While perusing MG's site for new blobsquatch photos, i noticed this new article. Apparently Kathy Moskowitz investigated a 'bigfoot toy' found in TN..
It doesn't look like much to me, but has anyone seen anything similar?
My skeptic-o-meter is going haywire because of the combination of Moskowitz and Green in the same investigation!
http://www.tnbigfootlady.com/TBL/specialwtn.html
-robo
Full Version: Mary Green's Bark Ball
Red flag, red flag , red flag
Wow! I have no idea what is going on here. I do not know Mary Green. I have never met her, never talked with her, nor ever worked with her on any investigation. It is true that I was asked to analyze a cedar ball collected from a location in Tennessee that had reported Sasquatch activity. I have a master's in Anthropology and have worked as a professional archaeologist for 15 years. I am also considered an expert on Native American basket weaving.
When I was asked to analyze this "artifact", I was excited because I wanted to see if 1) it was something made vs. something natural; 2) if it was something made by a sasquatch, what was the construction method? Did the weaver show intelligence...purpose, or was it just thrown together? As a scientist, I took this as an opportunity to conduct a thorough analysis without a preconceived notion of what a Sasquatch was capable of. Nothing more, nothing less.
The report that I wrote was not made public. It is not on the BFRO website, nor did I give it to anyone other than the landowner and the lead BFRO investigator. The landowner apparently released it, which is her right. Judy apparently then gave it to Mary Green, who took the opportunity to post it on her site. However, I want to emphasize again, I do not know nor have I ever worked with Mary Green. I have never discussed this case with anyone other than the lead investigator, who is both a BFF and BFRO member (he can reveal himself if he wants).
And just to make sure that everyone is clear on what my report said, I will post it in its entirety below....minus the pictures.
When I was asked to analyze this "artifact", I was excited because I wanted to see if 1) it was something made vs. something natural; 2) if it was something made by a sasquatch, what was the construction method? Did the weaver show intelligence...purpose, or was it just thrown together? As a scientist, I took this as an opportunity to conduct a thorough analysis without a preconceived notion of what a Sasquatch was capable of. Nothing more, nothing less.
The report that I wrote was not made public. It is not on the BFRO website, nor did I give it to anyone other than the landowner and the lead BFRO investigator. The landowner apparently released it, which is her right. Judy apparently then gave it to Mary Green, who took the opportunity to post it on her site. However, I want to emphasize again, I do not know nor have I ever worked with Mary Green. I have never discussed this case with anyone other than the lead investigator, who is both a BFF and BFRO member (he can reveal himself if he wants).
And just to make sure that everyone is clear on what my report said, I will post it in its entirety below....minus the pictures.
THE ANALYSIS OF A SUSPECTED SASQUATCH ARTIFACT:
A BRIEF REPORT
Kathy Moskowitz, M.A., BFRO Curator
On August 26, 2002, I received a package in the mail containing a “cedar ball”, possibly created by a Sasquatch. The package was sent by Judy Trainor, from Tennessee, who has been documenting Sasquatch activity on her property. Her nephew Jordan collected the ball from a location on Judy’s property. Earlier, BFRO investigator Ricky Idlett, saw the artifact in place, and commented that it had a strong urine smell to it.
When the artifact was received in the mail, the first noticeable element was that it smelled strongly of urine. Although the “ball” was clearly dry, the urine smell was very overpowering. The package was left open to the air in a secure location for a week to allow the smell to dissipate. Analysis began on Sept. 3, 2002.
The “ball” can be described as follows. It measures 260 x 190 x 50 mm., and weighs 22 g. It is oblong in shape and red in color. The artifact is made of cedar. There are two small Oak leaves attached to the exterior of the object. The bottom, or what appears to be the bottom, is slightly redder in color, suggesting that it lay on the ground long enough for the top of the object to fade due to exposure to the elements. The exterior of the ball does not contain any weaving or braiding. On first inspection, the ball had the appearance and texture of a “soft” pillow, with something hard at the center. The exterior was in very poor condition, with the bark separating from itself and becoming splintered.
To begin the analysis of the ball, a cut was made to the right side of the ball. The first layer was pealed back to expose the next layer, and so forth. Each layer was examined with a hand lens for hairs, bone, teeth, or other foreign objects. Any “hairs” were analyzed under a 10X microscope. It should be noted that once the layer was pealed back, it only stayed intact for less than a day before pieces of the layer began breaking off. This might suggest that the object is old, or the process of the mailing the artifact lessened its integrity. In addition, the layers were very difficult to pull back due to fibers being mingled with each other. These fibers had to be broken in order to get the layers to peel off.
The analysis revealed the following information. The object is clearly made of cedar bark strips and fibers (although it can not be determined if the fibers are present due to design or as a byproduct of the strips). The center of the ball consisted of a hard, compacted cedar bark “peanut”, measuring 40 x 30 x 10 mm. It was created by wrapping cedar bark lengthwise right to left (clockwise; waft) at least four times, then widthwise right to left (clockwise; warf) at least four times around until a small oblong shaped ball was created. These strips measured 10 x 5 x 1 mm. The center ball smelled strongly of urine, but the smell dissipated quickly after it was exposed to air. The next five layers (for a total of six, including the center) were created by the same method, wrapping larger cedar strips, averaging 20 x 5 x 1 mm., around the initial center ball, until it grew to the desired size. All strips were wound clockwise; suggesting that whoever created the object was right-handed.
Although it is unclear if it was due to design or as a byproduct of the strips, smaller pieces of bark were present between the better-defined layers, which gave the ball the soft, pillow like texture. Absolutely no soil, twigs, or leaves were present in any of the layers. No hairs or other items where found in the artifact.
It is obvious from the construction of this artifact that it was made intentionally by someone with the ability to use thought and dexterous hands. There is no possibility for this artifact to be natural or caused by nature. Although the artifact was not initially thought to be created by weaving, the wrapping method is a well-known and common construction method of Native Americans in prehistoric times (for example, the duck decoys from Nevada) and is considered weaving (Tuohy 1986:228). It is a simple, yet effective construction method. The purpose of its construction is not known. However, based on the reported Sasquatch activity occurring at the recovery location, this artifact may be associated with this animal.
Finally, a last observation on the analysis of this artifact. To properly study the object, it was effectively destroyed. It no longer has any resemblance to its original condition. This was due to either the study method or the condition of the object. In the future, it would be wise to split the sample in half, saving part and studying the other so examples of this possible Sasquatch behavior can be saved for the future.
Tuohy, Donald
1986 Portable Art Object. In: Handbook of North American Indians: Great Basin. Edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, Vol. 11, pp. 227-237.
A BRIEF REPORT
Kathy Moskowitz, M.A., BFRO Curator
On August 26, 2002, I received a package in the mail containing a “cedar ball”, possibly created by a Sasquatch. The package was sent by Judy Trainor, from Tennessee, who has been documenting Sasquatch activity on her property. Her nephew Jordan collected the ball from a location on Judy’s property. Earlier, BFRO investigator Ricky Idlett, saw the artifact in place, and commented that it had a strong urine smell to it.
When the artifact was received in the mail, the first noticeable element was that it smelled strongly of urine. Although the “ball” was clearly dry, the urine smell was very overpowering. The package was left open to the air in a secure location for a week to allow the smell to dissipate. Analysis began on Sept. 3, 2002.
The “ball” can be described as follows. It measures 260 x 190 x 50 mm., and weighs 22 g. It is oblong in shape and red in color. The artifact is made of cedar. There are two small Oak leaves attached to the exterior of the object. The bottom, or what appears to be the bottom, is slightly redder in color, suggesting that it lay on the ground long enough for the top of the object to fade due to exposure to the elements. The exterior of the ball does not contain any weaving or braiding. On first inspection, the ball had the appearance and texture of a “soft” pillow, with something hard at the center. The exterior was in very poor condition, with the bark separating from itself and becoming splintered.
To begin the analysis of the ball, a cut was made to the right side of the ball. The first layer was pealed back to expose the next layer, and so forth. Each layer was examined with a hand lens for hairs, bone, teeth, or other foreign objects. Any “hairs” were analyzed under a 10X microscope. It should be noted that once the layer was pealed back, it only stayed intact for less than a day before pieces of the layer began breaking off. This might suggest that the object is old, or the process of the mailing the artifact lessened its integrity. In addition, the layers were very difficult to pull back due to fibers being mingled with each other. These fibers had to be broken in order to get the layers to peel off.
The analysis revealed the following information. The object is clearly made of cedar bark strips and fibers (although it can not be determined if the fibers are present due to design or as a byproduct of the strips). The center of the ball consisted of a hard, compacted cedar bark “peanut”, measuring 40 x 30 x 10 mm. It was created by wrapping cedar bark lengthwise right to left (clockwise; waft) at least four times, then widthwise right to left (clockwise; warf) at least four times around until a small oblong shaped ball was created. These strips measured 10 x 5 x 1 mm. The center ball smelled strongly of urine, but the smell dissipated quickly after it was exposed to air. The next five layers (for a total of six, including the center) were created by the same method, wrapping larger cedar strips, averaging 20 x 5 x 1 mm., around the initial center ball, until it grew to the desired size. All strips were wound clockwise; suggesting that whoever created the object was right-handed.
Although it is unclear if it was due to design or as a byproduct of the strips, smaller pieces of bark were present between the better-defined layers, which gave the ball the soft, pillow like texture. Absolutely no soil, twigs, or leaves were present in any of the layers. No hairs or other items where found in the artifact.
It is obvious from the construction of this artifact that it was made intentionally by someone with the ability to use thought and dexterous hands. There is no possibility for this artifact to be natural or caused by nature. Although the artifact was not initially thought to be created by weaving, the wrapping method is a well-known and common construction method of Native Americans in prehistoric times (for example, the duck decoys from Nevada) and is considered weaving (Tuohy 1986:228). It is a simple, yet effective construction method. The purpose of its construction is not known. However, based on the reported Sasquatch activity occurring at the recovery location, this artifact may be associated with this animal.
Finally, a last observation on the analysis of this artifact. To properly study the object, it was effectively destroyed. It no longer has any resemblance to its original condition. This was due to either the study method or the condition of the object. In the future, it would be wise to split the sample in half, saving part and studying the other so examples of this possible Sasquatch behavior can be saved for the future.
Tuohy, Donald
1986 Portable Art Object. In: Handbook of North American Indians: Great Basin. Edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, Vol. 11, pp. 227-237.
Quoted from MG's board (otherwise known as the Cuckoo's Nest):
What a buch of horsecrap!
Mary only wants to attempt to validate her compilation of lunatic ramblings she calls a book by trying to attach herself in some way to legitimate Bigfoot researchers…
And there are no Bigfoot researchers that are any more legitimate than Kathy Moskowitz and the BFRO…
Probably right there, Mary… unless there is someone stupid enough to buy that garbage she calls books… then maybe there is some copyright infringement… gosh, I sure hope so…
Time to send Mary either to the Tennessee State Penitentiary…
Or to the rubber room… whichever has an opening first…
Be careful there folks… a drowning person has no qualms regarding who they drag under with them…
Great work with that report, Kathy!
QUOTE
Portions of this report and the three photographs are posted under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law.
They are posted for educational purposes only as no financial gain will ever be realized from the report or the photographs.
They are posted for educational purposes only as no financial gain will ever be realized from the report or the photographs.
What a buch of horsecrap!
Mary only wants to attempt to validate her compilation of lunatic ramblings she calls a book by trying to attach herself in some way to legitimate Bigfoot researchers…
And there are no Bigfoot researchers that are any more legitimate than Kathy Moskowitz and the BFRO…
QUOTE
…no financial gain will ever be realized from the report or the photographs.
Probably right there, Mary… unless there is someone stupid enough to buy that garbage she calls books… then maybe there is some copyright infringement… gosh, I sure hope so…
Time to send Mary either to the Tennessee State Penitentiary…
Or to the rubber room… whichever has an opening first…
Be careful there folks… a drowning person has no qualms regarding who they drag under with them…
Great work with that report, Kathy!
I have a few things to say. First , we are not prepared to make this public right now because we simply are not ready to. (I see it is ). Kathy has decided to make available the information that she was a part of. She didn't have to but its to our advantage to do this.
Please understand that she has not coordinated with anyone except me and the landowner who apparently decided to come forth with this possible evidence.
Questions, go ahead and direct them to me if you like, or Kathy. Her involvement was to look over this artifact. Otherwise, she has not been involved with on-site field research or anything of that nature. Some of you know I am directly associated with the BFRO but because of my background in employment chose to not give out my name etc. I would like to maintain that but if you must know, feel free to pm me privately. Appreciate your considerations.
). Kathy has decided to make available the information that she was a part of. She didn't have to but its to our advantage to do this. Please understand that she has not coordinated with anyone except me and the landowner who apparently decided to come forth with this possible evidence.
Questions, go ahead and direct them to me if you like, or Kathy. Her involvement was to look over this artifact. Otherwise, she has not been involved with on-site field research or anything of that nature. Some of you know I am directly associated with the BFRO but because of my background in employment chose to not give out my name etc. I would like to maintain that but if you must know, feel free to pm me privately. Appreciate your considerations.
Thanks Kathy. It does look like the property owner is associated with Mary Green and passed your report on.. my condolences to both you and Ms. Trainor 
Was there anything about the ball that made you think it wasn't a product of human hands? Was it simply the fact that Ms. Trainor told you it was found in an area with reports of Sasquatch activity?
-robo
Was there anything about the ball that made you think it wasn't a product of human hands? Was it simply the fact that Ms. Trainor told you it was found in an area with reports of Sasquatch activity?
-robo
QUOTE(Streamrunner @ Dec 5 2003, 10:25 AM)
Some of you know I am directly associated with the BFRO but because of my background in employment chose to not give out my name etc. I would like to maintain that but if you must know, feel free to pm me privately. Appreciate your considerations.
I knew it!
Damn, boy... why didn't you say something?
I would have been sooo much nicer to you!
Thanks for the insight, Sr... HM...
I appreciate your input, especially since you're not obligated to discuss this at all...
Hairy (Kathy)
I'm really glad to see you come forward to clear up this disinformation. There's often so much animosity between different people and groups that anyone who is inadvertently associated with a "labeled" researcher (in an extremely small community, relatively speaking) becomes another target. I'm also glad that your response was not inflammatory or overly defensive.
On that note, I have to say that when this forum (which I think is great) is used as a soapbox for griping about or discrediting others it only serves to alienate BFF members from the rest of the community. I don't mean to be critical or single anyone out but this practice is not what I consider ethical or practical. If Hairy/Kathy were not a member of this forum she could not have defended herself and a falsehood about her character would go unchallenged. I'm sure that Robo's intentions were for the good of BFF members, but that didn't end up being the case.
I don't think anyone should be limited from expressing their opinions, but each of us should govern our own selves when it comes to condemning others and their research. Obviously there's a lot of BS out there but if we stay focused on what is known to be true the BS will always fall to the wayside without stomping on someone in the interim. And that will lead to a deeper respect by others for this forum and information that may be presented or proposed here.
IMHO
I'm really glad to see you come forward to clear up this disinformation. There's often so much animosity between different people and groups that anyone who is inadvertently associated with a "labeled" researcher (in an extremely small community, relatively speaking) becomes another target. I'm also glad that your response was not inflammatory or overly defensive.
On that note, I have to say that when this forum (which I think is great) is used as a soapbox for griping about or discrediting others it only serves to alienate BFF members from the rest of the community. I don't mean to be critical or single anyone out but this practice is not what I consider ethical or practical. If Hairy/Kathy were not a member of this forum she could not have defended herself and a falsehood about her character would go unchallenged. I'm sure that Robo's intentions were for the good of BFF members, but that didn't end up being the case.
I don't think anyone should be limited from expressing their opinions, but each of us should govern our own selves when it comes to condemning others and their research. Obviously there's a lot of BS out there but if we stay focused on what is known to be true the BS will always fall to the wayside without stomping on someone in the interim. And that will lead to a deeper respect by others for this forum and information that may be presented or proposed here.
IMHO
Well put Shorebreak. Curiosity is just that. We are all curious.
Sometimes the answers just don't come easy and it gets frustrating.
And when we are frustrated we are less effective. This forum allows
for incredible communications and effective exchanges.
People behavior can leave you scratching your head too. Well said
and I appreciate the understanding shown here.
Sometimes the answers just don't come easy and it gets frustrating.
And when we are frustrated we are less effective. This forum allows
for incredible communications and effective exchanges.
People behavior can leave you scratching your head too. Well said
and I appreciate the understanding shown here.
QUOTE(Shorebreak @ Dec 5 2003, 11:09 AM)
Obviously there's a lot of BS out there but if we stay focused on what is known to be true the BS will always fall to the wayside without stomping on someone in the interim.
Nice post, SB… I only wish what you said were true…
The lunatics will not go away... unfortunately...
They haven't yet...
And, yes... they do indeed cause harm to the cause...
I don't think we can afford to ignore them...
JMHO.
ok everything looks normal again. My blood pressure is droping.
For a moment I was like "Nooooo not another one"
Glad to see she did cross over the dark side.
Sorry for the panic. I just hate to see god folks join the other team.
For a moment I was like "Nooooo not another one"
Glad to see she did cross over the dark side.
Sorry for the panic. I just hate to see god folks join the other team.
QUOTE
All strips were wound clockwise; suggesting that whoever created the object was right-handed.
How can this be determined from a ball?
QUOTE
the wrapping method is a well-known and common construction method of Native Americans
Methinks this is why Mary is interested. Janice may produce not only Native American linguists but basket weavers as well.
Im still wondering what is the link between the alleged ball and BF.
Peg
Peg
Here's an interesting quote. (The book is $22 ppd. from Track Record.)
QUOTE("A miner @ BC, 1995," in "Sasquatch 2001," p. 120, by Don Monroe)
Hey, I've also seen those strange round wooden b*lls up there that have been found on ice. They are just big, rough, wooden b*lls of sticks; all put together like some kind of puzzle! Do you know anything about them? Anyway, they are unexplained. It is believed that the Sasquatch has something to do with them. Ever heard of that?
IIIIIII dunno peg.
This could also fit the description of the person who submited the thing.
QUOTE
It is obvious from the construction of this artifact that it was made intentionally by someone with the ability to use thought and dexterous hands.
This could also fit the description of the person who submited the thing.
QUOTE(SkunkHunter @ Dec 5 2003, 02:00 PM)
I just hate to see god folks join the other team.
oops. meant good folks. Same goes for god folks.
Boy, that Kathy knows her sh*t ... er ... b*lls .... *dang* ... her cedar !!!!
I think MG posted that as a prod at the BFRO, Kathy, and to make MG look credible. Even though MG apparently has no involvment with the ball what-so-ever.
I also think the fair use declaration is a prod at this board (remember the 50 years fair use tyraid ? )
So, MG is sinking into undiscovered depths of naughtyness, posting other people research on her pathetic website ?
Why does MG think that ALL of Tenn is her own, very own, and she-is-the-only-researcher-there-everyone-else-go-poo ?????
Kathy, good job on that object, who-ever made it !!
True Dat !!!
... b*lls .... *dang* ... her cedar !!!! I think MG posted that as a prod at the BFRO, Kathy, and to make MG look credible. Even though MG apparently has no involvment with the ball what-so-ever.
I also think the fair use declaration is a prod at this board (remember the 50 years fair use tyraid ? )
So, MG is sinking into undiscovered depths of naughtyness, posting other people research on her pathetic website ?
Why does MG think that ALL of Tenn is her own, very own, and she-is-the-only-researcher-there-everyone-else-go-poo ?????
Kathy, good job on that object, who-ever made it !!
QUOTE
Streamrunner: People behavior can leave you scratching your head too.
True Dat !!!
QUOTE(Shorebreak @ Dec 5 2003, 01:09 PM)
On that note, I have to say that when this forum (which I think is great) is used as a soapbox for griping about or discrediting others it only serves to alienate BFF members from the rest of the community. I don't mean to be critical or single anyone out but this practice is not what I consider ethical or practical. If Hairy/Kathy were not a member of this forum she could not have defended herself and a falsehood about her character would go unchallenged. I'm sure that Robo's intentions were for the good of BFF members, but that didn't end up being the case.
I don't think anyone should be limited from expressing their opinions, but each of us should govern our own selves when it comes to condemning others and their research. Obviously there's a lot of BS out there but if we stay focused on what is known to be true the BS will always fall to the wayside without stomping on someone in the interim. And that will lead to a deeper respect by others for this forum and information that may be presented or proposed here.
IMHO
I don't think anyone should be limited from expressing their opinions, but each of us should govern our own selves when it comes to condemning others and their research. Obviously there's a lot of BS out there but if we stay focused on what is known to be true the BS will always fall to the wayside without stomping on someone in the interim. And that will lead to a deeper respect by others for this forum and information that may be presented or proposed here.
IMHO
Shorebreak, i'm a bit confused by your post. Just so it's clear, i started this thread not as an attempt to discredit Kathy, nor to condemn her or her research.
I was just genuinely surprised to see a report from a respected and well known Sasquatch researcher prominently displayed on MG's site, which seemed to imply that Kathy was working with MG's group. Obviolsly this is not the case, as has been made very clear. I don't see why this thread was 'bad for the BFF members'.
Isn't it better that the topic was brought up and cleared up, rather than having people just assume that Kathy was now one of MG's cronies?
-robo
Ok people. I grew up on a farm. We had a LOT of cows. I have seen this before. It's simple. It's a COW CUD. The cow had apparently aten a large amount of cedar bark, and swallowed it, regurgitated it, chewed it, swallowed it again, regurgitated it again, chewed it some more, and so on and so on. For all of you city slickers, this is called a COW'S CUD. They chew it hours on end, swallowing, regurgitating, and chewing. This action causes the material in the cud to 'weave' itself into somewhat of a ball. The chewing action of the cow's jaw always moves in the same direction, and they chew over and over causing the cud to do this. The cow apparently spit this cud out because it got too hard to chew and swallow, being CEDAR BARK instead of plant material. Either that, or it got choked on the hard ball and spit it out. Either way, this cud had been chewed for a LONG time, and the cow was never able to soften it up enough for comfort. When the cud is swallowed, intestinal juices (bacteria; ammonia) are saturated into it, and then it is regurgitated and chewed again to soften the material up even more. This is where the strong 'urine smell' would have originated from. This is what this purported "Bigfoot toy" is. Case closed. Read all about cow's chewing their cud's here. Sheesh. God, romanticism running rampant. Bigfoot 'toy'........give me a frigging break. :rolleyes:
QUOTE(Volsquatch @ Dec 5 2003, 03:13 PM)
...Bigfoot 'toy'........give me a frigging break. :rolleyes:
Well...
Send it to me...
And I'll play with it...
I'm allowed to play with cow puke.
Damn Vol... you realize this thing is at least 10 inches long, right?
The cedar-ball that is... (hello mind, this is the gutter speaking... please get out...)
Now Vol... you know how I hate to be difficult... but...
That had to be one very large and very retarded cow to chew on a wad of cedar bark the size of a soccer ball...
And how do you explain the complete lack of other plant material in it?
Well,,,,,bigfoot cud have played with it
Peg
Peg
QUOTE(Shorebreak @ Dec 5 2003, 01:09 PM)
I'm sure that Robo's intentions were for the good of BFF members, but that didn't end up being the case.
I actually I think it did. And not only that but it helped Kathys case as well. Discussion has comenced and misunderstandings were corrected. I think it came out better than expected. Thats why I think it showes this is still the best forum out there and it makes it shine even more. You will always have disagreements and folks WILL get singled out on occasion. But here the confusion ends up being cured or the fight dies off, other boards let it evolve into endless years long pising contests between 2 people. Ever go to alt.bigfoot.research? or a couple of other net 54 boards?
Hi Kathy,
This cedar ball sounds very interesting. Did you take a picture of it before you examined it? Did you soak any of the cedar strips or parts of the ball and then try to analyze the "urine" or what ever was causing the smell? Thanks for posting your report. This is the very kind of information that bigfoot researchers enjoy. At least I do.
Goldie
This cedar ball sounds very interesting. Did you take a picture of it before you examined it? Did you soak any of the cedar strips or parts of the ball and then try to analyze the "urine" or what ever was causing the smell? Thanks for posting your report. This is the very kind of information that bigfoot researchers enjoy. At least I do.
Goldie
Post a pic of that thing. It certainly wouldnt hurt to get many differing opinions on it. Take it to a vet who handles cattle.
Never saw a cow eat cedar bark before...
But hey, I'm only from West Texas... and worked on a cattle ranch growing up... so, what do I know about cows?
But hey, I'm only from West Texas... and worked on a cattle ranch growing up... so, what do I know about cows?
Hey Volsquatch - good call - I was thinking allong the same lines myself when I saw the original oblong shape of this object - but was thinking that it had from another orifice of a herbivore - but then I couldn't understand why it didn't smell of sh*t.
-Ray
-Ray
Well… it does resemble a gigantic suppository… Bet that would smart… 
But, please don’t tell me those dumb animals are really gonna actually gather up that much cedar bark to try to eat?
And then get nothing else mixed up in there with it?
Maybe it's an inter-dimensional tramsmitter...
Damn cows... troublemakers... I don't trust cows... it's probably a trick...
But, please don’t tell me those dumb animals are really gonna actually gather up that much cedar bark to try to eat?
And then get nothing else mixed up in there with it?
Maybe it's an inter-dimensional tramsmitter...
Damn cows... troublemakers... I don't trust cows... it's probably a trick...
Other plant material, teeth marks, all these things would be in a cud ball.
I dont think Kathy EVER said it was of sasquatch origin. Simply what it was, woven crudely. It could have been done by a child, or another person. No evidence to suggest it was made by a nimble fingered sassi (but they are good with their fat fingers, i tell ya ).
I dont think Kathy EVER said it was of sasquatch origin. Simply what it was, woven crudely. It could have been done by a child, or another person. No evidence to suggest it was made by a nimble fingered sassi (but they are good with their fat fingers, i tell ya ).
I am telling ya. If you want to rule out any mundane explanation such as cows (and they are pretty stupid animals) Bring that thing into a vet who has dealt with cows and cud. I am sure they have seen some pretty big cud like that before.
It wouldnt hurt. It may possibly ruin the magic though.
It wouldnt hurt. It may possibly ruin the magic though.
QUOTE
The combined four-chambered stomach is big. In the domestic ox (Bos taurus) the whole stomach occupies nearly three-quarters of the abdominal cavity. In medium sized cattle, the rumen by itself can hold between 25 to 75 gallons. The rumen grows large in early life after the changeover from a milk diet.
Yes, cows do strip cedar trees of bark and eat it. I have seen this with my own eyes. Horses also strip bark and eat it. The lack of any other plant material inside doesn't strike me as odd at all. A cow wouldn't stand there and eat bark in a few bites, and then lean down and get a few mouthfulls of clover just for taste. It would stand there and eat a wad of bark. Yes, they are that dumb. This cud shown in the picture has been dried out, and handled. If it were still wet, still compressed from chewing, and fresh out of the cows mouth, then it would be much smaller than what is shown in the picture. Yes, a cow could have that much 'cud' in it's system. I will stand by my opinion that it is a cow's cud, and not bigfoot's kewpie doll.
Skunk !! Wake up dude !! No cow is gonna chew a cross weave on the outside of BARK !!
Dude, NOONE is saying it was made by sassi !!!!!
So, no "romance" or "magic" about it, unless, of course, your MG or EB but EB would find a few morphing in from the inner peanut of bark
It very well could be the work of a human child. But i cant see a child stripping long strips of bark from a cedar, so maybe a feral human?? or a bored neighbor ??
[edit] didnt the Ostman account tell of the female weaving something with cedar strips ? a blanket, wasnt it ?
Dude, NOONE is saying it was made by sassi !!!!!
So, no "romance" or "magic" about it, unless, of course, your MG or EB
but EB would find a few morphing in from the inner peanut of bark It very well could be the work of a human child. But i cant see a child stripping long strips of bark from a cedar, so maybe a feral human?? or a bored neighbor ??
[edit] didnt the Ostman account tell of the female weaving something with cedar strips ? a blanket, wasnt it ?
QUOTE(RobUstes @ Dec 5 2003, 06:55 PM)
Skunk !! Wake up dude !! No cow is gonna chew a cross weave on the outside of BARK !!
Dude, NOONE is saying it was made by sassi !!!!!
So, no "romance" or "magic" about it, unless, of course, your MG or EB but EB would find a few morphing in from the inner peanut of bark
It very well could be the work of a human child. But i cant see a child stripping long strips of bark from a cedar, so maybe a feral human?? or a bored neighbor ??
[edit] didnt the Ostman account tell of the female weaving something with cedar strips ? a blanket, wasnt it ?
Dude, NOONE is saying it was made by sassi !!!!!
So, no "romance" or "magic" about it, unless, of course, your MG or EB
but EB would find a few morphing in from the inner peanut of bark It very well could be the work of a human child. But i cant see a child stripping long strips of bark from a cedar, so maybe a feral human?? or a bored neighbor ??
[edit] didnt the Ostman account tell of the female weaving something with cedar strips ? a blanket, wasnt it ?
Allrighty then. Dont get it to a qualified vet who may know of these things, let it remain a mystery its more fun that way. And sadly that is what BF research seems to be all about.
I just dont get why folks have such an aversion to it possibly being made by a cow. Its like you dont want it to be.
People look at that picture. Does that look like someone weaved that thing with any kind of purpose? It looks like a bunch of jumbled up, twisted together, and previously compressed cedar bark. The only 'weaving' that was done was in a cow's mouth. The cud in the picture has obviously been handled and examined, and MASHED FLAT......it's NOT 10 inches ROUND like a soccer ball, it is longer from end to end, and looks like it has been in the esophagas of a cow. I have seen cows eat cedar bark, and many other odd things. I have seen cows cuds, and they look EXACTLY like what is in that picture, only the ones I have seen haven't been handled, smelled, and mashed flat by every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there.
QUOTE(Volsquatch @ Dec 5 2003, 07:02 PM)
People look at that picture. Does that look like someone weaved that thing with any kind of purpose? It looks like a bunch of jumbled up, twisted together, and previously compressed cedar bark. The only 'weaving' that was done was in a cow's mouth. The cud in the picture has obviously been handled and examined, and MASHED FLAT......it's NOT 10 inches ROUND like a soccer ball, it is longer from end to end, and looks like it has been in the esophagas of a cow. I have seen cows eat cedar bark, and many other odd things. I have seen cows cuds, and they look EXACTLY like what is in that picture, only the ones I have seen haven't been handled, smelled, and mashed flat by every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there.
Vol,
I think sometimes folks refuse to accept the posibility of a more plausable explanation. Sad but true. Heck I am quite sure I have been and will be guilty of it myself from time to time. I just hope someone at least reminds me to accept things that may go against my wishes.
QUOTE(Volsquatch @ Dec 5 2003, 06:54 PM)
If it were still wet, still compressed from chewing, and fresh out of the cows mouth, then it would be much smaller than what is shown in the picture. .
Exactly.
okokok ,... an artistic cow chewed that thing :rolleyes:
Did you read Kathys report? About how it was four wraps in one direction, then four in another direction ?
(how many times can i say this?) NO ONE except perhaps Mary Green is suggesting it to be sasquatch related. Theres no romance, no great mystery, no magic, no Mighty Morphine Power Elves .... just a Ball-O-Bark. Prob made by a bored neighbor
Did you read Kathys report? About how it was four wraps in one direction, then four in another direction ?
(how many times can i say this?) NO ONE except perhaps Mary Green is suggesting it to be sasquatch related. Theres no romance, no great mystery, no magic, no Mighty Morphine Power Elves .... just a Ball-O-Bark. Prob made by a bored neighbor
Just a quick note.
I dont want to argue with folks I respect. Rob especially. I just think the option of a cow can be still considered until it can scientifically be discounted. ie Vet.
No one said it was a Sas toy. Well not Kathy anyway, just Mgs crackerjack investigators. I understand that. But I dont think a cow cud can be ruled out entirely. Many normal things can take on an abnormal appearance. Perhaps this is one.
I dont want to argue with folks I respect. Rob especially. I just think the option of a cow can be still considered until it can scientifically be discounted. ie Vet.
No one said it was a Sas toy. Well not Kathy anyway, just Mgs crackerjack investigators. I understand that. But I dont think a cow cud can be ruled out entirely. Many normal things can take on an abnormal appearance. Perhaps this is one.
QUOTE(SkunkHunter @ Dec 6 2003, 07:07 AM)
QUOTE(Volsquatch @ Dec 5 2003, 07:02 PM)
People look at that picture. Does that look like someone weaved that thing with any kind of purpose? It looks like a bunch of jumbled up, twisted together, and previously compressed cedar bark. The only 'weaving' that was done was in a cow's mouth. The cud in the picture has obviously been handled and examined, and MASHED FLAT......it's NOT 10 inches ROUND like a soccer ball, it is longer from end to end, and looks like it has been in the esophagas of a cow. I have seen cows eat cedar bark, and many other odd things. I have seen cows cuds, and they look EXACTLY like what is in that picture, only the ones I have seen haven't been handled, smelled, and mashed flat by every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there.
Vol,
I think sometimes folks refuse to accept the posibility of a more plausable explanation. Sad but true. Heck I am quite sure I have been and will be guilty of it myself from time to time. I just hope someone at least reminds me to accept things that may go against my wishes.
True Skunk. I am sensing the same thing. I personally want to rule out any sane explanation first(like a cow cud), before moving on to any more 'out there' explanations. Now how would it look if someone of respect came out with this thing as something related to a Sasquatch, and then someone who knows something about cows comes along and says, "Hey, that's a cow's cud!"(which would happen quickly if a COW vet examined it, I am sure, NOT the local POODLE vet downtown). I wouldn't want to be the one, or the org, responsible for making that Sasquatch related claim. Hell, I wouldn't even want to be associated with this thing, how embarassing and what a setback for real research it would be. Focusing attention on a cow cud. How ridiculous. Now if I didn't already know that this thing was a cow's cud, then yeah, I might get a little perplexed because I wouldn't have a clue as to what I was looking at. But, I have seen a cow's cud before, so I know. Too bad people won't listen, or even open their minds to the possiblity.
QUOTE(RobUstes @ Dec 5 2003, 07:13 PM)
Prob made by a bored neighbor
... um, more likely a bored cow.
-Ray
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Dec 6 2003, 12:08 AM)
THE ANALYSIS OF A SUSPECTED SASQUATCH ARTIFACT:
A BRIEF REPORT
Kathy Moskowitz, M.A., BFRO Curator
A BRIEF REPORT
Kathy Moskowitz, M.A., BFRO Curator
This is what got me. A suspected Sasquatch artifact. Now why would it be suspected to have been made by a Sas? I have stated my opinion, and I am going to leave it at that. I think it's a cow's cud, some people think it's something else. That's fine. Some testing, and an examination of the photo's and remains of the object by a qualified vet would go a long way. I am not going to argue over a cow's cud. There are a lot more important issues to think about. To each his own. One thing of note, this 'pattern' could have been very much a natural occurance by the chewing action of the cow combined with it's tongue. Who knows, it could be Joan of Arc's butt plug for all I know.
I just wonder if it was Rodney or Mr. Trainor who pissed on it.
Martin Grenfell
Martin Grenfell
Vol, you may be right. As stated, this mystery is not over. Kathy found the weavings inside the structure to be significant. That is her area. In time we will know more about it. But I don't think its a butt plug Balanced checks are what we need and thats what we are getting. Thanks for being a part of it.
Update when we can. The idea of a cross examination is a very good one. I wouldn't expect less from you guys.
Balanced checks are what we need and thats what we are getting. Thanks for being a part of it.Update when we can. The idea of a cross examination is a very good one. I wouldn't expect less from you guys.
QUOTE(Volsquatch @ Dec 5 2003, 07:28 PM)
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Dec 6 2003, 12:08 AM)
THE ANALYSIS OF A SUSPECTED SASQUATCH ARTIFACT:
A BRIEF REPORT
Kathy Moskowitz, M.A., BFRO Curator
A BRIEF REPORT
Kathy Moskowitz, M.A., BFRO Curator
This is what got me. A suspected Sasquatch artifact. Now why would it be suspected to have been made by a Sas? I have stated my opinion, and I am going to leave it at that. I think it's a cow's cud, some people think it's something else. That's fine. Some testing, and an examination of the photo's and remains of the object by a qualified vet would go a long way. I am not going to argue over a cow's cud. There are a lot more important issues to think about. To each his own. One thing of note, this 'pattern' could have been very much a natural occurance by the chewing action of the cow combined with it's tongue. Who knows, it could be Joan of Arc's butt plug for all I know.
Everything she writes is "suspected or alleged" sasquach Vol. Havent you noticed the pattern
peg
Volsquatch, Will you re-read Kathy report again. very carefully. If you don't understand what she report take it pner with your English teacher.
QUOTE(jrp1965 @ Dec 6 2003, 08:20 AM)
Volsquatch, Will you re-read Kathy report again. very carefully. If you don't understand what she report take it pner with your English teacher.
:rolleyes: Ok Rodney, whatever you say.....
Wow, I haven't taken it 'pner' with my English teacher before......
QUOTE(jrp1965 @ Dec 5 2003, 09:20 PM)
Volsquatch, Will you re-read Kathy report again. very carefully. If you don't understand what she report take it pner with your English teacher.
Hablo Ingles??
The one time in weeks you have the guts to speak up, and can't even form a coherent sentence. What, are you bored with spending hours and hours printing out pages from here? Shameless, I tell ya. :rolleyes:
Damn, I just ruined my favorite Garth Brooks song...
I only got this far Rodney:
Then I promptly disregarded everthing else that was said.
For me the biggest mystery is who pee'd on it prior to shipment.
Who do think did it Rodney? If it was Mary there may still be traces of the West Nile Virus contained within. That would be an issue for the CDC.
Oh yeah, I forgot Mary lied about that too.
Martin Grenfell
QUOTE
On August 26, 2002, I received a package in the mail containing a “cedar ball”, possibly created by a Sasquatch. The package was sent by Judy Trainor, from Tennessee
Then I promptly disregarded everthing else that was said.
For me the biggest mystery is who pee'd on it prior to shipment.
Who do think did it Rodney? If it was Mary there may still be traces of the West Nile Virus contained within. That would be an issue for the CDC.
Oh yeah, I forgot Mary lied about that too.
Martin Grenfell
Volsquatch said
Can't you get arrested for that in some of the southern states?
QUOTE
Wow, I haven't taken it 'pner' with my English teacher before
Can't you get arrested for that in some of the southern states?
I have to tentatively side with Volsquatch in that it does look like an object that might have been formed in an animal's rumen. It doesn't look like something that would have formed on the ground, but on the other hand, it (at least from the photos) doesn't really look like something someone would spend a lot of time making.. why make a squashed ball of matted/woven cedar strips? And then pee on it? Is that a known primate behavior?
Then again, Kathy is the one who has seen it. And i'm not really familiar with either cow cuds or bigfoot b*lls, city boy that I am. Or cedar bark buttplugs, for that matter.
They usually sell the pink rubber ones here in NYC....
Then again, Kathy is the one who has seen it. And i'm not really familiar with either cow cuds or bigfoot b*lls, city boy that I am. Or cedar bark buttplugs, for that matter.
They usually sell the pink rubber ones here in NYC....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.