Sasquatch Coffee


Radford’s Top Ten Reasons Bigfoot’s a Bust

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 19th, 2011

Source: Discovery News
By Sarah Goforth

See photo slideshow at link above

1. The Empty Fossil Record

When two Georgia men declared they were storing the body of Bigfoot in a freezer — and that they had its DNA — more than a few skeptics cried foul.

Is the legend of Bigfoot (a.k.a. Sasquatch) little more than a stubborn myth? For the dirt on the doubters, Discovery News contacted Benjamin Radford, managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, who was more than happy to rattle off the top 10 reasons Bigfoot is bogus.

First on his list: the fossil record. Why, he asked, would a legacy of large mammals reported to exist throughout North America (and beyond) simply disappear from the same soil that has preserved everything from the dinosaur bones pictured here, to woolly mammoths, to tiny marine crustaceans?

“There’s no fossil record of anything fitting the description” of Bigfoot, said Radford. “There’s simply nothing there.”

2. Forget Fossils, Where Are The Bodies?

Putting aside paleontology, Radford points out that today, if Bigfoot exists, it must disappear when it dies. “There’s no hard evidence in the form of bones. There are no hair samples, there are no live or dead specimens,” he said.

Bigfoot believers argue that the soil in areas where the creatures live — such as the region surrounding Bellingham, Wash., seen here — is acidic and quickly breaks down the bones. Nonsense, says Radford: “There’s nothing to that, because Bigfoot has been reported in every state but Hawaii.”

The remaining top ten headings are listed below.

To read the content for the corresponding headings, read the article in it’s entirety “>here.

3. Where Do Bigfoot Babies Come From?

Regarding breeding populations.

4. Your Lying Eyes

The unreliability of eyewitness av=ccounts.

5. The Ever-Mysterious Blobsquatch

This black-and-white image was taken in 1977 by a man named Frank White, near Bellingham, Wash. “I’d call it a North American ape,” White told reporters at the time. “You can call it a Sasquatch or anything you like.”

Radford calls it a Blobsquatch. Aside from eyewitness reports, blurry images like this are what most Bigfoot believers rely on.

6. Doctor Who?

No peer-reviewed, scientific research.

7. The Case of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

Consider this league of biologists scouting for the elusive ivory-billed woodbecker in Arkansas’ White River National Wildlife Refuge, an area where Bigfoot sightings have been made.

“There was a huge, hardcore investigation. They were well-equipped, well-funded and made a sustained search,” noted Radford. “What I found interesting was, what didn’t they find? They didn’t find Bigfoot.”

8. This Katydid Couldn’t Hide

“The last large animal to be found was probably the giant panda, and that was 100 years ago,” said Radford. “There has not been a single new creature that doesn’t fit the recognized taxonomy discovered in the last century, there just simply hasn’t.”

9. If It Walks Like a Hoax

10. The Case of the Missing Footprint

Benjamin Radford is the co-author of “Lake Monster Mysteries: Investigating the World’s Most Elusive Creatures.”

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster.


23 Responses to “Radford’s Top Ten Reasons Bigfoot’s a Bust”

  1. BUKWASBOO responds:

    UGGGGGH !…. Please stop giving this guy the attention he wants, Everyone of his tired old skeptical talking points can be re-soundly refuted with logical & INFORMED answers ………
    We’ve heard All of this before a million times ,… nothing new here,..I repeat,..UGGGGGH !!!!!!

  2. rickodemilo responds:

    I’ve asked this before but…. is there a time limit for how long we have to prove the existence of Bigfoot? I mean, assuming you are among the believers that think Sasquatch is an animal and not an inter-dimensional being or alien, is there a point in time where if it’s existence has not been proven we can all agree there’s no way exists? With the amount of people now (7 billion!) and factoring in that more and more of them have cell phones with cameras, I think we can agree that if it isn’t found soon it doesn’t exist. So yeah, what I am proposing or inquiring about is a sasquatch statute of limitations.

  3. Loren Coleman responds:

    I read this and found it to be so full of assumptions, mistakes, and misinformation that I’m going to have to write an entire blog posting to address Ben’s Discovery News snippets.

    Unfortunately, this may take some time as I’m moving an entire museum. Please have patience, however, as I will deal with this, point by point.

    Right now, all I can say is “incredible.”

  4. mandors responds:

    1. The majority of creatures that have existed on this planet are not in the fossil record.
    2. The vast majority of animals that die in the wild are never seen or found.
    3. There are ample reports and some purported videos of bigfoot young.
    4 Some witness accounts can be unreliable, but not all.
    5. Not all photos and videos are blobsquatches. Patty, Marble Mountain, etc.
    6. PhD’s are just beginning to rise about the ridicule that nihilists like Radford disseminate on this subject.
    7. A handful of clumsy, noisy, dorky researchers looking for a bird would be quite easy to elude.
    8. There are vast tracks of virtually untraveled wilderness in this country, millions of acres. For an intelligent to semi-intelligent, furtive hominid, that intentionally avoids contact, to remain undocumented is not surprising.
    9. Chinese researchers have already found primate hairs for their wild man. The DNA reports came back “primate other.”
    10. This is the most specious and telling argument. Radford basically makes the statement that physical evidence is meaningless scientifically. Putting aside that dermal ridges have been found on some very large footprint samples, Radford discloses his true goal which is to obfuscate cryptid and other data to sell his magazine and website.

  5. Benjamin Radford responds:

    Hey everybody!

    A few things should be pointed out about this piece:

    1) This is actually old news, and appeared about a year or two ago.

    2) It was not written by me, and in fact at least one item is wrong: I never told the reporter “Bigfoot isn’t real.” That was her conclusion/summary not mine; as MEC Loren knows, journalists don’t always get the story 100% correct.

    3) I look forward to MEC Loren’s point-by-point rebuttal… Frankly I’m surprised, if these points are so wrong, and it’s been out there for so long, that he or someone else hasn’t already done it. Please be sure to respond directly to statements I made, not those that the reporter made.

    4) As an aside, posting this piece in its entirety is illegal unless someone from Cryptomundo got written permission from Discovery to repost it here. Since I didn’t write it, my copyright is not being violated so I don’t really care, but you should be aware that you’ve violated the 1976 Copyright Act. I’ve been in publishing for nearly 20 years, and this goes far beyond Fair Use.

    Editor’s Note: Content has been edited to reflect Ben’s complaint.

  6. springheeledjack responds:

    I don’t have or need the time to point out all the innacuracies and subjective supposition here…NOT to mention the same TIRED old arguments that have been shot down over and over…

    but just to keep it short n sweet..

    1)Fossil record is woefully incomplete.

    2) Bodies? See any manual on decomposition in the wild

    3) Go back to basic biology if you can’t figure this one out…didn’t your family ever talk to you about this…

    4) We’re not interested in the 95% of misidentifications…it’s the other 5% that is important

    5) No kidding…we’ve already beat to death the value of a picture…but just because pics aren’t law, doesnt’ mean BF ain’t running around.

    6) Invalid argument…obviously if we had a body we’d have it solved…

    7) Invalid argument number 2–weren’t looking for BF, but a…yep, woodpecker. and funding is a key word here too.

    8) Wrong. 10 ft ray discovered in 2010. New animals pop up allllll the time. AND, bugs and smaller critters definitely have defined living spaces…regions, climates, temperate zones, etc. BF seems to be nomadic and shows up in a variety of these places all over. And if we throw intelligence capability into the mix…

    9) Wrong again. There are hair samples that don’t fit the normal animal populations.

    10) invalid argument, the sequel, the sequel…of course there’s no standard yet…no body turbo. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

    That was too easy…enough time wasted here…let’s get back to real cryptozoology…

  7. Benjamin Radford responds:

    Oh, and one other thing, I can save Loren some time and irritation:

    The reference to the giant panda was in response to a question about large (man-sized) terrestrial animals specifically. There are of course many new marine animals (giant squid, for example), insects, and smaller mammals like the vu quang ox. If I have missed any man-sized or larger terrestrial animal discoveries, which is what I was referring to, I’m sure Loren will be happy to correct me!

  8. Benjamin Radford responds:

    I’ll touch these quickly…

    1. The majority of creatures that have existed on this planet are not in the fossil record.

    Irrelevant. We’re not talking millennia ago, but in modern times. Can you name a single animal that exists but has never left a fossil record? I thought not…

    2. The vast majority of animals that die in the wild are never seen or found.

    Interesting claim. Where is your evidence for this? Did you just make this “fact” up?

    3. There are ample reports and some purported videos of bigfoot young.

    You completely missed the point. The issue is breeding population, not whether Bigfoot babies are reported. Come on, you can do better than this.

    4 Some witness accounts can be unreliable, but not all.

    That’s quite true. No one ever said ALL witness accounts were unreliable. This is a straw man argument.

    5. Not all photos and videos are blobsquatches. Patty, Marble Mountain, etc.

    That’s quite true. No one ever said ALL photos and videos are blobsquatches. This is a straw man argument.

    6. PhD’s are just beginning to rise about the ridicule that nihilists like Radford disseminate on this subject.

    You completely missed the point. Are you really blaming “ridicule” for the reason that Krantz, Meldrum, Chilcutt, et al. don’t publish their results in peer-reviewed journals? You think Meldrum is a coward, fearful of ridicule?

    7. A handful of clumsy, noisy, dorky researchers looking for a bird would be quite easy to elude.

    You missed the point, but it’s not clear why you refer to these serious researchers as “clumsy, noisy, and dorky.” Now it’s you heaping scorn and “ridicule” on scientific researchers… Good job.

    8. There are vast tracks of virtually untraveled wilderness in this country, millions of acres.

    Really? Millions of acres of virtually untravelled wilderness in the U.S.? Where is this? Where is your evidence for this? Did you just make this “fact” up?

    9. Chinese researchers have already found primate hairs for their wild man. The DNA reports came back “primate other.”

    Again, you missed the point. Here is the statement: “There is no category of Bigfoot evidence that doesn’t have a string of hoaxes attached to it.” Are you saying this is wrong?

    10. This is the most specious and telling argument. Radford basically makes the statement that physical evidence is meaningless scientifically. Putting aside that dermal ridges have been found on some very large footprint samples, Radford discloses his true goal which is to obfuscate cryptid and other data to sell his magazine and website.

    Hilarious! Learn something about dermal ridges first, then come talk to me. My goal is to research and investigate, not to obfuscate. That’s why I’ve spent years of my life on this… What have you done? What’s your contributions to cryptozoology? (p.s. SI is not “my” magazine, and my web site isn’t listed on the piece!)

  9. Loren Coleman responds:

    This was first posted on Discovery News as a photo essay on October 12, 2011.

    But indeed, it is based on a very old interview with Ben Radford that I partially dealt with in September 2008 (!!).

    See here.

    No time to deal with this again.

  10. The Prof responds:

    Already took a look, Fisking Benjamin Radford.

  11. Opalman responds:

    I like the rest of you could easily pick this specious, almost emotionally defensive catalog of illogical, unscientific palaver apart nine different ways on each point. But it’s a waste of time; they wouldn’t consider the possible existence of sasquatch even if were tripped by one. People like Radford consider themselves scientist’s yet rely on their small minded hunches and circular reasoning instead of objectively examining evidence. These are the same folks to emphatically state that anecdotal evidence isn’t evidence—yet they are also the first to convict on hearsay and presumption while on jury duty. Oh well…..

  12. bigfoots responds:

    Someone should write top 10 reasons why Radford is a bust..
    hint hint..

  13. mandors responds:

    Wow. Ben, I’m honored. Well, I trust the audience, so I’ll comment on the points.

    1. “Modern fossils”? hmm. How about show me the fossils of all these “legitimate” small cryptids you cite. Oh, wait. They’re not there.

    2. Please provide us with your extensive data regarding dead animal discoveries in the wild. … Not there. Really?

    3. Last I knew “Oh come on” was not a scientific argument. You ignore the data.

    4. Um, no. Yours is the grossly, over-generality based argument. We might as well say we can’t trust what scientists observe.

    5. Find another counter argument. I’m right, your wrong.

    6. Not only are you inaccurate, but you are disingenuous. Hmm. Yes, maybe they can publish in what? The cryptid hominid journal? Really where?

    7. Yeah no. YOU miss the point. Why would ornithologists listen or watch for non- bird data? Considering they are spending grant, tax or whatever dollars looking for something between a bluejay and a chickadee, why would they care if there is a big noise “somewhere” where their target species is not?

    8. Wow. I don’t know. Where do you live? I’m guess in some SSMA, so have you ever heard of Oregon, Washington, Northern and Eastern California? Idaho? Wyoming. By contrast, or support, there are enormous acres in the Northeast that have been reclaimed by the forests. There are not a lot of sightings there, but I’ll bet there are other places where people simply don’t don’t go.

    9. Yes.

    10. If you are not paid by SI, not paid to express your opinions in it or in other media venues, then I do apologize. The fact is, you are quoted as saying that footprints–physical evidence– are not scientifically valid. If that statement is accurate, then I think you may want to qualify it.

    Regardless, whether or not this species exists, honest people are trying find out. Nihilist rhetoric does nothing to help one way or the other

  14. DWA responds:

    Time to re-bury the trash.

    Every point Ben makes has been shot to pieces a zillion times here.

    For just one. There’s a reason no one can name all the species for which we don’t have fossils….THERE ARE FAR, FAR TOO MANY, the vast majority of known species. The chimpanzee, gorilla and lesser panda had no fossil representation as the 21st century began. (Ben will show how much he knows by saying ‘ah, but we have it now,’ a clearly irrelevant point.) One of the many-and-climbing hominoid fossils now on record may one day be recognized as a sasquatch progenitor, and several have been proposed by experts (very relevant point).

    I could go on, but don’t have to. Search any bigfoot thread with a sizable number of posts for DWA. This guy is Swiss cheese.

    His response to this post will indict him like nothing any of us can say. Actually, you can just look up there for the ones he’s already put up.

    When Krantz, Bindernagel, Schaller, Mionczynski, Swindler and Meldrum – and I could make a much longer list – say one thing, about a topic clearly in their expertise, and Radford says another, about something just as clearly not in his, I know who I’m going with.

    The scientists.

  15. DWA responds:

    rickodemilo:

    “I’ve asked this before but…. is there a time limit for how long we have to prove the existence of Bigfoot? ”

    Well, I’d give it a minimum of ten years.

    AFTER the mainstream of science becomes interested enough to start looking.

    (If the sas is real, it won’t take near that long. But we should be more interested in knowledge than in deadlines.)

    Until the scientific mainstream has bought into the search, lock, stock, and barrel, the search has not begun.

    The proponents have done their job. Long ago. (i.e., the P/G film. It’s just been murder-rule piling on since then.) It’s time for science to do its job, which is to review and determine the provenance of the mountain of evidence.

    No matter how many people encounter a phenomenon, it is not real – as far as the society is concerned – until the society confirms it.

    We delegate that job to science. Time for them to get started; they’re a half-century (and I’m being kind) overdue.

  16. MattBille responds:

    The is some validity to most of the points Ben offers (keep in mind, I remain skeptical of the creature’s existence, but hope I am wrong), but “nothing since the panda” isn’t a good argument at all. First, how did the the Vu Quang ox (new genus) get overlooked? You can argue whether the 100-lb giant muntjac qualifies as human-sized, but I think it does. Then you have creatures like the Bili apes, the mainland population of the Javan rhino, and the Bardia elephants did not end up meriting new taxonomic classifications, but they are examples of how populations of very large and distinctive animals went unnoticed by scientific. Add the huge populations – I mean really huge – of recently discovered gorillas and elephants, and the suggestion that there are no big mammals left is as unpersuasive as when Simpson made it in 1984.

  17. DWA responds:

    OK, bigfoots. Couldn’t resist.

    Ten Reasons Ben Radford’s Opinion of Bigfoot’s A Bust:

    (Unlike him, I don’t draw any conclusions about those I disagree with on anything outside the topic. If absolutes are stated, they are hard to argue with when one has read him on this topic.)

    1. He doesn’t understand science, as evidence his consistent failure to address either the volume and internal consistency of the evidence or the scientific opinions supporting the animal’s existence. Never mind his not recognizing that one must always supply one’s own entry in a scientific debate complete with evidence. Where’s his? After all this time, nada.

    2. He doesn’t understand psychology (which he claims he does). Anyone with a basic understanding of psychology understands that psychoses like The Mass Imagining Of Bigfoot simply don’t happen. One never has, ever. The most critical reason for science to be interested in this topic is that human history has yielded nothing like it, whether it’s a new species or an illusion. Everything else with this much evidence, science has proven real. Psychology’s first premise: people generally see what they say they do. The species would be unable to function on the most basic biological level were that not true.

    3. He doesn’t understand Occam’s Razor, which kills outright his theory that Bigfoot is this huge random concatenation of various kinds of false positives.

    4. He doesn’t understand that if you don’t have evidence for your position, you better be nice. Ignorance masquerading as arrogance is ignorance twice compounded.

    5. He doesn’t understand that retorts, questions, snarks, what-have-you-done?, and just plain wrong assertions do not count as evidence.

    6. He doesn’t understand his position, which is: The sasquatch doesn’t exist AND IT’S THE PROPONENTS’ FAULT.

    7. He doesn’t understand that we know all this because we DO read him. Very carefully.

    8. My kids (oldest starting college next year; youngest, 11) could tell him more about research than he knows.

    9. I MEAN JUST READ HIM.

    10. On second thought…let’s focus on crypto here. He can catch up when he has time.

  18. Hapa responds:

    1. Empty fossil record

    Gorillas don’t have one. Chimpanzees didn’t have one till recently. The giant population of that species, the Bondo/Bili ape, does not have one at all. The Denisovans didn’t have one till a few years ago. A Browridge found in Lake Chapala in Mexico is so primitive some have said it is a Homo Erectus Browridge (Sasquatch, Legend meets Science, by Jeff Meldrum, page 96). Numerous finds of so-called “Giant human skeletons have been documented in the West but the finds have either dissapeared with time or else. Some, if not far most, were most likely hoaxes and mis-identification (the Si-Te-Cah Giants of Nevada were actually modern humans of more normal size, still perhaps large for their time though), but we may never know whether one of them at least might have been a true Sasquatch find or part of one

    2. Where are the bodies

    This assumes that Bigfoot/Sasquatch lives throughout North America: Most likely the Creature, if it exists (or still does) lives in the upper Pacific Northwest, specifically western Canada, Oregon and Washington state. In that region its hard to find a dead body of an animal, even a big one, in the woods that has not been devoured by the critters and the acidic soil (also makes it hard, though not impossible for fossils to form there). Bodies also tend to dissappear quickly in hot, humid environments like Deep east Texas, Lousiana Bayous, etc, where I think the beast Might, just Might also reside (not impossible for it to be in the muggy south, Appalachians, but it is by no means certain).
    This argument also assumes that Bigfoot is a worldwide phenomena, that the same species captured on the P/G footage is the same walking the Himalayas. Gorillas were the Yeti of Africa, and they do not have the feet or pure upright walking stance that Sasquatch is said to have and is shown on numerous vids and feeds to have. Likewise the Dingiso/Bondegezhou of Indonesia, a hairy man of the forests, was discovered to be a very Bearlike Tree Kangaroo, not a minaturized Bigfoot-like ape like Orang Pendek.
    Stories of hairy wildmen of the woods worldwide would definitely have a different source than a North American undiscovered giant ape
    And yes there are Bigfoot-like beings of myth in Hawaii, and I think there were a few sightings (see Loren Coleman and Mark Hall’s “True Giants” for more information. I’ll hunt for that particular page)

    3. Where did bigfoot babies come from?
    Sasquatch tracks as little as 4 inches have been noted, and a satistical analysis of all tracks found (those considered legit) show a percentage of size ranges that fits that of a breeding population (chapter 12 of Meldrum’s book). And you do not need a few thousand creatures to ave a thriving breeding population, especiallywhen considering that the beasts most likely don’t live throughout North America

    4. Your Lying eyes.
    Richard Pryor once talked about how his girlfriend found him in bed with another woman, and he said
    “Who are you going to believe, Baby? Me, or your lying eyes?”
    Though Scientists might not like the idea, their research falls back ultimately on eewitness testimony (they seewhat the results of their experiments show on the lab table, on the computers, in the field doing research, and so on. Though their research must be recorded by other than eyewitness testimony, they have to see it before they give it to others to believe it. And even those who peer review it are seeing it before they believe it. There is no science without eyewitness testimony. In order to Prove Bigfoot, a body needs to be “Shown” to the public, and the scientific community in particular for Optical consumption.

    5. Blobsquatch

    The PG tape shows for all intents and purposes a “Clear-Squatch”, especially when you make the image sharper on computer. But clear footage would not be evidence either (Harry and the Hendersons shows some darn good clear film of that movie sasquatch, but that was a man in a suit). The body, live specimen, or major piece of a body (like bones or a skin) is what will suffice, not clear imagery

    BTW: that pic provided, though “blobby”, shows some striking facial detail, i.e. a pronounced mouth and brow ridge, as if we are looking at a large Ape of sorts. Very interesting indeed, at least to me

    6. Dr Who?
    Scientists generally turn their noses up to things they don’t want to exist. There was notone peer reviewed paper on the Duckbilled Platypus when it was discovered (and scientists threw the first evidence out, saying the body was a hoax, when it was in reality legit! Good science there!!), nor was there anything as far as I know on Gorillas until they were discovered in 1847. Plate tectonics was laughed at, without peer review or numerous Dr Whos, yet now Plate Tectonics is just as accepted as Gravity and Atomic theory

    7. Ivory Billed Woodpecker
    The scientists were not looking for giant megafauna, they wouldn’t have been sufficiently supplied to get gorilla sized animals back to modern civilization for study, and even if they found it, would they report it (Science be scolded, principle of skeptcism comes first). Westerners were exploring sub Saharan Africa for centuries before Gorillas were discovered.

    8. Large animals

    The Kouprey was a wild bovine (cattle sized too) of southeast Asia was found in 1937 but was not recognized as a new species until 1961, so in a sense it was technically discovered in the early 60′s. The Saola is human sized (200 lbs) and was indeed found just a few years ago. Woodland Bison (rediscovered), Giant Muntjac, Luzon Lizard, and even breeds or subspecies of animals have been discovered recently (Riwoche Horse, Bili/Bondo Ape), both of which are big. A large population of Lowland Gorillas in Africa, perhaps well over a 100,000 strong has been recently discovered in Africa.

    9. If some of it walks like an undiscovered ape, and even smells like such an ape, propably…an ape.

    10. Missing footprint.

    ? We’ve more than we need of tracks considered legit by Meldrum and others. We need corpses

  19. norman-uk responds:

    The fossil record. Why, he asked, would a legacy of large mammals reported to exist throughout North America (and beyond) simply disappear from the same soil that has preserved everything from the dinosaur bones pictured here, to woolly mammoths, to tiny marine crustaceans?

    “There’s no fossil record of anything fitting the description” of Bigfoot, said Radford. “There’s simply nothing.

    Depends Radford means ‘fossil record’, assuming it means there are no fossils of sasquatch. Then nobody is in a position to state this since nobody knows what Sasquatch is. There are some possible fossil candidates like a version of homo erectus, neanderthals or denesovans for a start. Then maybe gigantopithecus etc etc.

    Also of course fossils could be rare and not yet discovered, there is precedent for this like the few chimp teeth that turned up in 2005 and the extraordinary case of the densoven hominid, when a small piece of bone was found giving a DNA result for a new species and then found within some modern homo sapiens! In general hominid fossils are in short supply.

    If Radford means saquatch fossils on record, then officially I dont think there are any-yet. Certainly bits of bone and more have been found and not identified by experts as being different to humans. This possibly can be understood in the knowledge of the severe scepticism and lack of imagination that is sometimes found within the official view. So any fossils that may be there somewhere somehow, are not expected, looked for or recognized. A recipe for non-discovery.

    It is of course possible that Saquatch is a latecomer to the americas, as that other hominid, man seems to be and hasn’t yet produced any fossils. Outside of america of course anything is possible when better knowledge of what sasquatch is becomes available.

  20. eyeofstrm responds:

    Last large animal discovered was the Pandas bear? Hey Radford, try googling Bili Ape. Yeah that’s right (The Lion Killer) Giant Chimpanzees, the size of humans, actual live footage of a captured Bili Ape. By the way, why doesn’t Cryptomundo follow up on this subject?

  21. eyeofstrm responds:

    Oh, I forgot to add’ these Giant chimps also walk upright and were officially discovered in 2004. The people who studied them say they are one of the largest remaining populations of chimpanzees in the world. These chimps are not shy or fearful of humans, yet it wasn’t until 2004 the elusive Bili Ape was proven to exist. Try educating yourself before you embarrass yourself more than you already have.

  22. eyeofstrm responds:

    On another note, I have never seen the 1971 photo up top. Of the dozens of supposed photographs of Bigfoot I have yet to see one that doesn’t scream hoax or misidentification, however when looking at the head on this supposed bigfoot on my computer screen it looks just like a gorilla head looking to the left. Actually better than any other photo I have seen. Has anyone ever analyzed the original negative?

  23. Opalman responds:

    I don’t know if this has ever been a subject for discussion here. If this is old news I hope the moderators will nix it.
    While not directly “on Topic” the subject herein goes some distance in possibly answering Radford as to how the sasquatch has remained so elusive.

    Have any considered the topic of hair length and coverage as it might relate to ESP like abilities and the sasquatch? I had run across the topic just recently and I remember also discussing it back in the 70’s while studying esoteric Christian philosophies at a commune in Sussex N.J. One Dr. J. .Merriweather; who was affiliated with a Manhattan based Center for the Study of Paranormal Activity; (or similar…the exact name escapes me). Dr. Merriweather and Ivan S. discussed the possible implications of such a phenomenon as it might relate to sasquatch behaviors (elusiveness). At the time Dr. Merriweather was experimenting with Kirlian photography and helping Mr. Tompkins and / or Bird during the writing of “The Secret Life of Plants” if I remember correctly.

    At the time I was overhearing these conversations I could not help but consider the impact such a phenomenon might have on my hunting. At the time and forever thereafter hunting has been a favorite and almost sacred part of my love for animals and the outdoors. For many years thereafter I adamantly refused to cut my hair. While there is no way to ascertain what, if any, effect this had on my stealthiest in the woods, I can, (and those that know me) honestly state that I was, at least for a long time considered an extraordinarily successful tracker and hunter, (also ¼ Algonquin) and for many years had long or shoulder, (at least), hair. For you anti-hunters out there, and without getting into all that; I’ve never taken or trophy hunted any animal I and my family didn’t personally eat or donate to a food bank or other, similar charity. I don’t like bragging, and don’t mean to brag here: but this personal example is of some importance in validating the theory being considered.

    I just recently came across yet another instance of this speculation on another site which spurred me to update my knowledge.

    It seems as though there might be something quite literal in the old bible account of Samson and Delilah which begins with the Book of Judges: Chapter 13. As hopefully most of you remember; Sampson was a mighty man of great stature and unequalled strength. He was forbidden by edict to never cut his hair. Sampson’s strength lied in great part in his long hair, which was cut by Delilah while he slept. With the shearing of his long hair his great strength was lost. Could this be a metaphor with it’s basis being the connection of hair quantity and strength (ability)? A stretch for sure…agreed. Yet we see this connection cropping up from time to time. Recently found is the report of data recorded by VA Hospitals and military investigators after the conclusion of the Viet Nam war.

    I have too also recently seen a ridiculous debunking attempt by Karen Stollznow a self described skeptical paranormal Investigator, who is, as is so often the case; decrying the possibility out of hand without any logical, science -based consideration, and totally lacking in even a basic knowledge of physical phenomenon. In this case she fails to consider the capacitance / inductive qualities of hair…guess she never did the hair comb or balloon / hair experiment in fifth grade. Hey Karen; ever hear of piloerection? Whatever Karen; just what we needed: another BS, palaver site on the internet, (pretty hair though). (try rubbing it with a inflated balloon. LOL)

    To summarize one credible report: “Various fit, young, male American Indians were actively searched out throughout the U.S.; The service looking for talented young scouts, tough young men with outstanding, instinctive, almost supernatural tracking abilities. Before being approached these carefully selected men were extensively documented as experts in their areas of expertise as well their innate survival capabilities” Using the usual enticements the men were enlisted, in-processed, graduated from basic training and various military specialty courses as required by their MOS’s and deployed in SE Asia. Of course the experiment was a complete failure. Serious casualty numbers and a general inability to perform adequately led to the government to contract extensive testing. What was discovered was amazing. Without exception the recruits maintained that the haircuts they received as per military uniform specifications were to blame. They stated that they no longer were able to sense the enemy, they could no-longer utilize their six-sense and they complained that they were no longer able to decipher the subtle signs and extra-sensory perceptions as they had been able previous to their hair-cuts. Since time and space available prohibits my recounting the entire article here; (which I encourage all to read) , the conclusion arrived at by those experts who studied the test results from testing subsequent to the determinations arrived at, is that These Indian’s very real abilities to sense their environment was directly tied to the hair on these individual’s heads and bodies.

    Could this be a factor in the case of our incredibly secretive and elusive friend? In my opinion—Yes, a resounding, unequivocal yes!
    I’d be grateful to anyone who might be able to provide some personal anecdotes illustrating the possible connection of hair length with intuition etc.

    PS: I just caught a headline on my browser accusing Cryptomundo of “stealing” the Discovery Channel’s “content” Wow…its scary what these people are capable of in their “war on knowledge”.

    Radford obviously can’t answer challenges to his baseless rhetoric with logic and science so he and they resort to bashing researchers who jealously seek the truth.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.