Woman records eerie 'Bigfoot' howling in Ohio

[the13bats]

34 minutes ago, LadyPhoenix said:

One could call your response biased as well.  As for the evidence, I didn't say they'd "proved" anything, and neither have they.  What they have done is to amass a lot of evidence that indicates something unknown is there, and even something primate in nature, and not human.  The eDNA, for example, is similar to chimp, but not chimp.  The thermals aren't bears, or people, and they have to be something.  that unknown something could be Bigfoot.  Tracks with dermal ridges that aren't like ours are good evidence as well.  The point is, when you have multiple types of evidence indicating some sort of large unidentified animal, and there are sightings of what we call Bigfoot, and the evidence seems to lean in that direction, it's worth paying attention.

Remember, the orangutan was thought to be a myth at one time, along with other large creatures.  At this point, it's more likely that there is some sort of unclassified creature out there, waiting to be recognized.

My reply is biased because im tired of true believers reaching and grasping at nothing and calling it "evidence" oh sure with the amount of "stories" we should have a mountain of proof but we dont even have any evidence that isnt terribly weak.

No, at this point its more likely bigfoot doesn't exist, your camp has the burden prove the thermal wasnt a man or bear.

Prove the DNA came from an unknowned creature not some silly unscientific claim "its like a chimp but not a chimp"

And dermal ridges clillcut embarassed himself putting his rep on the line and then the artist proved him wrong, go actually read up on it it has been proven to be a result of casting not proof of a real foot that made the track but if you have that foot show us.

The lack of supportive evidence shows bf only exists in the believers minds but if you have that smoking gun prove me wrong, post it.

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

I've been watching it as soon as it hits the satellite, as I won't pay for streaming for faster access.  Into season 3, they've had some interesting data.  There has been thermal imaging that looks like a big ape, and very different from a human.  At one point, Mireya Mayor gets thermals from several large somethings, not human, and grown bears don't cluster like that.  Primate was one result from eDNA taken in the Kentucky exploration.  They also captured audio containing infrasound, which isn't usual for the known animals in the area.  There have been a number of interesting sound recordings, in fact.  They don't sound like wolves or coyotes, and are of the longer, drawn-out sort.  This was at a remote little lake, but wild fires caused them to have to pull out.  There is more, of course, though no clear-as-a-bell, daytime video.  They're being pretty scientific, overall, unlike so many that we've seen producing shows on the subject.  Mayor certainly won't sign off on anything as being "definitely Bigfoot" unless it's certain.  No body, and I hope that isn't necessary, but worth paying attention.

The way in which DNA indicates primate is by looking at sequences to see what proteins are defined. A goat, a primate, a bovine, a rodent, and other mammals produce similar proteins but the specifics indicate a different group of mammals. How do they exclude human from their primate claim? Did they release their data and methodology or only the story they want to tell?

It is untrue that grown bears don't cluster. I know I have seen clusters of grown bears. Bears are in my backyard all of the time. I enjoy seeing these beautiful animals.

And now we have infrasound. So what? It sounds, pun intended, to me that the show is relying on being incompetent at sound identification to imply something unusual. Well that's par for the course. The same stance is taken by UFO and ghost shows. It is the "I don't know therefore" method of pseudoscience.

Let's face it. Each year hundreds and probably thousands of new species are found. What slows this effort is the need to be careful and correct about the identification. But, in the case of the mythical bigfoot the evidence is zero. It is all of the "I don't know" variety.

• What did you see? "I don't know"
• Can you identify that sounds? "I don't know"
• What does that thermal image show? "I don't know"
• Is that track bigfoot? "I don't know"
• What is the animal in the video? "I don't know"
• Can you identify the primate in the eDNA? "I don't know"

The position of "I don't know" is basically a stance of nothing, zilch, nada.

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

One could call your response biased as well.  As for the evidence, I didn't say they'd "proved" anything, and neither have they.  What they have done is to amass a lot of evidence that indicates something unknown is there, and even something primate in nature, and not human.  The eDNA, for example, is similar to chimp, but not chimp.  The thermals aren't bears, or people, and they have to be something.  that unknown something could be Bigfoot.  Tracks with dermal ridges that aren't like ours are good evidence as well.  The point is, when you have multiple types of evidence indicating some sort of large unidentified animal, and there are sightings of what we call Bigfoot, and the evidence seems to lean in that direction, it's worth paying attention.

Remember, the orangutan was thought to be a myth at one time, along with other large creatures.  At this point, it's more likely that there is some sort of unclassified creature out there, waiting to be recognized.

I would ask you to consider the difference between " amass a lot of evidence that indicates something unknown is there" and these folks have shown their inability to understand what they have collected.

Take this issue: "The eDNA, for example, is similar to chimp, but not chimp." Let's be clear and I am sure you understand that eDNA is just DNA, but collected in the open environment and not directly from an organism. What do you know about this DNA? Was it coding for a digestive enzyme? Was it coding for a hormone? The problem here is that these folks are making a claim and not telling us what they are doing. They are telling us a story derived from their data. Would a scientist reviewing their data, as in peer review, find their data compelling?

Again, the thermals. One of my favorite BF stories was a thermal video that turned  out to be teenagers getting stoned.

All of this "multiple types of evidence indicating" is what the 2012 crew used to trick people into thinking something amazing was going to happen. None of this so-called evidence amounts to more than the "I don't know"  level.

[the13bats]

Yep, the "i dont know so it must be __________." ( fill in the blank with something unproven like bigfoot in this case.

Feel free to Google map it...For the last year i drive from eustis fl to sanford fl for work i leave home about 630pm and leave the club about 230am

The route 46 has been under roadwork over a year now there are housing projects along the way but its country some might even call parts of it "out in the sticks"

And about 1 to 3 times a month coming home im normally the only car much of the way i see creatures that i dont know what they really are, one a while back really looked like a Capybara the last one i saw looked lol like a baby moose that loped across the road like an ape.  once i saw a coyote dumping a load but at first glance it looked like a monkey.

I dont have any reason to make a jump to these were exotic creatures much less crypto or paranormal. When a "hunter" show is on TV its agenda isnt science its to make $$$ so of course since failure doesnt sell they will push the narrative they desire.

[stereologist]

I am bummed. Several people have spotted a bobcat in my neighborhood and I have not seen it.

None of the people seeing the bobcat are pilots, police officers, military personnel, or otherwise trained observers. But there are veterinarians, master naturalists, professors, and others that want to determine if indeed this is a bobcat which is native to our area.

[+Hammerclaw]

I've seen bobcats in the center of the city, here, as well as opossums, foxes and racoons and skunks. We even had a bear up a tree at a hospital, across the river. I was driving home in the suburbs and six large Turkeys ran across the road, single file, heading toward the railroad tracks. That's the way wild animals infiltrate our urban areas, here, as the sides of the tracks are usual partially wooded and provide concealment and shelter.

[+joc]

20 hours ago, the13bats said:

we don't even have any evidence that isnt terribly weak

fixed that for you

[+joc]

In the cities...in the country...we know what is out there...

 ...and we also know what is NOT out there...

...and BigFoot ain't out there...

We are after all living in the 21st century.  

[+Hammerclaw]

White Tail Deer

Grizzly Bear

Bigfoot

 

[Guyver]

You guys are really mean to Sasquatch.  Why don’t you just positively identify the source of the sounds?

[+joc]

11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

White Tail Deer

Grizzly Bear

Bigfoot

 

 

The Abominable Snowman 

[+Hammerclaw]

12 hours ago, Guyver said:

You guys are really mean to Sasquatch.  Why don’t you just positively identify the source of the sounds?

Park rangers identified the sounds as coyotes--why would anyone dispute them?

[+joc]

56 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Park rangers identified the sounds as coyotes--why would anyone dispute them?

I think that a lot of people think of Park Rangers as kind of 'not all that smart'  I mean...duh...how smart do you have to be to drive a truck around a park?  

The truth is...The Park Ranger is exceptionally smart.  And the Park Ranger is the most powerful local  law enforcement entity there is.  Without consultation, without a warrant, he can seize your car, your trailer, all of your guns, your boat, everything at the campsite, and he can arrest you.

I knew a guy at Stephen F Austin who's major was in Forestry.  That was his goal, to become a Park Ranger.  He had an inch thick stack of 3x5 cards with the name of every plant on the front and the Latin name for every plant on the back.  Same with insects, animals, everything in the forest.

Of course the Park Ranger knows what a coyote sounds like.   And...they have seen it all...and heard it all.   May sound like an easy job.  It may be an easy job.  But getting that job is not at all a piece of cake.  

[stereologist]

22 hours ago, Guyver said:

You guys are really mean to Sasquatch.  Why don’t you just positively identify the source of the sounds?

That is the responsibility of those that were there. No one has to "positively identify" anything other than the claimant.

[Harte]

Quote

At one point, Ferencak claimed the beast howled repeatedly in the woods behind her property and knocked around the house, with one alleged closed encounter scaring her to the point where she thought about moving. 

Harte

[LadyPhoenix]

On 10/18/2022 at 3:58 PM, the13bats said:

Guessing and biased speculating.

Unknown sounds or thermal images etc still do not prove anything just because it doesnt look or sound like a known creature to a novice doesnt support jumping to "its bigfoot."

No, eDNA results that show up as primates aren't "guessing and speculation".  Nor are thermals that look very different from humans, nor is video footage of a dark creature that could have been a bear until it stood upright and walked away, in a very different fashion than a bear could walk.  Also, a world known primatologist is hardly a "novice".  One expert consulted on some of the images stated that they looked like out-of-place large apes.  As for the sounds, we know the sounds that identified animals in the region make, and from other regions, and some of those recorded match nothing known.  That's a clear indication of something new.  Just because whatever they are hasn't been scientifically labeled and catalogued doesn't make it less real.  Such animals are identified all the time.  When these creatures are seen by literally thousands of people, when they are part of the known creatures of local Amerinds, and others in other parts of the world, and when we have evidence that something unknown exists, applying the common label isn't a "jump".  Bias?  No, common sense.

[LadyPhoenix]

On 10/18/2022 at 5:02 PM, the13bats said:

My reply is biased because im tired of true believers reaching and grasping at nothing and calling it "evidence" oh sure with the amount of "stories" we should have a mountain of proof but we dont even have any evidence that isnt terribly weak.

No, at this point its more likely bigfoot doesn't exist, your camp has the burden prove the thermal wasnt a man or bear.

Prove the DNA came from an unknowned creature not some silly unscientific claim "its like a chimp but not a chimp"

And dermal ridges clillcut embarassed himself putting his rep on the line and then the artist proved him wrong, go actually read up on it it has been proven to be a result of casting not proof of a real foot that made the track but if you have that foot show us.

The lack of supportive evidence shows bf only exists in the believers minds but if you have that smoking gun prove me wrong, post it.

My camp?  I don't have a camp.  I have opinions, based on the evidence, the sightings, and education and logic.  Yes, we do have some good evidence, and your desire to ignore it, or label it as "weak" doesn't change that fact.  You seem unwilling to even discuss it, preferring to label those who present the evidence instead.  Logic fallacy there.  Try debating the actual evidence instead of resorting to lame ad hominem attacks. 

You've actually labeled scientific analysis of eDNA as "silly scientific evidence"?!?  Your bias is showing.  You prove it's something known.  No, dermal ridges, that sometimes show up, are not a result of casting.  Plaster of Paris doesn't do that.  I've used it; have you?  Actual dermal ridges, confirmed by scientists, aren't what you claim. 

There isn't a "lack of evidence", as you state repeatedly, hoping it will become true.  There is a lot of evidence, though not yet enough for any solid zoological classification.  Many known animals were once considered to be myths until they were suddenly proven real.  Anyone who bothers to study the topic knows this.  Demanding that another poster offer you proof is silly, almost as much as claiming that thousands of people worldwide reporting such creatures are all imaging things or inventing stories. 

The platypus, gorilla, giant squid, okapi, giant panda, giraffe, takin, python, komodo dragon, and others are among animals once not believed to be real.  One study claimed that u to eighty percent of animal species could be undiscovered.  But you go ahead and choose to believe nothing. 

[LadyPhoenix]

On 10/18/2022 at 6:30 PM, stereologist said:

The way in which DNA indicates primate is by looking at sequences to see what proteins are defined. A goat, a primate, a bovine, a rodent, and other mammals produce similar proteins but the specifics indicate a different group of mammals. How do they exclude human from their primate claim? Did they release their data and methodology or only the story they want to tell?

It is untrue that grown bears don't cluster. I know I have seen clusters of grown bears. Bears are in my backyard all of the time. I enjoy seeing these beautiful animals.

And now we have infrasound. So what? It sounds, pun intended, to me that the show is relying on being incompetent at sound identification to imply something unusual. Well that's par for the course. The same stance is taken by UFO and ghost shows. It is the "I don't know therefore" method of pseudoscience.

Let's face it. Each year hundreds and probably thousands of new species are found. What slows this effort is the need to be careful and correct about the identification. But, in the case of the mythical bigfoot the evidence is zero. It is all of the "I don't know" variety.

• What did you see? "I don't know"
• Can you identify that sounds? "I don't know"
• What does that thermal image show? "I don't know"
• Is that track bigfoot? "I don't know"
• What is the animal in the video? "I don't know"
• Can you identify the primate in the eDNA? "I don't know"

The position of "I don't know" is basically a stance of nothing, zilch, nada.

The eDNA evidence was identified as "chimp-like", but not chimp, if I recall correctly.  There are certainly no chimps running wild in Kentucky.  Some found in the NW (I don't recall which state) were quite similar to orangutan, but not that.  DNA testing isn't usually so vague, unless no match can be found due to deterioration.  When you get unknowns, that's notable.  I don't know if they released technical details or not, but you could likely look that up.  Unknown primate is pretty interesting, however.  When their team includes a serious scientist who demands solid proof, though, and she accepts the evidence, that's a good indicator. 

As for the sounds, infrasound isn't known to be used by recognized animals in the United States, as it's known to be used with some from other places, such as tigers.  When they have recorded infrasound in areas believed to be inhabited with Bigfoot, that's interesting.  It isn't "incompetence" to record such sounds and state honestly that they aren't able to ID the source.  While one member of the team does believe they are from BF, nothing certain was stated, which is good science.  The team behaves nothing like the myriad of ghost teams out there.  Almost all of those assume any sound "must be a ghost", and usually offer up histories on those.  Same for some other BF shows.  This one isn't like that.  I wouldn't watch it if that was the case. 

As fr bears, if you had human beings very close to some cluster, and at night, you'd hear some sounds.  You'd likely see some reaction.  Bears respond to other animals.  They don't always attack, but they do respond.  Besides which, the shapes didn't look like bears.  They've encountered those, and IDed them as such.  Footage one person thought was a bear - daytime footage, not a thermal - turned out not to be one, as it stood up and walked away, both definitely NOT a bear in two feet.  The gait of a bear moving in that fashion is quite different from that of a person or other primate. 

I know that there is a lot of nonsense out there regarding this topic, but that's not a sound reason to toss out everything, or to assume that anything stated is always in that category.  Animals thought to be mythical have been discovered, because some were willing to actually look, and sometimes even by accident.  I watch a lot of videos posted that are claimed to be Bigfoot, and some are obviously just a person.  Some are not, and some, many, you can't tell for certain.  I don't just happily accept any and all claims, but this group, on this show, are being more careful.  LeBlanc is a true believer, but he's balanced by the others. 

[LadyPhoenix]

On 10/18/2022 at 6:44 PM, stereologist said:

I would ask you to consider the difference between " amass a lot of evidence that indicates something unknown is there" and these folks have shown their inability to understand what they have collected.

Take this issue: "The eDNA, for example, is similar to chimp, but not chimp." Let's be clear and I am sure you understand that eDNA is just DNA, but collected in the open environment and not directly from an organism. What do you know about this DNA? Was it coding for a digestive enzyme? Was it coding for a hormone? The problem here is that these folks are making a claim and not telling us what they are doing. They are telling us a story derived from their data. Would a scientist reviewing their data, as in peer review, find their data compelling?

Again, the thermals. One of my favorite BF stories was a thermal video that turned  out to be teenagers getting stoned.

All of this "multiple types of evidence indicating" is what the 2012 crew used to trick people into thinking something amazing was going to happen. None of this so-called evidence amounts to more than the "I don't know"  level.

You  can look up the research, to see if it is posted or not, for those details. 

Yes, I know what eDNA is.  That we can obtain samples from the environment is pretty cool, as that allows for much greater understanding of an area, though it's not going to provide a complete picture.  As for what some scientist would state, that would depend on the scientist.  Some would assume that it meant nothing, no matter how compelling, and others would look and consider the evidence for what it is.  Scientists are certainly not without their own biases.  I recall an early Monster Quest episode, wherein they proved a cat filmed was at least double the length of a house cat, but one "expert" claimed it was "just a house cat", because of not believing that it could be anything else.  That sort of reaction is common with many scientists.  If it's something they don't already know, they will reject evidence. 

As for the 2012 nonsense, none of that was even close to scientific study. 

[Trelane]

None of that is accurate. No, scientists analyze evidence and then draw conclusions based off of what is presented and studied.

You seem a bit worked up if someone has a contrasting opinion that illustrates the creature (as described) does not and has never existed.

Not to worry, there are a few here that share your opinion.

[the13bats]

5 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

video footage of a dark creature that could have been a bear until it stood upright and walked away, in a very different fashion than a bear could walk

Rubbish, go youtube bears walking on rear legs its out right creepy.

5 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

  I recall an early Monster Quest episode, wherein they proved a cat filmed was at least double the length of a house cat, but one "expert" claimed it was "just a house cat

Hilarious, MQ is an entertainment show not a science report, i saw that episode and it was a house cat, they was not way to gauge its true size past housecat.

And that geeky kid you had a paper cut and claimed a large cat attacked him,too funny.

[Resume]

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

No, eDNA results that show up as primates aren't "guessing and speculation".  Nor are thermals that look very different from humans, nor is video footage of a dark creature that could have been a bear until it stood upright and walked away, in a very different fashion than a bear could walk.  Also, a world known primatologist is hardly a "novice"

Please provide a citation for an DNA blast result for "novel primate."  Not silly declarations like "99% human" or other known primates.  That citation should also demonstrate independent attestation for those results.

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

 One expert consulted on some of the images stated that they looked like out-of-place large apes. 

Lots of things look like other things from other places and turn out to be mundane.  So what?

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

As for the sounds, we know the sounds that identified animals in the region make, and from other regions, and some of those recorded match nothing known.  That's a clear indication of something new.

And that something new could just be a new vocalization for an established species. We haven't cataloged every sound every creature makes.

 

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

Just because whatever they are hasn't been scientifically labeled and catalogued doesn't make it less real.  Such animals are identified all the time.  When these creatures are seen by literally thousands of people, when they are part of the known creatures of local Amerinds, and others in other parts of the world, and when we have evidence that something unknown exists, applying the common label isn't a "jump".  Bias?  No, common sense.

So lets apply common sense.  Your claim here, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a large (6-9ft) undocumented bipedal primate with alleged continental distribution has lived alongside millions of human beings for eons, yet no hide nor hair has ever been independently affirmed. That claim doesn't seem like common sense.

 

[Resume]

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

The eDNA evidence was identified as "chimp-like", but not chimp, if I recall correctly. 

Do you recall where such a sequence was blasted, and if the results were independently replicated, and where one might go to see those results?

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

There are certainly no chimps running wild in Kentucky. 

Oh really?  How do you know?  As stupid (and illegal) as it seems, chimps are kept as pets in the U.S.  We hear of them when they bite their owners faces off.

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

Some found in the NW (I don't recall which state) were quite similar to orangutan, but not that. 

Citation necessary.  

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

DNA testing isn't usually so vague, unless no match can be found due to deterioration.  When you get unknowns, that's notable.  I don't know if they released technical details or not, but you could likely look that up. 

Citation necessary; your claim, your burden.

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

Unknown primate is pretty interesting, however. 

No, novel primate would be interesting. Unknown primate is an ambiguous term. 

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

When their team includes a serious scientist who demands solid proof, though, and she accepts the evidence, that's a good indicator. 

No, a good indicator is replication or independent affirmation of the evidence by other experts/observers/scientists,.

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

As for the sounds, infrasound isn't known to be used by recognized animals in the United States, as it's known to be used with some from other places, such as tigers.  When they have recorded infrasound in areas believed to be inhabited with Bigfoot, that's interesting. 

Interesting only in the fact that the source is unknown.  It could just be infrasound-emitting trolls if we're speculating

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

It isn't "incompetence" to record such sounds and state honestly that they aren't able to ID the source. 

Nope,  It's just misleading to then attempt to attribute it to a mythical creature

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

While one member of the team does believe they are from BF, nothing certain was stated, which is good science.

No good science would be to not have the believer on the "team" in the first place; you know, proper controls/protocols. 

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

The team behaves nothing like the myriad of ghost teams out there.  Almost all of those assume any sound "must be a ghost", and usually offer up histories on those.  Same for some other BF shows.  This one isn't like that. 

It sounds exactly like that.  I've hands-on experience with paranormal/fringe groups.

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

As fr bears, if you had human beings very close to some cluster, and at night, you'd hear some sounds.  You'd likely see some reaction.  Bears respond to other animals.  They don't always attack, but they do respond.  Besides which, the shapes didn't look like bears.  They've encountered those, and IDed them as such.  Footage one person thought was a bear - daytime footage, not a thermal - turned out not to be one, as it stood up and walked away, both definitely NOT a bear in two feet.  The gait of a bear moving in that fashion is quite different from that of a person or other primate. 

These are just vague assertions, claims made that cannot be demonstrated, things people said.

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

I know that there is a lot of nonsense out there regarding this topic, but that's not a sound reason to toss out everything, or to assume that anything stated is always in that category. 

Yes, and so far none of that nonsense has ever been demonstrated to be footie.  Otherwise, we'd be having a different conversation.

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

Animals thought to be mythical have been discovered, because some were willing to actually look, and sometimes even by accident.

Yes, this is true.  But we're discussing an alleged bipedal primate with alleged continental distribution, that has allegedly shared that continent with millions upon millions of human beings for thousands and thousands of years, yet . . . 

13 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

 I watch a lot of videos posted that are claimed to be Bigfoot, and some are obviously just a person.  Some are not, and some, many, you can't tell for certain.  I don't just happily accept any and all claims, but this group, on this show, are being more careful.  LeBlanc is a true believer, but he's balanced by the others. 

You're watching a teevee show, something designed to hook enough viewers --of a certain type-- to attract advertisers, and provide enough entertainment to keep attracting viewers and advertisers. Just because it looks "sciency" doesn't mean it is.  

Edited November 23, 2022 by Resume

[Myles]

40 minutes ago, Resume said:

 

You're watching a teevee show, something designed to hook enough viewers --of a certain type-- to attract advertisers, and provide enough entertainment to keep attracting viewers and advertisers. Just because it looks "sciency" doesn't mean it is.  

It is amazing the amount of people who think T.V. shows have to be factual.   It is entertainment for ratings.  The Curse of Oak Island can purposely bury and plant stuff for themselves to find while filming.  The is no rule against it (I don't know that they do this).  The History Channel has not presented Only Facts for many years now. 

[Resume]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

It is amazing the amount of people who think T.V. shows have to be factual.   It is entertainment for ratings.  The Curse of Oak Island can purposely bury and plant stuff for themselves to find while filming.  The is no rule against it (I don't know that they do this).  The History Channel has not presented Only Facts for many years now. 

It should occur to those people that if a DNA blast indicated a novel primate, biologists, primatologists, etc., would tripping over themselves to try and replicate the results, and begin their own research expeditions.  The results of such a blast, if replicated,  would be published in Nature, The International Journal of Primatology, etc., not simply announced off-handedly on a teevee show.  And guess what, they would be announced as soon as verified, without waiting as a cliffhanger for the season's premiere.  A novel primate species would be a game-changer for biology in general, and likely evolutionary biology in particular.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Resume