When Bigfoot is proved to be a real animal by whatever means (body,DNA,etc..) and is fully recognized by the scientific community, how much other real evidence will people bring forth ? How many people will finally bring out their photos,castings, film or hair that they have been keeping secret for fear of ridicule ? Or do you think if they had any they would have shown it already ? My opinion is somebody's "Uncle Bob" has something Bigfoot related they have been keeping hidden all these years until the proof was absolute . Of course you will get some fake stuff with the real but that’s human nature .

No reason to. If someone had evidence, they would/should reveal it for scrutiny

I don't beleive there is any significant body of "proof" (a body, definitive tissue samples, etc) out there undiscovered, per se. I do believe however, that various and sundry researchers aren't revealing everything that they know/have witnessed/have been told, either out of courtesy to landowners, etc, or out of "self interest" in protecting what they feel is "their" research area. I also think it at least possible, that some gov't agencies (Forestry Service, et al) are deliberately ignoring BF data that they come across as part of their normal duties.

B.S.

SpikeDog, I'd bet that you're right.

That is just sooooo funny. People will and do not tell things for many reasons. The biggest right now as far as Bigfoot goes is that people would say it was faked or they are just plain nuts.
Most people care what others think about them. Personally I care less lol but then I am not most people. But the truth is most people out there care what others think about them and do not want to look foolish. Telling people they believe in Bigfoot is just the ticket to make people think bad about them.

I bet there may be a few photos, casts, or even video out there.

Hey SpikeDog - Where the hell you been all these years? ha

laying low and driving the back roads of the Cascade foothills near Carnation, Monroe, etc..

There was another Spikedog posting so maybe you are thinking of him but thanks for asking anyways !

maybe the government is..

Personally, I believe that there is a LOT of evidence out there. I also believe that "proof" of BFs existance won't bring much more out than we already have.

I've a hard time believing conclusive evidence exists that hasn't already been brought forward.

Supplemental yet fascinating evidence? Most certainly! Think of the wealth of items we all could be discussing. Fascinating, compelling, intriguing and infinitely interesting discussion could be the expectation should BF be conclusively proven.

Oh, and the bulk of that conversation would happen right here, on BFF!

Ditto what norcal said. Lot of evidence, but evidence and proof are completely different things.

What one considers evidence, others may think it's crap.
Now if you could provide this...
Click to view attachment

Now that would be proof!

Wickie, reminds me of a girl I dated back in the 70's.

The same girl as before?

Hard to say. When they look like that, they all just blend together into one big bad memory.

Hi

I am starting to get the feeling that while ~ Norcal ~ Being out there in the wilderness doing his job with his trusty chain saw and logger ways might have possibly ( And this is just a thought ) Made contact with a female * Gulp * You know what and had relations

Peace
Tim

This is a valid concern and point. I think its possible. Especially if its near someone's home. Us backwoods folks dont want reporters, thrill seekers and other goofball idiots knocking on doors and sniffing around.

The ridicule factor is also a HUGE issue. But, it it were me, I'd LOVE to shut up the weakminded scoffers with full disclosure and have an idea how to do it where the Feds wouldnt try to get involved...

I think there's some info out there though...for sure.

Hi

This is a valid concern and point. I think its possible. Especially if its near someone's home. Us backwoods folks dont want reporters, thrill seekers and other goofball idiots knocking on doors and sniffing around.


Well ! I ask ya ~ What the heck are we city folks going to do if you backwoods folks don't want us running around and making fools out of ya for believing in Bigfoot,


Peace
Tim

If BF were shown to be a variety Homo sapien, them various privacy laws would apply within the USA jurisdiction. Maybe that is why we don't ever hear anything from the authorities.

On the other hand, if BF were shown to be an earlier species of Homo, it is not clear whether such laws would apply.

In the US and Canada BF bones that are thought to be Homo are probably just handed over to the tribes for reburial. Unless someone really has a good look at them and decides they're more significant/ancient, in which case they still may be handed over. Look at what happened to Kennewick Man (and others).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

That's why, if you find such bones, you should tell the authorities (when you have to) that you thought they were bear, moose (or other big animal) bones. Plead ignorance, but make sure asap to take lots of pictures, measurements and maybe a molar tooth, and keep them safely stowed before calling authorities. You WILL have to call in authorities at some point. It might be a good idea later to publish the data anonymously on the internet because they will demand to have everything, and may even make you with all the legal force they can muster. So you want the info to become public as soon as possible. Unfortunately that means you forfeit making a buck off it. Well too bad for you, you shouldn't be in it for the money anyway. Money will be made later in requests for interviews, seminars, books, etc.

I think there is probably some stuff out there. Esp. in places that are rural. I have relatives up in Aroostook County , Maine and the folks up there are reaaaally private especially when it comes to "outsiders" even those from other parts of New England. I can see someone, maybe an "old timer", having some proof like this in a town like, say Easton, Maine or whatever, and never mentioning a word to anyone outside of family.

Must be lonely in them hills

I've read a lot of baloney on this site and try not to say anything but this is probably the worst advice I have read. If you find human remains, do not disturb them and call the authorities. In many states it is a felony to do anything to them. People with the proper scientific background to correctly identify the remains will be present and if you move the remains you contaminate the scene rendering accurate dating or any verifiable evidence nearly impossible and absolutely uncredible.

Not only that, these remains are of a human being. Treat them with the respect they deserve. What if somebody dug up your grandma? You'd probably want to make sure the remains were treated with respect and given the proper burial. Just because you find native American ancient bones doesn't make them any less deserving of respect than your own body.

Look, if you happen to find squatch bones, they will be easily identified as not being human and will get the attention they deserve. Chances are you found somebodies ancestor or worst yet somebodies child that is the victim of foul play, do the right thing.

Advising others to lie to authorities, especially with something having to do with human mortality, is very unethical.

They wont be easy to identify from a tooth or vertebrae

Nonsense, bones and teeth are the best sources of DNA.

First off,
I think there is a lot of info. out there that people are not telling or showing..
Some one sitting at a computer and thinking they have the right to know what others have worked for is a load of crap. There is not one field person who is obligated to share anything with anyone they don't want to.
Over the last 10 years or so, people have use the be reasonable, if you can't show it your full of bs, review by others is the correct way to do it and other equally self motivated dribble to extract and extort the work of field investigators.
So, right up front, field researchers don't owe anyone anything. Those that choose to share what they have do so for their own reasons, but in no way are others entitled to that information.

And if you find bones that you think might be human, tell someone. Even thought the NA are claiming bones that they have no right to, they are putting them back to rest. (granted a lot of the time for political reasons) But, like was mentioned it was some one at some time, so show a little respect. (strange concept in this souless world of today)

Brad

Well that is simple :-) stay in them cities.

Then why havent we extracted dna from young gigantopithecus?

The FOSSIL teeth, you mean?

Probably because those Giganto teeth are more than 300,000 years old. If you find anything resembling a human or hominid that dates at 300,000 years old, it will definitely get the attention it warrants. But your point is lost, though, in that Giganto teeth are very different from human teeth and that Giganto is identified as a species by it's teeth and jaws.

But if you try hard enough, you might come up with a justification for grave robbing and desecrating human remains.

Classifying any organism from teeth is ambigious compared to dna testing, which is 100% accurate in determining lineage.

I ain't fallin' for no banana in the tailpipe.

Yah, and he's hiding evidence (the XXX videos and pics).

Hi

Crap ! I didn't write my self in a loophole on this post * Better watch out ~ micahn ~ I'll remember this and be on the look out for something to get ya back with

Pull one over on and old city guy will ya !

Peace
Tim

SWEET!

Giganto on the left and bottom, human on the right top corner. This is far from ambiguous.

A picture is worth a 1000 words. You cant put a species on a certain branch of species without a DNA test! DNA testing is 100% dead on.

Ok, first off, what is your point?

I tell you if you find human looking remains to call the authorities and not to move them or remove or hide pieces of them, and let people with the proper experience and knowledge handle and identify them.

You tell me it is not easy to identify a species by teeth or vertebrae.

I tell you that bones and teeth are the best sources of DNA, and that is how they can be identified.

You ask me then why we haven't been able to get DNA from Gigantopithecus teeth.

I tell you it's because the Giganto teeth we have are older than 300,000 years old, but it doesn't matter, chances are you'd be lucky to find any hominid bones older than 50,000 years old, in fact it would be a sensation if you found anything 9000 years old. It's possible you can get DNA from that.

Regardless, Giganto teeth are well documented and are different than human teeth. We have samples of them, if they are found in North America and are too old or do not give up DNA we can still identify them.

You then tell me you can't identify a species based on teeth, and provide nothing to back up your claim, which is absolutely false. I even show you an image comparing Giganto teeth and human teeth and how different they are, and that Giganto's identification as a species is totally based on teeth and jaws.

The identification of a species from teeth is valid and has been used for years. Look up Gen Suwa.

Species identification and taxonomy has been going on for more than a hundred years before genetics got to the point where they could lend aid.

Provide something to back up your claims.

Anyways, this seems to be a circular argument with no real aim or purpose, just random grabs from thin air.

But back to what your point is. What is it you are trying to say? That it is ok to break the law and keep pieces of human remains because of your mistaken opinion that you cannot identify a species from it's teeth?

Well, I guess I had that coming, but in all seriousness, I dated a lot of really nice, sweet and cute ladies back in the 70's and I married the nicest, sweetest and most beautiful of them all. And now I have nice, sweet and cute grandkids. Life is good. (but I will continue to expose myself by making jokes about that most lonely and exciting time of my life)

And Bluebear: Huh?

Have fun, Norcal

I AM talking about something you suspect are sasquatch bones or remains. Of course if it is obvious recent or achaeological human remains the authorities are called right away. I didn't say you don't, just make sure you document it well before you do. Easily done with a tape measure and camera. You don't have to mess with things too much. And I don't think squatch bones would be easily differentiated from human bones, think about it. Size would be the biggest factor. And size per se does not disqualify remains from being NA or recent human ones.

No, if it looks human you don't mess with it. You call the authorities and let them handle it. You don't measure it, you don't pull dirt off of it and take photos, you don't pull pieces out and "Not mess with it too much". Here's what you said:



Bolding mine. Look Keneweick man is obviously human, and if you find anything like Kennewick man don't mess with it, call authorities. If you don't know the difference call the authorities. Don't store it somewhere, don't move it. DONT keep molars or body parts. In fact, even if you think it's squatch bones don't mess with it. If these are ancient bones than their placement in the earth is very important to dating them and also their veracity. Don't lie to the authorities by saying you thought they were bear or moose, don't put off calling them.

Here's the deal. If human remains are found an archeologist is called in. There are particular traits that modern humans have developed that make their bones identifiable. Contrary to comments made here on the forums, each species of Homo and Australopithecus have specific traits in their bones that they developed that make them identifiable as a species, and we're not just talking about size. Archeologists are trained to recognize these, and if something falls outside of their expertise or looks weird they call in somebody who would know better. If you know nothing about human anatomy or very little about human evolution, or pretend you know on the internet, don't start screwing with things, call the authorities. You could be screwing up the discovery of sasquatch on one end, to doing the most likely scenario of violating human remains on the other.

No, there is very little to no chance that sasquatch bones were given back to Native American tribes. Bones that were given back were studied first by biological anthropologists. If sasquatch exists it has characteristics that would differentiate it from modern humans morphologically, and in this day and age with genetics so commmonly used would be given testing that would absolutley not be modern human.

This is especially true if you're talking about things like sagittal crests and midtarsal breaks and inhuman limb ratios. These changes in the body are not localized, they affect the entire skeleton.

Different species of hominids do have different shapes and sizes and different enamel thicknesses than humans. These traits are studied and identifiable. You have to understand, if sasquatch has a sagittal crest it has HUGE teeth. It has HUGE cheek bones. It has a HUGE jaw. There's no way it would be mistaken for a human by somebody who knows what they are looking for.

I know, it's probably going to be brought up that Curt Nelson studied DNA and found it was modern human with one chimp marker in it on Monsterquest. Look, that means it was probably contaminated. It doesn't work like that. Basically what you are saying is that sasquatch is a modern human that all of a sudden grabbed one chimp gene from somewhere. It just doesn't happen that way. look at Neanderthal genes, there are a variety of markers that differentiate them from modern humans, and that is about as close as you're going to get in regards to sasquatch's relation to humans.

I could not have said it better wolftrax.

I am a trained archaeologist/anthropologist. I regularly identify bones for the local police/sheriff departments and I STILL use manuals and comparatives to identify remains and/or common animal bones. Outside of a skull being present, it is very difficult to know what you are looking at (bear hand bones are often mistaken for human). No archaeologist/anthropologist worth their salt is going to hide the most significant find this world has ever known. Have some faith - and don't commit a possible felony otherwise.

You're making assumptions about what sasquatch remains would be like. What if it is a juvenile? What if they are more humanlike in form than adult males? What if there is a high degree of sexual dimorphism, and only the males exhibit large jaws, saggital crests, etc.?

I'm not convinced about the proposed morphology of the midtarsal break and other supposed limb modifications. What if BF is an evolved form of neanderthals? Their DNA might be similar enough to modern human that, depending on the type of test that is done (if any) there could be confusion. Who's to say the DNA tests will be done, and that they will be thorough?

And do you really think that having called the authorities, you as a sasquatch researcher would ever see that specimen again? Believe me, if I was pretty certain of it as a BF vs. a human, I'd be taking a molar if I could do it discreetly as possible. I'm not talking ripping out a tooth with pliers from a still articulated skeleton, but if they're loose already, because of decay, and they've got a matching one on the other side, and you're not disturbing anything else, I don't see why not. And you bet I WOULD take lots of pictures and get them online. I've read enough about covert interference with other BF researchers to make sure the info goes public as soon as possible.

I'm not interested in making a buck off such a discovery, I'm interested in getting the creature acknowledged. I think the people here would thank me for it. And as someone who's watched others make discoveries, it is amazing how often the first person to make the discovery is forgotten while the pontificating "experts" get all the credit. Boo hiss!

You're going to take internet hearsay, conspiracy theories, and wild speculation and use it as an excuse to commit what would clearly be a crime if the remains proved to be human? After your defense attorney gets finished beating you be sure to tell him/her there were matching parts to the ones you took.

Hi

If i was to come across a body or parts or even a melting pot of something i was unsure of in the woods or else wear , I would have to say i would try to get something from it to bring back to the police or others, Most of the crimes solved in missing persons come from regular folks just waking around and stumbling onto something, Now being me and not putting much trust into anyone that has a position to use things as they seem fit, I would always have a sample for myself to keep just in case . . . . Now if that seems a bit out there then let it be, I try to always have a back up
Peace
Tim

No I'm not making any assumptions. Sagittal crests are given as a description of sasquatch, but they very well could not have it.

But no, you're misunderstanding how it works in a species. If you have a sagittal crest, even if only in males, you're going to have large jaws and teeth, and that will be the same in juveniles and females.

Either way, you should play the safe route and allow somebody who has the knowledge to analyze them do so without you digging in and messing it all up.



I have a relative who has been currently going to trial. We sat in on the arraignment, and half of the 20 something cases had DNA testing done. This is something that is so common now it's ridiculous.

I think you need to learn a little about genetic testing to realize how thorough the test will be. First off, by determining species, and then determining race. You have to understand the genetic markers for race developed after our species did. They find the genetic marker for Native American, then that totally excudes sasquatch. Not only that, you're going to start seeing genetic markers for sasquatch that is going to make the examiner scratch his head and then it's going to go to other areas to identify it.

You also really need to understand apomorphies in species. Basically, when a species separates and becomes it's own species, it will develop changes in it's morphology that will differentiate it from others.

For instance, let's say that sasquatch evolved from a Neanderthal. Ok, Let's say a skull is found, how am I going to know it's a Neanderthal skull and not a modern human?

Well first of all it's got a lower and longer skull form front to back. Ok, easy enough. Next it has a larger and thick brow ridge, it has a marked and uninterrupted supraorbital tori that is arched over each eye vs. straight and bar-like. The supraorbital torus is pneumatized by enlarged frontal air synuses. It has a big nose. It has a pronounced occipital region, or bun, basically it has a bun on the back of the skull that is especially identifiable of this species.

What about the femur? Well, let's see, it has a cortex that is thicker on the medial side of the shaft at mid-shaft vs. on the lateral side as in modern humans.

These are only a few of the things that are identifiable from morphology alone.




Ok hate to burst your bubble here but you take pieces from a body and it's human, you're not going to be much of a hero behind bars.



Alright, here's the thing. You guys have to wake up here. You find a body, and you start pulling pieces of it off, and it's human, you're committing a felony. And, c'mon, it's just plain morbid. Tim, you seem like a decent person, I just couldn't see you doing this.

I don't think you guys have any real idea what you are talking about doing here. I think you've been so involved in this whole sasquatch scam you have lost touch with reality.

Alright, let me lay it out in a real life experience scenario for you so you can understand the weight of what you are talking about.

I grew up in the Auburn area of Washington state. So one day, this kid I knew was playing in a ravine. This ravine was right off a road that lead from Highway 18. It was wooded, and lead to a hill that was all forest. It was fun to play there and a good place where you would think sasquatch could be.

So this kid is playing, and he kicks something that rolls over from under some leaves. It's a skull. He looks down and around him, and starts to realize pieces of bone are sticking out of the ground.

Now, according to what you are saying here, you're going to kneel down and start digging around, taking bones out and measuring them, and then take a molar or piece of bone for yourself, and then call the authorities.

Well, he goes home and tells his parents, who then call the authorities. They check it out, and as it turns out this was a young lady who was a victim of the Green River Killer.

She was somebodies daughter. Do any of you have a daughter? You don't want that happening to her. And you sure as hell don't want some vulture coming and taking pieces of her, especially for some foolish idea that she could have been a sasquatch. Yeah, you're really going to understand that "End justifies the means" crusade.

So what are you going to do at this point? Are you going to give back that piece you stole of that girl? Or are you going to keep a trophy piece like a psychopath? What, you're going to throw it away with the trash?

So that is what's going on here.

Ten years ago when I was more idealistic, I would have found it hard to understand why anyone would willingly hold back information/evidence/proof even (gasp!) of the existence of an unknown creature that has such a rich history in folklore and tribal culture (this goes for every continent, not just the one I'm in).

Now, after having read and spoken with a number of field researchers who are doing their darndest to obtain the same, and heard what they have to say about the way human beings are, I am no longer so idealistic to assume everyone thinks the way I do.

People see odd things. They may keep it to themselves, or only tell it to close friends/family members. It's easy to see why. People talk. And people are not always respectful of others' opinions or views, which can lead to a huge blowout of emotion where the reportee can be variously accused of being a) drunk at the time on drugs of some kind c) mental or d) imagining things, and therefore of unsound mind. All of these alternatives would have a major impact on your social standing in the community, because there is always that element of society who get their kicks by stirring things up. Sadly, they are usually the most vocal, too.

I've heard of reports of forestry staff finding 'something' in the bush, or that story about someone shooting one or more cryptids, and then hiding the body/ies because they said they didn't want to be accused of being murderers and just plain didn't want the hassle of going through the media circus and the public examination and character assessment that would most likely result.

Imagine if the conspiracy people are right? For whatever reason the Powers That Be don't want to have this sort of thing known to the public, I imagine they could make things pretty hot for a reportee. I'm not saying this from personal experience, but you have to consider all options. Assume, then, that the Government doesn't give a fig if you tell everyone you saw a Yeti/Yowie/BF - in this day and age, having a photo or video means squat - there are too many hoaxers out there, and too many Industrial Light and Magic level skilled folks out there who could made a hoax appear to be very real.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to trust. If you aren't willing to take the risk of having your word taken as true, you won't tell anyone, will you? And that goes for photos etc too.

Aussie Aussie

Hi

( If i was to come across a body or parts or even a melting pot of something i was unsure of in the woods or else wear )

My words might be unclear on that sentence from my last post, So i'll put it this way

If i thought it was human for " sure " i wouldn't touch it . . . In fact i am pretty sure i would be gagging, I have seen a few dead body's and i don't like it, If i was sure it was not a human i would be ok checking it out, I can deal with road kill and have seen a few mushy remains of dogs and what i think was a coyote and i was ok with that, I guess it is one of those things were you have to be there in order to decide what your going to do, I have faith in my morals and respect that i would make the right decision

Peace
Tim

Hey spike...I am just a stones throw from you near duval road..Those are some wicked back roads over there near carnation.

The problem would be that there's nothing to compare it to. The DNA will come back as an unknown primate, which doesn't mean much. It's the same problem with DNA studies of Native Americans to establish their lineage: there's no 10,000 year old Asian DNA to compare it to from each Asian tribe or group. They can get close, but the best they can do is Northern Asian or Southern Asian (there's more, these are just the examples that come to mind.)

DNA isn't the end-all, be-all.

Tom