I have monitored the threads regarding this subject for a couple days now. Since one thread grew to over 20 messages, I haven't bothered to read them all. I did notice that the thread seemed to evolve into a completely different subject. That seems to happen quite often here. This is why I posted this in a new topic.

Anyway, I thought maybe you ought to hear from someone who doesn't depend upon a computer screen to acquire all of their personal knowledge regarding field research. With all due respect to BFRO "curator" Kathy Moskowitz, this also is not BF related. It's a cud ball. Or, as some people in the south refer to it as a "chew ball."

In the messages I did read, I noticed that at least one of you figured this out. Of course, I also noticed that when they did, they were set upon by others like a pack of wild dogs. That also seems to happen quite often here.

Anyway, to stick to the subject, cows will eat all kinds of crap that they can't digest. When that happens, they will eventually barf it up in the form of a cud ball. They look exactly like the pictures shown. However, I will help address a few key issues for you. Please excuse me for paraphrasing instead of quoting.

A question was raised about the smell being similar to urine. I personally wouldn't say they smelled like urine, but they do stink to high heavens because they come out of the stomach(s) of a cow! The smell might be similar to urine to some people. They still continue to emit odor after they have dried out somewhat.

It was also stated that no cattle had been present in the area where this was found. Well, it has been my observation that crows love these things. On more than one occassion, I have watched crows pick these things up and carry them off to who knows where and who knows how many miles away. Perhaps, because they stink. Crows seem to love things that stink of carrion.

A question was also raised about the age of the cedar. I have cedar posts on my property that are over 50 years old that still have bark peeling off of them.

As far as why it is made out of cedar, I have seen cud b*lls made out of the following exotic materials:

baler twine
monafilament
cedar bark
cypress bark
plastic netting
plastic bags
youpon (red berries included)

That's the whole idea behind a cud ball. It is made up of something the cow ate but can't digest. I have seen them both smaller and larger than the one pictured.

Also, Kathy Moskowitz claims that there is no other material in the ball other than cedar. However, in looking at the photos left to right then top to bottom, photo 2 seems to show a partial pin oak leaf in the left side of the ball. Also, if this ball is made out of nothing but dried cedar, what is that string of green stuff in the right side of the ball in photo 4?

I hope I haven't spoiled the fun for anybody, but I hate to see people fight over a turd in the road (or a cud ball) at Christmas time.

This item was not found via a computer screen. But I agree, there are sure a lot of folks that restrict themselves to that!



In that long thread you didn't read, you would find that more than one of us have smelled the interior of a cows stomach. We agree, it smells nothing like urine. This item smelled of urine, not a cows stomach.



If you read her report you will find in the third paragraph:


Sorry, I cannot tell what the green thing is. Possibly algae on the cedar strip.



This is something I know something of as well, using cedar extensively in both fences and building. When it is protected from the weather, the bark will adjere to the cedar for several years, but even in those locations it is all gone within ten years. When it is exposed to the weather, every trace of bark is gone within two years, and all the white wood has rotted off within ten years, leaving only the red heartwood. This has caused us to select our cedar posts carefully, not bothering to use those that have a lot of white wood in them.

This may be a due to the climate difference between your location and mine, I don't know, but around here, it is absolutely impossible for cedar bark to survive over twenty years out on the ground, even when it is NOT soaked with stomach acid.

I've never seen a crow flying around with anything this size in it's beak, but I will bow to your experience in the matter.

AND, unlike some here, I will bow to your experience without demanding you furnish a photograph of the crow carying it, and a plaster cast of the cud in question!

Gee, I sure am glad the Cedar Ball issue is not dead! I know so MANY here are fascinated with it - - -

Ok, let me get this straight. On your farm, it only takes two years for every trace of bark to have disappeared off of a cedar post.




No, wait a minute, (as the typer spins around trying to follow the quickness of this rascal.) you're saying 20 years. You're saying it takes up to 20 years, not two, or am I reading this wrong. Do you mean two years and the twenty years was a slip of the typing finger? No, I get it. You probably really meant 20 years and the two years was a slip. Wait a minute, maybe I don't get it.

Well, I am sure you know what you meant and I am sure that whatever you meant was accurate for your farm, if we could only understand.....I think.

It may be a difference in climate. The attached picture is of a 50+ year old cedar post complete with peeling bark. The wire attached to the post is approximately 20 yrs old.



Your assuming that the stomach acid of a cow would act upon bark in an efficent fashion. If this were so, then there would be much fewer cud b*lls, wouldn't there?



Believe me, I personally understand your frustration in posting here. However, I will gladly volunteer some other info as far as what a crow can carry.

Crows are notorious for carrying off chicken eggs of all sizes. A grade "A" extra large egg weighs approximately 65 grams.

I have personally seen a crow carry off a two-pack of Autolite spark plugs. Approximate weight was 99 grams.

A crow doesn't have a hard time flying away with a 22 gram cud ball.

Something that was said in the original report is very telling. It was stated that at first, it was mistaken for a birds nest. That is what most cud b*lls appear to be on the outside.



Myself, I'm not fascinated with it. What fascinates me are the people who would believe that it was a sasquatch artifact.

Cedar bark is completely stripped off of all fence posts within two years of their being installed. Two years is correct.

The cedar ball was found in an area that has not had cattle on it for over twenty years. Twenty is correct.

Did that clarify it? I have no intention of being slippery, nor a rascal. It gets a bit tedious, however, explaining every statement several times to get around the twists that some attempt to place on it.

And allow me to make a correction for protected cedar, Steve; some shreds of bark DO remain when it is COMPLETELY isolated from all weather. I just went out and checked one of my sheds, which has cedar pole rafters that have been there for eighteen years. Those in the middle of the building, where they are completely protected from all weathering conditions, still have some traces of bark on them. All the vertical poles, and the rafters on the sides, are completely bare.

For posts, I much prefer hedge. It has three drawbacks:

1. None are straight, so the fence does not look as true as I like.
2. Once seasoned, they are virtually impossible to cut down if need be. They will dull the chain on a chain saw in a matter of seconds.
3. I have not seen one growing in Tennessee yet. They were numerous in Illinois.

Wow! Neat picture! it HAS to be a climate thing, Steve. That's the way a cedar post would look here the first year it was set.

This thing seems awfully light and fluffy for a cud ball, but I am certainly no expert on them; I've been around cows all my life, and must say finding a cud ball was VERY rare. Maybe the key is in the forage available? Most of my experience was in Illinois, where the pasture land was thick and lush. Here also, the grass is pretty good, and I have never seen a cow forage on tree bark in either place. We always pulled the strings from the bails too, so they had no opportunity to eat them with the hay. We always fed square bales, though, where this was a simple matter - those feeding round bails don't bother with it.

As for it being an artifact of Sasquatch, shoot I DO NOT KNOW, and never claimed I did. We reported it, the BFRO investigators seemed to think it was important, and Kathy is the expert on primitive weaving techniques, and says it is woven. My intent was only for folks to have a look at it, and see if they notice anything similar in their investigations. It is just a bit of info I wanted to share, and sure as heck am not trying to convince anyone that bf has a major textile industry going.

I don't notice the crows around here carying vegetation, only bits of meat from road kills (Tennessee drivers - LOTS of road kills!) - but they are quite thick around the deer pans here, scarfing up on corn, so I know they do indeed eat other than meat.

In any event it is just something else to look for, or ignore, as each individual wishes.

You are probably correct in your observation, as a cow that would try to forage on cedar, youpon, or sweetgum is a pretty hungry cow LOL! But, I have seen them do it. Especially bramas.



I agree that they can be interesting to someone who has never seen one. The only thing that interests me is if the BFRO thinks they are important as you say, I wonder how long it will take them to acquire the services of Bob Gimlin and start setting up horseback investigations into Tennessee at $800 per person in search of bigfoot toys.

My doctors prohibit me from discussing the c u d theory, as it raised quite a ruckuss last time.

Besides, I like the pajamas they let me wear all day and the pills make the colors sound nice.

[edit] things probably left unsaid about the romantics.

LOL!

I don't know -
But they will have to find somewhere else to look.
My place is now closed. If I can't trust the most professional, scientific bigfoot group extant -
I can't trust anyone.

Seriously, it would have been a kick to go on that ride; I wouldn't expect to find anything, of course, but it would be cool to do it - if I had a few thousand dollars to waste on a kick - -

From http://juniper1.home.texas.net/cedarstuff.html

Uh oh!

Does that place the cedar ball in play again?

NO! NO! We sure can't have that!

Maybe it is a deer cud. We have lots of whitetail here, and deer will browse on cedar -

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,seems to me that if a sasquatch made a barkball there that would be the IDEAL!,,,,place to collect DNA evidence,,,,,To form a ball like the one MARY GREEN claims to have would have to be handled quite a bit to form,,hence forth the very good possiblity of DNA.Was that barkball ever tested for DNA evidence?I DON'T THINK SO!If i found something like that the first thing i would have done was to have it examined by qualified people before tearing it apart and taking photos as you do.There could have been evidence such as hairs,,,dead skin,possible blood,saliva,,,,,,NAH!! I won't buy this one.

You are off on several points, skip.

1. Mary green does not have the ball. Never did.

2. The object was EXCLUSIVELY handled by experts. The BFRO.

3. The examination was made by an expert, a curator at the BFRO, not some amateur.

4. In the report, it is clearly stated that every thing resembling a hair was examined - and none turned out to be hair.

A few observations, all IMO. By associating himself and the report with Mary Green, it has effectively ruined any above board reputation that Terry's 'evidence' might have had. What a bitter taste he must have in his mouth. That bitterness is apparent by his postings and replies. Too bad, they should have just listened to the BFRO and kept quiet about it, at least until another example of this bark wad was found to compare and perform more test, instead of recklessly sneaking around the BFRO's backs and releasing the report to Mary first. Without so much as a heads up to the BFRO, large parts of the report show up on Mary's site. You would think the Trainors would have at least had enough courtesy to inform the BFRO first before they released the report, especially to MARY GREEN, but oh no. I wouldn't blame the BFRO if they never set foot back on that property again. Who knows what other information or 'evidence' that the Trainors will sneak around and give to Mary in the future? At least Terry has a snug place in Mary's fantasy land anytime he needs it, but what he doesn't realize is the fact that if he spouts one wrong word, he will be ostracized and then ALL of his bridges are effectively burned. Once you associate yourself with Mary as heavily as Terry has, then it's hard to go door to door and find a sympathetic ear after you side with Mary and burn all of your other bridges. The trust factor is greatly diminished then. It's a long road. What does he have left then? GCBRO? Highly doubtful, it would be very interesting if they did. CBO? Nope, definently not, because they are Mary's back scratchers. EB? Probably, but then I would seriously have to laugh at the aftermath of that 15 minutes of fame. Oh the price of rubbing elbows with Mary, it's just not worth it, IMO of course.

You are a very insightful man, Volsquatch. Word.

'Coulda sworn that just a few days ago there were no' experts'

It sure seems both of you are taking alot for granted. How could either of you know who spends what amount of time in front of a computer screen? Seems to me you both spend a good deal of time sitting on you duffs too considering how much you post to this and other boards.

Thanks for informing me on the BFRO's envolment on this topic Am and VOL.I just don't even bother reading anything that pertains to Mary Green anymore,I really don't have the time to,,i am swamped with work,i am booked for the year 2004 and as of right now i am running 2 months behind!!Gezzzz!,just seemed to be alot of discussion on the barkball topic.Looks like Terry made a major blunder getting involved with Mary Green!

Interesting observation; Do you think keeping it from the people in the field would help find another one?




No sneaking around at all, Vol. We said right from the start that this needed to be out to those in the field. We NEVER agreed to keep the cedar ball quiet. Even so, we waited a LONG time before releasing any information on it, and the report itself was not published before Kathy posted it here herself.

I would have preferred it surfaced on the BFRO site, but their policy of posting NO reports on a location that is the subject of an ongoing investigation prevented that. Now, with all the stink and ill will raised here on the BFF, I doubt they will ever publish anything on their site.



Assuredly, they will not. And that relationship was ended by me, when I found they do NOT have a 'no kill' policy. I have honored every agreement we had with them. The evidence they collected, the results of the examinations they made, the journals Judy kept for them - they asked us to keep all of that quiet, and we agreed; none of it will ever be exposed by one of us.

Yes, I will tell exactly what happened, because I want people to be warned; do NOT allow BFRO on your property if you are "no kill". They do NOT have any such policy. If that burns bridges, so be it.

I will affiliate with no group that thinks the only way to prove Sas exists is to kill one. If that attitude grows, however, I believe I will start the rumor that I don't believe liberal democrats exist; maybe lots of people will decide to prove it to me - -

I think you have the whole issue of "Kill" confused.

No Kill: I won't be the one to kill it,someone else has to for proof of thier existence.

Pro Kill: I am actively going out with a gun for the express purpose of hopefully shooting a sasquatch

Anti Kill: I w won't kill one myself and neither do I wish for others to do so.

As I see it, which others have attempted to explain to you in the past, The BFROs policy of No kill simply means that its members themselves are not trying to kill one,but if someone does and drops it on thier doorstep,they are assuredly not going to bury thier head in the sand and pretend it s not there...only a fool would.

I used to be one of those.

Interesting, Jim.

That would also mean then that Mary Green, Janice Coy, and all their moonies fall squarely into the same philosophy that the BFRO has since they also list themselves as "no kill". Hmmm.

No, but keeping it under wraps until its real provenance was determined certainly would help the field. Case in point: the hundreds of thousands of electrons occupied on this server with all the stuff written pro and con regarding the ball. If the investigation had turned up another artifact, preferably one somewhere else where sasquatch activity had been evident and nowhere near your property, then it'd be a different story. Absent that, all you have is a unique oddity indicating nothing by itself.

The BFRO is probably the most conservative group in the bigfoot field today. They tend not to publicize their findings until they know they have something worth talking about. If only every other organization or group would follow the example...


First, that ain't how I heard it. I'll assume it was all a miscommunication and you and the investigators just have different recollections of what was promised both ways. Second, if memory servers, Kathy did not post the report here before it showed up elsewhere on the web. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong.


Like I said, they're conservative. Let's not confuse that with saying they don't share info. Just look at their website to see what they share. It's a monument to public access to data. When they do share, they share what they think is worth sharing. If they don't share it, it's not ready for prime time. But I've already covered all this...


Not this again. Jim already said it so I'll just tell everyone to go reread his above post...

NOTE: Everyone who feels this is board exists to worship the BFRO can now feel free to roll their eyes in disgust.

Oh, dearie....that sure isn't the thing that we're rolling our eyes about!

If someone told you that we had agreed to keep the cedar ball quiet, as we did with other evidence found here and turned over to them, they are - I will put this politely - in error. There was no miscommunication, either, because the investigator argued the point - they would have no reason to argue it if we had agreed to keep it quiet.

We DID agree to keep everything prior to the cedar ball quiet. We DID agree that when they received evidence from us, it belonged to them, to do with as they saw fit. But we absoluetly never agreed to keep quiet about the cedar ball.

And I will correct you on the report. Kathy's report was published NO WHERE prior to her posting it right here. Some of the information from that report had been released, along with three photographs, prior to her posting the written report here in it's entirety.

Check it. Mary's write up is here:
Mary's write up

And the complete report, with all pictures, went up AFTER Kathy posted it in this forum, and is located here:
My Webpage

Now I know that will not satisfy some, Bipto - but it is absolute fact. The things we agreed to keep quiet about, including the identity of some of the BFRO researchers, is completely safe with us; I do not agree to something and then change my mind. But this! This thing which MIGHT be important, which other researchers SHOULD WATCH FOR, we never agreed to be silent on, because it should NOT just vanish into a filing cabinet somewhere, never to be made known. We never said we would keep silent on this one.

You hint that you have some contacts inside the BFRO, Bipto. Ask them about the OTHER evidence found here, which we DID agree to keep quiet about. Ask them about the researcher who wants his identity protected, which we DID give our word on, and have NOT released.

When we give our word, we absolutely keep it. And I am getting REAL tired of being accused of otherwise.

Jim, inventing more definitions so one can claim there are more than two sides on the Kill issue is disingenious. It is pretty simple.

1. Those that want a BF killed so they can prove he exists (pro kill)
2. Those that do not want a BF killed. (no kill)

The BFRO has NO policy position, as has been plainly stated in this group. It has been stated here that every researcher has his own private policy on this, and all are acceptable to the BFRO, since they have no policy on the matter.

Well, like I said, I assume it was a miscommunication, so I am accusing you of having a miscommunication but that's about it.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. The first mention here of the the report was on 12/5. On that same day, Kathy wrote, "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." So it sounds fairly conclusive that the report existed nowhere publically before Mary put it up on here site, or at least portions of it. I said Kathy did not post her report before Mary did, and I guess that's how it happened.

Bipto, if Kathy had gone to Mary's site, she would have seen that her report was NOT posted there. SOME of the information from it was there, yes, but the report itself, in it's entirety, was first published right here by Kathy herself.

To encapsulate yet again:

1. Information from the report (NOT THE REPORT ITSELF) went up on Mary greens site, with our permission.

2. This group (BFF) picked up on that, and had five pages of trashing it as a Mary Green hoax (showing they had not even read what she posted about it) before I was aware that it was being discussed.

3. I came here to straighten out the misconception that this was an invention of Mary Greens.

4. After things got hot and heavier, Kathy started posting, and also gave the facts in the case; she then proceeded to post the REPORT ITSELF right here on this forum. This was the FIRST time the report itself had been published.

5. Since she had already published it, I proceeded to publish it as well on my web site, along with all the pictures.

That's the way it happened, and anyone can check the facts on Mary's site, my site, and the threads in this group.

Had it not been for Mary Green, I dont think I would ever have heard of this. you and KAthy came along later. ANything with MArys name on it sends up red flags for most people, thats why we jumped on it. HAd it not been for MAr, this would not even be a topic on this forum.

Exactly Skunk and as such only Mary G. should be held accountable for Mary G.'s claims. Just because someone believes or refuses to disbelieve her stories does not make them responsible for providing proof of such claims.

I expressed an opinion way back in the original cedar ball thread and have pretty much stayed away since then. The cedar ball is now a snowball. It has continued rolling, getting larger and larger with hundreds of posts spawning multiple threads. Some good has come from all of it I guess, but many times it didn't seem like a discussion of a cedar ball but rather that old kids' game of "kill the man with the ball".

I certainly cant say I dont know what you are talking about. I saw the red Mary flags and fired off all my rounds rather quickly, hitting the ball, the messenger, and a couple of inocent bystanders.

Guess you need to re-take the Hunter's Safety Course.

"Harry"

..Yep its simple..Why carry a gun at all when a Nikon is just as effective at keeping them at bay....

Well, it sure seems to work so far -

But the gun is nice for nasties out there that are NOT shy and retiring around people.

I know you were directing that at someone else. But ever since I saw Deliverance, I NEVER go inot the woods unarmed.

I think its safe to asssume that a flashlight seems to be the best BF repellent. Well at nighttime anyways. I bet if a BF made threats in the day, you could yell at it and jolt towards it in a threatening manner it would more than likely haul ass. There is definitely some type of avoidance instinct BF have with humans.

I think growing up alongside the top predator (us), they have built up a keen avoidance instinct when it comes to humans.

AmPat,

Your evident bitterness towards the BFRO seems to have produced its own form of disingenuous parsing of words. It is not accurate to assert that the BFRO’s silence on the kill issue is tantamount to being pro kill; that’s a false syllogism. As has been stated elsewhere, the BFRO does not engage in or support any activities where the objective is to kill a sasquatch. There is no evil secret agenda requiring a valiant crusader such as yourself to alert the unsuspecting. You may have your own personal reasons for disassociating yourself from the organization, but you don’t enhance your credibility through attempts to tear down that of others.

However, on the other hand, I will say that you seem to be a rather longsuffering fellow. The patriarch Job would be proud.