Oh my; here's one that dates way back into the last century, and as I recall (Mormon history isn't my strong suit) no less than Wilford Woodruff told of an encounter with the legendary beast.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-releases-its-file-on-bigfoot-204159796.html

The picture, of course, is the one taken by Patterson and Gimlin that ran in Argosy magazine in late 1965. The footage has been shown countless times and was even the subject of a movie.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2095096/man-who-created-bigfoot

I brought an open mind to the subject, but ten or twenty years ago I became persuaded that a man named Bob Hieronomus was the individual in the hairy suit.

Feel free to Google away; I just did for about fifteen minutes, and disabusing some of the Bigfoot believers of their sacred beliefs is as onerous a task as getting a Mormon to shed his testimony.

Anyway...

>>“The FBI Laboratory conducts examinations primarily of physical evidence for law enforcement agencies in connection with criminal investigations,” Cochran wrote. “Occasionally, on a case-by-case basis, in the interest of research and scientific inquiry, we make exceptions to this general policy. With this understanding, we will examine the hairs and tissue mentioned in your letter.”

>>Three months later, the FBI reported the results of its tests.

>>“The hairs are of deer family origin,” Cochran wrote.

I think it was David W. Patten who encountered Big Foot/Cain. The story appears in many subsequent books, including Miracle of Forgiveness.

Is identified as Abraham O. Smoot in one bit of Internet lore I read. But who knows? Let's take what you gave and give a bit of "editorial polish."

>>I believe it was David W. Patten who encountered Big Foot/Cain...

You mean you believe Patten did encounter the legendary biped?

No charge for this one, but tip a cabbie for me, would you?

David W. Patten--Captain Fearnaught who was killed at "The Battle of Crooked River in 1838--said he encountered Cain (who apparently resembled modern day "Bigfoot").

http://www.ldsliving.com/Is-Cain-Bigfoot-The-Truth-Behind-5-Mormon-Folklore-Stories/s/64534?page=3#story-content

This entry was included in Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness, which was originally published in 1969... Reeve believes Mormons use this story to connect an unexplainable event with proof that the Saints are doing a good job. “When Satan sends Cain against Mormons, . . . they think, ‘we must be on the right path, or Satan wouldn’t bother sending in his most evil hordes against us.’”

Kudos to Reeve for that insight into LDS beliefs.

IN ~


on bigfoot thred ~

Arctodus Simus, the Giant Short-Faced Bear

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-faced_bear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5z2TmJB2SU

They are all gone now but their memory lives on.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2019 01:05AM by anybody.

You said modern day bigfoot.

*snicker*

Don’t laugh, Bigfoot is guarding a cave full of sacred writings engraved on gold plates.

The LDS Heartland overlaps with Bigfoot's. I know Bigfoot is supposedly sighted all over the US, but the Pacific North West seems to be the main area, which goes into a bit of Idaho.

When I have met missionaries from Idaho (or more rarely Oregon or Washington) I often used to quiz them about the 'squatch. It was fun to take them off message for a while. I did get at least one Idahoan missionary to talk about his local Bigfoot hotspot for at least ten minutes, and he threw in a few local UFO sightings for good measure. It beat talking about the usual LDS topics, that's for sure. I should have asked him about survivalists too - I gather Idaho has a few.

Is a Mormon, Jeffery Meldrum, who teaches at Idaho State University.

(bullchip warning)

http://www.byui.edu/radio/the-science-behind-bigfoot-an-interview-with-dr-jeff-meldrum

>>Based on everything Meldrum has observed and studies he says he does not believe in bigfoot, he is convinced, on the basis of the evidence, that bigfoot exists. He says any scientist should be amazed to discover that there is an ancient hominoid or hominin species still existing today. He points out the discovery of bones of a species of tiny humans now called the hobbit. “That made headlines,” he said, “well gee wouldn’t you think that the discovery of or the recognition of a large bipedal primate in North America in our own back yard would be headline news?”

>>This weekend, Dr. Meldrum will speak at a bigfoot convention in Pocatello. He will talk about the latest pieces of evidence and science behind the Patterson-Gimlin film.

Science behind those "big bazooms"?

Right...

The Patterson Gimlin film looks true to me because this was 1965 (1966?) and the costume really looks real. This guy wasn't a millionaire or a makeup artist. Remember the best costumes were stuff from Rod Stearlings Twilight zone. Or Star Trek made in Hollywood. Even Star Wars was pretty bad and that was 1978. Costumes just didn't get good until the 1980s with Spielberg.

And there is something in the glance this monster makes at the camera recorded on the reel. It's a sinister look. I've compared it to other pictures of the monster taken at a further distance more recently within the last 5 years. And it's the same face, the same person 54 years later. The hair line around the cheek bones is the same in all these blurry cell phone photo captures.

There is something to this story.

If you believe such stories, it is worth pointing out that they are occasionally spotted in groups. One of the theories about "Patty", as they call tbe Bigfoot in the film, is that she was a mother protecting her baby. And right enough, "Patty" has obvious breasts, so unless Cain has transitioned or gotten overweight in his old age ("Fatty"?), it's not supposed to be a male.

The PG footage had an interesting afrerlife. At least a dozen people have claimed to be the (wo)man in the suit, and some of them couldn't even find the general location. IMHO the most damning thing is that "Patty" seems to have a garment-line in her fur round about where pants would normally end and a suit top begin. Animals don't tend to have these things.

macaRomney wrote:

>>There's something to this story.

I agree if one's taste runs to scoudrels and shenanigans.

Please review the evolution of hominids and their arrival in the Wesern Hemisphere.

Start with the geological timetable for the Ice Age and the "Beringia Land Bridge." Other than Homo sapiens, there's no evidence for any upright walking primate in North America and no "viable route for their arrival."

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Start with the geological timetable for the Ice
> Age and the "Beringia Land Bridge." Other than
> Homo sapiens, there's no evidence for any upright
> walking primate in North America and no "viable
> route for their arrival."

Jaredite barges.

For those of you who know who Julie Rowe is, you may be interested to know that she confirmed that Big Foot IS real when asked about it in a radio interview. Apparently they are hear from a forth or fifth dimension to oversea the flora of the planet and can disappear when needed.

Maybe this is where she went wrong, teaching a false doctrine, and got herself excommunicated.

I have always been a Big Foot atheist cause I have never encountered one, never seen a credible pic of one or a skeleton of one from an archeological dig.

“fourth or fifth dimension to oversea the flora of the planet and can disappear when needed.”

That’s why you never find their poop or their dead. They’re very psychic, so you won’t see them unless they allow it. It’s possible that if they are angry or upset they can’t upshift to the higher dimension and then you get encounters. I guess bigfoots have bad days too.

LDS missionaries found a Bigfoot footprint on their porch in 2008...so they said.

http://coldstreamernews.blogspot.com/2008/12/mormon-missionaries-find-sasquatch.html

They missed out on a golden investigator.

Big Foot is as elusive and sneaky as the Three Nephites. None of them want to have their pictures taken, and what videos have been taken are all blurry with a lot of movement from the hiker/camper.

Bigfoot believers never seem to know the term "breeding population".

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bigfoot believers never seem to know the term
> "breeding population".

They do - it's discussed frequently on their forums and in magazines, sorry, Dave! Even so there would be inbreeding problems and presumably humans - as close relatives - could pass on some diseases to them.

So they’re polygamists? Maybe the church should send missionaries.

“You’re being sent to the saskatchewan mission?”

“No, Sasquatch.”

Last I read was Meldrum saying these creatures' DNA is not Simian but human, mixed in with some other DNA they can't identify.

IF they exist. Who knows.
I always try to keep an open mind.

Elyse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always try to keep an open mind.


So open you believe in the possibility of human conception with only an egg?

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2227280,2227285#msg-2227285

Argh.
You obviously did not get what I was saying.
SMH

"Posted by: Elyse ( )
Date: May 26, 2019 08:05AM
Re: Anna the anaconda got pregnant all by herself -- by virgin birth

If biblical had Mary reproduced without the help of a male her child would have been female, since the egg is always female."

Maybe a snake in a garden impregnated a human and as a result the DNA created a Big Foot?

We have fossil remains of at least 16 other sub-species of, Humans (Homos) besides our own. And we have mapped the genome of two of those species, Neanderthals and Denisovans.
That being the case, isn't it possible that one of these species never went extinct, but just got really good at Hide and Go Seek?

S...cat wrote:

>>We have fossil remains of at least 16 other sub-species of, Humans (Homos) besides our own. And we have mapped the genome of two of those species, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

What renders your claim nonsensical is the reality that being a member of the genus Homo does not make a species human.

And Neanderthals were not a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141118141606.htm

>>Were Neanderthals a sub-species of modern humans? New research says no...

Too, as noted, the only other sub-species of Homo sapiens, H. sapiens idaltu is extinct. Your claim of "sixteen other subspecies" is at odds with the current scientific consensus. Moreover, that "hide-and-seek" suggestion is on par with LDS apologists arguing that we may yet find pre-Columbian Middle Eastern DNA in this hemisphere. That's not going to happen.

Finally, this thread--which is on topic while your attempted derailment isn't--is about Bigfoot.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> S...cat wrote:
>
> >>We have fossil remains of at least 16 other
> sub-species of, Humans (Homos) besides our own.
> And we have mapped the genome of two of those
> species, Neanderthals and Denisovans.
>
> What renders your claim nonsensical is the reality
> that being a member of the genus Homo does not
> make a species human.

A simple Google search would have saved you the embarrassment,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Names_and_taxonomy

"The Latin noun homō (genitive hominis) means "human being" or "man" in the generic sense of "human being, mankind".

>
> And Neanderthals were not a subspecies of Homo
> sapiens.
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/1411
> 18141606.htm
>
> >>Were Neanderthals a sub-species of modern
> humans? New research says no...

"New reasearch" apparently not linked to Wikipedia page on the topic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Names_and_taxonomy

H. neanderthalensis
possibly a subspecies of H. sapiens

Denisova hominin
possible H. sapiens subspecies or hybrid


> Too, as noted, the only other sub-species of Homo
> sapiens, H. sapiens idaltu is extinct. Your claim
> of "sixteen other subspecies" is at odds with the
> current scientific consensus.

I guess 'scientific consensus' hasn't made it into the Wikipedia page on the subject?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#Names_and_taxonomy

Moreover, that
> "hide-and-seek" suggestion is on par with LDS
> apologists arguing that we may yet find
> pre-Columbian Middle Eastern DNA in this
> hemisphere. That's not going to happen.

It's a joke about a meme on the subject,
Bigfoot, reigning Hide and Go Seek champion.

get a sense of humor.
You take yourself far too seriously.

>
> Finally, this thread--which is on topic while your
> attempted derailment isn't--is about Bigfoot.

What are you the "Stay ON TOPIC!" Nazi around here?
WTF?

I thought I'd turn a joke topic into a serious discussion about all the possibilities.

Personally I think "Big Foot" is an oral tradition that has been passed down to us from when our ancestors were being raped by Neanderthals and Denisovans, who were much bigger, stronger and had much larger brains than us, but we made wolves our best friends after getting raped by Big Foot (Neanderthals) and Denisovans (Yeti) and the dogs helped us bastards cooperate to outcompete our foes, by hunt down prey, including our mother fucking Big Foot forefathers, about 35,000 years ago, the same period we domesticated wolves.

There's a great book on the subject,

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150304-neanderthal-shipman-predmosti-wolf-dog-lionfish-jagger-pogo-ngbooktalk/

There was a pretty popular HBO series recently that followed the same script.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2019 12:46PM by koriwhore.

Off the top of my head, I can name five or six members of the genus "homo" (and I'm not an anthropologist). We can start with Homo habilis (named by Louis Leakey), Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, and our own, Homo sapiens.

Your vocabulary term is "peer reviewed," and your crush on Wiki not withstanding, the link I provided would've offered you some illumination if you'd bothered to do your homework.

I'll repeat what I said.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141118141606.htm

>>Were Neanderthals a sub-species of modern humans? New research says no

>>Researchers have identified new evidence supporting the growing belief that Neanderthals were a distinct species separate from modern humans (Homo sapiens), and not a subspecies of modern humans.

>>In an extensive, multi-institution study led by SUNY Downstate Medical Center, researchers have identified new evidence supporting the growing belief that Neanderthals were a distinct species separate from modern humans (Homo sapiens), and not a subspecies of modern humans.

As far as that "hominis" (which Google threw up on).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hominid

Definition of hominid. (Entry 1 of 2) : any of a family (Hominidae) of erect bipedal primate mammals that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms and in some recent classifications the great apes (the orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and bonobo)

Finally, as far as my "Nazi" tendencies go, I suggest you suck on a Godwin.

There used to be a TV show called Searching for Bigfoot. During one episode the hunters left an open box of doughnuts in an attempt to lure Bigfoot, but the raccoons ate them. Now that's entertainment! It was real scientific! lol

Aquarius123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There used to be a TV show called Searching for
> Bigfoot. During one episode the hunters left an
> open box of doughnuts in an attempt to lure
> Bigfoot, but the raccoons ate them. Now that's
> entertainment! It was real scientific! lol

?Finding Bigfoot? - it's like the Mystery of Oak Island or whatever it's called. If they did find something incontrovertible they'd be out of a show.