Comments on: Wisconsin Bigfoot’s Bad Hair Day

By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:44:16 +0000

If Wisconsin is anything like mid-western Ohio, the late 80s “big hair” styles may finally be coming into style in the backwoods (or maybe it’s more like trendy Austin, TX, and the BF there are ahead of the trend curve and growing out their retro-cool 80s hair)

By: Tabitca

Tabitca — Wed, 31 May 2006 20:13:31 +0000

Lol maybe they use something as hair gel normally and this young guy is just a rebel?

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Wed, 31 May 2006 14:55:20 +0000

BF:”Hmmm… What does THIS button do?”……ZAP…”ohhh.”

By: twblack

twblack — Tue, 30 May 2006 20:57:54 +0000

To me looks like a young BF. A bad hair day kinda of funny to me because I do not have hardly any left and now I envy him.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Tue, 30 May 2006 16:24:56 +0000

Mark A. Hall’s Homo gardarensis = my and Patrick Huyghe’s Marked Hominid. Indeed, I coined the name to honor Mark A. Hall’s work on this type.

By: jayman

jayman — Tue, 30 May 2006 15:03:32 +0000

I remember once seeing a report of a similar-looking creature from the midwest, maybe Indiana. The report had a drawing, more human-looking than the average bigfoot, visible neck, long wild head hair.

Could these creatures be Mark Hall’s “Homo gardarensis” perhaps?

By: Tabitca

Tabitca — Tue, 30 May 2006 13:45:10 +0000

I have an old book by John Napier( on Yeti) somewhere in my bookselves, in which there are reports from sherpas about Yeti with long hair over their faces. If I have time I’ll look it out when I get home.

By: lgodfrey

lgodfrey — Tue, 30 May 2006 13:32:20 +0000

I appreciate everyone’s comments, and I agree that this creature is more human-looking than your average Bigfoot. The witness also thought that was true, yet he was convinced this wasn’t a human. The extra long arms were one giveaway, and the very pronounced brow ridge and other facial structure another. I’m also not sure if I made the mouth area quite as prominent as he said it was. In any drawing, there is bound to be some amount of misperception. No drawing done from someone else’s memory can be as accurate as a photograph. But Matt was satisfied that we had pictured it as accurately as possible according to what he remembered. And again, the feet are drawn “generically” since they were obscured from his view by weeds and brush. They could have looked much different.

Loren, I did also think of your Marked Hominid as a good possibility. I showed Matt your Field Guide after he had made his sketches; (he had never seen the book before) and the Erectus was the one he thought came closest to what he saw. I think the idea that this is a juvenile or adolescent individual could also explain a lot. Thanks for all the comments - Linda Godfrey

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Tue, 30 May 2006 11:21:43 +0000

Chymo says: “Does not accord with morphology of the majority of Bigfoot sightings.”

What morphology is being discussed? This thing shows many facets of the mystery.
The slender nature of this unknown hominid or hominoid does appear to match the apparently juvenile descriptions, from various types of Bigfoot of the West and East.

The hair, of course, is discussed above, and is the focus of most comments. If a creature is going to have long hair that covers its face, I guess there are days when the head hair might be shorter (in the young? at some times of the year? after a close encounter with a forest fire?) or in a different configuration (after swimming?). Even English sheepdogs don’t always have their fur in their faces.

As to this thing’s nose, that’s relatively human-looking, and more like a Neandertal or some Homo erectus, I suppose.

What else do people see in this drawing?

By: texasgirl

texasgirl — Tue, 30 May 2006 04:14:20 +0000

He’s “got a little Captain in him” haha…thats a cool picture, but I agree that it looks more like a tribal man than a bigfoot.