Yowiehunters Forum

An article called the Miller document gives the impression that the Bigfoot has been studied and classified. ???.

This link contains the article you are referring to by the now deceased Dr Miller.

https://bigfootballyhoo.blogspot.com.au ... oot+report

missm4mi wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 11:33 pm An article called the Miller document gives the impression that the Bigfoot has been studied and classified. ???.

Hi missm4mi,
Those three big question marks at the end of your comment are the key to me. I've read the link that Searcher referred to https://bigfootballyhoo.blogspot.com.au ... oot+report and I find there are some serious questions that need to be asked and answered.
Some of the information in that report doesn't coincide with what witnesses who have observed Bigfoot at close range have noted.
One particular observation was that they are far more human to the point where they have stated they were not primates.

The Bigfoot that was supposedly captured but died a short while later why was there no pictures taken? or any pics of the one struck by lightning if there were they certainly haven't been released to the public and if you are trying to convince the public that these creatures have been classified and documented I, for one, require a little more solid evidence.

Hi all , on youtube Mountain Beast Mysteries has done a bit of a breakdown on this document ( if you havent seen him yet , he is well worth a look ,
especially when he goes bush )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOuAL2aCU-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUSnjft_kT0&t=23s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5bTmdHGybQ&t=806s
Cheers Greg

The crew on Sasquatch chronicles have gone through this document with a fine tooth comb, digging deep into Mr Miller's credentials and backstory as well as the woman behind the site, Bigfoot ballyhoo.

Here is one of the many posts from a member with the username of 'Knobby' (one of the mods on the SasChron forum):

Here’s a look at the source of the Miller Document, Bigfoot Ballyhoo.

The majority of this is from the “Sasquatch Detective.”

http://squatchdetective.weebly.com/hall ... perry.html

Linda Newton-Perry was a writer of Children’s books, many of which were bigfoot related, and she wrote one adult bigfoot fiction novel before founding “Bigfoot Ballyhoo,” a website about bigfoot that includes videos of her reading detailed sasquatch encounters people allegedly sent to her anonymously. Her site has had “many” photos (not just two or three), but many that have been grabbed off of the Internet and falsely used to represent something else in a made up narrative.

Soon after founding Bigfoot Ballyhoo she posted a great deal of material from a bigfoot research group called the ESP Team. This went on for months.

And another interesting post from a member called Shirley:

Maybe it would be more worthwhile to study the credibility of the information in the document than the existence of the author. As I said in another thread, I don’t believe the writing reflects how a doctor and researcher would express himself, and I think the actual information it contains reads like a random collection of facts pulled from an anthropology book; bizarre, unsupported claims and speculation; and a seeming familiarity with places or events associated with branches of the Department of the Interior.

It’s interesting that Dr. Miller gave a lot of details about unimportant things but tended to skim over more significant information, like the year he graduated medical school. He does this throughout the document. When assigned to examine three dead Squatches, he gives details about where they were rumored to be found, speculation on their being feral humans, and told of his anger with colleagues when he found one of the bodies still alive. Of the actual bodies he examined, he tells us only that they were “massive” and that they have reparative, or regenerative, abilities. Of this latter remarkable finding, he gives no details, nor does he seem to recognize that it’s a far more significant discovery than the existence of Bigfoots. For a reasearcher, Dr. Miller is light on descriptive detail and heavy on meaningless or unsubstantiated filler.

He refers to the creatures as “Cebidatelidae,” a term that doesn’t appear to exist outside of his document. What does exist are Cebidae and Atelidae, the names of two families of New World monkeys. The members of both families were originally classified as Cebidae, a family of small to medium-sized monkeys characterized by prehensile tails and being almost entirely arboreal and vegetarian. The Atelidae have since been reclassified as a separate family. Cebidae include capuchins and squirrel monkeys. Atelidae include spider monkeys, howler monkeys, woolly monkeys, and woolly spider monkeys.

Do you agree with Dr. Miller? Bigfoots are not apes. They are not hominids. Dr. Ketchum’s research is wrong because there is no possibility… none…that an animal that separated and became isolated from us 40 million years ago, almost 20 million years before apes evolved, could interbreed with us or any other ape. Bigfoots closest relatives are small to mid-sized monkeys with long prehensile tails that live in the tree tops of Central and South America and eat fruit, leaves, and insects. This is the taxonomic group Dr. Miller has placed them in.

In further support of his argument for the New World orign of Bigfoots, Dr. Miller writes, “All female Cebidatelidae bodies I have investigated throughout my career that have been pregnant have monozygotic embryos; this again, incorporating additional evidence of a new world monkey relationship.” Introductory chapters in anthropology books often state that twin/multiple births are uncommon in all New World and Old World primates with the exception of two New World primates that always give birth to twins. This, Dr. Miller, believes supports his theory. Had he read further, however, he would have learned that those two New World monkeys that always have twins are species of marmosets and tamarins (not Atelids, by the way). They are NOT monozygotic, however. Both give birth to dizygotic twins (fraternal twins) that develop from two different eggs. Are we to believe a doctor involved in such research as Dr. Miller would make such a mistake?

Of his determined argument for a New World origin, Dr. Miller writes, “I won the debate in the end due to the fact that no evidence thus far demonstrates that these creatures crossed over from the old world- but are simply new world monkeys adapting to their various staged areas within North and South America.” I can’t imagine any scientist putting the word “simply” in that sentence! There is nothing simple about such a theory. It seems to play fruit basket-turnover with taxonomy, with anthropology and primatology and zoology. Again, this would mean Bigfoots are not apes, not hominids, not even close. Without any other animals of intermediate type between them and other New World monkeys, even convergent evolution would be a huge and unlikely stretch as an explanation.

Additionally, though open to debate, most scientists believe all the New World monkeys originated in Africa and somehow made their way to the New World 40 million years ago (remember that this was during the Eocene era, almost 20 million years before our earliest ape ancestors evolved). It’s thought they rafted on vegetation or crossed a land bridge from Africa to South America. The oceans were lower and South America and Africa were closer then. Because the Isthmus of Panama didn’t exist yet and ocean currents were unfavorable, migration between North and South America would have been unlikely, not even taking into account the 1700 miles of ocean they would have had to cross to reach North America from the Old World.

So, maybe there really was a Dr. Miller who wrote the document, but is the document credible? I personally think that if he was real, Dr. Miller’s choo choo probably jumped the track somewhere between his career and his documentation of it or, possibly, he’s an agent of disinformation. Given the writing style, however, and the author’s apparent lack of in-depth understanding of what’s written, I think it’s a hoax by someone with at least a little knowledge of the DOI or some branch of it.

Dr. Miller's document is a fun read but as Shirley points out there's no way an actual scientist wrote this. There's no recognition of the fact that these alleged animals are not only unusual but remarkable, nor do we know how it came to be that Dr. Miller was the 'go to guy' for the U.S. Government regarding them.

As Shirley also points out, there's too much emphasis on fluff and nowhere near enough factual substance in this piece of...writing. Why wasn't this "reparative" aspect of these creatures studied in more detail? Surely that alone would represent a major medical breakthrough if it had been studied, but it's only mentioned in passing.

It reads like fiction to me. Just my two cent's worth.

Those videos are excellent, Thehairyone. I've subscribed to his channel.

Simon M wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 11:45 pm Why wasn't this "reparative" aspect of these creatures studied in more detail? Surely that alone would represent a major medical breakthrough if it had been studied, but it's only mentioned in passing.

That is exactly the point many were discussing in the other forum. Such an ability would be an incredible evolutionary step...

Simon M wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 11:45 pm It reads like fiction to me. Just my two cent's worth.

Yep, nothing wrong with fiction of course... unless it is passing itself off as non-fiction.

I agree, Wolf. It's interesting but not factual.

This is "T". I headed up the S/C investigation of the Miller Doc.. The 2 comments from the S/C tread that were posted above I would call biased cherry picking. The 2 individuals quoted were not closely involved in the actual research of the "Doc.". There were/are over 400 posts in the forum thread. To read the above 2 and comment with an opinion is disingenuous. Below are a couple of links you may find informative on the Miller Doc..

https://www.facebook.com/Millerevidence ... Zqd8_EHfoj

https://youtu.be/W_A40OIbUmY

"Disingenuous - not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does".

Based on what I've read about this topic I'd say my comments were sincere and candid.

I have no way of verifying that you are who you claim to be.

I've never claimed to be an expert on this subject - but I'm capable of forming an opinion.

I honestly think this whole thing is completely bogus based on what's been presented and I said so which isn't disingenuous at all.

Always felt at the miller document to be a fanciful hoax written for entertainment purposes. Nothing in it sounded authentic to me particularly the presentation of the data.