198 replies to this topic

[evancj]

Stardrive, on 24 December 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

I would say it looks like an eagle catching it's prey....  maybe.

I can almost see that stardive. Thank you.

[Jeff Albertson]

evancj, on 24 December 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

here is a petroglyph I found in the Mojave desert California, not far from where Jeff lives.

I'm thinking it depicts a jack rabbit, maybe a bighorn sheep?

petraglif 1.jpg

I know it isn't bigfoot but I think it shows that without any context it can be very hard to interpenetrate ancient native american rock art.

In barstow? Very good point there needs to be context, because without context interpetation is psedo-science.. My guess is jack rabit

[keninsc]

evancj, on 24 December 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Here is another one I found near the one above. It looks similar to some of the ones in the educational references keninsc so carelessly provided. I believe they called them devils?

GSL 031.jpg

This guy looks like he has tail feathers, and tufts on his head like a great horned owl? His right hand (left in photo) is an arrow head pointing up, his left hand is some sort of sick with an object on the end?

I did follow the direction the arrow was pointing and found a very small fresh water spring in the cliffs above. Was it intentionally showing where to find drinking water? I don't know, maybe that is what it what it was intended for.

There were many more petroglyphs near by, but they seemed to be nonsensical scribbles, an patterns. Could they be maps. Or schematics of some sort? Who knows maybe the were just abandoned mistakes.

The first one, bless me if I can fathom what it might be, I'm with you in that I can almost see the Eagle with prey in it's talons. The second one is obviously human like, possibly a Chief(?) who might have been considered to be great and is shown in a larger than life manner. It's really hard to say.

Stardrive, when I first looked at the fossil I thought it might have been a series of leaves that were fossilized but when I looked closer I saw it was something else. A shoulder blade maybe possibly a section of the hip.

[Jeff Albertson]

It a pictrograph of the flying spaggatie monster, ever one knows that.

[Clobhair-cean]

keninsc, on 24 December 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Now for further giggles, here's a group of different "Bigfoot" representations from Native Cultures:

http://www.bigfootre...e=print&sid=163

While I can't say for sure what they are intended to represent they do seem rather.....uhm?........."Bigfooty" to me.

I have a few issues with this article. The first is that Strain takes it for granted that bigfoot exists and that it is present in Native American tradition (as opposed them being conflated with a wide range of spirits, deities and mythological human-animal composites by the footers). She says things like "Many Native American stories describe bigfoot  as a monster or cannibal" without even trying to establish a connection between bigfoot and native stories, which should be the very first thing to do.

Then, the content is not much better. The first image, she fails to mention that the only person who refers to that rock art as bigfoot is her. She also says that it has been verified to be bigfoot (by no-one but her). The other academics say that it is a human, a spirit or a bear. (I refer you to the post I liked to earlier in the thread, which proves that her reading is wrong and that even the narrative about the native accounts is also suspect) Then there are the feet, where she agrees that they are probably human and the only connection to bigfoot is nothing but pure conjecture (bigfoot footprints are famous, therefore all images of human-like footprints are bigfoot). Then she goes on with images she herself admits not to match bigfoot very well. For some images, she even fails to give a location.

Edited by Clobhair-cean, 24 December 2012 - 08:52 PM.

[Clobhair-cean]

Jeff Albertson, on 23 December 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

There a legends of bigfoot like creatures most of which are from the west coast, a few well know examples would be skoom and saquatch. There is a few examples what to look like bigfoot other than pictrograhs though which include totempoles, and what in my oppion looks like intresting evidence, are the 100's carved stone heads portraying the buk'wus which clear have ape like figure which are not limited to but include sagitale creat, and brow ridge.

I would point out this post to you: Native American myth/tradition supports Bigfoot? A critical look. It seems that both the Burke Museum (the official state museum of Washington) and native artists themselves are on the side that the bukwus are spirits and not flesh and blood creatures and that they are not particularly apelike. The JREF thread linked in the article is also very informative My main point in general is that there doesn't seem to be any strong evidence that "wild men" present in Native American legends have anything to do with the flesh and blood creature referred to as Bigfoot. They might have served as an inspiration for the tall tales that started the craze, but from an unbiased point of view, it's really hard to look at them and say "These are all about a large, bipedal ape that's out there somewhere".

[Jeff Albertson]

Clobhair-cean, on 24 December 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

I would point out this post to you: Native American myth/tradition supports Bigfoot? A critical look. It seems that both the Burke Museum (the official state museum of Washington) and native artists themselves are on the side that the bukwus are spirits and not flesh and blood creatures and that they are not particularly apelike. The JREF thread linked in the article is also very informative My main point in general is that there doesn't seem to be any strong evidence that "wild men" present in Native American legends have anything to do with the flesh and blood creature referred to as Bigfoot. They might have served as an inspiration for the tall tales that started the craze, but from an unbiased point of view, it's really hard to look at them and say "These are all about a large, bipedal ape that's out there somewhere".

I just notice this sorry for the delay, I agree that they might be the starting point of tall tale, that why I am curiouse on this topic. Let me find a link to the stone carvings so that you and others can give me there opion on, if they do or don't look ape like. In my oppion it the only good evidence for bigfoot not being a bear, with in myth and legend. Other cryptids are only considered spirts and demons one is the Batutut (another name for Orang-pendix) but it leaves tracks as observed and documented by John Mackinnon and serveral other Naturalist that are relayable eyewithness. If I rember right the aye-aye is suppose to be a type of ghost or demon. If any one can depunk the legends and myths of bigfoot then it would be imposable fof bigfoot to be a real animal. I am not convience that the legends are mistaking all for bears so far, I agree that the evidence is weak at best.

[Jaffa The Nord]

Heironomous was always known in his community as a petty, unpleasant man and he had very little credibility, unlike Gimlin who was always well-liked and regarded as an honest man. Heironomous wasn't able to replicate the walk of the creature shown in the film and could barely even find his way to the film site. Also the film is over 45 years old now and no-one has been able to create a costume since that looks a fraction as realistic as whatever Patterson and Gimlin captured on film that day. Either they captured legitimate footage of a Bigfoot, or they pulled off the most convincing, airtight hoax in human history.

[JGirl]

Jaffa The Nord, on 25 December 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Heironomous was always known in his community as a petty, unpleasant man and he had very little credibility, unlike Gimlin who was always well-liked and regarded as an honest man. Heironomous wasn't able to replicate the walk of the creature shown in the film and could barely even find his way to the film site. Also the film is over 45 years old now and no-one has been able to create a costume since that looks a fraction as realistic as whatever Patterson and Gimlin captured on film that day. Either they captured legitimate footage of a Bigfoot, or they pulled off the most convincing, airtight hoax in human history.

you don't watch a lot of movies, do ya...
as for it being the most convincing airtight hoax in human history...wow that's a big (and very inaccurate) claim.

[Jaffa The Nord]

JGirl, on 25 December 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

you don't watch a lot of movies, do ya...
as for it being the most convincing airtight hoax in human history...wow that's a big (and very inaccurate) claim.

A big claim that I stand by. Show me one single ape suit (note I said "suit" so CGI such as in the latest Planet Of The Apes is out. I mean a physical costume, considering that would have been the only possible way to hoax it in 1967) that looks half as realistic. Reports of these creatures go back centuries. It only gained media attention within the last century.

Either there's a centuries old secret society where members dress up in impeccably wonderful ape costumes, practice a non-instinctive, very un-humanlike gait until it's perfected and walk around the Pacific Northwest seemingly randomly, or the Native Americans are telling the truth about "the wild man of the mountains".

Video experts have said that judging from the exact point the video was taken, the hypothetical man in the suit would have had to have been over 7 and a half foot in height. That alone eliminates well over 99.9% of the human population (and certainly eliminates the average sized Bob Heironomous). And that's not even accounting for the arm length and incredibly bulky shoulder width. I don't know about you, but I've never seen a human that even comes close to those proportions.

Perhaps the most convincing piece of evidence for the film's validity is the fact that there is clear, irrefutable muscle tension in the thigh of the creature. That means that every single hair would have had to have been attached individually to the naked body of the hoaxer (the 7"6, gorilla-proportioned hoaxer with a suspiciously un-humanlike facial structure).

I think I've effectively backed up my statement that if this is a hoax, it's by far the most sophisticated ever carried out and proven that it is not "inaccurate" as you claimed without making any points to back it up. Frankly, the idea that this is a hoax is far more laughable than the idea that there's another undiscovered species of primate out there. Gorillas weren't discovered until the closing days of the 19th century after all, before which anyone who claimed to have seen one was ridiculed, much like we Bigfoot believers are. I'm not a Matt Moneymaker type who latches onto every single report and claims it's a legit Sasquatch. I try to maintain a healthy level of skepticism about all things paranormal but I've studied this subject for years (not in the field, because I live in Ireland and it wouldn't be financially feasible for me at the moment to travel to North America to get first-hand experience) and in my opinion, Bigfoots are very real.

[Clobhair-cean]

Even if the PGF footage is real (which I believe can not be proven as the original footage is unavailable and everyone has been using fuzzy copies for their analyses), that does leave many questions. Where does bigfoot live? What does it eat? Where does it poop? Where does it sleep? Why hasn't anyone ever seen a dead bigfoot? Where are the fossils? Why hasn't anyone run one over with a car? How come no-one has been able to take a clear photograph? How come no matte when and where and how long expeditions take, they come up with no results? We don't live in the 19th century. There are practically no unexplored parts of the United States and there is no place a population of large apes can survive without anyone ever being able to get hold of some sort of physical evidence. We have innumerable crystal-clear photos of Florida panthers even though they live in hard to reach places and there's only about 150 of them in the wild. And, being big cats, they are much more elusive than apes, which are generally really easy to find due to their behavioural characteristics.

So, what's more likely: The PGF footage is a fake or that bigfoot somehow transcends our understanding of ecology and zoology?

Also, please read back in the thread. We don't have centuries of bigfoot stories. We have a bunch of Native stories about various spiritual entities that bigfoot proponents claim to be about their elusive primate ( without much proof) and a bunch of dubious newspaper articles about a wide variety of alleged creatures, most of whom only match bigfoot by being human-like.

[Night Walker]

Tyler Huggins and Bart Cutino Share Statements & First Forensic Lab Report On Sierra Kills Sample

On October 8, 2010, Justin Smeja and a friend claim to have encountered three animals with characteristics that match typical eyewitness descriptions of Bigfoots or Sasquatch. Smeja claims to have shot two of the three subjects...

Each lab independently identified only two contributors (the presence of DNA from only two animals). They identified the primary contributor as Ursus americanus (Black Bear), and the secondary contributor as Homo sapiens (Human). Download full report here.

When forensic results indicate the presence of ‘human-looking’ DNA, the first thing to do is to test the “chain of custody” – in other words, compare the human DNA of the sample against the DNA of all humans who have handled the sample. As the submitter, Justin Smeja would logically be first on that list. We subsequently obtained and compared Smeja’s own DNA against that of the human DNA found in the sample.

The only human DNA present in the sample was found to be a match for Justin Smeja’s own DNA.



Smaylilh or Wild People Archaeology

Upon reaching their late teens or early twenties, young men who were deemed to have spiritual insights or desired to undertake training to become a shaman, were separated from their families (Barnett 1955; Bouchard and Kennedy 1986; Matthews 1955). They were told training would take as long as five to ten years in the wilderness - away from everything that is human. If they accepted, plans were made to move them to places where they could begin training. Over time, they took on a wild-looking appearance since they dwelt alone in remote locations…

When encountered they must have looked wild and unkempt, like Smaylilh, because this is who they were, with long hair, wearing only animals skins -living wild.

If one considers alternative explanations of Wild People as ancient primates (cf. Meldrum 2006), the evidence falls short, there is no reliable evidence to conclude that Bigfoot or Sasquatch are a genetically viable species. Therefore the consistent oral histories of many Northwest Coast groups (cf. Ally 2003; Mack 1996), when combined with the archaeological record, offer a more likely scenario of what Wild People are and the role they play for Indigenous people.

Modern native peoples still practice these spiritual training activities.

[danbell06]

mygrassisgreen, on 22 December 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

If the creators have said it was fake.............

http://xzonenation.b...67-bigfoot.html

What creators? Greg Long, whom wrote the book about it? (The Making Of Bigfoot : The inside story.)
This is clearly a biased view, and attributes Bob Heironimus as playing the role of Patty, when in reality Heironimus more than likely had nothing to do with it, and fabricated a story to earn some money.

"Heironimus's two brothers, Mike and Howard, have also confirmed his story. Although neither sibling saw the actual costume, they distinctly remember learning of their brother's involvement around the time of the hoax."

That is just ridiculous. How could they know about the costume if they've never seen it?
Heironimus must have told them, so it must be true.

"When asked if he was convinced that Heironimus played the role of Bigfoot in the Patterson hoax film, Warehime was adamant, "Oh, yes. Yeah. That's the way Bob walks. All you have to do is watch him walk across the floor, and you know."


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Oh well, It must have been Bob H, in a suit. The resemblance is uncanny.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

Thread cleaned.

[JGirl]

Jaffa The Nord, on 25 December 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

A big claim that I stand by. Show me one single ape suit (note I said "suit" so CGI such as in the latest Planet Of The Apes is out. I mean a physical costume, considering that would have been the only possible way to hoax it in 1967) that looks half as realistic. Reports of these creatures go back centuries. It only gained media attention within the last century.

Either there's a centuries old secret society where members dress up in impeccably wonderful ape costumes, practice a non-instinctive, very un-humanlike gait until it's perfected and walk around the Pacific Northwest seemingly randomly, or the Native Americans are telling the truth about "the wild man of the mountains".

Video experts have said that judging from the exact point the video was taken, the hypothetical man in the suit would have had to have been over 7 and a half foot in height. That alone eliminates well over 99.9% of the human population (and certainly eliminates the average sized Bob Heironomous). And that's not even accounting for the arm length and incredibly bulky shoulder width. I don't know about you, but I've never seen a human that even comes close to those proportions.

Perhaps the most convincing piece of evidence for the film's validity is the fact that there is clear, irrefutable muscle tension in the thigh of the creature. That means that every single hair would have had to have been attached individually to the naked body of the hoaxer (the 7"6, gorilla-proportioned hoaxer with a suspiciously un-humanlike facial structure).

I think I've effectively backed up my statement that if this is a hoax, it's by far the most sophisticated ever carried out and proven that it is not "inaccurate" as you claimed without making any points to back it up. Frankly, the idea that this is a hoax is far more laughable than the idea that there's another undiscovered species of primate out there. Gorillas weren't discovered until the closing days of the 19th century after all, before which anyone who claimed to have seen one was ridiculed, much like we Bigfoot believers are. I'm not a Matt Moneymaker type who latches onto every single report and claims it's a legit Sasquatch. I try to maintain a healthy level of skepticism about all things paranormal but I've studied this subject for years (not in the field, because I live in Ireland and it wouldn't be financially feasible for me at the moment to travel to North America to get first-hand experience) and in my opinion, Bigfoots are very real.

to begin with, i don't share your opinion that the costume was all that real looking. to me the film totally appears to be a man in a costume.

after reading your post i would say that you do not come off as a believer with a healthy level of skepticism.
did you not say that if it wasn't real then it was the most convincing airtight hoax in human history?
most convincing?? airtight?? in human history?? wow. talk about overstatements. no i don't need to justify my reply to this. to say it is most convincing and airtight is ridiculous. if it were so it would have been proven. after all, it's airtight, no?
as for most convincing - there are many of us right here in this forum who are not convinced, so therefore that is also inaccurate.

Edited by JGirl, 29 December 2012 - 04:54 PM.