??? “Don’t talk”.???

This is a forum with text only …

I offered a link to our web site, see photos to see pictures, select, the one that says Bigfoot and you can look at: of some scat collected in 1997 (not pine nut scat that was collected in 2010 and is on vid.), tracks, still capture of enhancement by someone else etc.

What do you expect? How am I supposed to not “talk” here and “show” when you can’t put a pic in the comment box. Nor would I put a dozen pics in this comment box. That’s why they have links: http://kryderexplorationllc.multiply.com/photos/album/11/PARANORMAL-_Ghosts_Bigfoot_UFOs

I would think if you wanted to see you would have read back and saw all the links before you write and ask for something you know I can’t provide here. Please do your own homework.

Or, ok… get off your couch and lets go see. The trip on your dime if you want me to take the time to “show you”.

P.S. You really want pictures of pine nuts?

Cheers

Food for thought,

Robert W Kryder
CEO/Project Manager
Kryder Exploration LLC
kryderexplorationllc.multiply.com
Teamster Local 492 NM

—”Homo heidelbergensis (“Heidelberg Man”, named after the University of Heidelberg) is an extinct species of the genus Homo which may be[1] the direct ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis in Europe and Homo sapiens.[2] The best evidence found for these hominin date between 600,000 and 400,000 years ago. H. heidelbergensis stone tool technology was very close to that of the Acheulean tools used by Homo erectus.

Both H. antecessor and H. heidelbergensis are likely to be descended from the morphologically very similar Homo ergaster from Africa. But because H. heidelbergensis had a larger brain-case — with a typical cranial volume of 1100–1400 cm³ overlapping the 1350 cm³ average of modern humans — and had more advanced tools and behavior, it has been given a separate species classification. The species was tall, 1.8 m (6 ft) on average, and more muscular than modern humans. According to Professor Lee R. Berger of the University of Witwatersrand, numerous fossil bones indicate some populations of Heidelbergensis were “giants” routinely over 2.13 m (7 ft) tall.

In theory recent findings in Atapuerca (Spain) also suggest that H. heidelbergensis may have been the first species of the Homo genus to bury their dead, even offering gifts.
Some experts[4] believe that H. heidelbergensis, like its descendant H. neanderthalensis, acquired a primitive form of language. No forms of art or sophisticated artifacts other than stone tools have been uncovered, although red ochre, a mineral that can be used to create a red pigment which is useful as a paint, has been found at Terra Amata excavations in the south of France.

The morphology of the outer and middle ear suggests they had an auditory sensitivity similar to modern humans and very different from chimpanzees. They were probably able to differentiate between many different sounds.[5] Dental wear analysis suggests they were as likely to be right handed as modern people.[6]
H. heidelbergensis was a close relative (most probably a migratory descendant) of Homo ergaster. H. ergaster is thought to be the first hominin to vocalize[7] and that as H. heidelbergensis developed more sophisticated culture proceeded from this point.
Including evidence of hunting.

Because of the radiation of H. heidelbergensis out of Africa and into Europe, the two populations were mostly isolated during the Wolstonian Stage and Ipswichian Stage, the last of the prolonged Quaternary glacial periods. Neanderthals diverged from H. heidelbergensis probably some 300,000 years ago in Europe, during the Wolstonian Stage; H. sapiens probably diverged between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago in Africa. Such fossils as the Atapuerca skull and the Kabwe skull bear witness to the two branches of the H. heidelbergensis tree.
Homo neanderthalensis retained most of the features of H. heidelbergensis after its divergent evolution. Though shorter, Neanderthals were more robust, had large brow-ridges, a slightly protruding face and lack of prominent chin. They also had a larger brain than all other hominins. Homo sapiens, on the other hand, have the smallest brows of any known hominin, are tall and lanky, and have a flat face with a protruding chin. H. sapiens have a larger brain than H. heidelbergensis, and a smaller brain than H. neanderthalensis, on average. To date, H. sapiens is the only known hominin with a high forehead, flat face, and thin, flat brows.
Some believe that H. heidelbergensis is a distinct species, and some that it is a cladistic ancestor to other Homo forms sometimes improperly linked to distinct species in terms of populational genetics.”

-Bears may run fast for very short distances but read carefully, I was referring to walking speeds and stride. I have spent the majority of my life living outdoors and been around a lot of bears. Research the people killed by bear in NM and the woman that shows up in the Mora valley was 1/4 mi from our family (Essary side) property. My cousin Chuck Essary is a bear hunter and custom guide/outfitter who survived an attack in the Gila Nat Forest NM… not to run on and on but to offer that I know what I am talking about, I am not guessing here. Bears are not that fast and walk top 3-4 mph before breaking into a trot. They can trot along pretty good clip for a few hundred yards but thats about it. At a dead run with motivation a bear can out run a man for sure but only for very short distance. Not miles and miles. Thats why bear don’t chase down deer. In fact bears are actually quite limited as to where they can go and or how fast. The most common tactic to get away from an aggressive bear of any type is to run downhill if possible. They just can’t do it and have to take it slow. Been there and done that. Most bears cannot climb a tree let alone easily scale a 12′ cliff face in a hop as a BF can. Of course black bears can and will climb up after you if you try climbing a tree. As I said I was referring to traveling speeds in relation to range when I made the comparison to bear and cat. Not diet. I did not compare the scat of the animals??? What??? Nor am I stating or should it be taken from what I have written that the few scat samples we have seen would in any way represent a full description of the animals diet whatsoever. Either limiting it to or comparing with the diet of any other animal. I though I was pretty clear. So Back to traveling speeds and range. One more time. I was comparing the range of a mountain lion with that of a BF. The common range of a mountain lion is 70 – 80 sq mi. Up to 100 sq mi in more open country. Like I said, from what we have seen (not guessed) the range of the BF we have been around looks to be that of a big cat or larger. I would assume (guessing) that in areas that does not provide year round resources or desirable conditions at least some migration episodes would take place.-Bears travel much faster than you think, much faster than 12 mph.

Yes landowners (as I said “of large tracts”) for the most part don’t “have a clue” as to what is on there place. Thats what my company does for the private sector. Finds things on their land that doesn’t exist. Also (Ill toss names so you can search if you like and not have to argue the point and waste time) My uncle Bob Essary was president of the New Mexico Cattle Growers association and my grand father Carl Essary broke and farmed 15,000 acres of farmland with 6 kids outside Floyd NM and Was the first to homestead and ranch the Mora valley and surrounding mnts. 12,000 acres of them. Again some re-searchable background to demonstrate I know what I am taking about. And no the hundreds of landowners that paid me to survey their property and my entire family are not in some conspiracy to “trick me”… Man come on. Why would a landowner pay me to find things he allready knows about ??? What??? Sure when its grassland, less than 10,000 acres and with roads you may know it well in a couple generations. But when its tens of thousands of acres of broken rough land and your out there to work, and horses won’t go there and you can’t see it from the pickup…. Its not there. Most large ranches are owned by those as an investment with ranch managers or lease it (I have 200 acres of the Cerrillos Hills leased right now and am here to find mines and mineral resources beyond the knowledge of the landowner) out to others. Really, didn’t mean to insult or anything but for the last 25 years Ive been paid to find things people don’t know about on their own place. I could hide 50 people in a group on many tracts of land and no one would ever know they were there.

And really , you can choose to ignore my personal experience concerning BF, that’s up to you. But I will say this. Unless I make it clear I am guessing/ assuming then I am not. I am not assuming they cover large areas. I say it (as I said before) from experience in the field with a number of these animals over the last 25-28 years Ive been out there doing field work. So hey its not a theory (at least concerning the three in that particular area). Sorry but it (reality) just doesn’t “jive” with your assumptions.

You bring up an interesting point. Not being consistent with primate behavior “besides humans”*. Of course our biologist would argue with you. Mentioning that even gorillas and chimps can cover great distances in “gangs” patrolling a territory perimeter. Baboons travel with migrating herds following food and water for hundreds of miles etc… The interesting part is that all the decent recent DNA has come back more human than some “people” walking among us. Homo Heidelbergensis possibly as a GUESS for a likely candidate on the BF family tree.

And if you would like a scat discussion that would open some doors for interesting facts. Facts. The scat we recovered in 2010 Sandia range was found a few hours old in December at an elevation of over 9,000 ft in pine, gamble oak forest in the snow. Tracks were not evident as the temps were around 0 and the under-snow was frozen solid. The scat was covered by a light dust of snow from about 4am that morning. Ok, compare to bear… Ok better not as they are hibernating hardcore at that time. Cat do not eat pinion (pine) nuts. The shells were crushed and a wolf has no molars to bite down on the hard round slick shells or crush them to granular texture. So lets see, since the measure of the scat was over 9″ long and 1-3/4″ dia of 100% pine shell mass, mid winter, no grass, leave matter, insect fragments… The animal would have had to collect and consume about 5lbs of only* pine nuts shell and all. Meaning it would have to have the dexterity to pick out the small nuts from the needle/ oak leaf/ dirt forest floor after clearing away the snow. Then be able to eat them without shelling and most importantly, without getting anything else ingested during the consumption period. To say in simple terms. The animal had to have fingers, not use mouth-to-ground feeding and be able to eat and pass 5 lbs of pine nuts. As well it had to be able to pass stool in a type/shape consistent with humans only much larger. So, we are left with: Human shaped stool sample of 2-3x average size, containing materials requiring good finger dexterity for collection/ consumption, a large feeding volume, and a gut robust enough to tolerate processing/ passing the mass of sharp shell fragments, and found at high altitude in mid winter snow … One more thing to consider is that it was located about 150′ down slope from a vary large tree structure comprised of 4 30′+ trees about 18″ thick, leaned and propped against another 2 trees bent together. Some of the trees were broke or bent in place but 1 about 40′ tall and 20in thick pine, was there with no obvious source anywhere to be found. It had been snapped off and carried in. Smaller 10′-15′ pieces were stacked around one side (up hill – west side )loosely and stuffed and topped with some pine bows and sticks. When inside it was about 7′ clearance. It would easily fit the size animal we were tracking (maybe 10′ tall indicated by trail sign ) and is also consistent with the size of the animal required to assemble and entangle large trees and as well produce the size of the scat we recovered. An obvious conclusion considering the elimination of the other animal possibilities and the numerous corresponding evidence, would be the two are connected and from a massive primate.

When all other standard possibilities are eliminated, whatever remains, regardless of opinion or likelihood , must be the fact. Considering every piece in this puzzle is consistent with primate behavior but no other animal, Primate is the natural conclusion. Since all available evidence demonstrate a massive powerful animal of great size. Then we must be looking at the evidence of a massive, powerful primate of great size in the Sandia Mtn Range New Mexico.

Food for thought,

Robert W Kryder
CEO/Project Manager
Kryder Exploration LLC
kryderexplorationllc.multiply.com
Teamster Local 492 NM

Like I said, good luck.

I think comparing BF with an animal like a bear isn’t that wise. The normal distance traveled by a bear is tiny in comparison to an animal with a 6′ to 12′ stride. A 3′ obstacle/terrain change is challenging to a bear but its just another step to a BF. A BF (or any other true biped that large) could walk as fast as a bear could run. A closer comparison in range would be a large cat but still probably much larger. Bears do not have to have drinking water on a regular basis as they are not that mobile and conserve. From what we have seen BF has to have a water source. But a short jaunt for water could be 10 mi. (humans often travel several mi for water in many places). At least here, it appears they occupy the roughest most desolate areas with “structure” (cliffs, cracks, canyons, trees etc…) then travel to obtain/utilize rescources between 10-15mi. dist. I walk 4mph average in rough terrain on my GPS. A BF would be at least twice that fast. If you factor in that the ratio of obstacle size to animal size makes it all easy walking for BF then you can easily triple my speed. We are talking a waling speed of around 12mph. This seems consistent with the speeds reported in hundreds of encounters where they stated the movement seemed smooth and fluid walking yet traversed huge spaces quickly. I would think at a quick full step walk a large BF could cover about 30′ per sec. without breaking into a run. So, resource acquisition can be over truly massive areas. I believe we need to expand or view of the geographical area when we assess resources. Just like tracking – everyone tracks on the ground or from their own viewpoint down (under 6′)…. If you watch a person and track them you will see they leave almost no sign from the waist down on surrounding foliage. It will be from the waist up and most often around head height from moving limbs/branches from face contact. This is how you track a BF. If people would look up, between 8′ – 10′ off the ground they will start to see the signs of twisting limbs down out of face level, sometimes many years worth on a single tree or many along a trail. And places where hands have worn bark etc… Remember our faces are just over waist height to them. Do this. Take a 5′ pole, place it upon your head extended skyward… The top is where its head is! Gives a whole new perspective on the trail. Its actually kinda freaky to see and really imagine the size compared to us.

As far as knowing whats on the land. Two points to make here. One is like the Richardson Ranch. They breed horses on 68,000 acres of land with 3 sons. They have had the ranch for 30 years and are still discovering hidden canyons springs etc… It all depends if it thousands of acres of grass land or rugged mnts. Te other point is when we conduct site surveys on private land we often encounter contempt as we find things they knew nothing about. It actually upsets some folks when you show them things like smelters, caves, roads, buildings they have never seen. Like “Mesa Del Gato”, when we came in from a one day survey, we showed the family who had ranched the property for 3 generations pictures of our days discoveries. On the first couple shots, one showing a cut road lined with 6′ long blocks, the father blurted out loudly… “Well that ain’t on our land!”… Then we showed more and more… He was blown away. And these are large immobile constructions that seem to evade discovery over 100 years of family occupation. Let alone an animal that is transient and move and hide. In fact, I have found it to be far opposite to what one would suspect. A very tiny percentage of landowners (large tract) have a clue to what exists on their land.

Robert W Kryder
CEO/Project Manager
Kryder Exploration LLC
kryderexplorationllc.multiply.com
Teamster Local 492 NM

I can see you are familiar with historical and preset environmental conditions of the area. Yes the primary apex predators was the Grizzly bear and Mountain lion. I was told there was Black bear but few in comparison to the many larger Brown, local known as “Cinnamon” (Grizzly).

I would be willing to cooperate to do some follow up work (ie; size, location, los perspective etc) Or even field expeditions to acquire better evidence. I was actually thinking of moving back out there soon as I have a home there I haven’t been to in 6 years. With the current economic conditions here and the fact Los Alamos is burning just 30 mi north, moving 200 mi east is sounding like a good idea. If I make this move I will be out there and further study on this particular area would be simple enough. Although as to when this would take place is still up in the air. Conducting research from here is difficult for me at this time.

As to how much it would cost would be largely determined by the objectives of the excursion and the personnel needed. A simple 3 day field trip to confirm existing data and conduct some short term data acquisition/ night recon-stake out etc… would probably run somewhere between (preliminary est) $1,300. – $1,700. I would figure 3 people min in the field. I own every piece of equipment needed. Thermal cam, night vision and many vid /still cams. To be serious I believe the only tough conditions would be the land owners themselves. They are hardcore. The son Shane is cooperative and may be able to trump the no access as he did for us last time. If not someone besides me would have to bring it to the table and make a deal with his folks (? pad their pockets ?). This is the part that should be done by an outside party ( as the objective the day I shot the vid was buried loot, that we did locate and had some issues with ownership after digging it with their son Shane… When we hit the target they (his parents) pulled weapons and said it was theirs and we should leave. Shane covered it back up himself and put a big rock on the spot with a tractor because he thought what his folks tried to do was just wrong). So I personally have not had access since. If I cannot get Shane on the bandwagon and willing to take a little family grief to get us in there then someone independent of my team will have to make initial contact and strike a deal for access with his folks. Then, I and my team and ? can come in as the field research crew. There are a couple landowners to deal with if we want to have good success but these are the toughest ones. Id rather not trespass.

Robert W Kryder
CEO/Project Manager
Kryder Exploration LLC
kryderexplorationllc.multiply.com
Teamster Local 492 NM

For those who might not be aware of the process, please consider this definition as found @ Wikipedia* (as well other sources)
Research can be defined as the search for knowledge, or as any systematic investigation, with an open mind, to establish novel facts, solve new or existing problems, prove new ideas, or develop new theories, usually using a scientific method.*

The definition does not specify name-calling (“dufus”) or the subterfuge of ignoring established historic / scientific fact, (subject area not being able to support large mammals) as a criterion for discussion. i.e. scientific method.

What really bothers me is that obviously honorable, folks with the highest intentions such as yourself can be hurt by vicious personal attacks and thereby dissuaded from publishing their experiences in the field. That of course leads to a diminished number of reliable (or otherwise) reports to investigate, which culminates as less knowledge available.

I realize that this post is a bit off topic and I wish more science related subject matter were discussed here—but this area of discussion and its negative impact on the cryptozoological field in general also need to be seriously addressed

Give it a rest would ya? Jeez, we all get that YOU think it’s crap. We all get that YOU have no interest in this man’s story other than to attack and defame him, but maybe if you had some actual scientific data to prove your side, it would help your case but you don’t. Science thrives on data, you are offering only opinion. I care nothing for your response, just asking you to stop the attacks here. If you have an opinion, that is welcome too, all views can be shared but keep the nastiness out please, there has been too much of it here lately.