Comments on: Hand of Bigfoot

By: aaha

aaha — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:05:09 +0000

If it is Biscardi, it has to be true. 35 years of bigfoot research experience crammed into 2 years………….

By: scmarlowe

scmarlowe — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:39:21 +0000

Now that I think about it, weren’t there some “Bigfoot” materials of this sort recently sold through E-Bay?

By: scmarlowe

scmarlowe — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:37:59 +0000

Loren, as you well know, such “artifacts” are common in Asia. Most turn out to be from a common primate ape.

Has Mr. Biscardi made any recent trips to the orient? Having run out of “original” hoax ideas here in the States, it would appear that he’s now “borrowing” from the standard fakes from abroad.

By: Doug Tarrant

Doug Tarrant — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:11:09 +0000

WDT says:

Hey, just run the prints thru
CSI and see who’s mug pops up.
lol

By: eyeofnewt

eyeofnewt — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:38:44 +0000

Well, clearly NOT “identical” to the Pangboche hand, which was largely skeletonized. Hmmm.

By: Senor Chubba

Senor Chubba — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:39:45 +0000

If the Bigfooot hand does not fit- ACQUIT!

By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:40:46 +0000

Even with the “shrinkage” one would expect from mummification, this wouldn’t get any smaller than the bones in the hand, which, one would assume, are still larger than the bones in a human hand.

Plus, if it were real, handling it with ungloved hands, as shown in the photo, is a great way to contaminate any DNA that could be taken from it (and a great excuse for not letting DNA samples to be taken since getting “clean” DNA might be too “invasive”).

Even if everything about it were real (which I don’t believe it is), Biscardi still gets a big, fat “F” for failing to handle the evidence properly.

By: BBatts66

BBatts66 — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:37:54 +0000

It looks like a baseball mitt from the 1920’s…

By: cor2879

cor2879 — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:44:27 +0000

I agree with Chymo, the hand looks like an authentic mummified hand of some type. Not saying I think it’s a bigfoot’s mind you. But keep in mind if it is mummified, it would have shrunk considerably so the fact that it is small may or may not be, by itself, enough to disqualify the hand. That said, I do not think this is a bigfoot hand. Probably from a chimp, gorilla, or even a human mummy!

By: Chymo

Chymo — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:18:51 +0000

Could be a mummified ape hand. Not hard to come across in old taxidermy lots. Hack it off a stuffed chimp.

It’s not a bigfoot hand, obviously.