The Front Page

MylesLI wrote:

Tzieth wrote:Well David has already proven that he is in league with Ketchum.. He seems to be the only one supporting her, so Her going off of his theory makes sense.

And the one good thing about a Finding Bigfoot/TAPS merger would be the fact that we would actually get "Evidence" lol.. If TAPS does not find it, they make it. lol

By the way, I do believe that they have real footage, but the obvious fake stuff ruined it. I am sure they get heat from their producer and were forced to start fabricating evidence but still, it ruined the show for me. Then Kris left (Man she was Hot)

I enjoyed the show for many years. I haven't watched in a year. Faked veidence? I never heard that and felt Jason et al were honest brokers...many episodes with no evidence. I saw solid footage maybe 3x in a few years but felt they were "not ghost first anything else second" like Moneymaker is about Squatch

Yes in the first few seasons it was like that, then suddenly they were not only getting evidence, but tons of it. Suddenly a former member started calling them out (Donna LaCroix). And after that every questionable piece of evidence was disected by youtube viewers ever since.. Here is the interview (but ignore the senseless animation) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8JqjlFMxI0

Here is an example of stupid mistakes they have made when faking evidence..

I actually recall that episode! Thanks for shattering another myth! :-)

Seriously, thanks for setting me straight.
Myles

What did you guys think of the "Fox" death story? Strike One ~ I don't like that the guy sent in his story anonymously, and Strike Two ~ IMO, he IMPLIED Dr Bindernagel ("a Canadian doctor/scientist named John") was also a witness there with them.

Isn't this the same farm where Igor Burtsev spent several months in residence? What has he reported?

Kel wrote:What did you guys think of the "Fox" death story? Strike One ~ I don't like that the guy sent in his story anonymously, and Strike Two ~ IMO, he IMPLIED Dr Bindernagel ("a Canadian doctor/scientist named John") was also a witness there with them.

Isn't this the same farm where Igor Burtsev spent several months in residence? What has he reported?

Not sure about Igor, But I respect him. But I watched an investigative documentary about that Farm made by a research crew who pretended to be something else. Their findings were that the whole story was complete BS. They were able to research the claims because Janice Carter no longer owned all the land and was leasing out what little she had left. The crew was able to start investigating without having to have Carter's permission because her tenants happily let them on the land. If I remember, correctly, they were posing as Wildlife conservationists or something.. One sec, let me see if i can find a link for you..

Until I find the doc, here is the recorded stuff on it.. http://www.prairieghosts.com/carter_farm.html

And I also found this http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/carter-neighbor/

Thanks Tz! Just read TODAY'S front page, and now we've gone from a story that Sally Ramey personally witnessed the death of Fox to her stating she had no contact whatsoever. *sighhhhhhhhhh*

I'm going to impose a 5-day New Story Rule on myself ~ not get excited about any new info, because within five days it will either be verified, debunked, changed or corrected. Gotta let that dust settle

as if I could actually comply with that! :-)

I see a new narrative emerging....Man-Ape with regular contact with aboriginal tribes.. ability to communicate and interbreed...drawings by Harvey...Ketchum's preliminary "findings" and the hybrid theory. Add the Standings theory of their group behavior...

Not sure if the Fox story is real or not...probably is fake...BUT I will withhold ridicule until all of this new narrative gathers traction or dies a humiliating death... Pauilides has too much credibility (IMHO) for all of this to be pipe dream

NO WAY Kel!!!

Keep doing what you are doing. Otherwise all topics become biased and real or not, Team Tazer put's their spin on it, and the masses blindly see it their way.

In watching that last Podcast, I was stunned by the level of ignorance especially in regards to Ketchum. They are taking the stance that Bigfoot, Yeti, Yowie, and Almas are all the same thing, when evidence suggests that "Bigfoot" is not the same thing. This sort of sentiment is being bounced and discussed throughout the Blog by both believers and non-believers. "Some unknown ape or 'Thing' bred with a human woman 1500 years ago." with the implied assumption that the 'Thing' arrived here 1500 years ago and went to town on human women... This is the spin that they put on it either out of ignorance or deliberate malice.(I find it hard to believe that Michael Merchant actually thinks this way.)

"Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens."

Primate does not mean ape. Lemurs, monkies, apes and humans are all primates. But the key is" "related to Homo sapiens" .

This means that the progenitor was already "Human".. As was Erectus, floresiensis, Heidelbergis, Neanderthal, Habilis, Denisova, and those Red Deer People.

Oh and speaking of Denisova.. "Denisovans (Denisova hominins) that were once widespread across Eurasia and seemed to have interbred with Homo sapiens about 50,000 years ago."
(Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321185#ixzz2FXAHJ95G)

And yet the possibility of Sasquatch Ancestor breeding with Homo-Sapiens women is far fetched?

This dose not even mean that a bunch of them had sex with a bunch of us, and then made their own offshoot species. It could simply mean that One of them bred with one of us, and the offspring of that union re-entered their gene-pool 50,000 years ago and the whole, or most of the species then carried our genes by 1500 years ago. But since we do not know where her samples came from, or if it was one region or multiple, it could also mean that she just found one type of many.

As for them following us over the land bridge, it is most likely that they were here long before we arrived. ALL of them. And we do not know how many types. Since we now know that there was once an Atlantic bridge, Neanderthal could have been here. Since we now know that there was once a tropical land bridge between America and Asia, Erectus could have already been here as well as Denisova and Habilis... Hell, they could have all been here and kept interbreeding with each other before Sapiens arrived for all we know.

Point being, these are the discussions we should be having.. Not debating weather or not Team Tazers off the wall and biased view of Ketchum's press release is feasible or not, because their "view" is not even close to what her press release stated. Everything that gets posted in the blog is immediately twisted by them.

It's all a bit of a mess really.

Firstly the guys at Team Tazer clearly like to talk smack, so I would take anything they say with a pinch of salt. I don't know if they are just getting carried away, but they have clearly dropped the ball and in terms of what the Ketchum PR says I agree with what you say Tzieth.........if we are dealing about hybridisation between modern humans and a recent relic hominin, then this isn't a matter of homo sapiens sapiens mating with basal apes.

On the flip side the hominins living closest to the supposed 15,000 BCE time frame pretty much resembled modern humans (both culturally and physically). Obviously BF sightings/descriptions don't match what we know about our recent hominin cousins (h. neanderthalensis in it's known form can certainly be ruled out). BF seems to look and behave more like a basal ape.

This of course places serious doubt on Ketchums supposed finding and suggests that contamination has skewed the DNA analysis. That's my hunch anyway and I will obviously reserve judgement until the paper is published - presumably things like contamination would have to be completely ruled out before any respectable journal will publish it.

In my view, the worst case scenario would be that Ketchum has genuine BF DNA and that sloppy analysis, contamination and belief based conclusions result in her findings being dismissed. Whatever the case I don't think anyone can formulate a valid conclusion until the paper is published and the Team Tazer trash talk only serves to further undermine BF research.

Woodwose wrote:It's all a bit of a mess really.

Firstly the guys at Team Tazer clearly like to talk smack, so I would take anything they say with a pinch of salt. I don't know if they are just getting carried away, but they have clearly dropped the ball and in terms of what the Ketchum PR says I agree with what you say Tzieth.........if we are dealing about hybridisation between modern humans and a recent relic hominin, then this isn't a matter of homo sapiens sapiens mating with basal apes.

On the flip side the hominins living closest to the supposed 15,000 BCE time frame pretty much resembled modern humans (both culturally and physically). Obviously BF sightings/descriptions don't match what we know about our recent hominin cousins (h. neanderthalensis in it's known form can certainly be ruled out). BF seems to look and behave more like a basal ape.

This of course places serious doubt on Ketchums supposed finding and suggests that contamination has skewed the DNA analysis. That's my hunch anyway and I will obviously reserve judgement until the paper is published - presumably things like contamination would have to be completely ruled out before any respectable journal will publish it.

In my view, the worst case scenario would be that Ketchum has genuine BF DNA and that sloppy analysis, contamination and belief based conclusions result in her findings being dismissed. Whatever the case I don't think anyone can formulate a valid conclusion until the paper is published and the Team Tazer trash talk only serves to further undermine BF research.

well stated woodrose...thanks for your perspective. I've found Tzieth's insights particuarly astute as well in these matters.

I just see Paulides and Ketchum's analysis forming a new consensus about the being and its place in primate evolution. The Harvey drawings, Standing's theory of Sasquatch tribal behavior and the accounts gathered in the Hoopa project seem more compelling than any other theory.

MylesLI wrote:I just see Paulides and Ketchum's analysis forming a new consensus about the being and its place in primate evolution. The Harvey drawings, Standing's theory of Sasquatch tribal behavior and the accounts gathered in the Hoopa project seem more compelling than any other theory.

I can certainly see why that particular angle is compelling. However it just doesn't sit right with me as it seems that a lot of it is based on a literal interpretation of the older mythology and folklore surrounding BF (without a lot of hard evidence to back it up). I'm also cautious of such conclusions as I'm all too aware that compelling hypotheses can be very very wrong - a lot of common sense turns out to be non-sense.

As stated above, I will reserve judgment until the Ketchum paper (or other evidence) is published. However based on the evidence that I find the most compelling I'm more inclined to think that BF is some kind of unknown non-human basal ape. That doesn't necessarily rule out accounts of bigfoot using tools, language, or having past cultural exchanges with humans.....these things are not exclusive to human species and some or all of these traits can be observed in various non-human animals.

Woodwose wrote:

MylesLI wrote:I just see Paulides and Ketchum's analysis forming a new consensus about the being and its place in primate evolution. The Harvey drawings, Standing's theory of Sasquatch tribal behavior and the accounts gathered in the Hoopa project seem more compelling than any other theory.

I can certainly see why that particular angle is compelling. However it just doesn't sit right with me as it seems that a lot of it is based on a literal interpretation of the older mythology and folklore surrounding BF (without a lot of hard evidence to back it up). I'm also cautious of such conclusions as I'm all too aware that compelling hypotheses can be very very wrong - a lot of common sense turns out to be non-sense.

As stated above, I will reserve judgment until the Ketchum paper (or other evidence) is published. However based on the evidence that I find the most compelling I'm more inclined to think that BF is some kind of unknown non-human basal ape. That doesn't necessarily rule out accounts of bigfoot using tools, language, or having past cultural exchanges with humans.....these things are not exclusive to human species and some or all of these traits can be observed in various non-human animals.

I was thinking about Paulides reporting that in 1927 3 tribes sought protection for Sasquatch because they were human but different, and the Hoopa projects taking direct testimony from living witnesses. It seems to be a current thread that runs through these to me

That's what I understand to be the case as well. However it is important to remember that the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

It's also worth considering that there is folklore where both gorillas and orangutans are described in ways that make them sound human. For example orangutan translates as 'person of the forest' and Malaysians used to claim that they could talk.

Whenever we encounter the unknown there is a tendency to embellish anecdotes with fictitious and fantastical details: either as a deliberate attempt to demystify or explain that which we do not understand, or as a result of faulty recall.

Well, as my favorite quote from George Santayana says; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The Gorilla, the Coelacanth and well... basically every "New Discovery" recently were mythical stories or rather viewed as mythical stories by the native inhabitants of their respected regions. This is why I personally think there is truth to it. Of course you have to weed out all the mumbo-jumbo. They were right about the "Thunder Birds" in a way... Their description matched that of a Pterodactyl. Of course they no doubt seen the fossils. (Those are still being sighted by the way lol. Mostly in my Native Texas with a recent sighting here in Washington.)

But what makes the Native American lore of Sasquatch seem more factually based is the fact that it is not regional. These were ethnically different people with their own unique languages and yet they all had this same legend. Some tribes such as the ones around here even had more than one type of HB in their legends. But crypto-zoologists are not helping the cause, they are adding to Native American fables to find sasquatch in them, so you get this far-fetched crap when mostly Sasquatch is not looked at as some supernatural entity, but rather as another tribe.(By the way that crap that crypto-zoologists try to pull about Wendigo being a Sasquatch? throw it out the window lol. The description is nothing like Sasquatch and more like a Zombie. Oh and "Skookum" does NOT mean cannibal either.. It means "Great" or powerful)

But then there are accounts that sound eerily familiar, such as this one by a Missionary named Elkanah Walker:"Bear with me if I trouble you with a little of their superstitions. They believe in a race of giants, which inhabit a certain mountain off to the west of us. This mountain is covered with perpetual snow. They (the creatures) inhabit the snow peaks. They hunt and do all their work at night. They are men stealers.
They come to the people's lodges at night when the people are asleep and take them and put them under their skins and to their place of abode without even waking. Their track is a foot and a half long. They steal salmon from Indian nets and eat them raw as the bears do. If the people are awake, they always know when they are coming very near by their strong smell that is most intolerable. It is not uncommon for them to come in the night and give three whistles and then the stones will begin to hit their houses." That was from 1840 in regards to whom the Spokane Tribe called the Seatcoes. Then that had another race of hairy giants that lived on a mountain (That they now think was St.Helens) that were Cannibals called the Selahticks

In this case there is no "Bigfoot" nor Crypto-Zoologists to read into to something that is not there. It is just a Missionary stating what the local Natives believed. And we have the Smell, the whistles, the rock throwing and the Missing 411 thing all happening lol.

Woodwose wrote:That's what I understand to be the case as well. However it is important to remember that the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

It's also worth considering that there is folklore where both gorillas and orangutans are described in ways that make them sound human. For example orangutan translates as 'person of the forest' and Malaysians used to claim that they could talk.

Whenever we encounter the unknown there is a tendency to embellish anecdotes with fictitious and fantastical details: either as a deliberate attempt to demystify or explain that which we do not understand, or as a result of faulty recall.

About the Orangutan.. This could also be another case of us reading too deeply into what forrest person they were speaking of.. They could have just as easily meant Orang-Pendeck. If Orang-Pendeck is actually H. Florensis, it's not too far fetched. The evidence that Sasquatch is Human is the feet. And here is something that no one is considering. H.Erectus lasted a hell of a lot longer than we thought it did and this goes back to Sasquatch not having a fossil record. They are now Saying H. Florensis IS H.Erectus that became dwarfed. So H.Erectus definitely made it that far into Asia, but that terrain would not yield fossil evidence. If H.Florensis is a dwarfed Erectus, then maybe Sasquatch is actually a Giant Erectus? It would explain why Ketchum could not identify it.. last I checked, we did not have H.Erectus DNA.

Tzieth,

I mostly agree with your point of view with regard to native American folklore - it's one of the reasons I'm inclined to think that we are dealing with a real animal. The point I was making is that as you say we need to 'weed out all the mumbo-jumbo'. Even if we accept that the folklore is based on real encounters, there is no reason to believe everything aspect of the folklore is equally credible.

As to the etymology of orangutan, it seems that the term may have applied to all forest dwelling apes. Whilst that could include Orang-Pendeck (or even Giganto for that matter) I'm fairly certain that the references to talking apes were directly associated (perhaps not exclusively) with what we commonly refer to as orangutans. There are also similar stories about gorillas and since we know that neither gorillas or orangutans can speak, it demonstrates that we have to be cautious about folklore surrounding BF.

.....maybe Sasquatch is actually a Giant Erectus

It's a possibility of course, but for reasons previously discussed it just doesn't seem very plausible to me. Of course this opinion could well shift if Ketchum's findings are published and can be verified.

Hi everyone, just noticed this whilst re-reading "Bigfoot- The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality" by John Napier- Sphere Books 1976 (First published in GB by Jonathan Cape 1972). Page 23.
"The Duendi of the Colombian Andes, who 'like that very Mab' plait the manes of horses in the night,..."
In the footnote, Napier says he was told about Almas plaiting manes by Igor Bourtsev.
(Napier himslf is sceptical of this, suggesting it is the work of the wind.)
What are we to make of this in light of Ketchum's, widely ridiculed, similar claim?

Hi everyone, (a bit off this current thread- couldn't find a more appropriate place- but thought you might find this interesting...) just noticed this whilst re-reading "Bigfoot- The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality" by John Napier- Sphere Books 1976 (First published in GB by Jonathan Cape 1972). Page 23.
"The Duendi of the Colombian Andes, who 'like that very Mab' plait the manes of horses in the night,..."
In the footnote, Napier says he was told about Almas plaiting manes by Igor Bourtsev.
(Napier himslf is sceptical of this, suggesting it is the work of the wind.)
What are we to make of this in light of Ketchum's, widely ridiculed, similar claim?

Tim,

I think it's also interesting to consider the fact that supernatural beings (fairies or poltergeists etc.) are credited with braiding horse hair within European folklore.

This may mean that we are dealing with a natural phenomenon doing something seemingly incredible - such as wind - which is then explained according to the cultural references and folklore individuals have to hand.

Woodwose wrote:Tim,

I think it's also interesting to consider the fact that supernatural beings (fairies or poltergeists etc.) are credited with braiding horse hair within European folklore.

This may mean that we are dealing with a natural phenomenon doing something seemingly incredible - such as wind - which is then explained according to the cultural references and folklore individuals have to hand.

Natural Phenomenon Bradding Horses Main? and or Tail?
Please what natural Phenomenon could do this and how?

Horse hair can become roughly braided in a way that appears unnatural. It's that kind of braiding I was referring to and that kind of braiding that I consider to be a likely inspiration for the folklore I mentioned.

Obviously that would not apply to the example in your image (citation needed), which looks man-made to me.

Braids as exampled by photos of Robin Lynne Pfeifer horses could easily be down to the wind.

So in your theory a woman with long hair can have her hair Braded by the wind correct?

We were talking about horse hair being braided.

Yes but you said the Wind could do this and horse hair is corser than a womans hair so I am trying to understand how come we don't see hair braided more in women with long hair in windy areas.