. The idea that it would belong to the Pongid line because it may be Gigantopithecus and because Gigantopithecus originated in Asia does not hold water in my mind. Homo erectus has been found to have lived throughout Asia and there is even evidence to suggest in giant forms. Where would Sasquatch fit?
by
Also Gigantopithecus may or may not have been a Pongid. There is still much debate about it being a biped or quadroped. According to Dr Krantz Giganto walked upright. Dr. Krantz is very confident that Giganto is in fact not extinct but living in North America and known today as the Sasquatch. Others are not so confident that is the case. To me it makes no difference. If Science can not even agree on what Giganto was, you can not try to place Sasquatch in any Taxonomy based on its Giganto ancestry because science can not agree on where Giganto belongs in such a taxonomy.
I would put Sasquatch with Humans and other Hominids regardless who its ancestor (Gigantopithcus or Homo erectus) is at this point in time. This just seems appropriate to me based on my own observations and reflects what I believe Sasquatch to be.
I also think that where I would place Sasquatch is not really very important at this time because it is just my own speculation and there will be no way to make such a judgement until there is a specimen for Anthropologists to study and make those judgements.
I hope my long rambling makes some sense to you Marc.
In the end Im not a professional but just a layman in this field and what I think plus $0.99 can buy you a burger down at Jack in the Box.
George KarrasPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 8:49 AM
from IP address 209.245.168.147
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Absent a specimen, taxinomy is a meaningless exercise. It is difficult enough with extinct species, where postcranial fossils are rare and the most prevalent remains are teeth. With modern species, mtDNA analysis provides an exciting new analytical tool. A small amount of biological material irrefutably linked to sasquatch would be exceptionally illuminating. George is certainly correct in one respect.
by VernFPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 10:23 AM
from IP address 64.6.105.6
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
We dont even know what creature BF is, so its impossible to say what family it belongs in. exactly right...
by Brad
---I believe Sasquatch probably belongs in the hominid line. The idea that it would belong to the Pongid line because it may be Gigantopithecus and because Gigantopithecus originated in Asia does not hold water in my mind. Homo erectus has been found to have lived throughout Asia and there is even evidence to suggest in giant forms.---
The reason I say BF belongs to the Pongid line is because I think it is Giganto. I think Giganto is in the pongid line because it is an Asian ape. Asian apes are more genetically different from humans than African Apes [because Humans evolved in Africa]. That is why most people consider Orangutans to be Pongids, because of their genetic differences. I dont see why BF [if it is Giganto] is any different than Orangs in terms of genetics. They are both Asian, so they are both genetically distant to us. The genetic differences of being Asian is why I would consider BF to be a Pongid. Homo Erectus did live in Asia, but Erectus is originally from Africa and moved out. There is no evidence to suggest a huge ape evolved in Africa and even less evidence suggesting it moved out of Africa, so I dont think Giganto had African origins and therefore would be a Pongid.
Sorry for the rambling, but this is an interesting topic to say the least! although it is impossible to say for sure what BF is/where it came from, it is fun speculating.Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 11:05 AM
from IP address 66.24.11.50
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
that they passed their tests and probably have a far higher level of understanding geneally in thier study area, I still think when it comes to bigfoot, there are no real professionals or experts. With a degree and 99 cents, you could still only buy that same Jack in the Box burger. Although a degree does mean
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 11:33 AM
from IP address 4.35.177.157
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
??? Do you believe the Bible, George?
by BobPosted on Nov 10, 2001, 8:11 AM
from IP address 164.58.10.123
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Usually teeth are the best preserved remains and are therefore the most important skeltal matter to be used to classify species. There are a few facts which make gigantopithecus, Homo erects, and Orangutan distinctions and relationships difficult. Teeth evolve their size,structure, and shape to work best with the particular food eaten by the species. If two species eat the same food, their teeth may look very similar. It is very difficult to distinguish fossil Orangutan and Homo Erectus teeth which are also very similar to ours and many times paleoanthropologists get it wrong. Gigantopithecus Blacki teeth have been argued to closer to Orangutans by some and closer to Hominids by others. The teeth, especially the molars also show evidence whether the animal is bipedal also. This is because the lower teeth in a bipedal animal must fit in a jaw which is relatively spread in the back. Since a bipedal gait may be a primitive feature in great apes, (In other words, chimps and gorillas ancestors may have once been bipeds), upright walking may not be a good way to distinguish hominids from apes. Since we make the rules, we say we are different from apes, but the differences are not very significant in my opinion. Taxonomy is by necessity done skeletal comparisons
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 11:22 AM
from IP address 4.35.177.157
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
as to your thought that teeth or mandible shape can offer diagnostic evidence of bipedalism. And if you are aware of any evidence that any presumed pongid ancestor was bipedal, please enlighten us. We will have to disagree...
by VernFPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 11:47 AM
from IP address 64.6.105.6
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Jim Zenor's thought that ancestral apes may have been bipedal is, as I think he would concede, entirely speculative. Science does not forbid speculation or "hunches". Hovever, even in rather imprecise disciplines like paleontology and physical anthropology, speculation cannot ripen into theory unless the speculation has explanatory power. IHMO, this speculation explains nothing. Speculation
by VernF
Experience teaches that bipedalism is not a typical evolutionary path, nor is it a simple adaptation, requiring as it does significant changes in musculature and skeletal form and alignment. We should not waste time assuming the possibility of bipedalism except where we see evidence of it. Moreover, if ancestral apes were bipedal, why did they evolve back away from that condition? Such reversals are not theoretically impossible, but to speculate that apes evolved to then away from a bipedal condition introduces unnecessary complexity which is itself scientifically disfavored.Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 1:28 PM
from IP address 64.12.102.157
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
It is not a reversal first of all, in my opinion. There are no knuckle-walking monkeys or any other more primitive primate. Knuckle-walking apes are the more specialized. It is my speculation (and others I presume) that knuckle walking evolved because of size and the dual nature of chimp and gorilla locomotion. Because they are still partially arborial, the short legs and very strong arms and hands evolved into this niche. The strong arms are used for locomotion and balance on the ground but the hands were spared from the wear and tear of locomotion by utilizing the knuckles. Why apes moved away from bipelism
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 7:50 AM
from IP address 63.113.173.136
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Are you the same Vern that used to post to Jim Keegan's site. It's hard for me to believe there could be two Verns which have as much knowledge on the subject as you obviously have (The "other" Vern did also). Even though we may not see eye to eye on every subject, I certainly enjoy your posts. Vern
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 8:34 AM
from IP address 63.113.173.136
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Let me toss the compliment back in your lap. You also possess a good deal of relevant information, all the more admirable since it has been acquired as an avocation rather than a vocation. You are also an independent thinker, thus possessing a quality which is all too rare in our society. Yes Jim, one and the same.
by VernF
As I know you understand, none of our disagreements are personal. Independent thinkers like you perform a real service to science. Science advances only through the continuous testing and retesting of currently accepted hypothesis. I think our disagreements largely relate to philosophical biases. Many currently accepted hypotheses, IMHO, are reasonable and economical explanations of currently available evidence. They should be conserved unless and until new data invalidates these hypotheses or a new theory provides a better fit with the evidence. I think that your distaste for the scientific establishment and your delight in playing devil's advocate sometimes lead you into a headlong rush to discard "conventional wisdom" without sufficient data to do so, although your sleight-of-hand is typically performed quite artfully.
I am pressed for time for the next few days, and I hope that your post above recounting your view of evidence for intermediate ape bipedalism will not become too stale before I have a chance to respond. For now, let me say that I think your best point is the position of the foramen magnum, which indicates a non-quadraped, but is certainly not solid evidence of a true biped.
I hope, BTW, that you will some day give me the benefit of your personal 'encounter" in as much detail as you can provide. I have never conversed with anyone I regarded as trustworthy who was able to relate what I assessed as a doubt free and unembelished sighting. Since I regard you as trustworthy, your encounter might affect my own assessment of the probability that BF really exists.Posted on Nov 5, 2001, 10:28 AM
from IP address 64.6.105.6
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
what year was the 1st classification chart made? is it 1995? good stuff, but...
by Brad
It calls the 2nd one "Alternative" but now most people are considering Chimps and Gorilla and sometimes Orangs in Hominidae. I believe the first one is outdated.Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 6:48 AM
from IP address 66.24.11.50
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Both Emory University and University of Manitoba are using the 1st chart. University of Manitoba dumped the 2nd chart in 1996 in favor of the first chart and again reafirmed that decision in 1998. Clasification Charts
by
I do not know the original date of the first chart but I do know that it does predate the 2nd.
Is it outdated? I do not believe it is. The 2nd chart while newer, is simply not correct in my opinion.
George KarrasPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 8:09 AM
from IP address 209.245.168.147
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I have very recently taken a class in Primate Behavior and Hominidae was decribed as Humans, Chimps, Gorillas. A book I have "The Pictorial the charts...
by Brad
Guide To Living Primates" classifies them in the same way, Jane Goodall endorses that book.
This page: http://primates.virtualave.net/homin.htm says that until only recently have Chimps, Gorillas and Orangs been classified in Hominidae. I also did a search on yahoo! for "Hominidae" and here are some links I got from the first page of search results:
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/chordata/mammalia/primates/hominidae.html
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/mammalia/primates/hominidae/hominidae.html
http://members.tripod.com/uakari/hominidae.html
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/hominidae.htm
http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/Eukarya/Animalia/Chordata/Vertebrata/Mammalia/Primates/Hominidae/Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 9:15 AM
from IP address 66.24.11.50
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Your reference from the University of Michigan was originally written in 1995 and states: Re: the charts ...
by
"Until recently, most classifications included only humans in this family [Hominidae]"
I believe this refers to Jolly and White, 1995, Physical Anthropology and Archaeology, Fifth Edition.
I noted this when I included that (new) classification chart in my post.
What I understand to be the case is that not everyone ever accepted Jolly and White and some that did at the time have since abandoned the new classifications such as the University of Manitoba as I also noted in another earlier post.
In any event it is possible to find many references to both classification systems on the internet. I myself am more comfortable with the older more accepted version.
I appreciate you posting the links though as I think they make very good reading on the subject and I am sure many here will make good use of them.
Many thanx!
George Karras
Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 9:41 AM
from IP address 209.245.168.147
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
No problem. People should know about this subject, because it definitely pertains to BF and other unknown primate creatures throughout the world! re: the charts...
by Brad
about the charts, it basically depends on who you talk to. I am in the academic world though, and I do know for a fact that a lot of people consider Gorillas and Chimps to be in Homindae. The older version isn't necesarily more accepted. I actually think the newer version is more accepted today.Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 11:11 AM
from IP address 66.24.11.50
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
animals is toward 'combining' once separate groups. These are the 'old' characteristics of Hominidae: The current trend in classifying
by Kisal
1.teeth: small front teeth (canines and incisors) and very large molars relative to other primate species;
(The reduced canine size is associated with the absence of a diastema, a gap between the canine and the premolar, which accomadates a large canine in ape and monkey species. The large molars may be an adaptation to a diet based on relatively hard vegetable foods such as nuts, berries, and grains that were abundant in the grasslands.)
2.posture: bipedalism, involving numerous anatomical adaptations including:
1.a fully erect stance and gait,
2.shortening of the arms relative to the legs,
3.restructuring of the pelvic bones for weight bearing,
4.restructuring of the foot for weight bearing, involving the loss of toe opposability;
3.hands: increased manual dexterity involving a lengthening of the thumb;
4.brain: increase in brain size, especially in the frontal lobes;
5.face: reduction in the musculature and bone mass of the skull and face involving a flattening of the muzzle area.
In the 'new' definition:
1. Teeth: (same description as above, except for the reduced size of the canines, and the absence of a diastema).
2. Posture: the ability to stand erect and move bi-pedally, even if only for a short time. (All sub-requirements eliminated.)
3. Nails instead of claws on all fingers and toes.
4. Enlarged braincase.
5. Binocular vision, nose with nares (openings) directed downward, and ears positioned on the sides of the head. (Some taxonomists, but not all, list 'color vision' here, too.)
Obviously, BF wouldn't meet the old requirements for Hominidae, but certainly would meet the newer ones. In my opinion, it will only be a DNA analysis that answers the question with any finality.
Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 4:39 PM
from IP address 63.224.202.245
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
...straight from the pages of my 12-year old son's 7th grade science book (I homeschool and we just covered this): A little FYI...
by
In the fourth century BC, the Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed a system to classify living things. He divided organisms into two groups: plants and animals. He also placed animals into into three groups according to the way they moved. One group included all animals that flew, another group included all those that swam, and a third group included all that walked.
Eighteenth century Swedish scientist Carolus Linnaeus build upon the work of previous scientists to develop his new system of classification. He used a system that consisted of groups within larger groups, within still larger groups. Linnaeus spent the major part of his life using his classification system to describe all known plants and animals. He also developed the system of binomial nomenclature (two names) to identify organisms specifically. The first name is the genus and the second is the species. This system is still used by taxonimists worldwide.
Two things in particular have had a large effect on biological classification today. One of these is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The other is advances in technology that have enabled scientists to take a better look at organisms. Evolutionary relationships are the basis for the modern system of biological classification. Modern taxonimists try to classify living things in such a way that each classification group contains organisms that evolved from the same ancestor. The invention of the microscope has allowed scientists to examine tiny structures hidden within the cells of an organism. It has also allowed them to examine organisms at their earliest stages of devleopment. And special chemical tests have been developed that enable scientsts to analyze the chemical building blocks (DNA) of all living things. All of these techniques are important tools that help scientists group and name organisms.
A little long-winded, but I thought it might make for some interesting reading!
(btw -- legalities -- Taken from Parade of Life: Monerans, Protists, Fungi, and Plants. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1997)Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 5:04 PM
from IP address 63.144.100.178
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
or men whose evidence suggests...? George, do you believe the Bible...
by BobPosted on Nov 10, 2001, 9:00 AM
from IP address 164.58.10.123
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Could someone help me out with what material to use to cast tracks. What works the best and holds up well after the track has been casted. Also where I can buy this product on the web. Thanks a lot.. What to cast a track with?
by ToddPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 6:29 PM
from IP address 209.161.160.250
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeIf you look at the statistics, of Ape populations, from wildlife authoriies, it makes deppressing reading. Man, seems unable to halt the decline of the Apes. No matter what dire warnings are given, nothing can deflect, the destruction of habitat and species. Declining Ape Populations
by English Mick
The unknown species, like Bigfoot and its relatives, around the world, are probably going to outlive their cousins in the wild. At least for a time. I know this is a negative view. But, for thirty odd years, I`ve watched it coming and there is no way its going to change. When you get to the bottom-line, human need outweighs the welfare of other species.
In places like the U.S. and Canada, you still have wilderness. I wonder for how long?. There is no power, or authority, on Earth, that can stem this tide. Jobs and human need, come way above animal existence. Bigfoot will go the same way!.
I see it, here in the U.K. Species of birds, and animals, common in my chilhood and youth, are virtually extinct. Farming practices, with the heavy use of chemicals, kills the insects - and bird populations dissapear.
I don`t have accurate details of all that..I just know it from experience etc.
Governments, have more pressing problems, than protecting wildlife. "They" need votes, people want their needs met..and so it goes!..Am I too pessemistic, or am I being realistic?
Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 1:58 PM
from IP address 213.120.137.33
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Homeapes populations are declining in Africa is that they're considered a legitimate source of food. They are sold in the outdoor markets as 'bush meat'. It can be sold at a much lower price because no one has to invest any money in raising it, as is the case with domestic livestock. If you're poor and starving, it's hard to be ecologically concerned. For the hunters, it's a way they can earn a little money for needs like clothing, and in many cases, water. I'm not defending the practice, but I do understand the extreme poverty many of the people face. Very little of the food assistance provided to African countries from the outside ever reaches the people who need it most. Often it's confiscated by the governments and sold at high prices on the black market. Western countries try to explain the imminent danger of the extinction of endangered species, but if you're watching your kids go hungry, it's a difficult concept to care about. (Sorry--I'll shut up and go away now.) One of the primary reasons
by KisalPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 4:17 PM
from IP address 63.224.201.118
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Kisal, earlier in october you answered on of my messages on another board, stating that an expedition was organized to P.E.I.. Kisal, on a completely different matter...
by
I read that too late for it to be worth asking on the original thread, so I will ask here. Since it is personal, I suggest you answer me by e-mail. And don't worry, your e-mail will remain private if you ever decide to send it to me
I wanted to know where you read about that expedition, because I was interested in making one myself, maybe next year...Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 5:54 PM
from IP address 198.164.200.232
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
of this site. (Sorry, the old brain's going numb tonight!) Here it is: It' on page 2 or 3
by Kisal
>Glad to hear from you
by Marc B
Hi Nathan,
I am glad you are so cooperative on this case. We are not saying it is or isn't a sasquatch in your
video, but if you want to find out, I think you came to the right place.
I live in New Brunswick, and have explored PEI in the past. I would love to check out the area where
the sighting occured when time allows me to travel to the island. I would appreciate if you could point
out exactly where it occured, so I don't lose myself there
If other people are interested, we could organize some kind of expedition. Is anyone else interested?
In the meantime, Nathan, I think you will have enough to do with all the questions that will get posted
below your post
Posted on Oct 14, 2001, 5:29 PM
from IP address 198.164.200.232
Respond to this message
Responses
I would love to go on an expidition. Mark Azofeifa on Oct 14, 2001
I am interested too. Jacques ERB on Oct 15, 2001>
Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 7:32 PM
from IP address 63.224.201.118
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
You are being realistic,I hate what we are and it is sad.Man is slowly destroying its habitat and all that lives among it.This is something we need to fight.Conservation is very important.This what I have put in my heart.If bigfoot is still out there,we need to protect his or hers habitat.So that they do not become extinct.This is my Goal if I ever happen to come across a Bigfoot. English Mick
by
Mark APosted on Nov 3, 2001, 5:44 PM
from IP address 24.183.111.106
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
The first way is to protect with force. That is when you threaten to hurt people who will go break your protection. The typical behavioral punishment system(The Law, Jail, Police, Military, etc) There is two ways to protect
by Marc B
The second way is through education. That way you can teach the required values and respect, and people will understand the importance of the protection. (Schools, Medias, Religion, etc...)
What do you think will be the most realistic way to protect the sasquatch once it's discovered?Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 6:29 PM
from IP address 198.164.200.232
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
The bottom line is the exploding human population. I can't remember the exact numbers but it seems I read somewhere that our population is supposed to double in the next 50 years. Can you imagine what that's going to do? Already, I can see the impact just in the small town I live in. People are moving here from the cities because they're getting too crowded and dangerous, everyplace (and I do mean EVERYplace) where there used to be wide, open fields, and sometimes large wooded areas, you can now find a new subdivision. They build and build, and still there are enough people to fill these new homes. This is going to have such a horrid impact on the Earth, mainly as far as food supplies and natural resources go. What's going to happen when we run out of oil? Coal? Timber? ANIMALS???? That sounds awful and I'm not by nature a cynical person (generally), but I think what I'm saying is not unrealistic. On a related note, I think this also has a direct impact on the increase in sightings in the past few years. Here's cynical....
byPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 7:04 PM
from IP address 63.144.100.133
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
some religious groups (more than one!) are anti-birth-control. As long as people are encouraged to have large families, limiting population growth will remain a losing battle. If we could eliminate urban blight, and perhaps offer people some sort of incentive to stay in the cities, it might be possible to at least control--if not completely contain--population spread. It's an extremely complex problem, and I certainly don't have the solution for it. My husband and I discussed the population problem very seriously before we decided to have a child. We decided if we had just one child, we would have done at least a small part to diminish population growth. It's unfortunate that
by KisalPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 7:58 PM
from IP address 63.224.201.118
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Spanaway in Washington. We were the only house around. I loved it, nothing but woods to play in. Now that same place is part of a whole suburb. The woods are all gone around there. Even some of the military property from McCord AFB and FT. Lewis Army base is now public or bought up by other Corporate Organizations. It's amazing how much it has changed. It's so bad, my dad wants to move after all this time, out closer to Mt. Raineer. Rob I remember 1973, movning out to...
byPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 1:52 PM
from IP address 66.8.153.137
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
at least, there are mountain areas, in the U.S. etc, which should allow some protection for wildlife, into the future. Creating & protecting, "reserves", may be the only other option. It doesn`t work in Africa, (for the reasons Kisal said) but it could, for North America. Mountain areas
by English Mick
I feel, more needs to be done, on the global political stage. The global, wildlife and habitat protection laws, should be accepted globally. Like human rights, wildlife should have a recognized right to live as they evolved to do. Unfortunately it`s in human hands.
At present, there is not enough value given to nature. It seems to me that, in overall terms at least, humanity at large, is willing to accept the demise of, a very large percentage of wildlife (on land and sea). It is learning to live city life - divorced from the reality of Nature.
I`ll shut up now!. Thanks for your interesting responses!.Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 9:07 AM
from IP address 213.123.66.120
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
are all volcanic, part of the "Ring of Fire". They produce a very thick, viscous lava called 'ah-ah' lava. (I spelled that the way it's pronounced.) Because of the nature of this lava, the eruptions are explosive. The lava doesn't just ooze out and flow down the mountain's sides, as you see happening on Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Mt. St. Helens has taught us that our volcanoes are NOT dead, just temporarily quiet. The mountains in the PNW
by Kisal
(Now to the point of what I'm saying!)Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 2:49 PM
from IP address 63.224.202.245
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Kisal, is hope it can stay that way. About all we can do
byPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 5:10 PM
from IP address 63.144.100.178
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
who live in what are referred to out here as 'stick houses' (wood framed houses) contribute to the problem of wilderness destruction. I have learned that it's much easier for most buyers to obtain financing for a newly built home than for a 'pre-owned' home. I think it should be the other way around. If there was some sort of incentive--a tax deduction or something--for buying a house that already exists, there would be less demand for all the new subdivisions. While there are alternatives to wood-framed homes ('rammed-earth' houses and houses built with studs made from recycled steel, just to name two), most alternative building techniques make the houses too expensive for the majority of buyers. Not everyone who buys these new houses wants necessarily to get out of the city. Many just want to get away from 'urban blight'. If people were encouraged to continue living in the city--perhaps through low-interest loans to maintain their homes, and promoting citizen involvement in eliminating gang activity, prostitution, drugs, etc.--I think many people would stay in the downtown area. Just some thoughts. All of us (myself included)
by KisalPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 2:40 PM
from IP address 63.224.202.239
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
sprawl. 1 word for ya
by steve simmons
Less than a decade ago they dug up a beautfiul rolling pasture in the area for a wal mart. Other grocery stores and local plazas have since folded, and are now older, vacant buidlings with big empty parking lots here and there. 7 years later it wasn't big enough, so they dug up the other 60 % of the pasture for the recent "super wal mart". And of course the "old" wal mart immediately beside it is now another big empty buidling complete with a big for lease sign on it and all the empty smaller stores and a big empty parking lot.
People. Hard to believe they could be the top species.Posted on Nov 6, 2001, 5:41 AM
from IP address 170.215.161.184
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Our society, with all the laws that support it, consider nature as an exploitable resource. The way our society sees nature...
by Marc B
The only way a part of nature could be made under protection is when it is proven to be depleted to a point where exploitation is endangered.
Before something is really protected, it will generally be 'controlled', with exploitation quotas. It's a limited form of protection in a way.
But what we fail to see is that nature always seeks balance in the end. All is linked in nature. If you log a single forest, you not only kill trees, but you also kill billions of animal lives, that were relying on that forest to survive. That is not taken into account when our laws try to protect one resource in particular.
End line is : If you want to protect the sasquatch you have to make laws to protect it's entire habitat and living space, all of it's food sources and you have to make sure no one has an interest in exploiting the creature in any way.Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 4:55 PM
from IP address 198.164.200.217
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Greetings Bigfooters, Dallas Gilbert Photos
by
Dallas Gilbert has sent me a number of his photos. They're still videos retrieved from his Quasar video camera. As I said in an ealier post, Dallas has no history of being involved in suspect photos or hoaxes. He has some good pics of a Bigfoot across a meadow studying a deer and him. Also, he sent a pic of a small Bigfoot looking around a utility pole at the camera. His pics do have resolution problems and I pointed this out to him. If he can solve the resolution problem he's right in the middle of some good sasquatch activity and has the chance to get a good closeup pic which has hasn't been done to date. The pics belong to Dallas and I'm not at liberty to pass them on unless he gives me specific permission to do so. Take care and keep on hunting.
Larry LeshPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 7:42 AM
from IP address 152.163.201.181
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeTo have been picked up and carried by a bigfoot. Dallas also claims
by JackPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 10:10 AM
from IP address 216.201.32.176
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
That may be true and it's news to me. Others have made this claim before and it may or may not be true. The native americans have many legends about interaction with Sasquatch. Some of these legends may have a basis in fact. I haven't heard from Dallas for a while and I don't see any current posts. Later, Carried By a Bigfoot
by
LLPosted on Nov 14, 2001, 5:17 AM
from IP address 152.163.213.206
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
If anything? I know of his accomplishments as a mountaineer and it seems I recall reading about him on some bigfoot site, but only in a subject, I didn't actually read whatever it was at the time. what has reinhold messner said about a bigfoot creature?
by steve simmonsPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 5:26 AM
from IP address 170.215.161.157
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeAccording to him it is nothing more than a bear. He said he solved the mystery
by
George KarrasPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 6:52 AM
from IP address 64.154.189.124
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
the last time I checked up on Mr. Messner, he was in the process of writing a documentary book on his experiences tracking the Yeti. Supposedly, he spent a great deal of time in the Orient doing field research which was quite fruifull. He even claims to have observed the yeti in its natural setting and taken high resolution still pictures of the animals. One such picture was at a amazingly close range while the animal was asleep. These pictures are scheduled to debut in the abovementioned writing. You may be able to gain more substantial information than what I could provide if you run a web search on his name. Actually...
by GreggPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 3:35 PM
from IP address 152.163.194.183
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
George is right, he concluded it was a bear. he said it was a bear...
by Brad
http://www.mg.co.za/mg/news/97jul2/29jul-yetis.html http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bz050/messner.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312203942/ref=ase_theclimbandclimb/002-7122452-7520061
http://www.unmuseum.org/soearch/over1198.htmPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 4:55 PM
from IP address 66.24.11.50
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
You are right George and Brad. I aplogize for my insistance otherwise. I was under the mistaken belief that Messner was preparing to revise his stance on the yeti/bear connection. I guess I have to attribute my previous belief to more wishful thinking than accurate research. I stand corrected. Thank you. My Apologies
by GreggPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 10:45 AM
from IP address 152.163.197.78
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Internet browsers will be on the lookout for Bigfoot when webcams placed in US forests go online. Cameras could capture Bigfoot
by
Bigfoot's days of stalking the forests undisturbed could be over if the Bigfoot Field Researchers' Organisation gets cash backing for its plans.
The organisation wants to install motion-triggered digital video cameras at remote locations which would give the public viewing access 24 hours a day.
Thom Powell, head of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organisation, said the idea is to install the webcams and microphones in areas where previous sightings have been reported, the Red Herring website reports.
The team of researchers is now trying to attract sponsors to finance the strategically-placed cameras.
Mr Powell says he is not asking people to believe in the creature.
"We're just asking them to contribute to the pursuit of better evidence," he says.
He said images captured by the cameras would give the project the credibility it needs.
Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 1:07 AM
from IP address 198.81.16.52
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Homenow I'll never get away from the computer. That's a worthy project if the funding is available. They have a similar set up to watch for the Loch Ness Monster too. Streaming video from Scottland isn't what it's cracked up to be. The lack of camera's to watch is in dire need of a face lift. One is even underwater. Oh great
by
This could lead to some very interesting development's.
Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 10:33 AM
from IP address 152.163.207.77
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Webcams seem a good idea at first glance, but there are a number of considerations: Webcam pros and cons
by Small Hand
What would consolidate opinion on the existence of Bigfoot more than anything is high-quality images. Is webcam image quality up to the mark? Or would a 'hit' just be another hulk of pixels lumbering around in the foggy middle distance?
What's the bandwidth of Webcams for wireless transmission--is there any way to get high resolution images from them?
Is there any coverage for the network to transmit from Webcams in the sort of remote regions where most sightings seem to occur?
Given that our quarry seems pretty active at night, can Webcams be set up for night-time monitoring, or would the addition of IR equipment be the last straw in terms of degraded image quality?
What kind of power supply could work in remote locations? How long would it last?
Has BFRO, or an listers, tried setting up the kind of cameras camtrakker.com sells and having them trigger above, say, a six-foot height? The advantages, of course, are tried-and-tested technology, battery life, image quality, flash functionality and practicality.
Set them up where tracks are found, leave them and return six months later. It could well prove far more economical, and give spectacular results.
Posted on Nov 7, 2001, 9:55 AM
from IP address 195.67.217.172
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Britons claim to have found 'Yeti' Britons claim to have found "Yeti"
by
Tuesday 30th October 2001
A group of British explorers claim to have found irrefutable proof of a "Yeti-like" creature on an Indonesian island.
The team has discovered a footprint and hair samples of a primate which has long lived in the mythology of tribes people in Western Sumatra.
A cast of the footprint and strands of coarse hair are being sent to research institutes at Oxford University and the University of Canberra in Australia for verification.
If the finds are substantiated, they could provide valuable scientific clues to an unidentified creature which could hold the key to the missing link between humans and apes.
Andrew Sanderson, Newcastle upon Tyne, Adam Davies from Stockport, and Keith Towley from Macclesfield, spent three weeks in the rainforests tracking a creature called Orang Pendek - meaning 'Little Man of the Forest'.
Sightings on the island describe the creature as being 5ft tall with chocolate-brown, orange hair. It's distinguishing feature is its humanlike gait - walking upright on its back legs without the aid of its front fists.
Crypto-zoologist Mr Sanderson said: "Over the years there have been many sightings of the yeti, but no one has actually come up with any concrete evidence. We seem to be the first people to do that.
"We didn't see the creature ourselves but we tracked it for several weeks and we managed to make a plaster cast of one of its footprints. It is absolutely perfect and experts are already beginning to get excited about it."
A digital re-print of the footprint has been sent to Colin Groves, a professor of primatology at the University of Canberra. The hair samples are being sent to the micro biology unit at Oxford University. The group hope that DNA testing will prove the existence of a previously undiscovered primate.
Despite the potential scepticism for such a find, the team remain confident that their discovery is unique.
Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 12:23 AM
from IP address 198.81.16.52
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Homewere the first of the "upright hominids" to become accepted to science. First of all, its apparent affinity to apes makes it a far more easy bite for a "sensible" scientists to swallow. In my opinion, based on the footprints, it seems to be only distantly related to Bigfoot, Yeti, Homo Erectus, or Neanderthal (or us). It has a foot which is very similar to a chimps and the obvious "guess" is that it is related to an orangutan, the known great ape of the area. It wouldn't surprise me if the Orang Pendak
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 7:55 AM
from IP address 4.35.176.224
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I agree with you that Orang Pendak is most likely (IMHO) to be related to the Orangutan perhaps being a subspecies that have adapted to fill a niche on the ground where the Orangutans dominate the trees. Orang Pendak - Not a hominid
by
This would make the Orang Pendak a Pongid (ape) and NOT a Hominid (man) such as Homo erectus.
The word "Hominid" refers to members of the family of Humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes.
George KarrasPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 11:10 AM
from IP address 66.52.248.43
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Chimps, Humans and Gorillas belong to the family Hominidae. Orangutans have been considered to be part of both Hominidae and Pongidae at different times but that changes every time there are new DNA results. Usually orangutans are placed in Pongidae though. primate families
by BradPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 11:19 AM
from IP address 66.24.11.50
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
chimps, humans, gorillas, and sometimes orangutans all being classified as Hominidae. I did have to chuckle, though, when I read the description of the teeth and chewing methods ascribed to this group. To use simple English (as opposed to Latin) the premolars & molars, which are all the teeth behind the canines, are described as having low, rounded 'peaks' and shallow 'valleys', with chewing having a slight side-to-side grinding motion. You're correct about
by Kisal
But there ARE oddities like myself! Every dentist who has ever looked at my teeth has called them 'most unusual'. My teeth have high, sharp-pointed 'peaks' and deep 'valleys', and because they lock together so tightly, I could no way use anything like a 'grinding' motion to chew! Guess I'm just a natural-born carnivore! LOL!Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 3:43 PM
from IP address 63.224.201.118
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
is a speculative Chinese wild man. What other inside info are you keeping from us, George? The Orang -Pendek
by BobPosted on Nov 10, 2001, 9:06 AM
from IP address 164.58.10.123
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
IMO, is closely related to Orangutans and probably split from the orangutan evolutionary path maybe one million years ago and developed a bipedal posture. orang pendek
by Brad
If this is proven to be real, it would help BF research tremendously.Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 11:11 AM
from IP address 66.24.11.50
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Many of you fell for my hoax video... and nobody Have to admit, I "gotcha" all....
by Nathan
ever got to see an actual videotape copy...
Hehehe
NWPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 10:57 PM
from IP address 216.77.56.90
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeNow what would a k12 in AL be doing shooting videos on PEI? Re: gotcha
by
Your IP is 216.77.56.90
RDNS: south.ocs.k12.al.us
Posted on Nov 2, 2001, 5:47 AM
from IP address 212.126.133.179
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Thanks for catching that Roger, this guy is beyond an idiot and I guess I should have expected this from such a childish mind. For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, I didn't post the message above, it was "you know who..." what an idiot...
by Nathan
I'm starting to believe that all these people (enemies he calls them) that are trying to "get" him, probably all have a pretty good reason for doing so.Posted on Nov 2, 2001, 6:25 AM
from IP address 142.176.72.253
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
The guy who posted that false message sounds like a guy we all know. That video must be good to deserve such attention!
by
I understand by all his harassing strategies that the video must really annoy him. Somehow, he seems to feel threatened by Nathan's video! Maybe there is something in the video that proves his theories are wrong!
That would explain why he is trying to destroy it's credibility.
Really, what is he trying to achieve?
Posted on Nov 2, 2001, 6:58 AM
from IP address 207.179.188.2
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
to accomplish anything. The impression I get is that in his obvious mental illness he's just become obsessed with trying to "get 'em", to the point where he can't think about anything else, or do anything else with his life. That is pathetic. (note to subject...take your medication!) I'm not sure he's trying...
by StacyPosted on Nov 2, 2001, 2:57 PM
from IP address 65.164.255.43
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
if he did that he'd have to get off the 'sauce'! LOL! Awwwww, Stacy......
by KisalPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 12:18 AM
from IP address 63.224.200.130
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Look at the reverse DNS again -- it's a school in AL -- the message was posted by some schoolkid. It's not who you think it is!
by
Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 1:21 AM
from IP address 212.126.133.54
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Watch how you use that term "all". I suggest you go back and read the post of the PEI video and you will realize that not everyone fell for your childish games. As a matter of fact, some questions were asked but you never responded to them. Your ignorance abounds. People like you really make progress and credability in solving this mystery really hard and you don't need to be or can't be trusted again. I hope one day BF smacks you right in the face and you try and make us believe what you discovered. To me your the little boy (litterally) who cried wolf. No matter how factual your sightings or evidence are in the future, you will never be believed again. HEHEHE....
byPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 12:22 AM
from IP address 198.201.23.10
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
"You know who" is burning his candle at both ends. He has continued to push the buttons of so many people & has burned so many bridges; don't be suprised if he turns up missing any time soon. We all know who...
byPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 1:19 AM
from IP address 198.81.16.52
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Once again I have to state (for you know who...) I honestly from the bottom of my heart don't care one lick who believes me and who doesn't! Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me...I'm not out to be famous or rich from this video. How many times do I have to repeat this? I don't care...
by NathanPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 1:54 PM
from IP address 142.176.77.15
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
We believe you. We, meaning the "normal" and "general" Bigfoot community. This of course excludes YOU KNOW WHO. Don't worry bro...
by
PS I have been contacted by a researcher who is interested in contacting you, and he wants to visit the area. If this is OK with you, you can just write me at my email address.
RobPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 8:47 PM
from IP address 198.81.16.39
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I actually thought you were the one to say you hoaxed us all. It is not until now I realize "you know who" plagiarize in order for us to start arguing among ourselves. I fell for it and I apologize for my unkindness. Honestly though, I am going to wait until further analysis on the PEI photo's before I pass anymore judgement. You were there and I wasn't, so I take your word for it and wait for further analysis. I'm the one that took the bait Nathan....
by
As for "You know who", maybe one day you'll take the "Magic F'n Carpet Ride to Allah" with Ole' Asama Bin Laden. Afganistan might be your best chance. I have some friends over their right now that would like to help you get there. RobPosted on Nov 4, 2001, 9:15 PM
from IP address 66.8.153.137
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
People get jeolous of people like you who have had the wonderful experience they will never get. Take Care. Hang in there!
by RPPosted on Nov 5, 2001, 6:37 PM
from IP address 209.20.211.107
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
It's a parody of the SETI program.. Anyone seen this website?
by Ray Gavel
http://www.phobe.com/yeti/
Funny stuff..
RayGPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 9:11 AM
from IP address 207.35.179.252
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeIve talked with Rob before about decomposition and why BF can never be found, only the hairs and dermals can be found, ok I will buy that explanation, but can someone answer this question for me. How come we have not found a bigfoot preserved in snow or ice, just like the "Iceman" was found in the Himalayan Mountains in Nepal ? With winter approaching, and with many many winters that have alrady passed, how come no one has ever located a preserved BF in the glaciers of Northern Montana, or southern British Columbia and Alberta or Saskatchewan? People claim they always find dermals and hairs and all this other stuff, but how come a researcher has never found a BF preserved in snow or ice above 10,000 feet altitude. I already know someone is gonna say BF knows better not to get caught in a situation where he would freeze to death, but hey Iam sure the IceMan didnt think he would freeze his ass off too, pardon my french. Basically what Iam suggesting the researches do, is that instead of looking in the forests and lowlands, why not start looking higher, up in the mountains. Now I know there are millions of Mountains to be searched, but lets start in an area we know is very popular for BF to roam, maybe around Mt.Raineer or something. In conclusion this is my question I want to pose...can BF survive blizzards and dangerous winter storms ? If he can, how does he adapt to the cold ?? "Sasquatch"-"Iceman" Similarities
byPosted on Oct 31, 2001, 11:57 PM
from IP address 152.163.207.213
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeJohn, A Sasquatch Got To Eat
by
While I am reasonably sure that Sasquatch can easily withstand low temps that would cause hypothermia to us humans, my research and personal observation leads me to believe Sasquatch have a diet consisting of:
Berries
new fir needles
fish, frogs & grubs
small animals (Mice, Rabbits etc.)
Deer and / or Elk
Domestic animals if available
You just will not find a viable food supply above the snow line. If you want to be where the Sasquatch are you must be where they will find their food.
I am of the opinion that in summer they may move to higher elevations (following game) but during winter they stick to low lands and river valleys because that is where they will find food.
I am also of the opinion that Sasquatch do not migrate or even move very much. As long as food and cover are available these creatures will stay put and can be found in the same general locations year after year.
These are my own observations - Your mileage may vary.
George Karras
Posted on Nov 1, 2001, 12:47 AM
from IP address 209.244.111.200
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
except i feel they may also do a bit of roaming to find mates.just how far, i dont know i totally agree
by mark t
Posted on Nov 1, 2001, 5:22 PM
from IP address 63.253.225.242
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Even though it was staring right me in the face, I never thought of Bigfoot moving down to lower elavations during winter months to follow food supply. Now I feel stupid. See John, I told you some of these guys (and gals, sorry Stacy, Kisal and other ladies) could explain things better than me. Rob Your absolutely right George....
byPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 9:31 PM
from IP address 66.8.153.137
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
None of the bits or pieces have ever been verified in any way. All we have is the closest examination that was ever done. That being the one done by Dr Huevelmans and Sanderson. John, it sounds like you have bits and pieces of the "Iceman" story.
by Jim Keegan
They had the best look, and they were in the best company of one another to perform such a task without being able to remove the subject from the ice.
If we are to accept their analysis, then we must accept the fact that Dr. Huevelmans felt the iceman was walking this earth no more than a few years prior to his examination.
Therefore...the possibility of a frozen, prehistoric relect would be not considered, in this case. (Dr Huevelmans felt the "Iceman" was actually shot through the eye by a rifle...possibly in Viet Nam.)
So in effect...there is more factual anaylsis on the iceman being of contemporary times rather than prehistoric, and therefore would render your analogy moot.
As far as other "Glacial incased" speciments of scientific exploration (Mammoth etc...)...well...they were caught off guard by other things before the chill came, and actually became "Frozen" long after they were dead.
Posted on Nov 1, 2001, 11:06 AM
from IP address 209.244.134.142
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I believe he is talking about the ancient human whose frozen body was found in the alps(?) in recent years. Jim, I dont think he's talking about the "Minnesota Iceman"
by
I may be wrong here but that is the impression that I got.
George KarrasPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 4:56 PM
from IP address 64.154.191.97
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
and the mind goes one way..... Opps....Sorry...I see "Iceman" in quotes......
by
Sorry...Nevermind me....lolPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 5:01 PM
from IP address 209.244.133.54
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I read (Dr. Bindernagel's, I think?) the "Iceman" appeared to have been killed by a gunshot to one of it's eyes. It did not simply 'freeze to death'. According to the report
by KisalPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 4:54 PM
from IP address 63.224.203.9
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
The story was that the Minnesota Iceman was Shot (in the eye) and killed by a hunter in Minnesota. There are at least two different versions of this hunter story with two different persons claimed to have been responsible for killing the creature. You are correct Kisal
by
The Creature was called "Iceman" becaue it was displayed at fairs and sideshows around the country in a block of ice.
There has also been speculation that the creature was not killed in North America but was in fact killed in Vietnam during the war and smuggled back to the USA to become the popular carnival attraction that it was back in the late 60's.
If you want more info about the Minnesota Iceman click on the "About Sasquatch" link then scroll down the main page until you find the "NGUOI RUNG - VIETNAM" link and click on that.
George KarrasPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 5:08 PM
from IP address 64.154.191.97
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
iceman found in the Alps in Italy (not the himalayas). He was also killed. It took them quite a while to find it but he showed evidence he was murdered (Sorry, I can't remember the details). It is odd they didn't notice that soomer. Just for the record, I think "dermals and hairs" would probably not last nearly as long as the skeleton. Apparently, that is what happened to the
by Jim ZenorPosted on Nov 3, 2001, 7:35 AM
from IP address 4.35.176.224
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
discover earlier that the Alpine Iceman had been murdered could be because they couldn't allow the corpse to thaw. Such very old bodies decompose quite rapidly. One reason they didn't
by Kisal
Unlike a human corpse, rigor mortis does not leave an animal carcass. Once it stiffens, it stays that way. Examining an animal after rigor has set in can be quite difficult, sometimes requiring that bones and joints be broken. I'm sure they didn't want to do that with the Alpine Iceman, but they couldn't let him thaw out, either.
It would have taken quite awhile to complete full-body x-rays, CAT scans, and MRI's, because they could only keep the corpse out of the 'freezer' for only an hour or two at a time.Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 12:43 PM
from IP address 63.224.201.118
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
if you notice we get kids that come on here from time to time, to find information on the bigfoot phenomena. They don't need to be reading that type of French. As for your question; It is a fair and just questions but I am going to let others respond because I've talked to you about till I've had a heart attack and you still don't want to listen to what I said. CUL Rob John, watch your French....
byPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 9:26 PM
from IP address 66.8.153.137
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
But believe me, if it was that easy, it would have been done before... Sounds easy the way you put it
by Marc B
One thing that seems to give results in field research is nocturnal research, no matter if it's done in high mountains or in low forests.
True, there is more day sightings, be it's only because the human sighters are more active during the day, not because the sasquatch is. No one walks the deep forests at night, so who knows what is happening there?
It's like that urban legend about what really goes on in your refrigerator once you close the door. There might be a party starting in there everytime, but you will never know for sure, since it stops when you open the door to see.Posted on Nov 2, 2001, 7:29 AM
from IP address 207.179.188.2
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
i would like to know more about bigfoot like why he/she is here and when he is seen day or night can someone tell me more about big foot
by
thanks
emma
Posted on Oct 31, 2001, 10:55 PM
from IP address 202.154.138.44
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeMs Emma, you can click onto any of the subjects to the left of this page under "Contents" to find various informational resources. There's just not enough time in the day to give you the definitive scoop on our friends in the woods. You could start with "About Sasquatch", then check out "Bigfoot Books", and then check out the "Bigfoot Internet Library". Within due time, you'll be perusing through a myriad of infromation that should provide you with a general understanding of the subject matter in which you seek. Goodluck with your homework assignment. Bigfoot Info...
by Adrian Ethelbah
AdrianPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 7:49 AM
from IP address 24.255.114.13
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
read this site, the GCBRO site, and the BFRO site. I know it's tedious, but going through the back pages of the message boards and the sighting databases will give you excellent information. To ask "why BF is here" is sort of like asking why elk, bear, moose, etc. are here. They just 'are'. Most researchers consider BF to be primarily nocturnal, but they are certainly seen during the daylight hours, too. You really should
by KisalPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 3:44 PM
from IP address 63.224.203.9
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
God forbid we omit scientific nature from casual belief....lol Get a "Midway" idea and read "The Eyes of the Forest"
by
http://www.geocities.com/eezebra/
This message has been edited by RatChief from IP address 64.154.191.97 on Nov 1, 2001 5:26 PM Posted on Nov 1, 2001, 5:24 PM
from IP address 209.244.133.54
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
thankyou for the info it will come in handy emma Untitled
by emma
Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 12:53 PM
from IP address 210.55.71.211
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
thankyou for the info it will come in handy emma Untitled
by emma
Posted on Nov 4, 2001, 12:53 PM
from IP address 210.55.71.211
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
you read this page and went to the BFRO.net page. That would answer some of your questions. it would help if..
by Brad
Also on the GCBRO.com page in recent reports read the reports from Nov 2001 from California [face to face encounter], Tennessee [women sees Bigfoot leap fence] and Texas- [white Bigfoot w/ deer] you should get an idea from witnesses too.Posted on Nov 1, 2001, 4:20 PM
from IP address 66.24.11.50
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
http://www.pibburns.com Go to...
by Skyfox
and at the link to the left under "Cryptozoology", go down to the "Bigfoot/Sasquatch" link for an array of sites dealing with the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon.
Posted on Nov 1, 2001, 6:28 PM
from IP address 24.67.137.155
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
If you care to read or learn about bigfoot, concentrate on the pacific northwest. If a person doesn't know much about the creature then there's plenty of reading to do from the area where the creature likely actually is, not where it likely isn't. re.
by steve simmonsPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 8:01 PM
from IP address 170.215.160.37
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Since such questions as Emma`s are becoming more common...it seems to me, that youngsters need a source, designed expressly to give then an overview, in a concise way..for school work(?) or whatever. Trawling around the sites, isn`t an easy option. It`s a difficult job for adults. Need for a - Young Persons Guide
by English Mick
Posted on Nov 2, 2001, 3:11 PM
from IP address 62.6.84.209
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
who is just looking for a 'basic overview' of BF, go to: For a young person
by Kisal
www.howthingswork.com/
and search the site for 'Bigfoot'.Posted on Nov 3, 2001, 12:10 AM
from IP address 63.224.200.130
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Has anyone heard rumors, that there were Bigfoot bodies discovered in the aftermath of Mt. Saint Helen's eruption? I've heard rumors that Game Dept., or Forestry personnel,were gathering up animal carcasses,deer and elk ,and burning them. But it was also rumored that they found several Bigfoot bodies,and some were flown out in military looking helicopters! Has anyone heard similar reports? Just wondering,sounds interesting! Grizz "Mt. Saint Helens aftermath"
byPosted on Oct 31, 2001, 7:22 PM
from IP address 24.6.152.119
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeI have heard the same thing (8 bodies found), but nothing confirmed. It is a good tale and if true would seem to indicate that the government knows about them and there is a cover up. Leads to all sorts of interesting speculations. However, everything I have heard is 2nd (or 3rd or 4th....) hand. No confirmation from anyone who supposedly saw it happen. It would be great if we could find someone to at least say that they saw it happen. So far though, no such luck.... Needs Confirmation
by AlanPosted on Oct 31, 2001, 8:07 PM
from IP address 63.36.6.200
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
about this one. Most conspiracy stories are just too improbable to be true. Too many people don't keep a good secret. This would have been too good a story for the press to pass up. Remember there were a lot of rescue and forestry personnel up on the mountain. Not all these people could be members of a conspiracy. Someone would have had a picture or spent a dime on a phone call don't you think? Not to say I won't be proven wrong someday. I don't believe in a JFK conspiracy either, so I am probably biased. I have my doubts
by JanV
p.s. ... I do think the logging companies would kill to keep it a secret though! They might be a better candidate than the govt..Posted on Oct 31, 2001, 10:28 PM
from IP address 66.43.2.44
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Logging companies could be a prime suspect. If a BF was to be found roaming around their work area's, before you know it, "Protected Habitat". Most likely leading to million's of dollar's lost. It's understandable why , if this scenerio played out, they would want to keep a lid on it. Yet, like you said, too many people leads to leaks in information. good point
byPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 8:43 AM
from IP address 152.163.213.201
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I would say not. They like there drink, especially after a long day in the forest. They also like to tell tales. So if they did, someone would have spoke. Rob Growing up around loggers....
byPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 9:17 PM
from IP address 66.8.153.137
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Because we all know you never find animal carcasses in the wild that have died of natural causes ;-) That would be impossible.
byPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 12:31 PM
from IP address 209.244.136.111
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Although the full moon's admonishment is a very rare occurance for this time of year, the night time sightings still equal those of daytime sightings, if not more. Just got back from a lecture via Dr Henner F last night at Centralia College in Washington State, plenty of info abound, and very field veteran-like information for a self-proclaimed laboratory scientist! Several convincing footprint and handprint casting impressions available, with extrapilating growth-graph charts concurring with most field research studies. He was very thorough with his explanation of the various physical similarities and differences amongst our closest DNA primate relatives, and certain aspects of those species that do not follow along the lines of the human animal. Good luck to all and season's greetings! Happy Hallow's Eve!
by Adrian EthelbahPosted on Oct 31, 2001, 3:19 PM
from IP address 24.255.114.13
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeI agree with you Adrian,Dr. Fahrenbach's presentation was very informative! His plaster casts and twisted tree samples were awesome! I got amused,at the end, when people in the crowd started chatting, and these three older people admitted that they had seen 4 or 5 Bigfoot within 11 miles of the lecture hall. They were immediately swarmed upon, by a certain Bigfoot research group,hitting them up to turn in a sighting report with them,so they could investigate the area themselves! It was like throwing a pork chop to a pit bull! Happy Halloween! Grizz "I agree with you Adrian"
byPosted on Oct 31, 2001, 6:57 PM
from IP address 24.6.152.119
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
It was great to have most of the team members together in this kind of setting. During the presentation our team members looked at each other and grinned as Dr. F described quite a few things that we have experienced. The information was awesome and I took notes. Cannot wait to crunch the numbers:) Response..........
by Rick Long/Sasquatch NorthwestPosted on Oct 31, 2001, 8:33 PM
from IP address 206.133.239.156
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Happy Halloween to all bigfooters! Happy Halloween!
by
I guess there will be a bunch of small bigfoot sightings this evening. Will we be able to conclude that the BF's main food source is candy? LOL!
Remember, if you see someone with no costume tonight, it might just be a real bigfoot disguised as a human seeking to eat sweeties
Be careful all!Posted on Oct 31, 2001, 11:34 AM
from IP address 207.179.188.2
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeUntitled
by
ths is what a bigfoot would say on holloween if it could talk trick or treat smell my bigfoot give me some sweeties toeat if you don't i don't care i'll just bite your head off does bigfoot really harm people?Posted on Oct 31, 2001, 11:03 PM
from IP address 202.154.138.44
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
You sound quite young so I would say check out the library and ask your parents to help you get answers to your questions from sites such as this. Good luck! Hi Emma
by Terry
t.Posted on Nov 1, 2001, 7:47 AM
from IP address 142.106.180.136
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I just wanted to let everybody know that since I had a few run in with a certain bigfoot "investigator," that I've been getting a lot of suspicious email with large attachments. Sending something to somebody to mess up their computer (because your address is blocked) is basically the childish equivilant of throwing a temper tantrum...so I guess I'm not really that surprised that "you know who" tried it. Of course, I delete anything and everything with attachments from strangers so it's not ever going to work, I thought I'd just let anyone know in case similar experiences happen to them. I must say that after going through all this, I understand why people who are involved in situations like this stay anonymous. I know it's soured me on sharing material with others (at least with using my realy name...) warning: head's up to all...
byPosted on Oct 31, 2001, 5:17 AM
from IP address 142.176.77.23
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeThis particular person has "more" then one email addy. If you don't know who they are block them as well. I still get emails from time to time and have no idea who they are from. All with downloads asking me for my opinion on the subject on the download. I simply reply to the email asking who they are, and I get the very same letter but with another email addy. I'm not saying it's him but just play it safe and delete. well
by
A good virus detector isn't 100% protection. I know I can't rely on it totally, so at my discretion I don't even bother with that stuff at all and delete it. Block it if it keep's coming back.Posted on Oct 31, 2001, 7:36 AM
from IP address 205.188.200.33
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I have made some studies in human psychology, but I still can't understand that type of behavior. At worst, if someone doesnt believe you it should ignore you. I can't see why anyone would be ready to invest precious resources and time to try to hurt other's research, when they could invest more on their own research. I still don't get it!
by
Why do agressive non-believers continue to read about the subject? No one forces them to...
Why do some researchers feel the need to destroy the work of others? Jealousy?
I just don't get it.
Now finding and understanding the sasquatch is not a big enough challenge, we have to deal with the mystery of harmful researchers...Posted on Oct 31, 2001, 7:39 AM
from IP address 207.179.188.2
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
This particular person does beleive in BF. So much in fact that everyone else is lower on the food chain then him. Claims of over 20 years of field work has made him a self proclaimed authority on the subject. Which seems to make "this person" rather disturbed when it comes down to people questioning his views. Insecurity run-amuck! Anything even slightly different to "this person's" idea's are attacked. Not always openly but by emails that come from every direction. Not just from "him" either. A small few of his bunch do the same thing from time to time just to throw a curve on who you may think is bothering you. Welcome to the wonderful world of BF politics. As a matter of fact, the more people complain about him the better he seems to like it. It draws the curiousity of "newbies" to seek him out and find out what makes him tick. Trap set and sprung when they least expect it. In a nutshell
byPosted on Oct 31, 2001, 8:18 AM
from IP address 205.188.196.38
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
that is directed at people who attempt to disable one's computer through the internet. Maybe you ought to pass this person's name on to the Internet Fraud and Abuse division of the FBI. There is now a Federal Law...
byPosted on Oct 31, 2001, 9:14 PM
from IP address 66.8.153.137
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Thanks Rob, I think...
by
If it keeps up, I'm just going to try that...Posted on Nov 1, 2001, 4:50 AM
from IP address 142.176.72.100
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
the FBI only bothers with cases where it can be shown that $100,000 or more damage has been done. I recommend you start by contacting your local law enforcement. You're not in the U.S., anyway, are you? Sadly, I read that
by KisalPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 3:15 PM
from IP address 63.224.203.9
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
I think local law enforcement will take it on if you can prove that the individual is maclicously (sp? Sorry EB) harassing you. Rob Ya, your right Kisal....
byPosted on Nov 1, 2001, 9:11 PM
from IP address 66.8.153.137
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
The scary part is when you actually start to understand some of his methods.... Oh God...........Welcome to the world of BF Research.
by
Welcome to the Nightmare...Don't poop on the rug...Posted on Nov 1, 2001, 3:47 PM
from IP address 209.244.140.155
Respond to this message
Goto Forum Home
Create your own forum at Network54
Copyright © 1999-2009 Network54. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
