OK thanks Joesph

Being all the controversy applied around Campbell County my thoughts were wait a minute.... Tenn is working a Elk restock feverishly throughout the state.

So thanks again for the info.

Robert

That being make shitloads money by selling very bad software?

There is a possibility there are Elk there and you just don't know it yet Terry.

I just realized last year that there is a thriving population of Elk along one of the rivers here in Arkansas. That was a surprise to me, because I didn't realize Elk lived that far south.

So given that Arkansas is on the west side of Tennessee and there are already Elk on the east side of Tennessee, I find it quite plausible that Elk have wondered to your area as well.

ECWool, your photos look to me like a tree seam caused by a lightening strike. When we scale (measure) logs here in Ontario, we consider that a defect which lowers the log quality.

t.

Note I edited the title of the thread at Kathy's request.

[EDIT]

Nevermind...too disillusioned at the moment to respond properly.

Hey Martin,

On pg 243 of "Raincoast Sasquatch", J. Robert Alley mentions that the state lab that did the original analysis of the unknown hairs in 1988 threw them away when they couldn't identify them.



Anyone want to cover the cost of testing?


This is a fantastic book, and Alley looks to have been a very active researcher in Alaska - he tracks down an interviews witnesses to sightings, and attempts to corroborate incidents by interviewing all persons involved when there are multiple witnesses.

You can find info on the book here:

http://www.hancockhouse.org/products/raisas.htm

I looked through the book for contact info, but I must not have had enough coffee this morning - I can't find anything.

From the book website:

Author Biography:

Robert Alley has 30 years of interest in Sasquatches. In 1974-75 he worked with the late René Dahinden to delve into police sightings of Sasquatches in Washington state. Since 1989, he has been a field investigator with Alaska Bigfoot researchers and has been a member of Oregon-based Western Bigfoot Society since 1998.


I remember some excitement around here a few months back about an Alaskan guy who apparently had possible bf remains in his cabin - I wonder if J Robert Alley ever heard about this; he'd be in the perfect position to go check it out...

-Ray

Right-O!

I did not mean there were none in the whole state - just that there are none where I live.

In fact, there is a small herd only about 100 miles North of my place. They cannot wander, though - they are fenced and raised for meat by the Ahmish that live up that way.

No - hunting is HUGE around here - if there had ever been an elk in this area, it would have been seen. We have deer, turkey, even an occasional bear is spotted - but no elk yet.

Terry

Yes, i contacted him about it.. Unfortunately, it was right about the time when my hoax blew up on the boards, so when he emailed me about a week later asking me to contact Bipto and/or Leeloo, i had to explain to him that i'd been banned from the board for hoaxing. I did direct him to Bipto and Leeloo, but it was the last i heard of him and i'm guessing that he decided that the Alaska report was also something to do with my hoax.. unless Leeloo has heard from him?

Yes, more unfortunate repercussions of my actions.

-robo

We all supposed to learn from our mistakes Robo, I think your coming along nicely.

[Butthead]

Heh, heh...you dumbass.

[/Butthead]



Just razzin' ya', man. Like they say, that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger and since no one here killed you, looks like it worked.

Well, not YET anyway.


Just joshin' ya there Robo.

Jaylee, I may be the first fatality from this thread from laughing so hard at Fish and Robo
Peg

No reason to be disillusioned. My logic is she never intended to be linked to Mary Green. Her analysis was used by Green without her knowledge or consent (not that it would have been required, though it would have been a proper courtesy, IMO). Considering Green's reputation, a casual visitor might read the title and not the thread and come to an unintended conclusion. I did not remove Kathy's name from anywhere else than the title and did nothing to alter the content of the thread itself in any way.

If anyone thinks I made a mistake, I'd encourage you to PM me. As usual, I welcome the feedback.

Thanks Bipto -- I'll do that a little later, just need awhile to compose what I want to talk about in my head first.

Wise decision IMO Bip. Kathy didn't ask for any of the flack she took and she certainly doesn't deserve any continued negative inferences being drawn about her becuase of the MG connection.

I'm still upset that we seemed to have lost some good members, RB included, over this whole thing.

Just thought I would mention that there is a growing elk herd maintained by the NPS in Kentucky, which is five or so miles from the Tennessee state line. (NPS - National Park Service) As a matter of fact, this herd is in what is known as the Land Between the Lakes NP. Eventhough this is an enclosed herd and is strictly regulated, there may be some attrition due to management factors. Just thought I would mention this for reference.

LBLNP

Not Mary's fault.
As the landowner, I had a copy of the report.
I am the one that released it, and gave her permission to publish it.

In retrospect, I wish I would not have done so - but Kathy is a gracious lady and bears me no ill will over it.

But the END result is what I wanted - to get the information out there to the folks in the field, so they can be on the lookout for something like this; that is all I intended in the first place, before all the fireworks!

Terry

The pics I have below were taken by me in Louisiana. I'm not saying a squatch made them. I don't beleive nature did them either. Then again I can't eliminate a drunk bored cajun 8 miles in the woods from them entirely. The twin bow tops were secured by twisiting vines through the small limbs and wrapping around the trunk portion. When I cut these vines the trees sprang back upright. The formation looking teepee resembling thingy was a type of balancing act that utilized a small broken off top from a small green tree. The green tree is not growing out of the ground. The balancing act was also acheived by interlacing. When I've described these type things to others before I always used the term woven instead of interlacing. I'm not a word expert and have never really thought about it before but when someone uses a term like woven mat I picture something that is intended to be used over and over and over as well as maybe transportable and made by something with an intelligence that compares to ours. We didn't see these mats and such so maybe the people who gave the report used a word like woven when possibly interlaced randomly would have been a better description. I would also point out birds build nests and this is referred to as weaving. Birds are intelligent but what they are doing may be more complicated than what I have read here as well as seen with my own eyes.

pic 2

Hey, maybe the bigfeet stole them from the indians. Hell, if they will steal tampons, a little ole woven mat wouldn't be nothin'. Damn theivin' bigfeet.

Bigfoots Bigfeets Bigfooti what is the plural proper?
and no one say FURBALLS

It's not Mary's fault? Hmm. You might be right Terry. From Mary's 'website', an exerpt from her statement regarding the 'bark ball':



Tell us Terry, is this statement true or not?

Alright Robo, you have a chance now to put LeeLoo and
Bipto in touch with Mr. Alley. You still have his contact info
right? Pass it along. You don't have to talk to Alley if you
think it may cause problems but LL should definitely get
ahold of him, and the B-man can back her just in case.

This is far too good an opportunity to lose

The statement is essentially true, with a minor correction:

The ball was not touched by anyone until the BFRO investigator was here, and he is the one that actually picked it up and brought it down to the house after being shown it's location by our grandson.

The investigator asked us to ship it, which Judy did without removing it from the plastic bag he had placed it in.

After it was shipped, we were told by the BFRO not to tell anyone about it, which is pretty much standard boilerplate concerning anything going on here. Judy argued with them this time, telling them that she thought this information needed to be out in the field.

She NEVER agreed to keep it quiet.

I'm not real sure what you are driving at here, but did that answer the question?

Terry

I'm driving at the truth. Yes, that answered my question. Thank you Terry. I figured there was a "minor correction" floating around in there somewhere.

Ampat
On Marys website she states (if I understand it correctly) there were more than one paper sent to you by Cathy. One stateing there was hair samples and the final one that states there wasnt any hair samples. Could you please clarify this.
Peg

I apologize if I have given anyone grief on this thread, or on this forum for that matter. It was never my intent. Carry on, and best wishes to all.
Clay

Sure, Peg -

I think I see the source of any such confusion.
If you will go to page one of this marathon thread, you will find Kathy posts her report in the third post.
In the beginning of that report, she sets out the method of examination, and says that any "hairs" were examined under 10X magnification. Later on, she says that no hairs were found.
She put hairs in quotes to indicate SUSPECTED hairs. In the final analysis, none turned out to be actual hair.

Terry

I think we all are driving at the truth.

And I certainly do consider who carried the artifact to the house to be a minor correction.

Terry

Bipto said:


That cedar ball is alot more Kathy's than it is Mary Green's.

Martin

I hesitate to jump into this, as I am a casual observer who comes by every now and then, with no knowledge of any consequence to share with the forum. But I do know Ricky Idlett (he is my stepson), the "BFRO investigator" who arrived on the scene. I called him this morning to let him know about this thread (he hasn't been doing much "investigating" for the last couple of years, so I was sure he hadn't seen this discussion himself). He told me he wasn't aware of the controversy, but that he would check it out. I hope he posts here himself, if for no other reason than to clairify his own actions. He also told me that he had been to this location a number of times (AmPat's farm), including once with my granddaughter and once with my wife. I can tell you this -- Ricky is honest and sincere, and is able to sort fantasy from reality. I hate to see his name associated with anything but forthright effort to solve some of the mysteries of the forest.

Davis

At this time the title of the thread is probably a bit moot. The report should have been titled on Mary's board along the lines of "Has anyone seen anything like this" rather than in the manner it was. It came off then and now as a conspiracy to conceal squatch evidence to me and still does. What anyones reasoning was for concealing it I don't know but may be legitimate. Several contest what the darn thing is and still do but Kathy's report did say matter of factly there is nothing saying a squatch made it or was even near it.
As far as Mary being experienced AMPAT, sure, she's been at this a long time. Experience doesn't mean someone has all the answers nor does it make the answers they have correct. If the experienced person tries to make you think they are always right and have a following as well I would start thinking along the lines of arrogance. As someone stated in another post banging on a tree has been done for years. So has screaming or playing sounds and a multitude of other things. Mary didn't discover any of them. It does seem peculiar, of the many folks in this field how come the ONLY ones who can hear a squatch speak a native american tongue are "the chosen few" in Tennessee? You guys got special squatch there? The only thing new that has come from Mary is the slant on romanticism.

I don't like the term "Romantc" or "Romanticism" when it's applied to talking bigfoots and faked stories. Especially when the author/investigator perpetrates the story as truth. I don't call it romantic. I call it BS.


IMHO

Your thoughts are admirable. At least you want to share what you can and for that, you are to be commended. Even if it turns out not to be bigfoot related, you tried.

Thanks... I just wish you had chosen someone other than who you chose to get the word out.

Arkansan, we were indeed only trying to further the research effort into this. Why anyone wishes to keep such evidence secret used to completely escape me - but then I am just naturally an open person.

After spending some period of time all around these groups, I conclude that it would make no difference whatsoever. Right now, this group is talking about Mary Greens group, Mary Greens group is talking about this group, this group is talking about EB and friends, and EB has a thread going where they are talking about you.
It appears that, no matter WHERE something is released, most other groups will trash it if it was not released by them first.
Such infighting and politics are simply beyond me -
But it sure makes me understand those researchers that do it strictly for themselves, on their own, and keep everything locked up tight. It is for self preservation.
If 10% of the energy currently being expended in trashing each other were spent on actual research of this creature, it would already be photographed, recorded, catalogued, and have preserves set up to protect it.

Davis, I am glad to hear from you. We were both pleased to have met both your Mrs. and your grandaughter -
Ricky is NOT the one responsible for the effort to keep this item quiet; to the best of my knowledge, that came from somewhere on high in the BFRO heirarchy, and was passed on to us by another researcher (there have been several here over the years).
Ricky, as a matter of fact, has an eye for things that don't fit. He spotted some things here that both Judy and I walked right past without a second glance - until they were pointed out to us. He has a real talent for investigative research.
I consider Ricky's investigative efforts to be excellent, and above all reproach.

Here is the link:
http://www.tnbigfootlady.com/TBL/specialwtn.html

It is titled "Special Report from West Tennessee"

You think that implies a conspiracy to conceal squatch evidence? That sure doesn't read that way to me.

BFRO (NOT Ricky, for the record!) absoluetly told us to keep this quiet. We disagreed with that at the time, and still do. Research is not furthered by concealing evidence. Oh I know, you don't think it is evidence; that is certainly your right. It is the right of those that claim it is a cow cud, in spite of the fact that no cows were on that land for over twenty years. It is the right of those that claim it is an Elk cud, in spite of the fact that there are no Elk here. In spite of all that, I see no reason to hide it.

Can I claim that BF made this? Absolutely not. Can I claim that BF was near this? Absolutely. We have had sightings within 25 yards of this spot.

I have never heard a squatch speaking a Native American dialect. I have heard one snort, I have heard one walk, I have heard one duplicate tree whap's, I have heard one give a repeated cry that panicked a deer who is normally very calm and tame - and didn't do me any good either.

As to all these other things - please consider this:
Alex is a parot who can communicate with people. He can identify shapes, colors, food, and a TON of other things. Should one visiting the Amazon expect the parots to be able to do this?
Bonzo wore bib overalls. He really did, I have seen him. Does that mean one should expect other chimps to naturally wear bib overalls?
We once had a dog that learned that if she scratched THAT spot beside the door, a bell would ring and we would let her in. Should you expect stray dogs to ring your doorbell if they want in?
We have fed the deer long enough here in our yard that, just two nights ago when we were out late, several came up on the step and were rattling the door with their noses when we arrived home. Should you expect the deer in your area to come up and bang your door if they are hungry?

If a sasquatch were raised by a human being from a very early age, why would they not pick up human traits? Are you assuming that they have less intelligence than a deer, a dog, a chimp or a parrot?

Like I said - if we could re-channel all this energy, we might accomplish great things.

AMPAT said:


Yes Terry I do, when the intro contains this:



especially after it was stated the agreement to keep silent was made only when the thing was sent in. No one said anything about an agreement of silence after the report was made by Kathy that I recall. I for one see no reason myslf to keep it a secret any longer after an inspection unless there is something going on we are all ignorant of. And it's being treated as "important evidence" is misleading in my opinion. The fact that there is squatch there by your testimony is great. Thats relevent. The fact one was seen 25 yds from where the thingy was found isn't unless the squatch was seen to drop it. And again, Kathys report found nothing to link it to squatch nor did the investigator who came there. I've found something I've never heard of also but I don't claim a squatch did it even though I've seen squatch there.click here.Who knows who or what did it. Not me. I for one don't consider it an important find. I didn't see a squatch or anything else poke the stick in the tree fungus. You nor anyone else saw a squatch drop the cedar thingy, nor wad it up nor pee on it. As far as training animals to do things, sure, I can concede that point. But I've never seen a parrot teach itself a language to communicate with humans or any other critter. As far as EB talking about us, hmmph, EB will talk about anyone he finds just to be able to put something on his message board. He's talked to himself for days on end. I'm not speaking for anyone else concerning Mary and Janice, only myself. When anyone makes a claim that is new and flat refuses to back it up with proof other than" cuz I saw it" I'm gonna question it. Especially when the claims include the individual had conversations with the things and isn't the most fantastic claim made. Some folks are easy to convince. I'm not. If the folks in Marys group want to talk about anyone because they want proof positive before they beleive a claim and are willing to argue the claim, cool.

Thank you, AmPat, for joining the discussion to such an extent. Enlightening about the non-disclosure stuff. Hmmm. I know there are pluses and minuses to keeping things under wraps, but the info sure needs to come out eventually. Leads to bad feelings and all this distrust. Right?


And thank you everyone else....I'm exhausted trying to keep up with this. I hope all participants take the time to rest up and come back (if you've left!!) Please!

Fletch, I have said this several times, I have reiterated it, I have been questioned on it and have expanded and explained it, but it just isn't comeing through, apparently.

there was NEVER ANY AGREEMENT TO KEEP SILENT!!!

Neither Judy nor I would EVER reveal anything which we had agreed to keep silent on. That's just the way it is.

The BFRO TOLD us to keep quiet about it, and they said that AFTER it was sent in to them. Being told to do something is NOT the same as agreeing to do it. We said at the time we thought this needed to get out. BFRO disagreed. That is how it was left. We waited to see what the BFRO was planning to do with this, NOT because we had said we would wait, but just to give them a chance to do what we think is the right thing and release it.

No conspiracy - no agreement - just a report that was not released by them, so it was released by us.

You are free to disregard it as squatch related. What we did is at least let you have a look at what was found, and decide for yourself.

That, by the way, is an interesting find.

But tell me - if you don't find it important, and don't think it is squatch related - why do you have it up with the other pictures on your site, all of which are squatch related?

I agree - we do not KNOW if that is a squatch tool -
We do not KNOW if ours is a sasquatch tampon (I enjoyed that one most of all!), or anything else.

But both are unusual - both are unexplainable by normal means - and both are in an area of squatch activity. That alone is reason enough to circulate them for others to look at, and keep an eye out for.

Now - looking at that worn, almost polished stick reminds me of something else we noticed. The rocks (large limestone bedrock blocks extending out of the hillsides here) are covered with moss. Only newly exposed rock is clean of it. We have found areas where large patches (several square feet) of moss has been scraped off of the bedrock. It is gone; it did not die and peel off, because then it would be laying on the ground at the base of the block.

Now - if I used a stick to scrape moss off of rocks, it would sharpen and polish it like that -

You might want to look around there and see if there is evidence of rock scraping in that area. The fungus in the tree might have just made a nice soft spot to jam it when not in use - - -

We did some checking and found moss has some dietary and midicinal value, so we thought maybe squatch scraped it off for that - -

But at LEAST we can discuss these possibilities now; something we could NOT do without it being published for others to look at!

I didn't say I didn't think it was related. I can't PROVE it was related. I don't know if it's important or not. I just don't think it is. The stick thingy page I made up and posted on several boards when I first found it asking if anyone had seen anything like it several days before linking it to the site. What I asked was simple, the post said, was in the woods and found this,[gave link here] anyone ever seen anything like it? It's the same page BTW. I didn't change anything. Also if you didn't read the text on the pics page it says:


and the link button is thus "tool?"

If you want a website you gotta put something on it to make it interesting. Plus, you just did what I intended for to be done and thats contact me and ask me why did I put it up there if it isn't proof. If I stuck to proof of squatch I wouldn't be able to have a web page.

AMPATsaid:
Sorry I didn't catch it in the last post. In South Louisiana if you want a rock your gonna have to have it Fed exed in. They ain't here. The stick wasn't polished btw, the fungus it was stuck in was moist and it soaked into the wood. The point did appear to be ground down though in some fashion.

you know, AmPat, regarding your earlier post about infighting among groups and 'it doesn't matter which group i used to make the info public', i agree with you entirely except for a nitpicky point which i nonetheless feel is important. This is 'the credibility issue'.

Your view seems to be that all groups are more or less equal. Mary and her supporters, the BFRO and their supporters, EB and his imaginary friends etc. If we would all just cooperate and get along, everything would be peachy. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and the current acrimony between the groups didn't start because we are nasty people and like fighting. It's got a long history.

If everyone trusted everyone else, both in terms of honesty and judgement, then your utopian ideal would work out. The problem is that certain groups have rather bad records. EB is the most obvious target, because he is an out and out loony. He is almost certainly in need of psychiatric treatment, with his completely delusional and self-aggrandizing antics an diatribes. I'm not saying this to be nasty, he is just an individual with a mental illness and an obsession with Bigfoot (and just about everything else paranormal). Should we welcome his evidence (mostly blurry blob photos containing, by his claims, dozens of Bigfoot under every leaf and in every shadow)? Wouldn't that be a waste of time?

Mary Green is a more difficult one, because she isn't obviously insane. However, her actions over the years, at least as they appear on the internet, also paint a rather unflattering picture. Various claims have been put forth as fact, then, when they are questioned, are quietly retracted or 'amended'. Her claims of habitation over many years simply do not jive with the absolute lack of any hard evidence other than the most laughable of blobsquatch photos. And her behavior in her message board, where anyone asking critical questions is banned and their posts deleted, certainly don't project the image of an honest and open researcher.
I think all of us _want_ to believe that there is a farm down in Tennessee where a family of Bigfoot cohabit with humans, but there is a difference between believing because you _want_ to believe, and believing because you _know_ something is true. This is the difference between the romantic and the hard eyed researcher.
I actually have come to believe that Mary does have Bigfoot near or on her property. They apparently live in the area, and she may well have had some encounters. My problem (and i think most people here will agree with me) is that she appears to have spun a few Bigfoot related incidents into a whole web of fantasy stories, based on a handful of actual incidents, and a whole bunch of imagined ones.

I don't actually think of her as a hoaxer, because I don't think she actually thinks of herself as a trickster. She is just a romantic with an overactive imagination. I think that's why people who meet her are taken with her. She seems nice, perhaps even open and honest. But that doesn't mean she is a reliable, hard eyed researcher. To give her the benefit of the doubt, i think she 'sanitizes' her message board of dissenting voices simply because they disrupt her fantasy of her being 'the Tennesssee Bigfoot Lady' with her farm of mythical beasts.

AmPat, you seem like an intelligent and lucid person. You don't have to take what i'm saying at face value, but consider it when you deal with Mary and her supporters. I think you may start to see what i am saying for yourself.

The BFRO is not perfect, and this forum is not perfect, but the fact is that we had this very nasty discussion with barbs being thrown in all directions, not least in the direction of the BFRO, and yet the thread is still here, and despite some temporary locks, is still open. On Mary's forum, it would have been deleted before it was a page long, and those who expressed certain views would have been long banned.


-robo

Very well said Robo...

Ditto.

well said robo

Good point - and as somebody with a great interest in environmental signs of possible sasquatch activity I've appreciated the conversation.

Thanks!

-Ray

Reminds me of the words of an infamous BF researcher. Buy my book , I'll answer your questions .