Pages

Saturday, November 27, 2010

The Ape with the Snorkel Nose

 If an ape such as a gorilla submerges its head beneath the water, its nostrils will become filled with water which would likely flood its nasal cavity, since its nostrils are turned outwards. When it raises its head above the water and tries to breathe, it could strangle or drown from the water in its nasal cavity.
 I believe that the configuration of the human nose, which is noticeably different from all other primates, is an adaptation for swimming underwater. The nostrils of the human nose are turned down, allowing air to be trapped in the nasal cavity
 This is not to say that people are descendents of "Water Apes", but such an ability was very useful to our remote ancestors. It allowed them to escape predators and increased their food sources to include fish, water fowl and other inhabitants of the rivers and seas.
 Most sea or river dwellers (such as otters or dolphins) have nostrils that can be closed to prevent their nasal cavities from being flooded with water. Any water in he nasal cavity must be blown out since mammals generally breathe through their nose. Otherwise, they could strangle or drown.
 I think this is very pertinent to Bigfoot research because some Bigfoot are known to swim underwater. While there have been witnesses who claim that the creatures they saw had apelike nostrils, I think that the ones that swim underwater probably have downturned nostrils.
William Mayes

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Bogeys, Boggarts, Boggles ,and Boogers

If you think that "Booger" is just a funny made up name for Bigfoot, you would be wrong. The roots of this word and it's relatives are lost in the mists of antiquity.
Here is the etymology of bogey according to WIKIPEDIA:

The word bogey is derived from the Middle English bogge/bugge (also the origin of the word bug), and thus is generally thought to be a cognate of the German bögge, böggel-mann (English "Bogeyman"). The word could also be linked to many similar words in other European languages: boeman (Dutch), buse (Nynorsk), bøhmand (Danish), bòcan, púca, pooka or pookha (Irish Gaelic), pwca, bwga or bwgan (Welsh), puki (Old Norse), pixie or piskie (Cornish), puck (English), bogu (Slavonic), buka (Russian).[2] It has also been suggested that bogeyman has the same origin as bugger, from ME bougre (heretic, sodomite), fr. MF, fr. ML Bulgaris, lit. Bulgarian


In English folklore, a boggart(or bogart) is a household fairy which causes things to disappear, milk to sour, and dogs to go lame. Always malevolent, the boggart will follow its family wherever they flee. In Northern England, at least, there was the belief that the boggart should never be named, for when the boggart was given a name, it would not be reasoned with nor persuaded, but would become uncontrollable and destructive.
It is said that the boggart crawls into people's beds at night and puts a clammy hand on their faces. Sometimes he strips the bedsheets off them. Sometimes a boggart will also pull on a person's ears. Hanging a horseshoe on the door of a house is said to keep a boggart away.
In the folklore of North-West England, boggarts live under bridges on dangerous sharp bends on roads, and it is considered bad luck for drivers not to offer their polite greetings as they cross.
Incidently, the surname Bogart, (as in Humphrey Bogart) is derived from "boomgaard", the Dutch word for  "orchard".

The Scottish variant is the bogle (or boggle).

A Bogle or a Boggle  is the same creature referred to in "mind boggling" or "to boggle the mind".

As far as "booger" itself there is not much  on Wikipedia except a reference to similar terms.
"A ghost or hobgoblin, used to frighten children; also boogerbear, boogerman or bogeyman (mainly southern U.S.)".

 I was raised in the South, and when I was a kid, when we spoke of the Devil, we called him "the Boogerman''.

William Mayes

Monday, October 18, 2010

My Dark BF

Sometime between 1968 and 1974, I turned on the tv and there was a documentary in progress about a creature that I had little knowledge of. I had read about some oversized footprints that had been discovered in the Northwest, but gave it little thought. This documentary was about some creatures that had actually been filmed, and got my attention. One of the film clips was of a female on a creek bed. It showed her turning towards the camera then turning away and walking away. This, of course was the famous Patterson film. It only showed a small part of it.

What is amazing is that it showed another clip, a clip I have never seen since.
According to the documentary, there was a Bigfoot that had been coming down to a house at night or early in the morning and going through the garbage.
One day the owner of the house or someone he knew managed to get some moving images of this fellow as he was walking along a path near his house.
The documentary showed this short clip and it was as real as the Patterson film. I knew in my heart that these images were real, and I said so to my Mother who was watching tv with me.
The figure ( I say figure because I can't bring myself to call it an animal after seeng it) was walking along and looking down and was about a three quarter turn away from the camera. You could tell that it was very large and heavy by the way it moved. The resolution of my tv and the resolution of the image were not the best. They showed this clip several times and I focused my attention on the face, because you could barely see its face.
Whatever happened to this film clip, I don't know. But I will always remember what I saw.
This is basically what my silly Bigfoot drawings is all about. I am not an artist, I have never had one dab of art training. I never started trying to draw until I was 67 years old. I started then so I might gain enough skill so I could represent what I saw on this documentary. I think I might be good enough now.





 The front was much darker than this and he may have been turned a little more away from the camera, also the chest was not as well defined,so it is possible that it was female, but it did not have the breasts that Patty had. I haven't really done justice to it because the stoic look on its face was very impressive to me and it seemed to be deep in thought which gave me the feeling that it was very intelligent.
The large area between the mouth and the small nose might make one think that it looked like an ourang-utan if seen from a distance, but the mouth area is very flat unlike an ourang-utan.
An eye-witness who saw a Bigfoot close up if I am not mistaken, has said that there was no large space above the lip as in my drawing. I believe this eye-witness is telling the truth. There seems to be a great deal of variation in Bigfoot descriptions. I would like to show a possible explanation for some of these variations.
Bigfoot eats meat, he does't brush his teeth or floss as far as I know. So it stands to reason that he may have dental problems.

Here is what the figure above would look like if it was toothless.







William Mayes

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

More Patty

There's an awful lot of fake videos of alleged bigfoot encounters and evidence on youtube. Why people do this, I don't know. It's like watching an unfunny comedy routine  fall flat on it's face to canned laughter. Whenever these videos show a guy in a suit, he always has a funny walk and wide arm swings. This is supposed to be in imitation of the Patterson figure. But it never looks real. It doesn't look real because Patty doesn't really walk funny.
The way she picks up and sets down her feet can be explained by the simple fact that she is barefooted on sandy, rocky, uneven  ground filled with all kinds of obstacles. The only time she swings her arms out is when she whirls around to face her pursuers. She turns, looks back toward Gimlin, steps in a slight depression(almost unnoticeable) because she took her eye off the ground in front of her. Then looks at Roger, and turns and continues walking. She never stopped moving even though Patterson later said in error that she had paused. Which goes to show you that even eyewitnesses can be wrong. When she got down in the woods she came upon uneven ground and her armswings compensated for the unevenness.
 The bottom of her feet, of course are covered with the dirt and probably pretty thickly, since she had been squatting by the creek edge and her feet were no doubt wet. This mud  might seem to distort her foot in the mind of one who didn't take this in consideration, giving them the notion that her heel had a different shape than normal people's.
Even looking at her profile, it is not apparent that she has an unhuman, apelike brow, just that it is obscured by hair. My conclusion is that this is a large, hairy naked woman, human, but not necessarily sapiens.
William Mayes

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Bigfoot Hands

I know that I've said several times that I think Bigfoot are close to the human line. The problem is: are they animals? They live like animals. They apparently use no technology any more advanced than the apes do. On the other hand, there is evidence that they have at least a rudimentary form of speech.
 It is my belief that speech was necessary before man could maintain and use fire. There is just too much to know about this dangerous but useful phenomenon that it all could be learned by observation. Children had to be taught how use it safely, how to maintain it and rekindle a fire after it went out. Once the knowledge of fire was kindled in men's minds, it has never been forgotten to this day. That could only be because the knowledge was passed from one generation to the next by speech.
 That does not mean that isolated groups didn't lose the use of fire. If they did, they picked it up again after meeting with groups that had retained its use.
 If speech is older than the use of fire, then it is a very old ability since the use of fire goes back at least to the time of homo ergaster, about 2 million years ago.
This means that either Bigfoot is at the stage man was before he discovered fire or he is part of a group that has lost its use. In the first case it would appear that maybe he just never developed enough intelligence to cross the line. In the second case it would appear that he just didn't have the intelligence to relearn the use of fire from the native Americans that he came into contact with.
A great deal of intelligence is probably not necessary for a creature to have a simple form of speech. Some people who study crows maintain that they can talk.
 It may not be that simple, however.
 Take a look at a chimp's hands. He has a little thumb and long hand and fingers. He has to curl them way around if he wants to touch his fingers to his thumb. He cannot do any delicate manipulation with them. A human can manipulate small objects like needles or arrow heads, but a chimp cannot. a chimp can put a nut on a rock and smash it with another rock. He can use a stick to manipulate objects. He can even chew the end of the stick to give it a sharper point and then use it to spear smaller animals. But he can't make a spear head and attach it to the stick because he doesn't have the dexterity.
 Whether this applies to Bigfoot or not, I don't know. If only we could find some good hand prints, maybe we could decide. If Bigfoot can run around on all fours like some people claim, then there ought to be a lot of them out there.

William Mayes

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Changing the View

I've simplified my background and eliminated the floating text which I found distracting. I had originally changed to that from my original layout when I discovered that  someone whom I didn't particularly agree with was using the same background. So I changed it. And now I've changed it again, hopefully for the last time.
William Mayes

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Feral Sasquatches.

We know that there have been human children that have been lost or abandoned in the wilds and have been raised by animals. Such children are called "Feral Children". Feral children are developmentally crippled because they have missed critical stages in human development where they should have learned basic human traits such as talking and walking on two feet. A feral child raised by wolves would howl and run around on all fours like a wolf. Attempts to train such children to act like humans is usually not very successful.
 What happens when a mother bigfoot with a small child dies? If there are no other bigfeet around to adopt the child, then the child will perish. But it's possible that the child could be found by a mother bear. All baby animals are easily recognized as babies and the bear may adopt the child, especially if she had only one or two cubs. We know that such things happen because they have happened to human children. In fact I think that such a thing is more likely to happen to sasquatch children than to humans.
 Note that I am not trying to say that sasquatch are feral humans. Sasquatch are a unique species and are not feral humans though they may be related to the human genus.
 So how could you tell if a Sasquatch was "feral"?
 If he had a tendency to drop down on all fours.
 If you look at the Patterson figure, you can see that she is proportioned very much like a human. She is obviously as much a biped as we are. Running around on all fours would be unnatural for her, Unless there was something wrong with her.
 Some people have claimed to have seen sasquatch running on all fours. Maybe they are feral sasquatches.
William Mayes

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

What sagittal Crest?

A sagittal crest is a ridge of bone that runs across the middle of the skull in apes like gorillas. Its purpose is to serve as a place of attachment for the the large muscles of the jaw. Human jaw muscles are attached at the temples. A high crown is not a sagittal crest. The creature in the Patterson film does not appear to have a sagittal crest in my opinion.
See: Wikipedia: Sagittal Crest , Sagittal Keel
William Mayes

Friday, May 14, 2010

The Case Against the Ape Theory

The Ape Theory doesn't have a leg to stand on and never did. It is based on Grover Krantz's dubious model of Gigantopithecus as an upright bipedal ape, and that this model fits the description of bigfoot.
In answering the critics of the Patterson film, Krantz managed to confirm some of the errors that they held.
One objection was that since the creature was a female, it shouldn't have a saggital crest.
Krantz's response was that the crest was not a function of maleness per se but a function of size. In doing so, he confirmed the false idea that Patty had a saggital crest.
Another objection was that the "creature" had large humanlike breasts, but they were covered in hair. The objection was that apes don't have hairy breasts nor do they have large breasts unless they are nursing their offspring.
Krantz answer to that was that bigfoot is a unique species and there is no reason to say what it should or should not have in this regard. This confirmed the false belief that Patty had hair-covered breasts.
Another source of errors is in the NASI report. It states that the position of the ears is closer to the position of an ape's ear than a human's. In the image that is shown, the ear is not visible at all. Instead there is a dark splotch which if taken to be the ear, would be in the wrong place for a human ear. But it is not an ear, it is hair, that due to its coloring or shadowing appears darker than the surrounding hair. This hair can be pointed out in other images and shown for what it really is.
It should be pointed out that these image are all highly enhanced digital images. The software that enhanced these images will enhance the errors along with the rest of the image. The distinctness gained by using this software has the effect of making artifacts seem more real.
An objective examination of the Patterson film will show these obvious truths:
1) Patty does not have a sagittal crest
2) The only thing that can be ascertained about her breasts is that they are dark. This does not mean they are hair covered.
3) Her ears seem to be in the usual place for humans.
Another fictitious fact is that Patty has a hair-covered face.There is obviously hair on her forehead, this may be a combination of thick brows and hair falling down across her brow. This is not clear at all. There may be some hair on her cheeks but it may just be skin color. One image in the NASI report shows what looks like beard hairs sticking out from her chin. An examination of the frames nearby shows that these "beard hairs" are actually part of the background.
Another answer that Krantz gave that is wrong is the one why Bigfoot turns his whole body when he looks around. He said that since Bigfoot's chin was lower than his shoulder then he couldn't turn his head around because his chin would collide with his shoulder so he had to turn his whole body.
The reason why this is wrong is because even humans can not turn their heads far enough for their chins to be even with their shoulders, simply because the neck can not turn that far. Try it.
When people look behind them, they use a combination of eye turn, neck turn and body turn, usually twisting at the waist. A fat person may actually turn his whole body since his waist is less flexible. So might a Bigfoot for the same reason.

(to be continued)

William Mayes

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Bigfoot Drawings II

I hope you enjoy these drawings as much as I enjoyed doing them.



Some of these drawings of Bigfoot are about three years or more old. I started out with mspaint and you can tell it.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

The Origin of Bigfoot

Is Bigfoot a Neandertal? Some people have suggested that Almasty are Neandertals and we suppose that Bigfoot is similar to them. I don't think so, because Neandertals had  large heads with a pronounced bulge on the back of their heads. Most descriptions of Bigfoot indicate he has a small head, at least relative to his size. Also Neandertals were not tall but about the size of an ordinary human or shorter.
 My first choice for Bigfoot was Homo Ergaster. He was tall and he has been described as being better adapted to bipedal walking and running than modern man. Of course there has been a lot of changes in the 1.9 million years since Turkana boy walked the earth. According to current thought, Ergaster evolved into Homo Heidelbergensis and Heidelbergensis evolved into two branches, Neandertal and Homo Sapiens. I believe Heidelbergensis also evolved into another branch. This is the branch that gave rise to Bigfoot. This line probably originated in Europe and survivors of these people gave rise to the legends of trolls, and other manlike beings.
The only thing wrong with this theory is that Homo Heidelbergensis was an adept tool maker and we would assume his descendents would be also. Yet There has been no reports of Bigfoot using hand made tools. What's the matter with Bigfoot. Why isn't he making tools?
 I think he has lost his knowledge of tool making because of a recent disaster that reduced his population to such a low level that there were not enough people(Bigfoot people) to maintain and pass on the technical knowledge of tool making to their descendents. In other words Bigfoot has come as close as the skin of his teeth to becoming extinct. This probably was caused by disease. I suspect that during the middle part of the 20th century Bigfoot started to increase his population and was barely saved from extinction. I also suspect that one of the main causes of this increase was the widespread use of DDT. Fleas, mosquitoes and other insects are the main carriers of the diseases that were killing Bigfoot. DDT dramatically cut down on these disease carrying insects and may have saved Bigfoot from extinction.
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/hominid_journey/turkana.html
http://www.southernbiological.com/Products/Models/Anthropology/BH012.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9989-timeline-human-evolution.html
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/history/turkana.php




William Mayes

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Folklore

It is my belief that there has existed and still may exist beings related to but not the same as homo sapiens. On every continent and in every racial group there are folklores of humanlike creatures. It is in countries like England and other European countries where these creatures are the most bizarre and unbelievable, creatures like elves and fairies are just too fantastic for one to believe that they had any basis in reality. There is a reason for that. The original creatures looked nothing like the modern depiction.
 In a non-literate society where tradition is handed down by word of mouth, the keepers of the tradition are more careful to render their stories faithfully and as accurate as possible. Changes occur of course, but usually not by design.
 On the other hand, in literate societies, there is little or no respect for verbal tradition. The literate intellectual sees these quaint stories handed down by the common people as fodder for his imagination and he creates stories to suit his fancy. These tales are mixed in and supplant the original folklore, and in a few generations the results are quite fantastic.
 I believe because of universality of these traditions, there must be some truth behind them.
 It is in societies that have an oral tradition, such as the Native American that you are likely to find the most accurate accounts of these homins.

Here are some interesting links at Bigfoot Encounters on the subject
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/folklore.htm
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/folklore2.htm
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/folklore3.htm
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/folklore4.htm

Now it seems that science has come around to discovering that there were more to the human line than previously thought:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/neither-neanderthal-nor-sapiens-new-human-relative-ided.ars

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/24/new-ancestor-scientists-ponder-dna-siberia/

William Mayes

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Bigfoot Comments

I received a few comments on my hypothetical bigfoot. Also received an email from a gentleman named Karl Breheim who said he had seen a bigfoot in Oregon, but that he already had a drawing that looked very much like the one that he saw.
His website is:
http://bigfootabcs.org/

I have a great number of drawings of bigfoot by me and by other artists. I have a folder full of eyewitness drawings, some by the witnesses, but most are interpretations by an artist of a witness's descriptions. To me the most important are those done by Harvey Pratt, because he actually sat down with the witnesses and had personal interaction with them. Also he is a professional forensic artist who has been doing this kind of stuff for forty years. Pete Travers has a gallery of drawings at his website, The Painted Cave, that he has done from eyewitness descriptions. I just saw yesterday an interesting rendition by Keith Foster from an eyewitnesses view throgh a telecope. I love Paul Smith's drawings. There are others whose names may escape me, but have done great work in trying to depict these creatures.

The features of hypothetical bigfoot are essentially human, I took the nose from my perception of Patty's nose, added ears even though nearly all descriptions of bigfoot lack this feature. Note that the ears of an ape are much higher than the ears of a human. No beard or hairy forehead. The main difference is the eyes. This is what gives it a nonhuman look. I wanted to see how many people would say that it looked like an ape or nonhuman simply because of the eyes.
 Karl's bigfoot had a full beard, which is the way I often draw bigfoot as you can see on this page.


William Mayes

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Bigfoot and a Helicopter Crash

I've read a lot of stories of bigfoot rescueing children, hikers with broke legs, snakebite victims, even carrying an elk carcass for miles for hunters because they had been given some peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. This has led me to believe that these creatures are not only intelligent but compassionate.
Then I hear stories like this: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2393
In reading this report about bigfoot and a helicopter crash, I note that none of the witnesses report any attempts by the creatures to actually try to eat the men that were pulled from the wreckage.

There is the possibility that these creatures were actually trying to help the men trapped in the wreckage.
 If this is true, I hope that none of the creatures were shot.
William Mayes

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Hypothetical Bigfoot


Above is a hypothetical drawing of bigfoot. It is based on my interpretations of bigfoot that I have read from books and internet reports of sightings. There are a lot of variations in the descriptions of bigfoot, so I have chosen from certain descriptions and have drawn this face. I want to ask my readers :
A) Do you think this looks anything like an actual bigfoot?
B) Do you think it looks more humanlike than apelike?
C)Do you think an actual bigfoot looks more humanlike or more apelike?

In another post, I will explain why I have drawn the features as I have. Thank You for any feed back.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Where are the bodies?

Skeptics are constantly asking the question "Why haven't there been any bodies of bigfoot found?"
The following excerpts came from a Wikipedia article on Giants.

The book Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman (1971) recounts the following alleged finds:

* A decayed human skeleton claimed by eyewitnesses to measure around 3.28 meters (10 feet 9 inches tall), was unearthed by laborers while plowing a vineyard in November 1856 in East Wheeling, now in West Virginia.
* A human skeleton measuring 3.6 meters (12 feet) tall was unearthed at Lompock Rancho, California, in 1833 by soldiers digging in a pit for a powder magazine. The specimen had a double row of teeth and was surrounded by numerous stone axes, carved shells and porphyry blocks with abstruse symbols associated with it.
* Several mummified remains of humans with reddish hair claimed to range from 2-2.5 meters (6.5 feet to over 8 feet) tall were dug up at Lovelock Cave, (70 miles) north-east of Reno, Nevada, by a guano mining operation. These bones supposedly substantiated claims for legends by the local Paiute Indians regarding giants which they called Si-Te-Cah. However, there appear to be no verified Paiute legends about giants or that call the Si-Te-Cah giants [5]. Some of these artifacts can also be found in the Nevada State Historical Society's museum at Reno. Adrienne Mayor states that these skeletons are normal sized.[5] Mayor does not mention that some of the fiber woven sandals found at Lovelock Cave are extremely large, as great as 7 inches across the toes and over 15 inches in length (size 20 US mens) suggesting persons very much more than average size.[6]
* A 9' 11" (3.02 meters) skeleton was unearthed in 1928 by a farmer digging a pit to bury trash in Tensas Parish, Louisiana near Waterproof. In 1931 a 10' 2" (3.1 meters) skeleton was unearthed by a boy burying his dog in Nearby Madison Parish.

Aside from in Forbidden Land, we can find verified and unverified examples about the remains of giants:

* The skull of a youth 7 feet tall, and the partial limb bones of a man estimated at over 11 feet tall were unearthed in 1890 at the Bronze age cemetery of Castelnau-le-Lez, France and published in the science journal "La Nature"[7] and subsequently reported in the New York Times in 1892.[8]
* A 9' 8" (2.95 meters) skeleton was excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana in 1879 (Indianapolis News, November 10, 1975).
* In Clearwater, Minnesota, the skeletons of seven giants were found in mounds. These had receding foreheads and complete double dentition[citation needed]
* A mound near Toledo, Ohio, held 20 skeletons, seated and facing east with jaws and teeth "twice as large as those of present day people", and beside each was a large bowl with "curiously wrought hieroglyphic figures." (Chicago Record, October 24, 1895; cited by Ron G. Dobbins, NEARA Journal, v13, fall 1978).

* Patagons of Patagonia in South America, are giants claimed to have been seen by Ferdinand Magellan and his crew.[10] Drake reported only finding people of 'mean stature'[11] although his Chaplain reported giants. However, even before Magellan, a Spanish romance called Primaleón of Greece was published in 1512 in which a dashing explorer discovers savages, one named Patagon, whose descriptions are very similar to those of Magellan.[1

There is even a story in William Cody's autobiography about an encounter with the Pawnee Indians that reads. "While we were in the sandhills, scouting the Niobrara country, the Pawnee Indians brought into camp some very large bones, one of which the surgeon of the expedition pronounced to be the thigh bone of a human being. The Indians said the bones were those of a race of people who long ago had lived in that country. They said these people were three times the size of a man of the present day, that they were so swift and strong that they could run by the side of a buffalo, and, taking the animal in one arm, could tear off a leg and eat it as they ran." They too had six fingers on their hands, which was why the Indians raised their hands when they greeted someone, so that they could count the fingers, for they feared the six fingered men.

William Mayes

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Calling out to Bigfoot

When somebody goes out in the woods where bigfoot is suspected of being, they often try to mimic some of these sounds, or play an amplified recording of a purported bigfoot call or simulation of a purported bigfoot call to try to get some kind of response.

I don't believe that all the screams and whoops and yelps or whatever you may call them that are attributed to bigfoot are really bigfoot sounds. Wolves, owls and other birds can make some strange sounds.I can visualize two groups of bigfoot hunters call-blasting each other. Could this have happened? I don't know, but it's possible. It's even possible that someone taking a group out on a bigfoot expedition might decide to give his customers a memorable experience by faking a bigfoot call. It might get recorded and used as an example of a real bigfoot call. I'm not accusing anyone of doing this, I'm just pointing out that it's possible.

I don't know what bigfoot thinks about these meaningless sounds. I suspect he thinks the caller is trying to make a fool of him. More likely he thinks the caller is stupid.
I think it would be much better if you called out in english. I think some bigfoot know a few words of english. They have heard people speak. They may not know the exact meaning or how to use them in a sentence. Before they can learn that, there has to be some kind of vocal interaction between humans and bigfoot.

An interesting report of bigfoot imitating human words is given in the story of the "Zoobies", where a bigfoot or "Zoobie" was heard imitating a woman calling her chickens. The story can be read on Bobbie Short's Bigfoot Encounters. Here is a direct link: zoobies

No one ever tries to talk to bigfoot. I think it should be tried. What to say is another matter. Just say "Hello, I would like to talk to you and be your friend,"or something to that effect. I know you might feel embarassed shouting out something like that in front of your friends, but do it anyway. You might gain their trust and establish communication with them. Maybe not. But you'll never know till you try.

William Mayes

Friday, February 5, 2010

What Is Bigfoot?

Just because I don't believe that Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus does not mean that I don't respect the people that do. Some of the people that I have a great admiration for apparently still believe in the Ape hypothesis. I believed in it at one time. It seemed to be a great theory, but I no longer believe in it. The reason I changed my mind had nothing to do with David Paulides or Harvey Pratt. It happened when I acquired a cd with some good images of the Patterson film. I could see that the creature was not an ape. I don't see how anyone can see Patty and believe that she is an ape.
If she isn't an ape, then what is she?
As far as we know, Bigfoot does not use fire or stone tools. The oldest known fossil of the genus homo is homo Habilis. It is believed that homo Habilis used primitive stone tools and possible used fire. Or could Bigfoot be some kind of relative of the Australopithecines?
I doubt it. I believe that bigfoot is much more advanced than these creatures. Bigfoot is a forest dweller and we know that this is not a good environment for fossilization. The ancestor of Bigfoot probably has not been found yet. I believe it was most likely a variant of homo Erectus.
Homo Erectus of course used fire and made stone tools, so what happened to Bigfoot?
He must have lost this technology somewhere along the way.
Is this possible?
Not only is it possible, but it is highly probable that a robust creature like bigfoot, who has adapted to a forest environment would quit using fire, because in such an environment he would constantly run the risk of starting a forest fire, which would be disastrous. Either natural selection or conscious consideration or both caused him to lose the ability to use fire and the knowledge that went with it. But fire is the mother of all technology. Not only cooking but curing hides, shaping wood , and many things would be impossible without fire. Just one generation without this technology and it is lost perhaps forever, since there is no way to record their knowledge for posterity.
It is possible that bigfoot has not completely lost all, since after all, he can speak and may have an oral tradition. I will explore this possibility in another post.
William Mayes

Saturday, January 23, 2010

The Smartest Man In The World

This has nothing whatever to do with Bigfoot. It is an old joke that I read recently and I still got a laugh out of it. Maybe some of the younger readers haven't heard it .

Kissinger, Nixon, the pope and a hippy are flying over the ocean when suddenly the pilot emerges from the cockpit announcing “The engines have conked out and we are going to crash. Unfortunately, there are only four parachutes and as the pilot, I’m taking one.” He puts on a chute, opens the door and jumps.

Nixon then declares: As President of the United States, I’m the most important man in the world and I have a responsibility to survive.”, grabs a chute and jumps.

Then Kissinger declares: “As the smartest man in the world, it would make no sense for me to die needlessly.”, grabs a chute and jumps.

Then the pope turns to the hippy and tells him “I’m a very old man. You are still young and have a long future ahead of you. Take the last chute, my son, and save yourself.”

The hippy turns to the pope: “It’s cool man. The smartest man in the world just jumped out with my backpack. Grab the other chute and let’s go!”
..................................................................................................................................................................................
Some Quotations:
Abstract art
is a product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.
Al Capp

If you would not be forgotten as soon as you are dead, either write things worth reading or do things worth writing." —Benjamin Franklin

William Mayes

Friday, January 22, 2010

Comparison Of Gigantopithecus And Bigfoot

The description of Bigfoot in most Bigfoot reports runs something like this:
Bigfoot is big and hairy, standing six to ten feet tall, broad and thick. He is quick and powerful, able to run deer down,and able to keep up with autos and cross a highway in three bounds. He can leap twenty feet from a standing position. He can jump off bluffs. There may be exaggerations and mistakes in some of these reports but not in all of them. The consensus is that bigfoot is vigorous and fast, and eats meat at least occasionally. Most people who have gotten a glimpse of his face, say he looks more human than ape-like. He walks upright on two feet almost exclusively.

The description of Gigantopithecus is taken from The Ape That was by Russel L. Ciochon:



The discovery of the jaws resolved, at least for most scientists, any doubts that the creature was apelike and not, as Weidenreich had argued, humanlike. Based on the fossils, Gigantopithecus is now placed among the Asian apes, a descendant, along with the orangutan, of the earlier ape ancestor Sivapithecus, best known from an 8-million-year-old skull discovered in Pakistan. Its size and ape affiliation suggest Gigantopithecus was a ground-dwelling, fist-walking creature.

While more teeth of the extinct ape have been found, no other bones have turned up. Based only on the jaws and teeth, however, an attempt can be made to reconstruct both the animal and its way of life. The jaws are deep (top to bottom) and very thick. The molars are low-crowned and flat, with very thick enamel caps suitable for heavy grinding. The premolars are broad and flat and resemble molars. The canine teeth are not sharp and pointed but shaped more like what one would expect premolars to look like, while the incisors are small, peglike, and closely packed. The canines and incisors together form a specialized cutting tool, most similar to what is found in some present-day tree sloths and in the extinct giant ground sloth. The features of the teeth, combined with the massive, robust jaws, lead to the inevitable conclusion that the animal was adapted to the consumption of tough, fibrous foods by cutting, crushing, and grinding them.

As a rule, large herbivores subsist on diets of coarse leaves and grasses, which are low in nutritional value but typically available in very large quantities. (Large animals succeed with this regime partly because their metabolic requirements are relatively low, in terms of energy required per unit of body mass.) One suggestion is that Gigantopithecus, or at least the larger species in China, was adapted, like the giant panda, to a diet of bamboo, the giant grass abundant in the region. The jaws of Gigantopithecus and the giant panda, if set side by side with the jawbones of, say, the gorilla and the grizzly bear, appear thicker, deeper, and more massive. These differences reflect the specialized diet of the panda (and, by inference, of Gigantopithecus) compared with the much more general diet of the gorilla and grizzly.


An outstanding characteristic of giant herbivores is their extreme slowness. They have no particular need of speed: their size and thick skins protect them from predators, and of course their feeding habits require no more of them than that they move from place to place as they systematically denude the landscape of vegetation.
Furthermore, they are usually stuffed full of bulky food to digest, which tends to produce inertia. Gigantopithecus probably followed this pattern.

That doesn't sound like bigfoot to me.

Here is another good article at Bigfoot Encounters which shows some images of what Gigantopithecus probably looked like.

I would like to point out that several Bigfoot witnesses have mentioned that the creature that they had sighted looked like the model of Bigfoot that Bill Munns created using Krantz's Gigantopithecus model. This should be no surprise since this model was designed to look like Bigfoot.
William Mayes

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Descriptions of Bigfoot

There is so much variation in the descriptions of Bigfoot that one wonders if they are all of the same creature. Many are described with hair on their forehead and many are described as having a forehead apparently clear of hair.
Roger Patterson drew some pictures of Bigfoot showing a forehead covered with hair. What is interesting about his drawings, is the manner in which the hair on the forehead curls back up. I don't know whether he drew this after or before he made his film of Patty at Bluff Creek. Obviously Patty has hair on her forehead.
In David Paulides book The Hoopa Project, Harvey Pratt, who is a forensic artist with the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation and has had 40 years experience in that discipline has used his skills to extract the images of bigfoot from the descriptions of eyewitnesses. Most of the images have foreheads clear of hair. But one noticeably has his forehead covered with hair. According to Pratt's work, it appears that these creatures have a more humanlike appearance than has been previous believed. Some people believe that Pratt may have a bias to represent these creatures in a more humanlike way. I don't believe that. Harvey is too much of a professional to do that.
The nose is usually described as broad and flat with with large nostrils. Descriptions have varied from apelike to caucasian looking.
When people see these creatures it is usually for just a few seconds and they don't have time to focus on any details, so their descriptions are usually just a general perception which may be colored by preconceived notions.
The problem is compounded by the fact that there are people who get a kick out of making false reports. There is often no easy way to know if a description is false.
The idea that Bigfoot is a relative of Gigantopithecus started with Bernard Heuvelman. This was taken up by Grover Krantz, who fashioned an entire skull from a jawbone and some teeth using a gorilla skull as a model. He then decided that the creature was bipedal because of the width of the jaw. This then became the model for Bigfoot. I don't believe it.
Until I can see one for myself I will have to rely on the descriptions of witnesses, and there seems to be a lot of room for artistic license. I tend to draw my pictures of Bigfoot with the idea that these creatures are closely related to humans. That means I may be giving them a little too much likeness to humanity, but most drawings of bigfoot heretofore have taken the ape model which I think is wrong. Hopefully we'll live to see what Bigfoot really looks like.
William Mayes

Monday, January 11, 2010

Sure Looks Like a Bigfoot to Me

It seems that a documentary on Caribou and Reindeer called "Great North" has accidentally caught an image of a Bigfoot in the background. Apparently no one knew about it till some Bigfoot enthusiast spotted it and spread the word. See BFRO for the lowdown.
William Mayes

About Me

My photo
I've lived in the woods and came to know and understand the creatures that inhabit it. I have compassion for all God's creatures, most especially the creature known whimsically as "bigfoot", since he is more like us than any other. I am now an old man and unable to run around in the woods. If I were able I would be out there right now trying to prove his existence. I started this blog to try to express some of the ideas and speculations I have had on bigfoot. I am not into bigfoot social events. I don't gossip about other bloggers. I try to keep myself informed of events. My ideas and opinions are my own and I make no apology for them. They are not written in stone and I welcome any and all civil comments. I am looking for the truth, not fame.

Followers