It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is Bigfoot ....?

page: 9
27
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: AlexDJ

Bigfoot is a Neanderthal down to every aspect about it, body, build, bones, prints, there all exactly the same. The only acceptance would be the claim that some of these Bigfoots on different sides of the planet could possibly be a different race then the other, this could maybe explain hair color differences that I'm pretty sure are reported




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Telepathy3

I disagree on the Neanderthal thing but I would not say there are not variants with those genes out there somewhere in the world.

The one I saw had this body: But skinnier like a female that was hungry.
www.oregonbigfoot.com...


but also with a cedar bark golden brown color fur and the white spots on its back. That looks like a badass monkey in my book. Maybe Hanuman the monkey god had some runaway love children.

Just maybe:
en.wikipedia.org...



edit on 26-9-2015 by stabstab because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2015 by stabstab because: ?



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I get that, you and I are in agreement



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Or Mr. Moderator, in this day and age of set-up and disparage, the person of which you point to has been purposefully muddied and their achievements, papers, credit rating and reputation altered/sullied for the sake of undermining credibility. You seem a little too sure of your findings and a little too sure of the usual indicators, forgetting, apparently, that conspiracies, cover-ups, and general manipulation of information can and does happen FAR MORE than people want to believe. Further to that, anything or anyone tied to money is a potential slave to whatever feeds them the money (or whatever can cut the pipeline). In short....corruptible.

I sit on the fence on this one. The very moment somebody makes a broad and apparently intelligent claim (even if it is unusual or off-the-wall)....and they are suddenly slandered or "exposed" from several ends, I become suspicious as to the interests at play.

Lets face it, Mr. Moderator, its not like mainstream science or any faction tied to a pipeline is gonna co-sign any such findings or theories. It's bad for business....and business like money is the god of those with papers, ego, power and agenda. History is emphatic in that regard.

I am on the fence on this one. Factions and mainstream often stink of BS.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: BiffTannen
a reply to: MrSpad

Or Mr. Moderator, in this day and age of set-up and disparage, the person of which you point to has been purposefully muddied and their achievements, papers, credit rating and reputation altered/sullied for the sake of undermining credibility. You seem a little too sure of your findings and a little too sure of the usual indicators, forgetting, apparently, that conspiracies, cover-ups, and general manipulation of information can and does happen FAR MORE than people want to believe. Further to that, anything or anyone tied to money is a potential slave to whatever feeds them the money (or whatever can cut the pipeline). In short....corruptible.

I sit on the fence on this one. The very moment somebody makes a broad and apparently intelligent claim (even if it is unusual or off-the-wall)....and they are suddenly slandered or "exposed" from several ends, I become suspicious as to the interests at play.

Lets face it, Mr. Moderator, its not like mainstream science or any faction tied to a pipeline is gonna co-sign any such findings or theories. It's bad for business....and business like money is the god of those with papers, ego, power and agenda. History is emphatic in that regard.

I am on the fence on this one. Factions and mainstream often stink of BS.



You make a good point. Ketchums info could be correct and if so TPTB would absolutely do anything possible to destroy her credibility. TPTB want to keep this info hidden for whatever reason.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: stabstab

Mm, well I can't really disagree on Bigfoot being in fact a Neanderthal because every is the same, the body, build, prints, description etc. As Ive said here I like the intervention theory because the way our evolution is claimed to have happened by mainstream science does at all fit any timeframe of how evolution happens and they only rely on a "missing link" that could say their theory of our evolution is right. But there is no missing link, and there would have to be dozens of missing links to show a normal gradual change from us to all the other "pre-humans" they say we came from. But with the intervention theory aside, it's safe to say mainstream science won't acknowledge what the evidence points to because the existence of this being will ruin their paradigm theory of our evolution. However I do believe that some of the Bigfoots found on different sides of the planet lik the yowe, snowman, or whatever other names, that there could be more then just one race of these beings and that one could in fact be Neanderthals while others on different continents could be different types entirely



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Telepathy3
a reply to: stabstab

Mm, well I can't really disagree on Bigfoot being in fact a Neanderthal because every is the same, the body, build, prints, description etc. As Ive said here I like the intervention theory because the way our evolution is claimed to have happened by mainstream science does at all fit any timeframe of how evolution happens and they only rely on a "missing link" that could say their theory of our evolution is right. But there is no missing link, and there would have to be dozens of missing links to show a normal gradual change from us to all the other "pre-humans" they say we came from. But with the intervention theory aside, it's safe to say mainstream science won't acknowledge what the evidence points to because the existence of this being will ruin their paradigm theory of our evolution. However I do believe that some of the Bigfoots found on different sides of the planet lik the yowe, snowman, or whatever other names, that there could be more then just one race of these beings and that one could in fact be Neanderthals while others on different continents could be different types entirely


I disagree.

Every race of human on earth except one has the neanderthal gene.

Early homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred resulting in a hybrid population.

It is possible that Neanderthals could have interbred with another early Human variant to produce bigfoot but I dont think a Bigfoot is 100% neanderthal. Besides Bigfoot is too tall and too ape face looking to be more modern Neanderthal.

Its something else.

Back many years ago I remember seeing a documentary on Human evolution and there was an early human ancestor that was huge, about 9' or so and hairy and walked upright. Cant remember the name of that Hominid.
edit on 26-9-2015 by fishy6 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2015 by fishy6 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2015 by fishy6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I'm immediately suspicious of any claims when there is a certain level of drama attached, and by certain level, I mean ANY.
If you have evidence, show it, allow peer review, and if you are suspicious of possible "contamination" due to questionable conduct by the lab, insist on recording the entire process in person so as not to break the chain of evidence.
If the lab refuses to agree to that, find another that will, and be sure to point out publicly that they did refuse.
I don't see why any reputable lab would have a problem with that.


The normal procedure would be to publish in peer reviewed literature. Then it will get all of the requisite scrutiny, by those qualified to do so. Sykes ancient polar bear hybrid being one example. Until then Ketchum will only ever have unsubstantiated claims. It isn't up to science to jump every time someone makes a half baked claims.


edit on 26-9-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: fishy6

But the Bigfoot prints are the Neanderthal prints, the Neanderthal body is the same with nearly no neck with a head that sits on its shoulders just like bigfoot. And there's more then one "bigfoot" race, Sasquatch, Yowe etc that are on different sides of the planet on different continents. Theres different types that are different size, stature, hair shade etc. So I believe one is in fact the Neanderthal and mainstream science wrongly depicts Neanderthals as this more human like being with no hair when really it was covered in hair, more animal then human and extremely strong just like the most common descriptions of modern day "Bigfoot".
edit on 26-9-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

OK, point.
I was not aware of that.
I've seen debunking but it wasn't convincing to me...perhaps you can link me an alternate study?
I say this in all seriousness..
I want proof too.


It seems Chilcutt is being honest enough, yet has had no previous experience with track casts (re dermal ridges) or the casting process and the materials etc. While he still thinks two casts (out of hundreds he has seen) show dermal ridges, he has now at least conceded the possibility of “desiccation ridges” (from the casting materials/casting process) being misinterpreted as dermal ridges.

Dr. Anton Wroblewski (a geologist and Ph.D specialist in Ichnology) confirmed this separately around the same time as Crowley (who based his study on one of these particular casts). Interestingly Chilcutt also thought the “Skookum Cast” displayed dermal ridges, which is unlikely (see item 8 below) and anyway the claimed "bigfoot" cast itself has been comprehensively debunked in a brief paper/article by Wroblewski (and most people with common sense).

Here he quotes Wroblewski.


“I’ve made them in dry sand, on moist sand, on dry silt, and even dry mud. All it takes is some sort of dessicant in the matrix. This can be elevated salinity, or mineralogical composition as is the case when certain clay minerals like illite or kaolinite or smectite are present, or simply degree of dry-ness of the matrix. Very repeatable and very open-and-shut. The Onion Mtn. and other casts listed above show dessication, not dermals…case closed.”

Interestingly, Dr. Wroblewski now suggests that other casts besides CA-19 and CA-20 may have surface textures that exhibit this process:

1) the original Mill Creek casts from Freeman (human fingerprints even Chillcut could i.d.).
2) the Onion Mtn. cast from 1967 (dessication ridges formed by plaster on a dry substrate).
3) the Walla Walla or Table Springs or Wrinkle Foot from Freeman (dessication and/or fluid flow over wet surface).
4) Hyampom from 1963-4 (indeterminate, isolated on portions of toes).
5) Bossburg “Cripple Foot” (seen by no one but Grover Krantz and Ed Palma).
6) Bossburg handprint (faint, transverse striations, but no whorls, loops, or evidence of being dermatoglyphics).
7) Elkins Creek (acknowledged human fingerprints introduced into cast, also possible dessication artifacts).
8) Skookum Elk Cast (hairs from an elk’s metacarpal block).
9) Indiana Cast (recognized fake)


orgoneresearch.com...

This is what Chilcutt had to say (around 36 min.). Crowley’s work answers all of the doubts Chilcutt expresses here. As well as making other relevant observations regarding "claimed" bigfoot tracks (scalloped margins etc).


“I’m saying that since I have seen Matt’s (Crowley) work, I have to be much more careful to make sure I am not seeing ridge artefacts. I agree with his work and I admit that yes, it can be done.”


hwcdn.libsyn.com...

There are other problems. Such as not showing genuine “sworls”...not having two or more casts with dermal ridges from the same trackway to compare...having a pattern that is different to any known primate, yet still claimed to be from a primate??? (while being completely consistent with the pattern produced by desiccation ridges). The dermal ridges in the tracks (the Blue Ck./Onion Mt. ones at least) not being noticed in situ (they were inspected by zoologists in situ at the time, who were quite unimpressed with them). There are other reasons that throw lots more doubt (highly likely to be fakes).

This is further complicated by doubtful provenance. There is some doubt about which cast is from where.

The following is why Esteban Sarmiento doesn’t consider tracks very compelling, apart from showing too great a variety to be from one species (when not cherry picked by people like Meldrum), too easy to fake. Here are his fakes (18.06 min.).

www.youtube.com...




edit on 26-9-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorBloodworth

The casts that Chilcutt finds “dermal ridges” on also have all sorts of doubts over whether they were hoaxes.

The “Walla Walla” cast is from Freeman the “bigfoot magnet” who’s claims were seen as more than doubtful from those within bigfootery itself. Sounds like quite a character though! lol.


“Freeman told Dahinden he’d found yet another set of Sasquatch tracks. Suspicious of “evidence” so readily at hand Dahinden made plaster casts and photographs of the footprints, and upon examination found they consisted of an uninterrupted sequence of left, right, left, left, a most unlikely gait for a bipedal creature.”


www.bigfootencounters.com...

The other track from “Blue Ck./Onion Mt” were from an area famous for Wallace fakes. He faked bigfoot tracks in this region for a very long time according to his family and almost certainly around the time the "dermal ridge" cast was taken. To add to the confusion, there is some doubt whether Chilcutt examined the original cast, or a copy. It is not very well provenanced. Green claims he lost the original cast, Meldrum claims he didn't...


The bottom line of this investigation is a hard one for the advocates to face, yet it is a fact:

Jimmy Chilcutt, a professional forensic examiner, was willing to “stake his reputation” on his interpretation of a cast he has publicly characterized as “the best one, with the clearest dermal ridges”, for which the very provenance and chain of custody is in dispute.


orgoneresearch.com...

Regarding Wallace stompers, Meldrum claims he can pick “anatomical differences” between old newspaper clippings/casts and pictures of the Wallace stompers (he has never inspected them in person). Therefore he claims Wallace carved stompers based on the tracks lol. It seems the professor either knows nothing about “optics” (camera angles, lens distortion, perspective etc) and all of the variables they might present (or doesn’t want to), not to mention reasons there could be legitimate differences in the track v stomper to begin with and his appraisal seems a bit silly (not to mention desperate).

This is largely because these tracks were the impetus for the P/G film and it was on the advice of Wallace himself, that Patterson went to this area (Bluff Ck.). No chance Meldrum will let that one be compromised, it's a bit too much of a meal ticket cherished belief.

The crack in the heel of Wallace's r/h stomper seems quite consistent with the track and is a huge problem for peeople claiming these tracks as authentic.

Another argument put forward is that we don't know if all of the relevant tracks had this line in the heel. Yet we know this one did and it's unlikely Wallace faked this track, then a real bigfoot did the rest…lol.

Without proper examination they appear to bear a remarkable similarity to Wallace stompers.

If you look at the trackways (to the extent they can be seen) what would make more sense. That bigfoot has a gait like he is walking a "tight rope" or that Wallace and co held on to a rope behind a truck to help them get a better stride length as his family and those that helped him are claiming (not to mention the ridiculous double ball feature)?

The bottom line is that claimed bigfoot tracks aren't going to convince science in general for good reasons.

cryptomundo.com...













edit on 26-9-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

edit on 27-9-2015 by fishy6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Paranthropus Boisei, a branch that departed the Sapiens line of evolution about 2.3 million years ago.
It had a sagittal crest (which humans don't) which would be the conehead look of a bigfoot and supported massive jaws good for chewing. It was specialized for forest dwelling and would explain why it didn't go extinct as it did not compete directly with us. It was smaller but in a few million years it may can easily have evolved a larger body size.

Not fully human though as lacking in recent evolution of human language and the related ability to communicate technical information for culture and tool use. So the reason they don't talk so well or have spears, campfires, or live in complex social structures mostly moving as family groups.

It was very strong though, like bigfoot.

Here is a link.
www.sci-news.com...
edit on 28-9-2015 by cryptic0void because: wonderful world of Oz



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Mysterious Disappearances With David Paulides , Missing 411




posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
None of your videos are working.

a reply to: fishy6



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Will try again.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   




top topics



 
27
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join