From footprints they figured out that Bigfoot has a joint in his foot that only apes and the like have but he also has big toes like only humans have. thoughts?

Doesn't that strike you that the possibility of it being a human foot enlarged is even more of a chance?

EDIT: That sounded a bit snarky. It wasnt supposed to

I believe the op is referring to many who think bigfoot exhibits a "mid-tarsal break." That is, the footprints attributed to the big guy display no arch, like that found on a human's foot. If this is true, it corresponds neatly with the idea many believe is shown in the Patterson/Gimlin film, that Patty walks in a manner completely unlike a human. She walks with a compliant, knock-kneed gait that is quite difficult for a human to duplicate.

no...........bigfoot might be closer to human then the great apes of the world..........

I doubt that, chimpanzee's are closer to humans than they are to other great apes. In fact humans are closer to gorillas than chimps are.

well, "human like footprints" are exactly what they are "large human like footprints. there are differences btwn human footprints and alleged sasquatch footprints. sas tracks are flat, and are more ape like.

also i have personally studied hair under my 3600x high powered microscope, and performed dna extraction from an alleged bigfoot hair. the hair was inconclusive, do to the fact i accidently sneezed on possibly the greatest find in zoology! the hairs are similiar to human, but lack a medulla, have cut ends, and vary in color. i actually had one of my moms best friend, who works at cold spring harbor, analyze the hair sample. turns out its quite similiar to chimp hair, but their are differences shared.

its been a long time since i last posted on here, and i was i admit biased, but their are things that i think but cant put down in words. im no crank or idiot, but i have a strong feeling their is something in the woods of one of the most unaccesible areas in the world. mattshark, neo, psyche, you may think im a delusional idiot for saying this, but the pacific nw may be "searched", but if you were to place it in a place based on remotness, it would be placed on the list "pretty god damn remote". yes, i know people who looked for grizzlies (btw i saw my 1st grizzly last weekend, and it stood up on 2 ft! it looked nothing like sasquatch, but i almost cried bc i felt i might have been man handled by a 1400 pound bear!)

to myself, welcome back!

chimps and alleged "sasquatch's" actually share similiar traits, likely ruling out the possibility giganto is related to bigfoot. some native american masks show a ape like face whistling, a trait female chimps posess. also their is rock throwing, chest beating, branch breaking traits that suggest that sasquatch possibly might be a new member of great ape. in no way is this conclusive, but thiese traits that alleged sasquatch share with chimps definitely should not be dismissed. believers and skeptics should question the 1958 bluff casts, bc i recently found the "toledo castd", which match perfectly with the cast found by jerry crew

To think someone would be walking barefoot in very cold areas. Over the years, you'd think the number of toes on these feet would decrease. So we're looking at a rather large beast with hair covering the top of its feet.

yes thats possible, or we are looking at a 7 ft plus, 800 pound plus freak of nature, or a new sub species of human. it would be expected for something large, hairy, and human like be mistaken for sasquatch

well... really.. i dont think we have any idea, yea, we can guess. but saying as we have never caught one... there is no way to be sure

You would be somewhat believeable if you took into account all evidence.
Not just that bits that suit your theories.
You still claiming that hair is something special, I know you always mention it lacks a medulla, which is common in human hairs.




Giant mutant Bilbo Baggins?

Sure there is.

Every creature in existance (particularly warm blooded ones) need to eat regularly, drink and move. All these actions leave traces behind. Let alone the reproductive process. What a howl a Biff Mum must let out at Childbirth, crikey!!!

It is inconceivable we have never found a bone when the few sceintists that do offer the possibility surmise it must be in the PNW by the thousand, and anyone who takes on the PNW as a crusade seems to happily dismiss the rest of the world and drop any conflicting facts alternate reports may offer. As such, it appears to be a sham. As we have many primate precedents on the planet, the idea seems possible, untill you listen to some proof from staunch believers.

That doesn't sound like the Orang Pendek? (Indonesian for "short person")

Hrrmzz, dismissing evidence in favour of entertainment again?

And he might be a sentient chocolate rabbit that is great with holograms.

Or a hobo covered in a fashioned coat to keep warm with a big pile of dreadies on his head making him look much larger than ususal.

We do have extant hobo's.

+

Parallax error.

Somthing that doesn't exist cant be half human...

we seldomly find carcasses of known animals. look at the wolverine. the last carcass was 1920. 80 plus yrs. no photos on camera trap for 35 days. rare animals are found, but remains are even rarer, since they are smaller than the body itself. its also inconcievable of no footage of hoaxers doing the prank

Another elusive animal?

Click me please Even you Makaya.

Another elusive animal that we seem to have some rather extensive statistics on.

Here is a link you should click - wolverine c arcass, killed by Bear. 2002. Interesting. The Wolverine tried to drag an Elk carcass from a Bear, and lost.



Link #2



Link 3

The above link shows Active Trappers might be able to help you with a Wolverine Carcass.

How can a hoax be a hoax if it is being filmed as a hoax?

Read this? Interesting.



I have given you links to many hoaxes before. Do you need a link to those posts, have you lost your favourites, or do you plain refuse to acknowledge them?

What about Wallaces fake foot collection? Hoaxer on film with tools of his trade.

Once again, the above, and your debate shows it inconceivable that we have no hard evidence of Biff. As such, Biff most likely does not exist.

Where on earth do you get this seldomly stuff? Are you accessing erroneous information, or making those bits up out of your own head?

There's a new theory that says Biggie might be a mutated feral form of human, rather than an ape.
In Russia, recently, a DNA test on the hair from an Armas(sp?) indicated human origins, and not ape origins.

So this might not be a cryptid hunt after all. Rather, we're in search of a family reunion.

An indication of something is not proof

Makes a lot more sense. Patty appears half Ape and half human. Got to be one or the other.

Actually, humans seem to think there has to be something out there, so it exists in our collective minds. Which are human, which would in fact make Bigfoot half human. Or something along those lines. Who wants a cracker?

Hrrrmmmzzzz......philisophical Biff...

I'll have a cracker. Pass them here.

cliff crook is also a crank, psyche. their are over a million black bears in na, and theyre not found OFTEN. apply that to a 1000 sasquatch's spaced out. thats 100 times more rare than bears, and probably has more home range than wolverines. you cant just walk into the woods and find any carcass. sometimes its luck. you can spend months in the nw, and never find a carcass. 1 biggie per 100 square miles is a very difficult task. try doing it at night. what if people who saw this thing didnt even say it was sasquatch, but an "bipedal massive ape"

Crackers solve many of our toughest problems... well, they're still crackers. Cheez-Its will do?

Cracking the hardest problems

Cheez-Its would be lovely. Thank you.

However, doing that math, it is not at all 100 square miles. About 28 wasnt it?

Cliff Crook. Matt Moneymaker. Is it co-incindece that Biff researchers have such dubious names?

You are speaking of an extant species. No way fossil record + current remains cannot exist globally, in the PNW without being found by Biff researchers, wildlife reaserchers and environmentalists.

We know how many snails and slugs crawl the floor of the PNW but a rock throwing 8 foot Ape eludes us? Every bone in it's entire evolutionary development just vanished? Not one found?

You say this creature has more home range than the Wolverine (probably) but not more than the Snow Leopard, remember we put the numbers up? Do you need a link back to the Snow Leopard page? Remeber those statistics? 1,000 Km2 per animal? And substantial documentation exists. If the creature exists, we can study it and do. Your logic is false.

You are kidding yourself. No way thousands of 8 foot rock throwing Apes could exist without trace in reasonable proximity to human development.

Can you see the major logical flaw here?

a hobbit cross between some large human, I like.

Good to see ya back makaya,

I will make it a point to start photographing dead wildlife I find on my hikes and start posting them on this thread, so I can show you finding wild animal remains is quite common if you look in the right places. Just as psyche101 said gullies, ravines, and washes are very good places to look for bones. I happen to know where a mule deer carcass is right now and will post a photo for you tomorrow after I return from my hike.

You would be surprised what you find if you step off the beaten path. Unfortunately BF is not one of them.

The feral human theory makes more sense than that of an 800-lb ape.
The prints are VERY similar to that of typical humans, only larger.
Witnesses often mention a 'very human face' but a hairy body.

It doesn't mean that there's a large population of mutant people out there, and we just haven't found them. It may just mean that the proverbial 'wild men' have been mistaken for various legendary primates...Yowie, Bigfoot, Armas, Yeti, etc...

It explains a great deal. Elusiveness, genetic viability, dietary needs and a substantial number of reports including rock throwing. I have seen a local hobo who lives in a reserve, his hair has dreaded something shocking over the last decade or more. He piles it on top of his head. When I first saw it, I thought he had some thing on his head with a beanie on it. From a short distance, it would be easy to mistake him for being taller than he actually is.

Thank you very much for the effort. Much appreciated.

I believe the op is referring to many who think bigfoot exhibits a "mid-tarsal break." That is, the footprints attributed to the big guy display no arch, like that found on a human's foot. If this is true, it corresponds neatly with the idea many believe is shown in the Patterson/Gimlin film, that Patty walks in a manner completely unlike a human. She walks with a compliant, knock-kneed gait that is quite difficult for a human to duplicate.

--

I saw a documentary where they got an actor in an ape like suit and got him to try and duplicate the walk, and after a few tries they found that he could do it very very similar to the walk in the Patterson/Gimlin film, showing that it is possible that it was a man in a suit. Although the suit the man wore didn't have the same muscle defination as on the film, so it must have been a very convincing suit in the film. But they again a few hollywood special effects artists have claimed to have done the suit.

psyche101, i agree, people LOOK, but their quality of looking for bigfoot , which is likely spaced out for 100's of miles and have long life spans, is suspect. people really havent made A SERIOUS SEARCH FOR BIGFOOT. something real and large must be leaving footprints, which corrobrate with eyewitnesses

That was my quote, in the first paragraph. I believe there was a show (I've not seen it, but heard tell) with Dr. Meldrum observing, and the mime attempting to duplicate Patty's gait evidently accomplished it. If you're ever able to see Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, (I have seen this) the same attempt is made by an athlete/mime, and he's unable to perform the same movement displayed in the P/G footage. So take things for what they are.

At least you're discussing the fact Patty moves in a manner outside normal human stride. Was Patterson sophisticated enough, in 1967, to instruct the man in the suit to walk in a way a normal human wouldn't? I've discussed this with Psyche, a little. If it were a mime in a suit, there was plenty going on for him to perform. Walking with the exaggerated arm swing (with arms beyond human length), with a knock-kneed gait that, in the least, takes practice, while simultaneously looking back over the shoulder, all the while in a suit and mask that would prevent normal observation of the ground he's traversing. An amazing performance, worthy of an Academy Award.

You just keep missing the point don't you.

You provided the figures. The math does not add up. We did it in here remember? The supposed range is not 100's of square miles per creature at all. This is a known erroneous theory you have made up, and haver had prove incorrect for you. Could you not understand the math? What is the difficult part for you to understand here? Do you need assistance inthis? Ask if so, better to look a bit stupid rather than a complete idiot (that's what I always tell my apprentices).

Using the range figures you gave me, it is inconceivable we have not found one.

And.

You finally admit some people do search for this creature. How is it we can catalogue the snail and slugs, which can indeed hide under leaves, yet find no proof of an 800 pound ape? This search would be very extensive. Why did these people find no Biff or trace of it?

That we have Although I think the head turn plausible, I do admit it would be very difficult, if not needing some practice.

If I might pass on some information from the excellent link provided by yourself for others to peruse, Creature Suits Analysis - Part Three The Mime inside

Although I think this description applies to a feature film, as I know Movie World and Sea World mimes (who have portrayed Batman, Tweety, A Dolphin, Sylvester and Yosemitie Sam) that fare better than this. However, to be fair, it is an insight one should read, and raises some very debatable points putting the film in a new perspective. A bit of a read, but worth it. This man is an industry proffesional and raises very valid points. I happen to know for a fact that the heat generated in these suits is every bit as bad as Bill describes it!

Michael Caine was up for an Academy in 1967 For the Movie Alfie

No problem it will be my pleasure. I love the outdoors.

I am preparing to leave on my hike right now and will be back later this afternoon with some bone photos. I wonder if it will convince those whom claim finding dead animals in nature is not as rare as they think it is?

First off i wanna get the point across in my personal view the bible is the gratest and best known farytale to date but even so there is truth in all tales wheter they be fiction or seen stories and alot of this post is tooken from different articles i ran across those parts are in the aprenticies my view of the nephilim will be given at the end!!!

"Well, back in the ancient days of Noah when there were still groups or tribes of large people who were around 12 feet tall, there were some righteous men who fell and began marrying these women even though they were not girls who followed G-d and they had families with these women and they themselves turned their back on G-d. That’s it. Nothing more then that.
We know that spirits cannot have sex with people! The Bible says in Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. So angles do not marry or reproduce, there’s no need for them to. There are no "baby angels"! Demons are fallen angels (angel means, "messenger" in Greek) so they too don’t have reproductive organs. So the idea that demons were having sex with women is simply ridicules.
This is a Hebrew name given to the people described in Genesis 6 as the offspring of angels (or "the sons of God") and "the daughters of men" -- that is, human women. They are said in some stories to have been a race of giants or titans; in others, their fathers were actually fallen angels.
It’s a very mysterious passage in Genesis that gave the Hebrew language the word "nephilim". For one, it never says directly that the nephilim were related to the "sons of the gods" or the daughters of men also recalled in the passage, but merely states that "the nephilim were in the land at that time." The last time the word is mentioned was to describe Og, the gigantic king of the Bashan region - "for only Og remains from the rest of the nephilim" (Deuteronomy 3:11), and the Israelites killed him"
.
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God were came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." (New Oxford Annotated Bible)
In other words, it is not at all clear that the Nephilim are to be identified with the "mighty men" or the children in question, at least not in this passage. The translation may make a difference.
In Numbers the 10 spies sent into Canaan report that among other things they saw "the Nephilim, sons of giants... and we were as roaches in our own eyes..." These are not to be confused with the Philistine giants mentioned in the end of Samuel.
Also, to make matters more confusing, the Hebrew word "Elohim" which is mostly translated to mean God, must also be translated as "masters" or "judges" (as in Exodus 21), and sometimes refer very specifically to mortal humans.
Have respect unto the covenant: for the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty ... (Ps 74:20)
But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be...( Mt 24:37)
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD...( Ge 6:1-8)
"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, andfrom walking up and down in it" - Job 1:7 (see also Job2:2) "

And on to my ramblings about these mysterious beings who some believe to be demons..fallen angels or lesser deities well in some form or way compared to us yes this could be said though if you read such passages of angels and demons close enough you will realise one is not the same as the other the angels that left gods side are not demons they are just angels spiritual beings who take many forms and embodiments over time if memory serves right there is atleast 17 different forms given these beings in the different books included in the bible

being of spirritual descent i am sure that when they left gods side they had to give there spiritual bodies up for elemental forms but also would have kept there particular races general atributes and abillities i am also sure that there were female as well as male forms of them the nephilim is quoted many different places as being the children of these beings and mortal couplings all across the so called good book mostly in the old testement and quite a bit in hebrew literature of the fith dynasty region

and also to cover the difference of demons and angels demons are of the earth they have never been in heaven and go back unto the earth when they perish more common names given to these beings arepixies leppercauns elves and other forms we dont see for there waiting for the earth to come back into there hands or us to finaly mature to a point that they can freely show there selves to us while im sure they have interbred into our genolgy those couplings in one since could be placed in the nephilim class but is not the actual beings of the nephilims wich i am disscussing today i will cover this at another point in time

most religous mongers believe the nephilim to have died out with the flood but there apearence was still there in mythologys and folklore long after i wonder if you can name any of the different mythological creatures these beings are well we’ll get to that soon enough and ya im sure this post will rattle a few minds and probaly get a few laughs but all I ask is for you to freely leave me comment or opinnion any time ya like this is a personal view and realy dont give a damn if i shake ya sensibillity or not ive spent quite a bit of time studying this and other obscure facts through out my life anyways back on to disscussion at hand

nephilim like there parents were neither good nor bad at birth it took raising and what not to cause this to come about but some have definitely made apearences through out time in different forms such as vampires’were wolves’minotours’and mermaids better known as sirens as i said most angels were of animal forms but the children of these beings and mortal kind took on both and im also sure that there were more human tendencies in some rather than otheres we are all corporal on this plane

though where these beings choose to resaide today is anyones guess but im sure there still there the documentation is there in the writings of different historiacal factors to back this up if you look hard enough to find it while certain aspects are shady the basic outline is there and has been for years sirens and mermaids as well as shape shifters minotaurs vampires and beings with aptitude for doing unexplained phenomenom are scatterd through out history even to modern dates and times
personaly i cant blame them for hiding thereselves any of them while im sure theres plenty they could teach us im sure our race is so damn ignorant and judge mental wed confine them and lord knows what else thinking bout it lillith probaly was one as well or of the basic linology though she may have been a child of the earth as well as i said erlier i just felt like rambling about somthin to day take it with a grain of salt if you will but i would realy enjoy hearing your point of view on this subject if you feel like sharing it overall though yes there real yes they are chronicled and they are through out history and may you be blessed in your actions of this day

not quite sure this fits in here but ill give it a shot

Click to view attachment

Mule Deer remains 1

I had a very successful bone hut today. I believe I may have found around 4 or 5 deer carcases. Some from this past winter and some that are god only knows how old. The area where these photos were taken is called redbutte canyon. The mouth of the canyon is about 1 mile from my home. No vehicles are allowed in this canyon because it is a natural study area. The photos where taken about 5 to 10 miles up from the mouth of the canyon. There are cougar, bobcat, black bear, coyotes, the occasional wolf, mule deer, elk, moose, and BF has even been reported in the general vicinity.

I've seen dark wolven's same, identical, multi-paragraph reply to at least three threads. Evidently he believes he's impressed U-M with that one. Yawn..........

Mule deer number 2

The first photo is of a jaw bone just as I found it. The second image is of the first jawbone and a second that I found under the leaves as I was uncovering the first. So it seem you can just walk into the woods and find animal remains. If you look for them. I found these in a ravine. as you can see if you are not looking closely you probably would walk right over it with out noticing. These look pretty old.

Here is the remains of 2 young mule deer as is evident by the 2 chewed up skulls. the one with the nubs is a buck. I found them no more that 3 feet from each other. I believe these were cougar kills. I found them in the same ravine about 200 meters down from the previously posted jaw bones so they could have belonged to one of these. You can also see other bone I found around them.

A deer hunter myself, with an over-abundance of deer population the past twenty years, I've taken my fair share of deer of various size, with a .308Win, and seen my fair share of deer and smaller critter carcasses. Still, I can count on one hand the number of predator carcasses I've come across.

For my friends on U-M Crypto, I've never taken my venison to be processed by a commercial butcher. I prepare the deer I harvest from the hoof through the kitchen. I field dress it, I skin it, I cut it up, I grind it, and I cook it. I'm not a vegetarian, my friends.

Edit: Is sasquatch a predator? I think, if the creature exists, that it must be.

Here is another skull I found in a different ravine. This one looks fairly resent as it still has hair attached.

I have found several dead coyotes, a fox, a bobcat, and several raccoons in this area on past hiking trips. Unfortunately I didn't photograph them.

Here is a photo of some fur. I think it's probably rabbit fur as deer hair is much longer and coarser. Also some tracks, more than likely a large coyote.

Here are some that are still alive. I must have seen about 20 of them today. They get their name (mule deer) from their large mule like ears. I have photos of at least 2 more carcases, but I think I have shown that finding dead animals in nature is quite easy if you know where to look and get off the main trails. Like I have said I lived in western Washington for 11 years and was able to find elk, deer, raccoon, opossum, and other animal remains in the deep woods.

Over how many years? Raccoons aren't entirely carnivores, by any means. Nor are fox.

Nor are coyotes, if they have any choice (they don't).

Neither are wolves, bears, or humans for that matter. Regardless of eating habits they are all still predators. With the exception of humans predators are less common than prey, that is why you find their remains less often. Never the less preditor remains are still found.

I have found the listed animal remains over a 5 year period. I will be more than happy to photograph and post any future predator remains I find.

Actually:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Procyonidae
Genus: Procyon
Species: P. lotor



Raccoons are caniform carnivores. As are all dogs











(I know I am being pedantic)
But they all require meat above any other part of their diet.

The corn farmers here curse their name.