Man claims to have found Bigfoot skull

a reply to: butcherguy

I take it you didn't read my OP statement that I too think it is a rock?
Oh
My
God

Someone ranting without all the information. Typical I guess.

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

It's probably just a rock. I, however, do not know for certain.

You might be right.

The one photo ( this one ) has a thing that looks like it could be a resin-coated hunk of paper mache'.

It might just be a fake rock.

After reading the link you provided in the op.

It's a rock.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: butcherguy

I take it you didn't read my OP statement that I too think it is a rock?
Oh
My
God

Someone ranting without all the information. Typical I guess.

Well, I read your OP.
I understood it.
You line was not hidden about what you suspected it to be.

Now answer this:
Where did I blame YOU for thinking that it wasn't a rock?????????
Please show me.... Please.

butcherguy

Anything is possible, right? Including the original claim, in my opinion. I guess we'll have to wait and see if any actual academic investigation is employed. Proving the veracity of his claim should be easy. Especially if it is paper maché.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: butcherguy

I take it you didn't read my OP statement that I too think it is a rock?
Oh
My
God

Someone ranting without all the information. Typical I guess.

Just to be clear, my 'rant' is about the freaking guy picking up a rock and claiming it is something exotic.
I hope that it doesn't become a freaking new hobby for a lot of people.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I believe your flippant and sarcastic remark where you said:

I starred and flagged....
Because we need everyone to see a potential problem on the horizon... Rocks.

Seems to indicate that you are against someone posting a story that REQUIRES some discussion here, but are upset that your closed mind automatically, without any first-hand knowledge, and any empirical data, can arrogantly dismiss this entire genre of stories. At least with this story, we can actually PHYSICALLY inspect and test whether it is just a rock. Mars rock do not have that advantage, and can be dismissed more easily since there is no known life on that particular rock. But, there is here....and there is a possibility, be it ever so small, that he is right. Therefore, simply dismissing it outright has showed your hand in these matters. You do not need to rely upon any empirical testing, do you? You KNOW it is a rock.

As I said, you lack all the information in making your claim.

Although i said in my earlier post, it's a rock, I'm still interested to see what kind it is or least willing to wait till tests are done.

originally posted by: FaunaOrFlora
I'd like to see some tests performed before poo-pooing his claim just outright.

Sure. We have a healthy economy. Let's test everybody's stupid claims.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Krakatoa

I believe your flippant and sarcastic remark where you said:

I starred and flagged....
Because we need everyone to see a potential problem on the horizon... Rocks.

Seems to indicate that you are against someone posting a story that REQUIRES some discussion here, but are upset that your closed mind automatically, without any first-hand knowledge, and any empirical data, can arrogantly dismiss this entire genre of stories. At least with this story, we can actually PHYSICALLY inspect and test whether it is just a rock. Mars rock do not have that advantage, and can be dismissed more easily since there is no known life on that particular rock. But, there is here....and there is a possibility, be it ever so small, that he is right. Therefore, simply dismissing it outright has showed your hand in these matters. You do not need to rely upon any empirical testing, do you? You KNOW it is a rock.

As I said, you lack all the information in making your claim.

I never pointed at you as being wrong.... or a problem.
You failed to point out where I did.

You see my edit as 'flippant'.
I wasn't being flippant.
I SERIOUSLY don't want to see a ton of news stories where every person that has an episode of pareidolia decides to claim that a particular rock is evidence of something that it isn't.
I hope that we don't see a lot of those type of news stories... but if we do, I hope that we don't give them all a spot on ATS.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: network dude

OK, thanks for the clarification. I think that logical side is "shaming" your creative side of your brain. I have ahd that happen too. But, you must defend your creative brain sometimes. If not, you run the risk of being completely closed minded. Keeping that in perspective, is also part of "making you a better man". If that rings true to you, brother.

I do apologize for not being more supportive of the "it's not a rock" theory, but in my defense, I actually did read the article and found this:


Now either it's a rock, or Bigfoot was super unhappy when he died. And I had to put that in perspective. Bigfoot doesn't have a job, He doesn't need one. He doesn't have a mortgage, doesn't need one. He can take a dump anywhere he wants. (even if he identifies as a bear one day) So, with all that going for him, I sincerely doubt bigfoot would be this unhappy. He should be smiling from ear to ear. Based on that logic, I conclude that said rock, it likely just a rock. If Tom Biscotti were to do some sort of testing on it, I'd change my tune in a quick skinny minute.

And brother, please don't take my humor as derogatory, it's how I keep from making that face you see on the rock Skull.


ETA: I think I have solved this conundrum. This is actually an implement from the future. It's a carving of one of Jeff Dunham's puppets.


notice the eerie resemblance?

a reply to: network dude

Understood. And, you did make me smile with that last post.
So mote it be.

I just want to point out that the OP is correct that there is a possibility that the object in question may just be a fossilized Bigfoot skull.
I don't want to dissuade people from bringing real evidence forward when they come upon some.

I must admit that I have serious reservations about this being anything more than a rock.

OK, now that everyone has gotten their "it's a rock" blurbs expressed, I wonder if anyone here knows this man, or is in the vicinity of him/it to know his history? Or, can do a first-person analysis of the item and report back here. If I were closer, I would surely take a little time to run over and check it out, if for nothing but a chuckle to actually make a definitive claim of ROCK (since I was really there and examined it).

Anyone?

Anyone who would wear a shirt like that in public, deliberately, needs to be put in a mental institution, no questions.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I just want to point out that the OP is correct that there is a possibility that the object in question may just be a fossilized Bigfoot skull.
I don't want to dissuade people from bringing real evidence forward when they come upon some.

I must admit that I have serious reservations about this being anything more than a rock.

I've never seen a skull with lips. Or even a lower jaw with no visible disconnect from the upper jaw. Or no teeth - maybe bigfoot has no moving jaw and therefore doesn't need teeth. I've never seen a fossilised skull that looks like a rock, though...

originally posted by: Krakatoa

However, unless we have someone perform actual scientific analysis of this interesting piece, probability states is is still just a rock.

Your thoughts ATS?

No lab worth its salt would waste its time testing that rock.

If it's a skull (it's not) where are the jaw bones, the skull sutures, the mineralised bones? Oh, I get it, the flesh was fossilised as well.


Here's another fossilised skull

Good lord, what madness is this?

IT'S A ROCK!

a reply to: Krakatoa

I too, think it is a rock but in trying to keep an open mind I can see where there are similarities to a humanoid type skull. Someone mentioned that it may even be a paper-mache' model of a rock. I do think I see on the left side of the skull (right side when viewing the video) that there almost looks to be some ear swirl markings, we know ears are cartilage on our own heads so I would suspect that it would be similar for a sasquatch and in that case the cartilage would have disappeared long before the fossilization process set in, unless some preservation such as the ash in Pompeii or some setting such as that like thick non-alkaline mud or something encased it. It would have had to be that way to preserve the facial expressions (flesh) as well. It is with this perspective that I must claim it more likely to be a rock. As far as weight goes a human skull when alive can weigh about 8-10 pounds, converted to rock I would think it closer to 45-50 than 75 given that most fossils are not granite or super dense material that I am aware of, this is not my area of expertise and I could be wrong.

Since most professionals will not touch this rock, and it has already been removed from its geologic position...has the man tried a simple tongue test? Does he even know about this?

You can even try a tongue test. The porous nature of some fossil bones will cause it to slightly stick to your tongue if you lick it, though you might want to have a glass of water handy if you feel compelled to try this.

Looks like a "Cardiff Giant"... (PT Barnum style hoax)