Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Mark Lewine
    hey, Barry...even if we only find one, it has two of these lower appendages, right? therefore it must be Bigfeet! ... From: Barry Kass To:
    Message 1 of 18 , Jul 6, 2011
      hey, Barry...even if we only find one, it has two of these lower appendages, right? therefore it must be Bigfeet!
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Barry Kass
      To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:15 PM

      Hi Ann,
      Thanks for the article from the Smithsonian, very interesting, I enjoyed
      reading it. Its been my belief, though, for many years, that if indeed,
      "Bigfoot" existed, then there had to be more than one of them, therefore we
      should refer to them as "Bigfeet". Just my opinion.

      On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Kaupp, Ann <kauppa@...> wrote:

      > **
      > Just an aside. Grover Krantz's skeleton is at the end of the Written in
      > Bone exhibit at the Natural History Museum. He donated his body to us and
      > insisted we also take at least two of his Irish Wolfhounds. His Irish
      > Wolfhound's skeleton is standing next to Grover with his front paws on
      > Grover's shoulders. Grover also donated his research papers. His brother
      > Victor worked for us as a photographer for many years and has since passed
      > away.
      > My office used to get many inquiries about Bigfoot. Below was our response
      > prepared by the physical anthropologist years ago. Nothing seems to have
      > changed.
      > The Museum of Natural History often receives requests for information
      > concerning the "Abominable Snowman," "Yeti," "Sasquatch," or "Bigfoot," and
      > other unknown creatures said to exist in certain mountain regions of the
      > world, particularly the Himalayas. western Canada and northwestern United
      > States. Though the term "Abominable Snowman" can refer to all these
      > creatures, generally the terms "Snowman" and "Yeti" refer to an Asiatic
      > creature, while "Sasquatch" and "Bigfoot" refer to North American creatures.
      > The actual existence of a "snowman" has not been definitely proven. Most
      > evidence submitted so far is based on photographs of previously unknown
      > animal tracks, unusual scats (dung), and some hair samples. Among the many
      > explanations offered on the basis of the above evidence, one that has
      > appealed greatly to the popular imagination is that the animal in question
      > is a huge, human-like ape, or possibly a surviving race of early man.
      > Because of its terrifying aspect, the animal, supposedly of Himalayan
      > origin, came to be called "abominable snowman"; it is this intriguing name
      > that is probably responsible for such widespread interest in these creatures
      > in various parts of the world.
      > Many zoologists who have reviewed the evidence have come to the conclusion
      > that the tracks of the Himalayan "snowmen" were really made by bears,
      > monkeys, or other already known animals. A few disagree saying there is
      > little similarity. The tracks attributed to the Sasquatch of the
      > northwestern United States are much more human-like but of vast proportions
      > (15-l8 inches in length). With the large publicity the "snowman" has
      > received in recent years, many popular articles of little scientific value
      > have been written. Some of these are convincing to read, but they are mostly
      > based on circumstantial evidence of "sightings," tracks, hair, scats, and
      > some doubtful pelts and skull caps.
      > While most scientists believe the likelihood of the existence of such a
      > creature is small, they keep an open mind as scientists should. One cannot
      > prove anything on the basis of negative evidence, and the only satisfactory
      > proof that an animal fitting the description of the "snowman" exists would
      > be either to capture one and study it or to find undisputed skeletal
      > evidence. Only these kinds of finds would result in the universal
      > recognition of the "snowman" by all scientists.
      > Below is a list of references through which you can pursue this topic
      > further:
      > Bryne, Peter. The Search for Bigfoot: Monster, Myth or Man? Washington,
      > D.C.: Acropolis Books Ltd., l975. (Summary of the evidence collected over
      > the years by a "believer" in the "snowman's" existence.)
      > Halpin, Marjorie and Michael M. Ames, eds. Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early
      > Records and Modern Evidence. Vancouver: University of British Columbia
      > Press, l980. (Explores Sasquatch-like creatures and summarizes reports of
      > sightings.)
      > Hillary, Edmund and Desmond Doig. High in the Thin Cold Air. New York.:
      > Doubleday and Co., 1963. (The famous Mt. Everest climber recounts searches
      > for the "snowman" in the Himalayas.)
      > Izzard, Ralph. The Abominable Snowman Adventure. Toronto: Modder and
      > Stoughton, 1954. (Concerns the search for the "snowman" in the Himalayas.)
      > Napier, John. Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality. New
      > York: E. P. Dutton, l973. (An eminent primatologist discusses his views on
      > the possibility of the "snowman's" existence. Concludes no "hard evidence"
      > exists though allows for some "soft evidence.")
      > Sanderson, Ivan T. Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life; The Story of
      > Sub-Humans on Five Continents from the Early Ice Age Until Today.
      > Philadelphia and New York: Chilton Co., 1961. (Sifts the accumulated
      > evidence for and against the "snowman's" existence rather thoroughly. For a
      > critical comment on this book see Carleton S. Coon's review in the January
      > 1962 issue of Natural History Magazine.)
      > Sprague, Roderick and Grover S. Krantz, eds. The Scientist Looks at the
      > Sasquatch. (Anthropological Monographs of the University of Idaho, no. 3.)
      > Moscow, Idah: The University of Idaho Press, l977. Collection of articles
      > first published in Northwest Anthropological Research Notes.)
      > Suttles, Wayne. "On the Cultural Track of the Sasquatch," Anthropological
      > Research Notes 6(l):65-90, 1972. (Discusses Native American views of the
      > Sasquatch. Article also in Sprague.)
      > 1988
      > From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SACC-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > Bob Muckle
      > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 3:06 PM
      > To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
      > Russel Ciochan is one of the experts on Gigantopithecus, and has written a
      > book on the discoveries in S.E. Asia ("Other Origins'). I did my first
      > undergraduate anthropology research paper on Gigantopithecus (back in the
      > Oligocene) and have never lost my interest. I try to keep up with the
      > research on it. Other than teeth and a dozen or so mandibles, no other
      > skeletal remains have been discovered. I have a cast of a Gigantopithecus
      > mandible that I like to show in my classes (mostly my biological anth
      > classes, but I often find an excuse to bring it out for other courses as
      > well). I like to compare it to the cast I have of a male Gorilla mandible.
      > The Gigantopithecus mandible is about one-third larger. I believe phtyoliths
      > have been extracted from a number of different Gigantopithecus mandibles,
      > and in every case they turn out to be bamboo (suggesting bamboo as primary
      > consitituent of the diet).
      > It is a risky business for an anthropologist to come out in support of
      > Bigfoot being a remant population of Gigantopithecus. One of the few who
      > have, was Grover Krantz of Washington State University.
      > Interestingly, one line of support (besides the sightings, recordings, etc)
      > for Bigfoot/Sasquatch comes from Native Americans.
      > The term Bigfoot is most commonly used in the U.S., while Sasquatch is most
      > common in Canada. "Sasquatch" is actually a local (to me) First Nation word.
      > Sasquatch/Bigfoot is common in the mythology of Native Peoples of the
      > Northwest Coast, and each has a particular name for it, and a mask from a
      > prehistoric deposit has been disovered, which looks pretty close to an
      > orangutan. It is difficult to take this as being evidence of its existence
      > in reality though. Mythological human-like monsters are fairly common
      > througout the world.
      > The region where I live is one of the 'hotspots' of sightings (well, a
      > forested area about 100 miles away). We get used to reports of Sasquatch
      > sightings this time of year.
      > A goup of avid believers invited me on a sasquatch-hunt (to document, not
      > kill) once. I didn't go. I routinely advise my students that if they ever
      > think they see a sasquatch, they should leave it alone. Chances are that it
      > is simply a big hairy human. And if they capture, wound, kill, or other
      > harass it, they might find themselves in trouble. This is because if the
      > reports of its physical characteristics are right (including bipedal), then
      > it is human.
      > Bob
      > >>> "Gilliland, Mary" <mkgilliland@...<mailto:mkgilliland%40pima.edu>>
      > 06/27/11 11:11 AM >>>
      > Strangely I know a little about "Giganto", from people I have known who
      > worked in Viet Nam looking for evidence of overlap between this primate and
      > Homo erectus. Giganto was first discovered through teeth found in Chinese
      > apothecaries in the earlier part of the 19th century. These and other fossil
      > teeth were used in traditional Chinese medicine (usually aphrodisiacs the
      > stories go, but there may be more to that). Later there were other Giganto
      > remains found, usually in caves, in Southern China, and some discovered in
      > Viet Nam. Not sure how much of an actual skeleton has been recovered though
      > - I think mostly teeth, some jaw, and perhaps some other bits and pieces.
      > The work I knew of long ago was through Russell Ciochan at University of
      > Iowa.
      > Would love to know what our SACC Physical Anthropologists know about this
      > and can share, update.
      > Mary K. Gilliland
      > Pima Community College
      > From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com<mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
      > SACC-L@yahoogroups.com<mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
      > Linda Light
      > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 9:14 AM
      > To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com<mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Yes, it was gigantopithecus. Maybe yeti and bigfoot are his descendants!
      > The
      > model made him look totally bipedal, though, not like an ape.
      > Linda
      > ________________________________
      > From: Ann Bragdon <ANNBRAG@...<mailto:ANNBRAG%40prodigy.net
      > ><mailto:ANNBRAG%40prodigy.net>>
      > To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com<mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
      > SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Sun, June 26, 2011 5:15:42 PM
      > Was it "gigantopithecus"?
      > This is an Asian (China, India, Vietnam) ape that went extinct (??) -
      > according to Relethford's text 9mya to perhaps 500,000 years ago.
      > On Jun 26, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Linda Light wrote:
      > > Bill and I just spend a couple of days in San Diego and went to the
      > > Museum of
      > > Man. They have a model of a critter that looks like a giant Bigfoot
      > > called
      > > Giganto-something-or-other, and the display did not imply that the
      > > critter was
      > > hypothetical. I should have taken notes (but didn't), but it was
      > > well over 7 1/2
      > > ft tall with feet close to 18 inches long. Can't remember where the
      > > data came
      > > from for their model, but it might have come from Asia (a yeti? but
      > > its hair was
      > > reddish, not white). Bob, do you know anything about actual physical
      > > evidence
      > > for him?
      > >
      > > Laura, next time you're in there, check it out!
      > >
      > > Linda Light
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: Bob Muckle <bmuckle@...<mailto:bmuckle%40capilanou.ca
      > ><mailto:bmuckle%40capilanou.ca>>
      > > To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com<mailto:SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
      > SACC-L%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Sun, June 26, 2011 9:14:47 AM
      > >
      > >
      > > Thanks for forwarding this to SACC-L. I love Bigfoot stories, and
      > > have been
      > > using Bigfoot to teach about the nature of science, and critical
      > > thinking for a
      > > very long time.
      > >
      > > I especially like how people often think DNA is going to give a
      > > definitive
      > > answer. I can't imagine a result coming back that identifies DNA as
      > > 'Bigfoot'.
      > > One of my favorite blurbs about science is that "sciences explains
      > > the unknown
      > > from what is already known." And since we don't know what Bigfoot
      > > DNA is like
      > > (if Bigfoot really exists), how could someone possibly identify DNA
      > > as Bigfoot?
      > >
      > > I bet this story goes nowhere, along with the hundreds of others
      > > that indicate
      > > someone has found bigfoot hair, blood, feces,a and more that are
      > > being sent to a
      > > lab for further study.
      > >
      > > I hope it is true, but I doubt it.
      > >
      > > Bob
      > >
      > > >>> kent morris <km52@...<mailto:km52%40att.net><mailto:
      > km52%40att.net>> 06/26/11 8:35 AM >>>
      > >
      > >
      > > Close-up of the "paw" print image above. The impression was
      > > reportedly left by
      > > Bigfoot on the window of a pickup truck in the California Sierra
      > > National Forest
      > >
      > > over Memorial Day weekend 2011.
      > >
      > > Bigfoot or bear? Pictured is a second impression left on the rear
      > > side window of
      > >
      > > the same truck from the previous slides.
      > > According to forensic/law enforcement photographer Mickey Burrow,
      > > "What
      > > you're seeing is a swipe mark. It looks like a small hand, swiping
      > > to the left,
      > > leaving another impression, and there's hair within those areas --
      > > you can see
      > > where the hair would be." - AOL News
      > >
      > > Pictures of the creature, estimated
      > > at 7 1/2 feet tall, were taken northeast of Eureka, Calif., in
      > > October 1967
      > >
      > > A DNA test could prove the one thing that decades of grainy videos,
      > > mysterious
      > > footprints and unverified eyewitness accounts haven't -- the
      > > existence of
      > > Bigfoot. Bigfoot researchers in California say they've obtained
      > > startling
      > > evidence, and are now trying to raise money for genetic testing on
      > > an oil
      > > residue purportedly left behind by the elusive hairy beast.
      > >
      > > This footprint was found over Memorial Day weekend, 2011, near
      > > Fresno, Calif.
      > > by a group of campers who were on a Bigfoot-hunting expedition.
      > >
      > > The print, measuring approximately 12 inches, was found near a truck
      > > where
      > > possible DNA evidence was left behind by more than one Bigfoot
      > > creature.
      > >
      > > AOL News has obtained exclusive photos taken recently by forensic
      > > expert Mickey
      > > Burrow, who examined the evidence, and those photos are available
      > > here for the
      > > first time.
      > >
      > > A preserved skull and hand said to be that of a Yeti or Abominable
      > > Snowman
      > > is on display at Pangboche monastery, near Mount Everest. - HuffPost
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > ------------------------------------
      > Find out more at our web site http://saccweb.net/ Yahoo! Groups Links
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.