Alt Left: Transgender People Are Obviously Mentally Ill, But Some Are More Mentally Ill Than Others

In 9 There is an incel on an incel board who identified as transgender in adolescence and went on hormones. He lost 3-4 inches in height and there is something wrong with his face as a result of the hormones. He now describes his transgenderism as a delusion, which it was of course. Of course it’s a delusion if a man insists he is really a woman. How could it not be a delusion? 1 Now that does not mean that they have women’s brains in men’s bodies, but their brains are somewhat feminized. And yes, it does seem to be related to hormonal aberrations in the womb. This transgenderism is more valid because it involves actual changes in brain structures. Nevertheless, if these men insist that they are really women, that is a delusion in my opinion because it’s just not true. I know little about FtM transsexuals except that 9 There is a new phenomenon called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria which is hitting teenage girls in an epidemic form. It spreads like anorexia as a social contagion in emotionally susceptible teenage girls. This is simply a mental illness like Anorexia and in fact, it may be closely related to Anorexia because it resembles Anorexia in many ways and it also involves distorted body image.

Alt Left: What's Up with Toxic Masculinity?

The feminists and SJWtards have been tossing this concept around for a long time. First of all, we need to recognize that feminists wish to wipe masculinity off the face of the Earth. They don’t want any of us men to be masculine anymore. Only when we have renounced all of our masculinity, will we finally be free and will they finally be satisfied. For the record, the feminists also wish to abolish femininity because they hate that too. They want to get rid of every last bit of femininity in women. Now these desires are most prominently seen in Radical Feminism. I am not sure how prominent they are among Third Wave Feminists. 3rd Wavers have been well know for saying that it is ok for feminists to wear dresses, heels, spandex, and makeup and to act as feminine as they wish. Women can wear this stuff and act this way and still be feminine! However, Gloria Steinem is not a Radical Feminist and in a recent interview, she said her goal was to eliminate gender. I asked my mother what that meant and she said Steinem wants to get rid of masculinity and femininity because she thinks femininity oppresses women and holds them back. Feminists have always hated femininity. It just dawned on me that this is why feminists cut their hair short, wear men’s clothes, refuse to shave their armpits or legs or use makeup and generally dress and act as much like men as possible, the end result being that most feminists have deliberately made themselves very ugly. This attempt to look like males is part of feminism’s war against the Beauty Industry, which they say oppresses women, and it is also a big middle finger to femininity. All feminists, 2nd and 3rd wave, all believe that gender is a social construct. It is an article of faith among all modern feminists that there are no biological differences between men and women at all  other than the obvious and that there are no differences in our brains. Neither masculinity nor femininity have any biological basis at all. In spite of the fact that this seems ludicrous on its face, there has been quite a bit of good, hard research coming out in psychology journals involving studies with very young children which prove that masculinity in males and femininity in females have a biological basis. Although radical feminists hate masculinity period (this can be observed by the fact that the only male radical feminists are gay men or very wimpy, feminine or even effeminate  straight men), 3rd Wavers seem to mostly wage war against Toxic Masculinity while supposedly arguing that there is some healthy type of masculinity that is not toxic. I have done some research, and I still can’t figure out what toxic masculinity is. If you mean the hypermasculine strutting, swaggering, bragging, asshat, super-aggressive, dick-measuring contests and fistfights in the comments section you see on your typical horrific PUA site, then I would agree that that’s pretty toxic stuff. The thing is that the most toxically aggressive men, the most hostile, belligerent and unpleasant men of all, men who fight all of the other men around them, get the most women. So women love toxic masculinity. In fact, a recent study showed that women preferred toxically masculine men over men who lacked toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity seems to involves a reduced range of emotions with anger being the only prominent emotion allowed, a fear and hatred of softness or weakness, high aggression, violence, competition, oneupmanship, objectification of women, and bragging about sexual conquests. A lot of these things are just normal male behavior. All men objectify women in the sense that they check out goodlooking women. They only men who  don’t do that are gay men or straight men who might as well be gay. And yes, the definition of objectifying women is to look at women in a sexual way. All or most all men brag about their sexual prowess or conquests. That’s just normal guy behavior. The problem with being an emotional man or showing a lot of weakness is that society including both women and men, will beat the crap out of you for doing this. I used to do both of these things quite a bit but I got my butt kicked so many times by both women and men over this that I said the Hell with it, shut down my feelings and turned hard as a rock. I don’t know if it’s healthy, but society seems to demand it and I’m tired of getting beat up for not going along. Most men are not particularly violent, nor do they love violence. You see this in boys or young men more than among older men. As a terminally laid back man, I despise highly aggressive males, but I wonder where society would be without them. Face it, these guys kick ass, take names, and get stuff done. Same with competitiveness. I am too laid back to be a competitive man, but it is that male competitive drive that drives a lot of mankind’s highest achievements. More and more I am thinking that “toxic masculinity” is nothing more than normative masculinity in American society. If a man appears to behave in a normative American masculine way I would assume he is engaging in toxic masculinity. No one has shown me what healthy masculinity would look like as compared to the toxic stuff. So the war on toxic masculinity just seems to be one more end run to attack masculinity itself. If you all have any thoughts on masculinity or toxic masculinity, let us know in the comments.                  

All the Ways That IQ Is Relevant to Society

Intelligent Mouse: By “relevant for society” i meant relevant for economics. IQ can matter for many reasons, like for example just being interested in any form of scientific rigor in understand behavior could make it relevant to an individual as the person would seek for all (or at least most) alternatives in models. But lets investigate some of the potencial usage of intelligence meassurments and see how IQ tests meassure up. Measuring potential school performance: Some small amount of years in school will already give the teachers or parents ample information about their prospects, but also traits that make IQ more productive in synthesis: Job performance: Well, IQ correlates around 0.3 with job performance, but the measurement is subjective so it might capture some things that correlate with social-class and therefore IQ. Eugenics: Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics by swapping SNPs impractical. Breeding programs can only do so much without further molecular biology knowledge. Twin studies seem kinda ridiculous: Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning And i also agree with: Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture and (which is what GWAS interested behavioral geneticists like Steven Hsu agree on): Height and IQ Genes making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind Testing mental health: This is actually the best use of IQ, as decreasing IQ is indicative of loss in brain stuff. Criterion validity and correlation: I also think that IQ´s criterion validity lies on shaky grounds when its founded on correlations that are only tested in narrow environments, essentially just creating the same correlation again and again without testing the methodological validity by testing the correlation appropriately. to test correlation appropriately would find anomalies in the pure environmentalist approach (or any level of conviction to environmental explanations) or finding causal IQ relationships (which Environmentalists have done). I’m not really an IQ denier though, i think there probably is an range of IQ that any given person can inhabit, but the fact of individuals sticking around the mean makes it hard to know who could be where, especially in such large and genetically similar groups like economic classes and races. Some people are obviously extreme, but as previously stated, we don’t need IQ tests to know that. And whats to say that smart people have high IQ? IQ is contingent on G, but all of my criticisms on IQ are pretty much equally (for better or worse) valid against G. I see no use in IQ if not for future developments. Its an unfinished project at best.

  I do not think that people realize what they are criticizing when they attack IQ. For IQ is simply the best measure we have for measuring intelligence in human beings. No better test has ever been devised. So when you criticize IQ as a concept, you are actually criticizing human intelligence itself. Do you IQ critics who say IQ is not that important really want to say that human intelligence is not important for human beings? Because that is exactly what you are saying. You realize IQ correlates very well with all sorts of things, right? Percentage of country that are college grads. Grades in college, SAT. Good correlation between college grades, SAT scores and IQ. Wealth of society. As IQ rises, societies tend to become more wealthy. As IQ falls to a low level, you can end up with extreme poverty, a lot of crime and chaos, rampant disease, and sometimes even a failed state. State of the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure of society improves as IQ rises. People and society are more likely to maintain things. When IQ falls to a low level, people often do not know how to fix broken infrastructure and there is a tendency to jerry rig or do temporary quick and dirty fixes to problems that last for a bit but then fail again. Civilizational level of society. As IQ rises, societies appear more civilized. As it drops to a low level, countries can appear downright barbarous. Crime rate of society: As IQ rises, the nation’s crime rate falls. Whether or not you will go to jail or prison and how long: As IQ falls,  you are more likely to be imprisoned and for longer. Whether you will go on welfare programs. As IQ falls, welfare use increases. Whether you will get an advanced degree. As IQ rises, advanced degrees become more common. Income (up to a certain level). Income rises in tandem with IQ up to 125-130, after which it falls Accident rate. As IQ falls, people get into many more accidents, some fatal. Includes car crashes, recreational accidents, accidents at home, etc. Hospitalization rates. As IQ rises, people are hospitalized less often. Rates of alcoholism and serious drug abuse. As IQ rises, rates of drug and alcohol abuse fall. The environment you create for your children. As IQ rises, parents create better environments for their children. Stability for chaotic nature of your surroundings. Even if you look at it on a neighborhood level, as IQ rises, the neighborhood becomes calmer, sometimes nearly to the point of being boring. Yet only three miles away, a large group of apartment complexes housing many low wage workers has a lot of noise, a general chaotic atmosphere, frequent police calls, a lot of yelling and screaming coming from homes, more frequent and more chaotic parties, more violence, more residential crime, and more drug and alcohol abuse. Domestic violence rates. Domestic violence falls precipitously as IQ rises. Men at the highest IQ levels seldom beat their wives. As IQ falls down to a low level, domestic violence becomes commonplace to the point where most men are beating their wives.

Alt Left: How Many People Are Transgender, and Is the Rate Increasing?

Eric Blair: Speaking of gender, I am not very familiar with non-binary gender did we even get from two genders to 70?

Thanks for the comment, George, and thanks for stopping by the blog. All this time I thought you were dead! That’s a damn good question. My position is that once you let people act as crazy as they want to, you open the door, and there’s no limit to how crazy people will act. Which is how you end up with 70 genders. The trans madness has been exploding. The figure cited in the 1960’s and 1970’s was 1/30,000. Presumably almost all of these were the more pure biological transsexuals with gender dysphoria from a very early age, sometimes as young as two. However, a recent survey of Generation Z showed that You would not expect a genetic or biological condition to go from 1/30,000 to 1/50 in a few short decades (someone do the math for me please). Genetic or even biological change does not happen that fast. Obviously this is a sociological phenomenon no doubt being driven by quite a bit of faddism. Even trans advocates admit that 8 Indeed, when we get to the point where 2-

How to Define Sexual Orientation – Behavior or Attraction?

It is often said that the statement “Straight men who have sex with men” is an oxymoron because any man who has sex with men is at least bisexual. I disagree.

It depends on how you want to define sexual orientation.

First of all we need to realize that most gay men have had sex with women, and many continue to do so. And all the talk about married gay men. Most lesbians have had sex with men, and many continue to do so. So none of these gay men (almost all of them) who have had sex with women are really gay? So none of these lesbians (almost all of them) who have had sex with men are really lesbians?

I do not define sexual orientation on behavior. Behavior is one thing and orientation is another. They tend to line up pretty well but not completely and not always.

Orientation is the largely biological tendency or setup of what at least men and many women are attracted to. A lot of lesbians appear to be biologically set up to be this way.

Behavior is who you have sex with, which usually lines up fairly well but sometimes not completely with orientation.

It’s well known that when women are not around, straight men (men who are attracted to women only and men not at all) will have sex with men.

Many lesbians who have little or no attraction to men nevertheless have sex with them, often quite a bit of sex. Note how many prostitutes are lesbians.

Many straight women will have sex with other women in all-female institutions if there are no men around.

The people engaging in this opportunistic homosexuality are often not bisexual; instead they are just deprived straights fulfilling their sexual needs with the same sex as the opposite sex is not available.

The only men who are bisexual are those are who attracted to both sexes.

We also get into how people identify, which is important. I know women who have sex with men and women but identify as straight, as they only have relationships with men. I know a woman who identifies as lesbian though she has sex with men too because she can only fall in love with a woman. This woman was a 25-75, which normally should mean lesbian-leaning bisexual, but she defined herself as lesbian.

Many men are 90-10’s or 80-20’s (very straight leaning bisexuals), but as they have no interest in and refuse to act on their male interest, they identify as straight, which is reasonable. Many women who define themselves as straight to me tell me that they have some lesbian interest but refuse or choose not to act on it.

The GLBTQWTF SJW’s have been wildly antiscientific about sexual orientation since forever. You almost never read anything truthful, factual, or scientific about sexual orientation in the popular press and increasing even in academic journals. That is because the debate has been taken over by GLBTQWTF SJW’s who have twisted all the science into propaganda and lies for their nonheterosexual orientations.

There are very few clinicians or scholars who are doing actual scientific work in sexual orientation nowadays because GLBTQWTF SJW’s are utterly hostile to even having science look at the question.

Joe Kort is a gay psychologist. He is one of the few humans in the US who is actually doing real work on sexual orientation. He has written a book called Straight Guise about straight men who have sex with men. He lists all the different reasons why they do this.

Kort defines them as straight because they are not attracted to men or men’s bodies.

Radfems and MRA's: Two Peas in a Pod

Noting that radfems reject the strong science proving the reality of biological gender, the fact is that radfems anti-science. So like the reactionaries in that way…must be horseshoe theory again. Radfems are some of the most extreme ideologues out there. I see absolutely zero difference between radfems and the MRA’s, PUA’s, incels, and MGTOW’s. Radfems the other side of the mirror, that’s all. Radfems hate men like MRA’s hate women. Both screech that they are constantly under attack by the other gender. They both claim that their gender suffers from horrific oppression. They both propose extreme solutions to deal with the enemy, which happens to be the other gender. Both deny that there are any good people of the other gender. And it appears that they both hate science when it gets in the way of their precious ideology. They’re both frighteningly angry all the time, but MRA’s anger is more dangerous because male anger is more physical. They both center your entire existence and the entire universe around the notion of gender. They both claim their own gender is an oppressed class. They both refuse to make allies with the other gender. They both claim that the other gender does not suffer or that their suffering merits no importance. Both claim the other side has it easy and is not oppressed. Many of both seek to live lives as separately from the other gender as possible. They are both wildly ideological, with lists of 100’s of positions that every one in the movement must check one, and if even one checkmark is missed, that person is declared on the side of the enemy and is thrown out of movement. Ideological diversity is nonexistent in either movement. Neither group believes in the existence of nuance. Both groups are examples of extreme solipsism – the whole universe is about them – their own bodies, that is, their gender. Both claim to be engaged in informed searches for the truth, but they are too weighted down with dogma to do that. Both lionize some of the worst haters around. Schopenhauer is Mary Daly. Nietzsche is Julie Bindel. Elliot Rodgers is Valerie Solanis. Misandrists and misogynists are the same thing. Both groups are forms of Identity Politics. Radfem is female IP and MRA is male IP. They hate each other, but they are both just different forms of IP and they are much more alike than different. Most sane people reject both of movements and think they’re both insane, just at different ends of the crazy spectrum. No one likes MRA’s for good reason, and radfems are not popular either. Even normal feminism is not popular. Only 1

Gender Is Biological and Given, Not Social and Constructed

The view of radical feminism and in fact all of feminism is that gender is socially constructed. From a radical feminist or radfem website:

There is no such thing as biological gender! Seriously dude, do you even know what radfem is? From your comments here you seem to think we are a bunch of sexless, genderless, manhating, violent women. Sex is biological. We are born either male or female (with a small percentage intersex). Gender is a social construct with attributable stereotypical traits, behaviours and presentation. Please educate yourself on the basics.

All you have to do is wander around the planet a bit for while with your ears and eyes open to realize that that’s not true. Recent advances in neurology indicate that there are vast differences in male and female brains in terms of the number of structures effected, which typically differ in size, shape, etc. Look also at the experiences of transwomen,  men who became women. On female hormones, their behavior and  thinking changed radically and even their entire view of the world became radically  different. Some transwoman’s on those hormones have reported changes in emotionality and even entire worldview. I realize radfems reject biological gender, but these reports are very interesting. One transwoman was a very masculine, almost stoical, hard-type man. On the hormones, he reported that he was wildly emotional, all over the place all the time, and frequently out of sorts via being confused by all this mercurial emotionality. And this guy was John Wayne before. I figure the pills caused the changes. And one more thing, radfems will hate this too – he said he started giggling. A lot. Not sure if I have ever seen a man giggle. Another transwoman was on the Reddit Redpill MRA group (I know you hate them but I read everywhere). He reported that on the hormones, the world felt very frightening and confusing and he has a strong sense of weakness and wanting to be protected, specifically by a strong, powerful figure. He also become quite emotional, often for little reason. He noticed that his “cis” boyfriend pretty much ignored the emotionality and this transwoman felt that men often ignored a lot of women’s emotionality because a lot of it was not based on much and its too tiring to respond to weathervanes all day. I know feminists don’t believe any of this stuff, but those pills are very powerful and surely hormones can have some psychological effects? Isn’t this obvious evidence that gender is biological? Give a men female hormones and his behaviors, emotions, thinking and even epistemology change dramatically in ways that remarkably resemble stereotypical female behavior. How can feminists explain this away? .

Why Do Many Geniuses Have a Large Forehead?

You mean people with genius IQ’s over 140? I am not sure about those with 140–160 IQ’s. Their heads are surely larger than average, but whether you would notice it or not is dubious. But quite a few super geniuses with IQ’s of 160–200 have extremely large heads. Christopher Langan had to special order a motorcycle helmet made specifically for him because his head was so big. The manufacturer told him that only 1 out of every 3.3 million people had a head as big as his. He has some videos on Youtube. If you look closely at him, you might notice that one thing that is remarkable about him is that he does indeed have a huge head. This is where the term “egghead” comes from. If you get a chance, look up an old photo of the team that worked at the Manhattan Project to make the nuclear bomb at White Sands, New Mexico. There are 30-40 men in that photo. Look closely at them, and you will see that most of them have pretty big heads. In particular, look at how big their foreheads are. The larger forehead on very bright men gave an egg-shaped appearance to their skulls, which gave rise to the phrase.

Football Is Inherently Dangerous

There’s apparently no way whatsoever to make the game safer. They have tried everything at this point, and nothing works. The only way to make the game safer is to not play it in the first place. They are talking mostly about head injuries. No matter how they make the helmets, football players still get head injuries. And those who play it for a long time apparently end up brain damaged, just like boxing. There’s new data on this just starting to come out now.

Diversity Makes You Taller and Smarter


Well at least there is something good about diversity. Not sure how this works, but in animals, you usually want a lot of genetic diversity in a species. Species that have low genetic diversity are often endangered species and the low diversity is considered to be something that can make the species extinct. In any species of animal, the more genetic diversity, in general the less likely it is to go extinct.

National Cliteracy Campaign

Ad campaign for cliteracy.
Ad campaign for cliteracy.
Please support everyone. It’s a great cause. Everyone should learn how to read a love map. Let’s make this a national campaign. Here is a sample of some of the cliteracy materials we are using in our cliteracy classes.

Some fun facts about the clit.

  • The clitoris contains at least 8,000 sensory nerve endings. To put that into perspective, the penis has about 4,000.
  • Only one quarter of the clitoris is visible. The rest of it is inside the body.
  • The clitoris and penis are the same materials put together in a different way. The clitoris has a glans, a foreskin (also known as the hood), erectile tissue and a teeny-tiny shaft. It even swells when it’s aroused!
  • By the time a woman is 32 years old, the clitoris will be almost four times as big as it was at the onset of puberty.

Setting the Record Straight on Blacks and Testosterone

Broadly speaking, lifetime exposure to testosterone is reflected in the incidence of prostate cancer, with the world’s highest incidences being among African-American men (Brawley & Kramer, 1996). It was once thought that lower incidences prevail among Black West Indians and sub-Saharan Africans, but this apparent exception is now ascribed to underreporting (Glover et al., 1998; Ogunbiyi & Shittu, 1999; Osegbe, 1997). This picture has been confirmed by a recent American study:

From the 1970s to the current statistical analysis of the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program African-American men have continued to have a significant higher incidence and mortality rate than European-American men. Autopsy studies show a similar prevalence of early small subclinical prostate cancers but a higher prevalence of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Clinical studies show a similarity in prostate cancer outcome when pathological stage is organ confined but a worse outcome when disease is locally advanced and metastatic in African-American vs European-American men. There is increasing genetic evidence that suggest that prostate cancer in African-American vs European-American men may be more aggressive, especially in young men.

It was also confirmed by a recent British study (prostate cancer rates are somewhat lower in Black British men because a higher proportion of them have one White parent).:

Black men in the United Kingdom have substantially greater risk of developing prostate cancer compared with White men, although this risk is lower than that of Black men in the United States. The similar rates in Black Caribbean and Black African men suggest a common genetic aetiology, although migration may be associated with an increased risk attributable to a gene–environment interaction” (Ben-Shlomo et al 2008).

We are only just beginning to identify the actual genes that account for the White/Black difference in prostate cancer risk. The most recent study was Benson 2014. With respect to the Black/White difference in testosterone level, African Americans have a clear testosterone advantage over Euro-Americans only from puberty to about 24 years of age. This advantage then shrinks and eventually disappears at some point during the 30s. The pattern then seems to reverse at older ages (Ellis & Nyborg 1992; Gapstur et al. 2002; Nyborg 1994, pp. 111-113; Ross et al. 1986; Ross et al. 1992; Tsai et al. 2006; Winters et al. 2001). Critics say that more recent studies done since the early 2000’s have shown no differences between Black and White testosterone levels. Perhaps they are referring to recent studies that show lower testosterone levels in adult Blacks than in adult Whites. This was the conclusion of one recent study (Alvergne et al. 2009) which found lower T levels in Senegalese men than in Western men. But these Senegalese men were 38.3 years old on average. These critics may also be referring to various studies by Sabine Rohrmann which show no significance difference in T levels between Black and White Americans. Age is poorly controlled for in her studies. More seriously however, she used serum samples that the National Center for Health Statistics had earlier collected as part of its Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Only 1,479 samples were still available out of an initial total of 1,998, i.e., one quarter were missing. An earlier study had used the same serum bank for research on a sexually transmitted disease: Herpes Simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2). That study found that more than 2


Alvergne, A., C. Faurie, and M. Raymond. 2009. Variation in Testosterone Levels and Male Reproductive Effort: Insight from a Polygynous Human Population. Hormones and Behavior 56: 491-497.Ben-Shlomo, Y. S. Evans, F. Ibrahim, B. Patel, K. Anson, F. Chinegwundoh, C. Corbishley, D. Dorling, B. Thomas and D. Gillatt. 2008. The Risk of Prostate Cancer amongst Black Men in the United Kingdom: The PROCESS Cohort Study. European Urology 53:99-105. Bensen, J. T., Z. Xu, P. M. McKeigue, G. J. Smith, E. T. H. Fontham, J. L. Mohler, and J. A. Taylor. 2014. Admixture Mapping of Prostate Cancer in African Americans Participating in the North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PcaP). The Prostate 74: 1–9. Brawley, O. W. & Kramer B. S. 1996. Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer. In Volgelsang, N. J., Scardino, P. T., Shipley, W. U., & Coffey, D. S. (eds). Comprehensive Textbook of Genitourinary Oncology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Ellis, L. and H. Nyborg. 1992. Racial/Ethnic Variations in Male Testosterone Levels: A Probable Contributor to Group Differences in Health. Steroids 57: 72-75. Gapstur, S. M., P. H. Gann, P. Kopp, L. Colangelo, C. Longcope, and K. Liu. 2002. Serum Androgen Concentrations in Young Men: A Longitudinal Analysis of Associations with Age, Obesity, and Race. The Cardia Male Hormone Study. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &  Prevention 11:1041-1047. Glover, F. E. Jr., Coffey, D. S., Douglas, L. L., Cadogan, M., Russell, H., Tulloch, T., Baker, T. D., Wan, R. L. & Walsh, P. C. 1998. The Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer in Jamaica. Journal of Urology 159:1984-1986. Nettle, D. 2005. An Evolutionary Approach to the Extraversion Continuum: Evolution and Human Behaviour. Evolution and Human Behavior 26: 363-373. Nyborg, H. 1994. Hormones, Sex, and Society. The Science of Physiology. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. Ogunbiyi, J. & Shittu, O. 1999. Increased Incidence of Prostate Cancer in Nigerians. Journal of the National Medical Association 3:159-164. Osegbe, D. N. 1997. Prostate Cancer in Nigerians: Facts and Non-Facts. Journal of Urology 157:1340-1343. Powell, I. J. 2007. Epidemiology and Pathophysiology of Prostate Cancer in African-American Men. Journal of Urology 177:444–449. Rohrmann, S., Nelson, W.G., Rifai, N., Brown, T. R., Dobs, A., Kanarek, N., Yager, J. D., Platz, E. A. (2007). Serum Estrogen, But Not Testosterone Levels Differ Between Black and White Men in a Nationally Representative Sample of Americans. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 92:2519-2525. Ross, R. K., L. Bernstein, R. A. Lobo, H. Shimizu, F. Z. Stanczyk, M. C. Pike, and B. E. Henderson. 1992. 5-Apha-Reductase Activity and Risk of Prostate Cancer among Japanese and US White and Black Males. Lancet 339:887-889. Ross, R., L. Bernstein, H. Judd, R. Hanisch, M. Pike, and B. Henderson. 1986. Serum Testosterone Levels in Healthy Young Black and White Men. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 76:45-48. Tsai, C. J., B.A. Cohn, P. M. Cirillo, D. Feldman, F. Z. Stanczyk, A. S. Whittemore. 2006. Sex Steroid Hormones in Young Manhood and the Risk of Subsequent Prostate Cancer: A Longitudinal Study in African-Americans and Caucasians (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17:1237–1244. Winters, S. J., A. Brufsky, J. Weissfeld, D. L. Trump, M. A. Dyky, and V. Hadeed. 2001. Testosterone, Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin, and Body Composition in Young Adult African American and Caucasian Men. Metabolism 50:1242-1247.

Testosterone, Race and IQ: Avenues for Research

Third Eye writes:

I think exploring the testosterone factor might be fertile for getting at the roots of IQ differences between different groups. Blacks are the high testosterone group, Asians are the low testosterone group, and Caucasians are somewhere in between the two. There is also disparity between the IQ scores of black males and black females. It would be overly simplistic to draw too much of a negative correlation between testosterone and IQ, as we don’t have evidence that there is a gender disparity in IQ performance for Asians or Caucasians as there is for blacks. Maybe there’s a threshold level where testosterone becomes a significant impediment to developing cognitive ability. Maybe testosterone is one factor that is synergistic with others in interfering with the self control required to develop the cognitive intellect in the formative years. It would also be interesting to compare the premium on intelligence as an adaptive characteristic between tribal and civil societies. Maybe high testosterone levels are adaptive in tribal societies while lower testosterone levels are adaptive in civil societies.

This is great stuff from Third Eye. I would love to explore this sort of thing in depth. I already have some theories about it.

High Testosterone Linked to Lowered IQ

Studies suggest that high testosterone lowers IQ (Ostatnikova et al 2007). Other studies suggest that increased androgen receptor sensitivity and higher sperm counts (markers for increased testosterone) are negatively correlated with intelligence when measured by speed of neuronal transmission and hence general intelligence (g) in a tradeoff fashion (Manning 2006). From age 7-33, Black males have the highest testosterone of any race. They also have relatively low IQ’s (~71 in Africa and the Caribbean and ~86 in the US and the Caribbean). Further, studies verify the dorky nerd who can’t get laid stereotype. In high schoolers, as IQ rises, so does the likelihood of not having experienced sexual intercourse. The relationship holds through university. Even after graduating, higher IQ people have less sex and masturbate less. All in all, the higher the IQ, the lower the sex drive. Obviously this works the other way too. You probably figured this out quickly way back in high school. The dumb guys could barely keep it in their pants and knock up girls early, often and carelessly, while the nerds are dorky, awkward and relatively sexless. I always thought high school was simply a dress rehearsal for the rest of life.


Manning, J.T. (2006). Intelligence and Salivary Testosterone Levels in Prepubertal Children. Neuropsychologia 45, 1378–1385

Choking Women Out Is a Bad Idea

Interesting piece from a BD/SM enthusiast who is also a medical professional. You see guys choking out women all over porn these days. And on PUA sites, a lot of guys like Roosh are really into choking women out when they have sex with them. I must say that this is completely sick. Why would I want to choke out the woman I am screwing?  Maybe if I wanted to fantasize being a serial killer? Anyone who does this obviously is fantasizing about being a murderer or a rapist. I don’t feel like pretending to be Ted Bundy when I am in bed with a woman. Not only is it sick, but it’s also dangerous. You can kill a person or give them a heart attack at any time. And there are a lot of other injuries that can and do occur also. I have heard that a number of women in porn are getting TIA’s from getting choked out all the time on porn sets. Those are Transient Ischemic Attacks. They are like mini-strokes. The thing is, if you have enough of these as a young person, you may damage your brain and make a real stroke more likely when you get older. These choking fetish is insane. Don’t choke out your partner! Ever! Former ambulance medic, former law school professor, expert witness on BD/SM matters, Jay Wiseman has over 35 years of experience in BD/SM and was one of the early pioneers and builders of the BD/SM community in the San Francisco area. He continues to be heavily involved, both in his local area and nationally, as an S/M author, educator, mentor, workshop leader, video producer, expert witness, and activist. Noted for being both an exceptionally knowledgeable and highly entertaining presenter, he is very much in demand and has given hundreds of presentations on various aspects of health, relationships, and sexuality in more than 70 cities in the United States and Canada. In 2007, Black Rose presented him with the Vaughn Keith National BD/SM Educator Award.

The Medical Realities of Breath Control Play

For some time now, I have felt that the practices of suffocation and/or strangulation done in an erotic context (generically known as breath control play; more properly known as asphyxiophilia) were in fact far more dangerous than they are generally perceived to be. As a person with years of medical education and experience, I know of no way whatsoever that either suffocation or strangulation can be done in a way that does not intrinsically put the recipient at risk of cardiac arrest (There are also numerous additional risks; more on them later.) Furthermore, and my biggest concern, I know of no reliable way to determine when such a cardiac arrest has become imminent. Often the first detectable sign that an arrest is approaching is the arrest itself. Furthermore, if the recipient does arrest, the probability of resuscitating them, even with optimal CPR, is distinctly small. Thus the recipient is dead and their partner, if any, is in a very perilous legal situation. The authorities could consider such deaths first-degree murders until proven otherwise, with the burden of such proof being on the defendant. There are also the real and major concerns of the surviving partner’s own life-long remorse to having caused such a death, and the trauma to the friends and family members of both parties. Some breath control fans say that what they do is acceptably safe because they do not take what they do up to the point of unconsciousness. I find this statement worrisome for two reasons: (1) You can’t really know when a person is about to go unconscious until they actually do so, thus it’s extremely difficult to know where the actual point of unconsciousness is until you actually reach it. (2) More importantly, unconsciousness is a symptom, not a condition in and of itself. It has numerous underlying causes ranging from simple fainting to cardiac arrest, and which of these will cause the unconsciousness cannot be known in advance. I have discussed my concerns regarding breath control with well over a dozen S/M-positive physicians, and with numerous other S/M-positive health professionals, and all share my concerns. We have discussed how breath control might be done in a way that is not life-threatening, and come up blank. We have discussed how the risk might be significantly reduced, and come up blank. We have discussed how it might be determined that an arrest is imminent and come up blank. Indeed, so far not one (repeat, not one) single physician, nurse, paramedic, chiropractor, physiologist, or other person with substantial training in how a human body works has been willing to step forth and teach a form of breath control play that they are willing to assert is acceptably safe — i.e., does not put the recipient at imminent, unpredictable risk of dying. I believe this fact makes a major statement. Other “edge play” topics such as suspension bondage, electricity play, cutting, piercing, branding, enemas, water sports, and scat play can and have been taught with reasonable safety, but not breath control play. Indeed, it seems that the more somebody knows about how a human body works, the more likely they are to caution people about how dangerous breath control is, and about how little can be done to reduce the degree of risk. In many ways, oxygen is to the human body and particularly to the heart and brain what oil is to a car’s engine. Indeed, there’s a medical adage that goes “hypoxia (becoming dangerously low on oxygen) not only stops the motor, but also wrecks the engine.” Therefore, asking how one can play safely with breath control is very similar to asking how one can drive a car safely while draining it of oil. Some people tell the “mechanics” something like, “Well, I’m going to drain my car of oil anyway, and I’m not going to keep track of how low the oil level is getting while I’m driving my car, so tell me how to do this with as much safety as possible.” (They may even add something like “Hey, I always shut the engine off before it catches fire.”) They then get frustrated when the mechanics scratch their heads and say that they don’t know. They may even label such mechanics as “anti-education.” A bit about my background may help explain my concerns. I was an ambulance crewman for over eight years. I attended medical school for three years, and passed my four-year boards, but then then ran out of money. I am a former member of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a former American Heart Association instructor in Advanced Cardiac Life Support. I have an extensive martial arts background that includes a first-degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do. My martial arts training included several months of judo that involved both my choking and being choked. I have been an instructor in first aid, CPR, and various advanced emergency care techniques for over sixteen years. My students have included physicians, nurses, paramedics, police officers, fire fighters, wilderness emergency personnel, martial artists, and large numbers of ordinary citizens. I currently offer both basic and advanced first aid and CPR training to the S/M community. During my ambulance days, I responded to at least one call involving the death of a young teenage boy who died from autoerotic strangulation, and to several other calls where this was suspected but could not be confirmed. Family members often “sanitize” such scenes before calling 911. Additionally, I personally know two members of my local S/M community who went to prison after their partners died during breath control play. The primary danger of suffocation play is that it is not a condition that gets worse over time (regarding the heart, anyway, it does get worse over time regarding the brain). Rather, what happens is that the more the play is prolonged, the greater the odds that a cardiac arrest will occur. Sometimes even one minute of suffocation can cause this; other times even less.

Quick pathophysiology lesson # 1

When the heart gets low on oxygen, it starts to fire off “extra” pacemaker sites. These usually appear in the ventricles and are thus called premature ventricular contractions — PVC’s for short. If a PVC happens to fire off during the electrical repolarization phase of cardiac contraction (the dreaded “PVC on T” phenomenon, also sometimes called “R on T”) it can kick the heart over into ventricular fibrillation — a form of cardiac arrest. The lower the heart gets on oxygen, the more PVC’s it generates, and the more vulnerable to their effect it becomes, thus hypoxia increases both the probability of a PVC-on-T occurring and of its causing a cardiac arrest. When this will happen to a particular person in a particular session is simply not predictable. This is exactly where most of the medical people I have discussed this topic with “hit the wall.” Virtually all medical folks know that PVC’s are both life-threatening and hard to detect unless the patient is hooked to a cardiac monitor. When medical folks discuss breath control play, the question quickly becomes: How can you tell when they start throwing PVC’s? The answer is: You basically can’t.

Quick pathophysiology lesson # 2

When breathing is restricted, the body cannot eliminate carbon dioxide as it should, and the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood increases. Carbon dioxide (CO2)* and water (H2O)* exist in equilibrium with what’s called carbonic acid (H2CO3)* in a reaction catalyzed by an enzyme called carbonic anhydrase. *Sorry, but I can’t do subscripts in this program. Thus: CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 A molecule of carbonic acid dissociates on its own into a molecule of what’s called bicarbonate (HCO3-) and an (acidic) hydrogen ion. (H+) Thus: H2CO3 = HCO3- and H+ Thus the overall pattern is: H2O + CO2 = H2CO3 = HCO3- + H+ Therefore, if breathing is restricted, CO2 builds up, and the reaction shifts to the right in an attempt to balance things out, ultimately making the blood more acidic and thus decreasing its pH. This is called respiratory acidosis. If the patient hyperventilates, they “blow off CO2” and the reaction shifts to the left, thus increasing the pH. This is called respiratory alkalosis, and has its own dangers.

Quick pathophysiology lesson # 3

Again, if breathing is restricted, not only does carbon dioxide have a hard time getting out, but oxygen also has a hard time getting in. A molecule of glucose (C6H12O6) breaks down within the cell by a process called glycolysis into two molecules of pyruvate, thus creating a small amount of ATP for the body to use as energy. Under normal circumstances, pyruvate quickly combines with oxygen to produce a much larger amount of ATP. However, if there’s not enough oxygen to properly metabolize the pyruvate, it is converted into lactic acid and produces one form of what’s called a metabolic acidosis. As you can see, either a build-up in the blood of carbon dioxide or a decrease in the blood of oxygen will cause the pH of the blood to fall. If both occur at the same time, as they do in cases of suffocation, the pH of the blood will plummet to life-threatening levels within a very few minutes. The pH of normal human blood is in the 7.35-7.45 range (slightly alkaline). A pH falling to 6.9 (or raising to 7.8) is “incompatible with life.” Past experience, either with others or with that same person, is not particularly useful. Carefully watching their level of consciousness, skin color, and pulse rate is of only limited value. Even hooking the bottom up to both a pulse oximeter and a cardiac monitor (assuming you had either piece of equipment, and they’re not cheap) would be of only limited additional value. While an experienced clinician can sometimes detect PVC’s by feeling the patient’s pulse, in reality the only reliable way to detect them is to hook the patient up to a cardiac monitor. The problem is that each PVC is potentially lethal, particularly if the heart is low on oxygen. Even if you “ease up” on the bottom immediately, there’s no telling when the PVC’s will stop. They could stop almost at once, or they could continue for hours. In addition to the primary danger of cardiac arrest, there is good evidence to document that there is a very real risk of cumulative brain damage if the practice is repeated often enough. In particular, laboratory studies of repeated brief interruption of blood flow to the brains of animals and studies of people with what’s called sleep apnea in which they stop breathing for up to two minutes while sleeping document that cumulative brain damage does occur in such cases. There are many documented additional dangers. These include, but are not limited to: rupture of the windpipe, fracture of the larynx, damage to the blood vessels in the neck, dislodging a fatty plaque in a neck artery which then travels to the brain and causes a stroke, damage to the cervical spine, seizures, airway obstruction by the tongue, and aspiration of vomitus. Additionally, there are documented cases in which the recipient appeared to fully recover but was found dead several hours later. The American Psychiatric Association estimates a death rate from this practice of one person per year per million of population — thus about 250 deaths last year in the U.S. Law enforcement estimates go as much as four times higher. Most such deaths occur during solo play, however there are many documented cases of deaths that occurred during play with a partner. It should be noted that the presence of a partner does nothing to limit the primary danger and does little or nothing to limit most of the secondary dangers. Some people teach that choking can be safely done if pressure on the windpipe is avoided. Their belief is that pressing on the arteries leading to the brain while avoiding pressure on the windpipe can safely cause unconsciousness. The reality, unfortunately, is that pressing on the carotid arteries, exactly as they recommend, presses on baroreceptors known as the carotid sinus bodies. These bodies then cause vasodilation in the brain, thus there is not enough blood to perfuse the brain and the recipient loses consciousness. However, that’s not the whole story. Unfortunately, a message is also sent to the main pacemaker of the heart, via the vagus nerve, to decrease the rate and force of the heartbeat. Most of the time, under strong vagal influence, the rate and force of the heartbeat decreases by one third. However, every now and then, the rate and force decreases to zero and the bottom “flatlines” into asystole — another, and more difficult to treat, form of cardiac arrest. There is no way to tell whether or not this will happen in any particular instance or how quickly. There are many documented cases of as little as five seconds of choking causing a vagal-outflow-induced cardiac arrest. For the reason cited above, many police departments have now either entirely banned the use of chokeholds or have reclassified them as a form of deadly force. Indeed, a local CHP officer recently had a $250,000 judgment brought against him after a nonviolent suspect died while being choked by him. Finally, as a CPR instructor myself, I want to caution that knowing CPR does little to make the risk of death from breath control play significantly smaller. While CPR can and should be done, understand that the probability of success is likely to be less than 1 I’m not going to state that breath control is something that nobody should ever do under any circumstances. I have no problem with informed, freely consenting people taking any degree of risk they wish. I am going to state that there is a great deal of ignorance regarding what actually happens to a body when it’s suffocated or strangled, and that the actual degree of risk associated with these practices is far greater than most people believe. I have noticed that when people are educated regarding the severity and unpredictability of the risks, fewer and fewer choose to play in this area, and those who do continue tend to play less often. I also notice that, because of its severe and unpredictable risks, more and more S/M party-givers are banning any form of breath control play at their events. If you’d like to look into this matter further, here are some references to get you started: Emergency Care in the Streets by Nancy Caroline, M.D. (I’d recommend starting here.) Medical Physiology by A.C. Guyton, MD The Pathologic Basis of Disease by Robbins, MD Textbook of Advanced Cardiac Life Support by American Heart Association The Physiology Coloring Book by Kapit, Macey, and Meisami Forensic Pathology by DeMaio and Demaio Autoerotic Fatalities by Hazelwood Melloni’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary by Dox, Melloni, and Eisner People with questions or comments can contact me at or write to me at P.O. Box 1261, Berkeley, CA 94701. Regards, Jay Wiseman

Female – Male HIV Transmission in the US

John writes:

I scheduled an appointment with my doctor tomorrow, and I am going to ask her to give me an HIV test, maybe also check for other diseases. I read up on HIV transmission in several countries and on certain cites it says transmission is mainly heterosexual. How is this possible? By this do they mean that it’s mostly men giving it to women? I also read on several websites that the highest concentration of HIV viral cells is in semen, followed by blood, and then vaginal fluids right? Can you get HIV from just exposure to vaginal fluids? What are the chances (in fractions/ratios/percentages) of getting HIV from one incident of vaginal sex with a woman of unknown status when there are no visible cuts/abrasions, no blood present, and her vagina is naturally wet? The CDC says the risk for insertive vaginal sex is about 2 in 10,000. I suppose this is reduced greatly since I have had no symptoms of sickness, there were no cuts or abrasions present, and the vagina was wet, also I’m circumcised and I took a piss shortly after the sex and I washed my dick right after in the shower. (I read that non-circumcised men are at greater risk because the virus can get caught under the foreskin and stay there) How can one even get HIV from vaginal sex with no cuts or abrasions? It would have to travel very far up the urethra in order to get into the bloodstream. Or are the cuts so small (microtears) that they are invisible to the naked eye? Anyways, taking my test tomorrow (I didn’t specify to the doctor that I was taking a test for STI’s I just made an appointment with plans to tell them there, as there is no specific option for STI test when scheduling online) What is your verdict Robert?

Those vaginal fluid titers are so low that I am amazed it even transmits. Women -> men HIV transmission is heavily associated with men having diseases like Herpes that cause ulcerating sores. The virus goes in via that opening. It is also associated in vaginal sex with vaginal and/or penile bleeding. Honestly, this is a blood borne illness. Men get it via exposure to blood. If you’re not exposed to blood, you probably will not get it. Really men get this disease in two different ways. 1. Receptive homosexual anal sex. 2. IV drug use which involves sharing needles. You can get it other ways, but that is a small percentage of the transmission. As far as heterosexual transmission goes, the disease goes from males to females and then it stops! Women are the end of the line as far as transmission goes. That CDC figure is really 1/10,000, and that is if she is HIV positive! A study in the 1980’s (Nancy Padian study) had a number of couples discordant for HIV and followed them for 5 years. By that time the men had had sex with their HIV positive wives ~700 times. Even after screwing them 700 times over 5 years, 8 You can also get it from having anal sex with a woman because there can be some minor bleeding on her end when you do that, and that would expose your penis to blood.

What are the chances (in fractions/ratios/percentages) of getting HIV from one incident of vaginal sex with a woman of unknown status when there are no visible cuts/abrasions, no blood present, and her vagina is naturally wet?

Incredibly low. Something like 1/1,000,000.

Water Sports

Crazy. Some guy starts a thread about how he likes to drink women’s piss, and then a woman comes on and says she loves to piss in guy’s mouths, and she has done it a few times. She is then bombarded by males begging, pleading and demanding that she come over and piss in their mouths so they can drink it. And this guy shows up in the comments:

Her magic pee I drink my lady’s pee every morning… It is a great way to show her how much you want to please her… She calls it her magic liquid that keeps me under her control… She prefers to stand over me while I kneel at her feet and look into her eyes as she begins the feeding process… It must be magic because I crave it every morning… It’s warm and sweet and I never miss a drop… I have only been doing this every morning for two months… Will this cause any problems or can you become addicted to it??? JR

Haha, he is worried about turning into a piss addict. Then this shows up with a scary warning:

A man drinking a woman’s urine for long term will cause serious damage! estrogen and progesterone are in plenty in a ladies urine…and ingestion of same will lead to development of secondary sexual characters like gynecomastia, bulging breasts, thinning of voice, loss of facial hair and even impotency.

Guys! Don’t drink women’s piss! It’ll turn you into a chick! Personally, I am seriously dominant in bed, so much that it almost scares me. Drinking piss is about as submissive, degrading and debasing as you can get. Of course, seriously submissive types get off on being degraded and debased sexually, so that’s not really a problem for them. If a woman is pissing in your mouth, she’s the Dom and you’re her slave, period. As a dominant guy, I just can’t see it. It’s the question everyone wants to know! The world is clamoring for answers, from Timbuktu to Kalamazoo, it’s on the tip of everyone’s tongue. “Is…is…drinking piss bad for you?” they pant breathlessly, anxious for a response, any response. Let’s go ask the doctor. And not just any doctor. A lesbian S/M, B/D freak physician from Frisco! Here are her worries about drinking piss followed by my analysis: Hepatitis B: You’re not going to get it this way. CMV (cytomegalovirus): It can probably be passed this way, but 9 Genital Herpes: I know quite a bit about this illness, and you won’t get it this way. Chlamydia: Yes it is found in urine, and theoretically it could infect your throat, except this has apparently never happened, so don’t worry. Gonorrhea: See chlamydia above. HIV: Not found in urine, and anyway, your saliva kills HIV, and even if it doesn’t, your stomach acids will. Histoplasmosis, Blastomycosis, and Coccidiomycosis (valley fever): These three can be passed this way, it is true. Valley fever is not rare in my area, and it is a very bad illness. This is probably your major worry here. Whatever medications the pisser is taking: A number of meds are passed in deactivated form in urine. Others are passed in original or more activate form. A significant concern. A much more serious concern is that urine is full of stuff that that your kidneys are trying to get rid of. If you drink it, you are putting back into your system, and your kidneys, the very stuff your kidneys were trying to get rid of before. Although in my opinion, it is not proven, theoretically, this could cause a situation with symptoms similar to kidney failure as your kidneys get overloaded. This is a response to someone asking if you can survive out in the wilds by drinking your own urine.

How long can you survive by drinking pee? An extra day or two, at best. A healthy person’s urine is about 95 percent water and sterile, so in the short term it’s safe to drink and does replenish lost water. But the other 5 percent of urine comprises a diverse collection of waste products, including nitrogen, potassium, and calcium—and too much of these can cause problems. When you drink your own pee, all the stuff that your kidneys had attempted to excrete comes right back into your stomach, and much of it ends up back in your kidneys. After several days of this, your urine will become highly concentrated with dangerous waste products, and drinking it can cause symptoms similar to those brought on by total kidney failure. At that point, you’re doomed either way—from dehydration on the one hand or renal meltdown on the other. Even if one could filter out most of the unwanted products in urine, the cycle would not be sustainable for long. In addition to what he or she pees out, the average human excretes about half a quart of water a day through sweating and exhaling.

Two Major Types of Transsexualism

Blanchard did a review recently in which he concluded that there were two types: 1. Pure transsexualism. From a very early age or as far back as they can remember. Biological, developmental disorder. 2. A second type which is simply an extreme form of homosexuality. I absolutely agree that quite a few of these folks are simply homosexuals. The women want to turn into guys so they can fuck women as a guy, and the guys want to turn into chicks so they can fuck men as a woman. Get it? This type looks more like a mental illness to me. There have been some complete cures with this type which implies that it is not developmental or biological.

Bigfoot News October 14, 2013

Wildlife conservation organization has had the body of an Orang Pendek for 17 years! The Wildlife Conservation Service out of New York is a conservation organization that works to protect habitat and wildlife all over the world. One of the places they work is Sumatra. In Sumatra, one of the places they work is the Barisan Mountains in southern Sumatra. There is a large national park here. Here they try to save the Sumatran tiger, the Sumatran rhinoceros, the Asian elephant among many other species. There is a team of tiger biologists working in this area who have been working here for quite some time. Apparently these tiger biologists came across the body of an Orang Pendek somehow. Either it was shot by the team or else they got in from local villagers – this much is not certain. Although it may seem amazing that they have been sitting on this body for 17 years, this is apparently the truth. These people are tiger biologists, and all they want to do is study tigers. They wanted nothing to do with a “hairy man.” They felt that this creature was radioactive, and it was buried and not dealt with for a long time due to political reasons. There were concerns that their funding might be affected or cut off if they were to come out with this new great ape. Furthermore, they did not have the faintest idea what it is. The truth is that they and others have spent the last 17 years studying this thing and trying to figure out exactly what it is. They plan to publish their findings in 2016, but that assumes that they will get through peer review. One might think it odd that they sat on this body for 17 years, but if you recall, the team working on the Olinguito worked on this animal for 10 years before finally bringing their findings forward in a scientific journal. That is, they discovered that it existed 10 years ago and then it took 10 years after that to get their findings together in a publishable format to bring it to the scientific world. You see it can take some time to bring a new species to science. Adam Davies, the British explorer who is also working on trying to find the Orang Pendek, stated that he had never heard that anyone had a body, and he said he is pretty well connected. However, my source told me that the WCS biologists are hiding this species not only from Davies from from the world as a whole. I asked my source what would happen if someone called the WCS to see if this story is true, and he said they would probably deny it. The Orang Pendek is most probably a hominid, possibly related to Homo Floresiensis or Flores Man on the island of Flores. Flores Man seems to be a very early Erectus or possibly a very late Australopithecine. Many think that the Orang Pendek is some sort of an ape or pongid such as an orangutan which also lives in the area. However, it is bipedal and only Homo is bipedal. It is unlikely that any of the great ape lines outside of Homo (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans) have evolved bipedalism.

Some say that Orang Pendeks are just misidentified gibbons, but I doubt if this is true. There are gibbons that live in the area also, but villagers insist that the two are different creatures.
Some say that Orang Pendeks are just misidentified gibbons, but I doubt if this is true. There are gibbons that live in the area also, but villagers insist that the two are different creatures.
My source is a scientist who studies DNA. He told me that he saw three photos of the Orang Pendek on a WCS computer at a WCS office and was told that the body was acquired in 1996. He also learned something of the back story on the body. He told that there was no way that the photos of the creature could possibly be obtained. As a scientist, I consider him to be an extremely credible individual.
Very nice drawing of an Orang Pendek.
Very nice drawing of an Orang Pendek.
Bigfoot photos from Brenda Harris. Harris is apparently out of the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico and she has worked closely with JC Johnson on Bigfoot samples. In June, she revealed a photo of a possible Bigfoot, probably taken on the Navajo Reservation. The photos are below.
The real photo from Brenda Harris, probably from the Navajo Reservation.
The real photo from Brenda Harris, probably from the Navajo Reservation.
Same photo zoomed in. This photo is very odd, but the size and shape looks a lot like a Bigfoot. In addition, Harris' contacts are probably good and I doubt if there are a lot of sophisticated hoaxers on the Navajo Reservation.
Same photo zoomed in. This photo is very odd, but the size and shape looks a lot like a Bigfoot. In addition, Harris’ contacts are probably good and I doubt if there are a lot of sophisticated hoaxers on the Navajo Reservation.
More on the Matilda photos. One thing you will notice about the Matilda photos is the dramatically protruding lower jaw. In the video, the whole face moves and the muscles in this jaw and mouth area can be seen very well. Now in order for this to be a person wearing a mask, that person would have to have a jaw that is as prognathous or protruding as Matilda’s. Such humans are rare or nonexistent. Otherwise the wearer’s face will not fit properly into the mask and efforts to move the face inside the mask will not look realistic. In addition, Matilda has an underbite, quite a large one at that. It moves when she opens and closes her mouth. I would think that would be very hard to do with a mask. The person wearing the mask would have to have the same underbite as Matilda’s to make it look realistic. Interview with a Hollywood special effects expert. According to special effects expert Doug Hudson, almost all Bigfoot hoaxes use only 3-4 different masks and costumes. Custom masks and costumes are few and far between. The only ones I have seen were in hoaxes perpetrated by independent movie directors and Hollywood special effects experts. Even the best of these hoaxes looked nowhere near as good as this Matilda footage. Most of them were easily identifiable as hoaxes. I have also seen quite a few Bigfoot suits and masks that have been used in Bigfoot movies. They are all quite obvious, and I have yet to see a mask or costume in a Bigfoot movie that looks anywhere near as good as this Matilda footage. If the Matilda footage is a hoax, it is the finest fake Bigfoot footage ever done, surpassing anything done in any Hollywood Bigfoot movie and beyond any Bigfoot hoaxes done by movie directors or special effects artists. Hudson also makes the claim that just the raw materials alone for a custom Bigfoot suit and mask would run you $10,000 and to purchase one from a special effects guy would cost $40,000. The masks and suits used in the hoaxes and movies above probably cost between $60-80,000 to produce and would probably require at least 100 man-hours. Idiotic human garbage in the comments threads and on skeptard sites like JREF have been calling those figures ludicrous and laughing at them. Hey, they didn’t come from me. Take it up with Doug Hudson, the expert! [youtube=] I consider this expertise far beyond Roger and Sissy, the owners of the property. In addition, they did not have the savvy nor the means to purchase custom Bigfoot suits and masks from Hollywood special effects people. Therefore, I do not believe the Matilda footage is hoaxed. Problems with the Kentucky footage. An expert from the Smithsonian I consulted told me that the main thing that bothered him about the Matilda footage was the nose. He stated that Bigfoots all have noses that look human, and Matilda’s nose looks canine. However, recall that Justin Smeja’s description of the young Bigfoot at the Sierra Kills stated that the juvenile had a nose like a Boxer dog. The nose may be somewhat canine in the young Bigfoots but only develop a human form when they mature. And keep in mind that Matilda was immature. The Sleeping Bigfoot footage is good, but the expert I talked to said that the hair could be either real fur or fake fur. This is because it is very tousled and tangled. Tousled, tangled fur can look a lot like fake fur. He also said that the fur did not look like that of any known animal. In addition, some think that Adrian Erickson is somewhat gullible. For instance, Adrian thought that Fraud Standings hoaxed Bigfoot tiki dolls were real Bigfoot footage. Adrian was ready to buy Fraud’s footage until his friends stopped him. Adrian simply lacks the expertise to determine hoaxed from real Bigfoot footage, in general. In favor of the Sleeping Bigfoot footage. It is said that this footage is either a carpet, a dog or a human wearing a suit. However, keep in mind that Dennis Pfohl notes that the creature was breathing only 6 breaths per minute. A dog breathes at the low end no less than 10-15 breaths per minute. Furthermore, dogs’ bodies do not go up and down when they breathe like this thing. Could it be a human in a suit? It is very hard for a human to naturally breathe only 6 breaths per minute. It can be done with a lot of practice, but bottom line is it is just not normal. Perhaps if you gave a human some morphine, their breathing might go that low. Furthermore, human’s bodies do not slowly go up and down when they breathe the way the creature’s do. Another argument is that it is Hollywood special effects. However, Roger and Sissy did not have the means or the savvy necessary to pay a Hollywood studio to create a fake breathing carpet. Complaints about the owners of the Kentucky property. Roger and Sissy, owners of the property, have been described as being “somewhat shady,” “crazy,” and “opportunistic” by some of the Bigfooters who were aware of them. I am not sure how much of this is true and how much is not. However, I do know that at least the man was able to go through money pretty quickly. Young Bigfoots may have grooming claws. From Justin Smeja comes word that the juvenile Bigfoot he shot had a grooming claw on its thumb. Some ape and monkey species have grooming claws. You can see one in the photo below.
lemur claw
This lemur has a grooming claw on its thumb. The baby Bigfoot was also said to have a grooming claw.
Dr. Brian Sykes Bigfoot DNA project will air on British TV on Patty Day. Patty Day is October 20. October 20, 1967 is when Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin shot the famous Patty footage at Bluff Creek, California. Is it interesting that he is going to release his earthshaking DNA data on Patty Day? Hmm. Todd Neiss reports Sykes has “blockbuster findings.” Neiss runs some sort of a Bigfoot research organization in Oregon. He recently stated that although he has been sworn to secrecy, the Sykes DNA study has some blockbuster findings. We have been hearing this sort of thing for a long time now, and it sounds very promising. Sykes has acquired samples of purported Yeti and Orang Pendek material. A source has just informed me that Sykes has acquired purported Yeti hair and purported Orang Pendek hair. Should be most interesting to see if these samples are valid, how they come back DNA-wise. Adam Davies reports that the Orang Pendek sample comes from him. They are from either an Orang Pendek, a tapir or a tiger. Those are the three animals that he and Cliff Barackman were tracking at the time in Sumatra last year.

Bigfoot News August 8, 2013

First leaks from Dr. Brian Sykes study. Via Reverend Jeff, we have learned that the piece of Bigfoot along with the boots from Justin Smeja’s Sierra Kills incident were submitted to Sykes. The piece was found after digging in the snow three weeks later, and the boots had blood on them from the baby Bigfoot that bled on them. Sykes reports that the Bigfoot piece is American Black Bear, the same result that Smeja and Bart Cutino got when they submitted to a couple of Canadian labs. People connected to Cutino and Smeja described the results to me:

RL: What were the results? Source: Bear, Black bear, the same as we got earlier. RL: What does that mean about Ketchum’s study? Source: She’s a fraud! This proves she is a fraud, as we have been saying all along! Melba Ketchum is a fraud!

Interesting news from the Sierra Study Project. This is a project being run by Bart Cutino, Justin Smeja and a few other people in which they are going to back to the Sierra Kills site to try to find the Bigfoots that presumably are still around there. Last summer, Bigfoots were filmed at the site with a FLIR camera late at night, but the video is not particularly impressive. However, the Sierra Kills site has now been abandoned and there are no more Bigfoots at the site. But after conversations with a local rancher who had knowledge what he suspected were Bigfoots, the team moved to another location a little ways from the Kills site. They found that there are Bigfoots in this area. A possible juvenile Bigfoot trackway was found. In addition, Bart and Justin had rocks thrown at them at night. Bart threw a few rocks and soon something threw a rock back at them. The rock almost hit them. Nothing in the forest throws rocks except for Bigfoots and humans. The Bigfoot threw the rock in an extremely remote part of the Sierras, very late at night with no other humans for miles around. Furthermore it was completely dark with no flashlights anywhere. Bart and Justin were also trailed by a Bigfoot as they were returning to camp one night. There was a bipedal creature trailing them as they walked back to camp. If a human threw the rock or trailed them, it would have had to have been a human wandering around in the Sierra wilderness where there are no people in the middle of the night with no flashlight. Exceedingly unlikely. Bart and Justin were also trailed by a Bigfoot as they were returning to camp one night. There was a bipedal creature trailing them as they walked back to camp. Bart also said that they got some good vocalizations, but I was not able to get him to elaborate on that. Bizarre claims surrounding the Melissa Hovey photo. Melissa Hovey and Phil Poling were locked in some sort of an odd lawsuit over copyright claims surrounding the Hovey photo that Melissa copyrighted under rather dubious pretenses. Apparently the result of the suit is that Melissa has been ordered to remove her copyright from the photo. Now Karl Kozak, director of a movie called Clawed, claims that the photo is his and his demanding that Hovey give it back to him. In my opinion, Kozak is a sleazy liar. He has been lying for some time now claiming that the Hovey photo is from the movie. A close comparison of the Hovey photos with photos of the Clawed costume being worn by actors shows that we are not dealing with the same thing. Furthermore, the special effects person who worked on Clawed, John Healey of Healey FX, says it is not one of the costumes that they made for the movie. These two bit B movie producers like Kozak often claim that Bigfoot photos are really suits from the movies. Sleazy special effects guys do the same thing, claiming that Bigfoot photos are really their costumes. Both types of sleazeballs are just lying to show how great their lousy B movie or their special effects skills are in order to get good publicity for themselves for making or using grade A costumes in their movies. They are doing this in hopes to get more business in the future by lying to pump up their public image. I continue to believe that the Hovey photo is a real live Bigfoot. It is obviously not a human in a costume. It is either a real Bigfoot or it is a statue of a Bigfoot, but it’s no costume, and there is no human in the picture. I have a hard time believing that any sculptor made such a great statue.

Click to enlarge. The Melissa Hovey Bigfoot photo, a probable real photo of a Bigfoot.
Click to enlarge. The Melissa Hovey Bigfoot photo, a probable real photo of a Bigfoot.
Rick Dyer saga gets a whole lot more interesting. Rick Dyer now claims that he has a baby Bigfoot, captured at the same time he shot Hank. This is most unlikely as none of the sources that were leaking information about the shooting said anything about a baby, including my source at Minnow, who simply mentioned that a Bigfoot had been shot in the course of the filming of the movie Shooting Bigfoot. Suddenly, Rick has a baby that was captured at the same time! That this baby would run up into Rick’s arms and allow itself to be captured at the same time that it’s father was shot, and that it would allow itself to be taken captive by its father’s murderer is exceedingly unlikely. How was the baby Bigfoot housed during the period after Hank was shot and before they left for Las Vegas? Did the baby go to Las Vegas too? When Rick went to the university to show off Hank, did he also show the government official the baby? So many questions that make no sense. We heard a lot about all of the preparations for housing Hank. What became of the baby during these preparations? When was the baby housed, and how did anyone find the time to house the baby while Hank was being dealt with? Where is the baby being housed? Rick says the LA area? How was it negotiated with the facility to house the baby Bigfoot? Baby Bigfoots are very strong. How are you going to keep it secure while you are arranging to house it? Who owns the baby Bigfoot, and how can anyone, any individual of course, but really any entity private or public, legally own a living hominid in the first place? The whole matter of the baby Bigfoot seems so unlikely as to seriously strain credulity. Hank’s “treehouse” found. Rick now says that he found Hank’s lair, but it is way up 20 feet in a tree in a treehouse of some sort. Not only 800 pound Hank lives there, but his whole family does too. Rick also says that deer bones and carcasses were scattered all around the treehouse. I have never in my life heard that Bigfoots live in trees. If this creature is as heavy as Rick says it is (800 pounds) how does it get up a tree in the first place without crashing the tree down under its weight. Sure, bears climb trees, but here in the California Sierras, bears only get to about 200 pounds or so generally. If Bigfoots have been living in trees along, why is this the first report of a Bigfoot treehouse? Makes no sense. Why are we just now hearing about this? Why didn’t someone leak this along the way and why didn’t Rick discuss this earlier? Why is he dropping this on us now? It seems ridiculous. Hank found with children’s toys. Rick says he used children’s toys to lure Hank in to his death at the camp. That is plausible as we have reports that they are fascinated by these things. Rick interprets this to mean that Bigfoots are monsters that kill and eat human children and steal their toys. As evidence that Hank is a child killer and child eater, Rick presents us with these toys. This is not plausible. The more likely assertion is simply that Hank has been taking children’s toys because they fascinate him, not because he kills kids to get them and then eats the kids. But it is certainly plausible to me that Hank has a children’s toy stash. Dyer throws down the gauntlet on the baby Bigfoot. Below is Rick’s latest insane video. In this case, incredibly enough, he offers three of his worst nemeses who have been insisting all along that he is hoaxing and this whole thing is a hoax out to Los Angeles to see the baby Bigfoot, but it needs to be on their dime. The three are Randy Filipovic, Steve Kulls and JR Dobbs. JR and Steve have reported accepted the offer. Steve is flying out and JR is driving out. JR will also be filming the drive. Filipovic also accepted, but he lives in Canada and it may be hard to get a passport that soon. The only stipulation is that Rick is allowed to film their reaction to the baby Bigfoot and that they not reveal where the baby is being housed. Those three are three of Rick’s very worst haters of all – in particular Kulls and Filipovic. The invitation is for this Friday, August 10. This is absolutely incredible news, and no one has any idea what to make of this breathtaking news. But none of this seems to make the slightest lick of sense. Perhaps you are wondering what the reference is at the very start of the video. Rick apparently offered to let the Facebook Find Bigfoot guys come and see the baby Bigfoot, but both of them totally blew up over the bizarre new disclosures and yelled at Frank Cali on the phone. This upset Dyer quite a bit, so he withdrew the invitation. Explanation for the some of the previous bizarre description of Hank. Here is the wild description according to Dyer:

  1. Rick describes describes the Bigfoot as 8 ft 8 inches tall and over 800 pounds.
  2. The nose has two slits on it on the bridge area.
  3. The pores all over the body under the hair are large and can be seen.
  4. The hair as super thick, matted and hard to pull.
  5. The Bigfoot has a double row of teeth.
  6. The male Bigfoot genitalia as having a pocket that the genitalia will retract into when not in use.
  7. Scientists and doctors did MRI’s, cat scans and x-rays.
  8. The Bigfoot has many double organs. One such double organ is that the creature has two stomachs.
  9. The Bigfoot also has new organs never seen before.
  10. The drug companies are very interested in the Bigfoot for possible medicine to help certain ailments we humans have.
  11. Scientists have named it.
  12. Scientists say they DNA is new.
  13. After they killed it, they found some things that could lead people to believe it is doing harm to humans and kids. Rick believes it is a monster.

The Bigfoot has grown since Rick first described it. At first it was 8 feet tall, 600 pounds. The actual figure for Hank’s weight, I believe, is 832 pounds. No Bigfoots have ever reported with slits in their noses, and we have people who say they have examined Bigfoot bodies. The part about the pocket into which the penis retracts is exceedingly unlikely. An Australian type of wolf, the Thylacine, had this, but Australian creatures are very bizarre and are the products of eons of evolution. No primates have retractile penis pouches. The part about “new DNA” seems very strange. Do they mean non-mammalian? This seems to echo some Dr. Melba Ketchum’s more bizarre claims. How does a mammal have non mammalian DNA? Forget it. The double rows of teeth seem very odd, but it is possible. We have many reports from 100-150 years of giant hominid skeletons found in the US with double rows of teeth. Did Patty has double molars? If so, couldn’t we see this is the movie. In the movie, Patty does not appear to have double molars, otherwise her cheek would pucker out. There has nothing that has been found that suggests it is harming humans and kids. I think Rick is referring to the kids’ toys here. The pores and the thick hair are possibilities, especially the thick hair. How did scientists do X-Rays, MRI’s and CAT scans on Hank in this facility? How did they fit him into the machines? This facility had all of these machines? I thought it was an agricultural research station? A possible insider from the scientific team studying Hank comes forward. Someone named “Marmoset” recently came to my site and left this in the comments section:

This species is chimeric. Scientists working on the body explained to dyer what Germline chimerism is and he, of course, doesn’t understand. He interprets chimerism as double sets of everything including organs when in reality, we are simply trying to explain chimerism. He is not educated and is demanding to work with. And the animal was not pregnant. The animal ate its own young – which it will do. The live cub now captured is the twin of the one eaten and found in the stomach of the creature. Disturbing…but true. Like marmosets and some other primates- this is chimerism.

Assuming this is actually someone from the scientific team – a big if right there – this certainly clears up many things. Rick claimed that Hank, obviously a male according to Musky Allen, was also pregnant! This claim is completely insane, but if the creature had a fetus in its stomach, this is possible. If a fetus is born dead, certain animals, including lions, will consume it. They may also eat a baby that dies naturally. This is not unknown in the animal kingdom. How they figured out that there were the remains of a Bigfoot fetus in Hank’s stomach is not known. Clearly a whole fetus was not in his stomach. How did he swallow it? And stomach acids would have gone to work on the fetus immediately. Nevertheless, the consumption of a Bigfoot fetus is more likely than the male Hank being pregnant. Rick said that Hank has male and female sex organs and that the baby does too. In other words, Bigfoots are all hermaphrodites! We have had no reports that Bigfoots are hermaphrodites or that they are sexually abnormal. All reports state that males and females both have functioning, normal and human like genitalia. They have sexual intercourse in the same way we do. The females get pregnant and the males don’t. The pregnant females give birth the same way human females do. Hermaphroditism in humans is quite rare and is a genetic abnormality. If it is so rare, why are Hank and his son both hermaphrodites? Makes no sense. Furthermore, I understand the hermaphroditic genitals are often very small and do not necessarily work well. The penis is often tiny, looks more like a clitoris and does not necessarily work right. The vagina is often small, misshapen and doesn’t even look much like a vagina. The organs may not function correctly and hermaphrodites may not be able to bear children. A very few humans are born with penises and uteruses, believe it or not, but in those cases, neither organ functions properly. The penis cannot impregnate anyway and the uterus is not capable of bearing children. Nevertheless, if Bigfoots are chimeric, this explains a lot, as chemeric individuals and species are often somewhat ambiguous sexually. So while Hank has a very large and functioning penis, he may also have something ambiguous but not highly remarkable that implies he has somewhat ambiguous genitalia (for instance a suggestion of some partially developed female genitalia. So that explains that. On the issue of the double organs, Rick is just confused. The creature does not have double organs. Instead it is simply chimeric and Rick is confused about what this means. This makes a lot more sense than thinking the Bigfoots have double stomachs, double hearts, double livers or whatever, which is incredibly unlikely. I have extreme doubts that Hank, a mammal, has organs that have never been seen before, not in any primate, not in any mammal and not even in any animal species. Forget it. That is just insane. No one knows if Marmoset is really a member of the scientific team studying Hank or is connected to the team studying him. He left a nonworking email, so I can’t follow up with him. Possibly he is yet another liar or hoaxer muddying the waters here. However, it seems odd that a hoaxer would have this much scientific knowledge and would come up with the bizarre bit about germline chimerism to explain Rick’s anomalies. Actually it almost makes no sense!

Bigfoot News August 3, 2013

Dyer skeptics are welcome on this board. Although I am a Dyer believer, I will publish any skeptic argument that seems sensible. I will also publish the Dyer believer side in order to tell both sides of the story. So Dyer skeptics are welcome here as long as they are civil. This is a great story, hoax or not, and until we know for sure one way or the other, it’s best to hear both sides of the story and let people make up their own minds. An amazing physical description of Hank (Rick Dyer’s Bigfoot body) from Rick’s show yesterday, August 2. From the comments:

  1. Rick describes describes the Bigfoot as 8 ft 8 inches tall and over 800 pounds.
  2. The nose has two slits on it on the bridge area.
  3. The pores all over the body under the hair are large and can be seen.
  4. The hair as super thick, matted and hard to pull.
  5. The Bigfoot has a double row of teeth.
  6. The male Bigfoot genitalia as having a pocket that the genitalia will retract into when not in use.
  7. Scientists and doctors did MRI’s, cat scans and x-rays.
  8. The Bigfoot has many double organs. One such double organ is that the creature has two stomachs.
  9. The Bigfoot also has new organs never seen before.
  10. The drug companies are very interested in the Bigfoot for possible medicine to help certain ailments we humans have.
  11. Scientists have named it.
  12. Scientists say they DNA is new.
  13. After they killed it, they found some things that could lead people to believe it is doing harm to humans and kids. Rick believes it is a monster.

I have a hard time with some of the physical description here. It seems almost too weird to be true. Double organs? No way. Organs never seen before? What? A retractable penis? No. Arguments that Dyer’s physical description of Hank is not possible.

The first description is from a Dyer believer: I am sorry but that report by Rick Dyer is simply bunk. There are enough DNA samples extant from other encounters to call BS on what Dyer said. Sasquatch are just animals, like you and me or lions, tigers and bears. The DNA comes back as nearly human or unknown primate. They will not have an organ that is unidentifiable; well maybe Rick didn’t know what it was. They won’t have doubled organs unless you are talking about kidneys, eyes & ears. Two stomachs is possible, cows have four of them and would simply indicate largely herbaceous diet. But they won’t have two hearts, livers or brains. Nature does not work that way. As for the teeth, go to the 3rd world and look at people that do not grow up with a dentist. You see lots of humans that look to have double rows of teeth, but it is just that their teeth are crowded in their mouth. At my previous job my personal assistant was a Chinese lady who at the age of 17 had to have all her real teeth pulled because they were so crooked. She had worn full dentures since she was 17. “Hank” probably had impacted wisdom teeth. There are many, many reports of people who have had very close encounters with Sasquatch and Rick Dyer is the only one I have seen who claims to have seen this. Look at the PG film, at Patty’s face; if there were two rows of teeth, the cheek would bulge, otherwise the mouth would be too small to eat. Seriously, look at your mouth in a mirror try and imagine how small the interior of your mouth would be if you had two complete sets of teeth. I think he shot “Hank.” I think he has a really vicious NDA and knows if he says anything before a certain date he doesn’t get paid. Making up wild stories is a way to protect his payday. I also think he like the attention, even if the attention comes from people that hate him. If the skeptics were a house cat, Rick Dyer would be twisting their tail. The harder he twists, the louder they “Yowl” and more Rick Dyer likes it. I believe from what I have seen of him, he has a fairly well developed mean streak. The skeptics didn’t believe him when he told the truth, so he is having fun with them. He may also be trying to get the “UFO/Space Aliens ate my poodle’s dog food” types to spend money and join his group. Those people will believe anything and will let Rick take them out in the woods nude except for his special tin-foil hats to protect them from alien abduction. The hats cost extra however! From a Rick Dyer skeptic: Mammals don’t have multiple hearts, any more than they have six limbs. From another Dyer skeptic: Part of the reason that science isn’t generally willing to entertain the possibility of a large unknown North American primate species – which Bigfoot would be, even if it’s some sort of human, as many here believe (although not me)- is that there is a small but vocal element of the BF community that spouts all this, “They have multiple organs” or “They’re interdimensional” or “They’re aliens” stuff. If they are mammals, they have to obey the same biological rules that other mammals obey. I suppose it is possible that a large, mostly herbivorous primate might have evolved a ruminating system to help digest large quantities of plant matter. But not multiple hearts, livers, etc. Sorry. I agree with Fai Mao that witnesses might see really large or crooked teeth and misidentify that as multiple rows of teeth, but it’s really unlikely that it actually has them, based on mammalian biology. Dyer saying that Hank has them, to me, is further evidence that he’s either making it all up or saying what he thinks people want to hear. From yet another Dyer skeptic: Ketchum’s conclusion was that BF is a hybrid of a human being having mated with a hominid, likely some type of ape. If you believe that to be true, then you could not possibly believe Dyer’s description of “Hank” which includes multiple double organs, new organs that have never been seen, a retractable penis pocket?, and so on. These two theories are in direct contradiction with one another. If you believe one, you cannot believe the other. So, which is it?

However, it is true that there are many descriptions of “giants” found in the Americas that were very tall, had strange shaped skulls, and often had double rows of teeth. There are many newspaper reports of these from the 1800’s into the early part of the 20th Century. Here is one such report from the comments:

2 rows of teeth is very common in descriptions of giants found in past.

Strange Skulls

“First reported in the 4 May 1912 issue of the New York Times, the 18 skeletons found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features. Their heights ranged between 7.6 and 10 feet, and their skulls “presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America today.” They tend to have a double row of teeth, 6 fingers, 6 toes and like humans come in different races. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars. Heads usually are elongated believed due to longer than normal life span.”

Nevertheless, there is a report of a Bigfoot with two rows of teeth. Go to Bigfoot Encounters. It’s the Anderson County, Texas sighting. However, a skeptic (but Dyer believer) feels that that story is fictional. Here are his reasons why:

I have read that “encounter” it just reeks of a tall tale. There is so much in that report that is just wrong. The juvenile Sasquatch in the middle of the road and refusing to leave. The female “mother” Sasquatch reaching through the truckers window and stroking his beard. The events described in that encounter are so far beyond what even the most dedicated people doing habituation have been able to do. That report describes behavior that makes sense if you are talking about a spoiled human child in a supermarket parking lot. Sasquatch do not behave like normal humans because they are not normal humans, assuming they are human at all. What is described in that report is not typical Sasquatch behavior, and that raises a red flag for me. If you want to understand Sasquatch behavior read the book Animals in Translation by Temple Grandlin and apply what she says about autism to Sasquatch behavior. A juvenile Sasquatch would not have been in the middle of the road and refuse to leave when approached by a tractor-trailer. It is not what an animal or autistic person would do. Think about it. If Sasquatch were as approachable as described in that “report,” there would be no doubt about their existence. If I remember right it is a fairly recent report – posted within a year though it is claimed to have happened several years ago – I would not be surprised if it was not a RD plant.

More skeptic arguments against the Rick Dyer story.

A lot of the confusion about the movie came from changes happening so late in its production. A movie that apparently had been wrapped was re-opened, which to many of us looks very suspicious. The other arguments are just not moving. If Dyer used real ammunition he could easily have shot it into the air. Also, Dyer now claims that there was no crew at the kill site, just him and Matthews. The Tent Video creature doesn’t move all that much and it’s a straw man to say you can’t find the mask–it just looks like a man in some kind of headpiece and facial makeup, as frankly does the movie still. People such as the wrap guy, Frank Cali, and Craig Phillips may seem credible to you but are far from it to a lot of us who have watched their “testimony” and know Dyer’s ways of getting people to lie for him. The Facebook guys, if they’re not in on it, are very eager to believe and appear to be easily manipulated by Musky. And no one knows what is going on behind the scenes with law enforcement. When nobody is willing to step forward with either real evidence or a confession that they lied, these things drag on and on. If you care that people believe you have a real Bigfoot, why would you just keep using eyewitness testimony to try and prove it? If you don’t care, then leave it alone until the reveal. If you do, then stop just throwing people in front of cameras and making them look foolish. That’s the clearest example of how casually Dyer uses people.

How did Rick Dyer, dumb redneck, get all these people to lie for him? From the comments:

What I don’t understand first you people say Rick is some dumb redneck hick. Yet he is able to get so many people to lie for him. That is to me where you all lose your critical thinking that you sit and say he is stupid uneducated yet he can mastermind this whole things. get Morgan Matthews to lie, get Musky to lie, get the FB/FB people to lie, get the car wrap guy to lie, get Alexes to lie, get Frank and Craig to lie, get Dallas and Wayne to lie. It amazes me is he a dumb hick or is he actually brilliant to do all this. I personally think If Rick was able to get all the above to lie…This is a far more interesting story than a Dead Bigfoot. How this one man was able to do all this. Its a made for TV movie.

Argument that Rick got people to lie for him.

So far, there are really only three people (if you only count the current players) who Dyer would have had to get to lie for him about knowing there is a body…the wrap guy, Frank, and Craig. The wrap guy probably thought he was in on some joke, and the other two have profiles and testimony that are similar to past Dyer manipulation. The others you mention are just believers. As for Matthews, I think he’s given too much credit…he’s a man with a movie to sell, and just as he may not have explicitly stated there’s no Bigfoot in his movie, he also hasn’t said that there is. If Craig and Frank can say there is a body, you’d think he could too. That he hasn’t doesn’t mean there is a real Bigfoot, just that he’s chosen to play along for a while.

This is actually not true. The following people have seen the body: 1. Musky Allen 2. Frank Cali 3. Car Wrap guy 4. Craig Phillips 5. Unknown TT member 6. Chris Sands We do not know who 5 is, but a good friend of mine talked to them at length and was very impressed. And from everything I have heard, Sands saw the body too, but he doesn’t seem to be talking about it. Is Cathiee McMillan really a man? The Dyer skeptics have been saying for a long time that this Dyer believer is really a man. I have seen a photo of her, and she is not a man. Further, she talks like a woman in online conversations. A good female friend of mine agrees that that she talks like a woman in online chats. All in all, the argument seems silly.

The Death of Johannesburg

[youtube=] Although of course I opposed apartheid, supported the ANC and the transition to democracy, let’s face it. It hasn’t all been peaches and roses, now has it? On balance though, I would say that it was the right thing to do. One man one vote is the only way to go. Apartheid, racist rule by a tiny minority, was just wrong, period, whatever benefits it may have had for whoever. Sometimes doing the right thing causes more problems than doing the wrong thing. In that case, as a Western Christian, I would still say that we should do the right thing anyway for no other reason than to do the right thing. Doing the right thing is proper and correct in and of itself, regardless of whatever consequences flow from that decision. Besides, the notion that Blacks lived in paradise under apartheid is highly dubious! Reading through the comments, many of which are racist, one point keeps getting hammered home over and over. The nonracist side of me cringes when I hear it, but nevertheless, all arguments should be entertained in the quest for truth. Just because an argument is racist doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Sadly, racist arguments may indeed be correct even if the people making them are bad people. The argument is that Blacks not only cannot create higher civilization in the first place on their own, but when handed a higher civilization created by another group (typically Whites) in a matter of time, a few decades or less, they pretty much unravel that advanced civilization and turn the place into a dirty, dangerous, chaotic, polluted, unhealthy slum. Those pictures in that video could be of Detroit, East St. Louis, Camden, Newark, Chicago’s South Side or Oakland. Whether or not Blacks are civilization destroyers once they become a majority is an interesting question, but once one accepts the premise just for the purposes of argument, one still wonders at the reason. One argument is IQ. However, the US Black IQ is ~87. That’s certainly high enough to create stable civilization. The African IQ is controversial. One paper says it is only ~69. In that case, civilization wrecking would seem to be par for the course. Yet a new study puts the African IQ at ~80. I am not sure if that is correct, but if it is, that should be high enough to create a functional society. After all, the Moroccan IQ is 82, the Indonesian IQ is 79 and the Qatari IQ is 78. All of these peoples have produced more or less functional societies with ~80 IQ’s, so an 80 IQ should be plenty enough to create a working society. Another argument is high testosterone. High testosterone may explain higher Black crime rates until age 33. Would Black crime alone in and of itself be enough to completely unravel civilization in that way we see in Detroit and in the video? Isn’t there more going on there than just crime? At any rate, Black women commit little crime, and after age 33, Black men’s testosterone is lower than that of Whites. Surely Black women and older Black males ought to be able to create functional societies as they don’t have testosterone to blame. At the end of the day, the arguments just don’t seem to be make sense. The, yes, racist argument that Blacks are civilization wreckers in at least quite a few cases stings, but even non-racists must wonder painfully if it’s true. Yet that arguments put forward for why Blacks dismantle civilization seem to lack explanatory adequacy. Even more painfully, let us suppose that Blacks have civilization dismantling properties. Are they doomed to do this forever and ever? Is there any hope for Blacks? Are admixed Blacks (mulattos, zambos, etc.) also likely to do this? If so, do they do it at the same rate or a lesser rate? I’m sure that quite a few Black people like to live in chaotic, filthy, disordered, and dangerous places. On the other hand, we have Black commenters and authors on this site who are as repulsed by these places as I am. Before attacking Blacks wholesale for dismantling civilization, let us keep in mind that the primary victims of Black civilization dismantling are Blacks themselves. Other races suffer from the downside of this unraveling at a dramatically reduced rate. As Blacks dismantle civilizations, they inflict an unbelievably horrific cost of suffering, pain, illness and death on their very own kind. That right there is as sad as a bottomless well. That Blacks are the primary victims of this entropic impulse makes it even more imperative that we get to the bottom of it.

Racial Testosterone Differentiations Caused by the Environment?

Is it possible that the higher average in “Black” in early age and higher average higher count in older “White” men could be explained by environmental causes, and not genetic predetermined ones? That maybe this could explain itself as an alternative? “Black” culture in America at least has a definitive ‘machismo’ streak to it that often values and commands certain traits where you could say testosterone friendly traits are often expounded more. I wouldn’t say changing their culture would lowers these levels – perhaps they are more likely shaped in teenage years – but they are far more hypersocial and leave “Black” individuals vulnerable to cultural and environmental traits. I know at least our urge to take risks has been shown by neurologists to shape hormonal levels in men’s teenage years that determine our ability to take risks for the rest of men’s lives. While White culture often is more forgiving of anti-competitive males – in fact it is arguably the source of concepts like transgenderism and feminism. Feminism itself could be argued to be still in a process of osmosis in American culture. I think of psychologists like Steven Pinker who describe the ‘feminization’ of modern males when I think of such things, and how this allows for greater (or “feminizing”) social organization and success, something ideologically ‘Eurocentric’ in origin. Whenever we talk generally about this ‘modern male’, one should further consider, measuring this from norms and averages, we are de facto talking about “White” men, who represent the vast majority. Testosterone I would also say has been shown to be effected by environment in some way or another – stress is known to reduce it for example – as is stamina related exercise. I guess I’m saying whatever factor that might be might be inherent to a “black” teenagers testosterone and hence future young adult level might be as inherent as is his increased propensity to be from a lower economic status or listen to hip hop music and watch BET. My explanation would be some cause and effect exhaustion of the male capacity to produce testosterone, perhaps some aging effect on the “Black man’s” thyroid, or some other such physiological explanation. While my explanation may not be correct, what has to be considered moreover is that nevertheless there may be some other ‘secondary explanation’. And to implement such measures as a pill for “Blacks” could have arbitrary effect – misinformation about things that determine their whole physical existence is touchy stuff – where mistaken belief can leave to acts such as the Holocaust (not to go Hitler ad reductium on you, you are far from Hitler!) or even the unnecessary sterilization of criminals, disabled and such individuals in the western world during the earlier half of the last century. Whether you are right or not, you have to consider the ‘what if’ of such suggestions, the what if I’m wrong would there be any consequences in any case. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong in acting on assumptions like yours, but the consequences you have to consider.

I had a hard time understanding some of this comment, but the gist of it is clear. My understanding is that the racial differentials in testosterone scores are worldwide. That is, Blacks have higher levels in their early lives the world over, Asians have lower levels their whole lives the world over, and Whites are in between the world over. I am not sure how true that is, but that’s how I understand it. If this hasn’t been proven yet, we ought to do some studies to see if it is true or not. Personally, I doubt if environment is causing racial differentials in testosterone scores. As far as my thought experiment about giving Blacks a testosterone lowering pill, it’s just that – a thought experiment. We already give men pills and shots to raise their levels with few known ill effects. It stands to reason we could lower men’s levels without ill effects either. At any rate, such things ought to be rigorously studied.

“They Might Be Getting Somewhere With Male Contraceptives,” by Alpha Unit

According to a recent article in The New York Times, male contraceptives are attracting growing interest from scientists, who believe they hold promise for being safe, effective, and, also important, reversible.

Scientists have been studying male contraception for many years, but so far no method has met the stringent safety and effectiveness criteria female methods do, writes Pam Belluck.

But some new approaches are encouraging enough that federal agencies are financing research. Some methods will be presented at an October conference by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The most studied approach in the United States involves using testosterone and progestin to send the body signals to stop producing sperm, says Belluck. Evidently this is supposed to be safe and effective for most men, but there are questions about side effects.

So now scientists are investigating ways to interrupt sperm production, maturation, or mobility.

One potential pill, gamendazole, interrupts sperm maturation so that you’re making non-functional sperm.

Another drug blocks production of retinoic acid, which is important for sperm production. It involves the metabolism of Vitamin A. Vitamin A is converted into metabolically active retinoic acid, which binds to a protein in your cells called an RAR (retinoic acid receptor). The receptor protein initiates the expression of genes necessary for the creation of sperm. The drug being tested is an RAR antagonist (and there are concerns about side effects).

A neurobiologist at Harvard discovered that sperm tails contain calcium ion channels, with electrically-charged atoms “turbo-charging” the sperm to reach eggs. He’s working on a drug that would disable this channel.

Another experimental method involves injecting a copolymer gel into the scrotum to inactivate sperm. The injection is made into the vas deferens, the vessel through which sperm move before ejaculation. Within minutes, this gel coats the walls of the vas. Scientists believe this works by partially blocking the vas and also by rupturing the cell membranes of sperm, preventing them from penetrating ova.

Yet another method involves briefly heating the testes with ultrasound, which can halt sperm production for months.

Pharmaceutical companies haven’t signed on to any of these methods, waiting for something that’s shown to be both effective and relatively risk-free in healthy men.

"They Might Be Getting Somewhere With Male Contraceptives," by Alpha Unit

According to a recent article in The New York Times, male contraceptives are attracting growing interest from scientists, who believe they hold promise for being safe, effective, and, also important, reversible. Scientists have been studying male contraception for many years, but so far no method has met the stringent safety and effectiveness criteria female methods do, writes Pam Belluck. But some new approaches are encouraging enough that federal agencies are financing research. Some methods will be presented at an October conference by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The most studied approach in the United States involves using testosterone and progestin to send the body signals to stop producing sperm, says Belluck. Evidently this is supposed to be safe and effective for most men, but there are questions about side effects. So now scientists are investigating ways to interrupt sperm production, maturation, or mobility. One potential pill, gamendazole, interrupts sperm maturation so that you’re making non-functional sperm. Another drug blocks production of retinoic acid, which is important for sperm production. It involves the metabolism of Vitamin A. Vitamin A is converted into metabolically active retinoic acid, which binds to a protein in your cells called an RAR (retinoic acid receptor). The receptor protein initiates the expression of genes necessary for the creation of sperm. The drug being tested is an RAR antagonist (and there are concerns about side effects). A neurobiologist at Harvard discovered that sperm tails contain calcium ion channels, with electrically-charged atoms “turbo-charging” the sperm to reach eggs. He’s working on a drug that would disable this channel. Another experimental method involves injecting a copolymer gel into the scrotum to inactivate sperm. The injection is made into the vas deferens, the vessel through which sperm move before ejaculation. Within minutes, this gel coats the walls of the vas. Scientists believe this works by partially blocking the vas and also by rupturing the cell membranes of sperm, preventing them from penetrating ova. Yet another method involves briefly heating the testes with ultrasound, which can halt sperm production for months. Pharmaceutical companies haven’t signed on to any of these methods, waiting for something that’s shown to be both effective and relatively risk-free in healthy men.

That Crap's Alive!

Holy crap, Batman! Your shit is actually alive! Full of oodles of wonderful virii. Positively swimming with gazillions of bacteria. Saturated with armies of protozoa. Crawling with countless little wormies. Don’t eat that shit! Whatever you do, don’t eat that shit. Can you eat your own? In minute quantities, surely. Obviously, we all do. We poop, we wipe, we touch ourselves, hey, it’s inevitable. We’re all still up and standing. Can you eat other people’s? Don’t even think about it. On the other hand, once again, I suppose we do, in very tiny quantities anyway, so small you can’t even see it. Wash your hands, dammit, wash your hands. You’re wondering about how you get traveller’s diarrhea on the road. You’re eating other people’s shit. Eating their E.coli and campylobacter. This is why intestinal parasites, typhoid, dysentery and cholera are so common in the 3rd world. The worms are in the shit, the shit goes into the soil, the soil goes into you. You can also get shigellosis, amoebiasis, and giardiasis this way. That shit is everywhere. Watch out for that shit. Don’t eat that shit! Don’t eat that shit!

Facts and Nonsense About the Brain

Repost from the old site. Like most things, there is much nonsense spoken about our brains. Our brains are very interesting to us, even to stupid people, because we use them to think. Yes, even dumb people do use their brains to think. We don’t really understand how our brains work, so some of us try to sound smart by pontificating about our mysterious brains. Here are some widespread myths about our brains: We only use [choose one: 1 It’s one of those feel-good statements that is complete nonsense. We use all of our brains. Even total idiots are using all of their brains most of the time, strange as it may seem. There are parts of the brain that are emotional and parts of the brain that are dedicated to cognition. This one is not nearly as silly as the first one, but it’s still not true. I know this because 15 years ago I was acquainted with a neuropsychologist. He did various sorts of cognitive testing, and he also worked with people with various forms of brain damage. He was also a strange guy, but he was nice enough, and he did have a PhD. I assumed that getting the PhD had probably driven him partly crazy, and he was neurotic as a result. He informed me that there were no emotional or thinking parts of the brain. He said that all of the brain engages in both thinking and emotion. Sure, some parts, like the amygdala, are more dedicated to emotion and other parts, like the prefrontal cortex, are more dedicated to thinking, but all the parts do both. Every drink (or joint) kills a few brain cells. I can’t believe even physicians tell me this crap. It’s nonsense. Yes, alcohol is one of the few drugs that actually kills brain cells, but you have to drink alcoholic-style for years before it happens. Cannabis, like many drugs, does not kill brain cells at any dose. Unfortunately, drugs don’t need to kill cells to mess up your brain. They can damage cells and destroy connections between cells. Male brains are better at math and science than female brains. Actually, they start out the same, but worldwide studies show that at about age 13, when massive male hormones kick in, males all over the world start to surpass females. A personal observation is that females who do well at these subjects are more likely to be more masculine (not necessarily lesbian) than other women. The President of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, was recently massacred for stating this obvious fact. Female brains are better at verbal than male brains. Apparently the case, though there are arguments about which type of verbal we are talking about. If you think about it, there are evolutionary reasons why females would end up better at verbal (needed to raise young kids) and males are better at visuospatial (needed for hunting). There are some more facts about the brain that you may find interesting. We have a maximum number of brain cells at age 23, and after that, there is a steady decline. This is correlated with what is known as fluid IQ, a rough measure of brain efficiency. This is why mathematicians, physicists, novelists, poets, songwriters, musicians, artists and others like them tend to do their best work when they are still pretty young. On the other hand, only an insane person would put the 18-22 year olds in charge of a country. This group has never been put in charge of anything in any society, with good reason. Their brains are going like gangbusters, but they don’t have any sense. They think they know everything, but they don’t know shit. They are supremely self-confident, and they have not even reached the stage of self-doubt. Other than passing their classes, they are contemptuous of learning and knowledge in general and never admit there is anything they don’t know. If they can’t figure it out, it’s worthless. This age group is a prime example of the notion that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. They have a grotesquely poor understanding of their fellow man, and they are horribly intolerant. Also, they are very much group-thinkers who are terrified to defy group-think and peer pressure. If we put them in charge, it would be a nightmare. They would hold public executions and would probably torture people in public. There would be stupid wars all the time. Everything would be legal, and no one would care. There would be private armies all over the place and probably some form of fascism would be the flavor of the day. We occasionally put them in charge of some stuff, like being Presidents of fraternities, but often they even fuck that up. Mind you, I was an 18-22 year old too, and those were the best days of my life. I remember myself as being supremely mature and with-it, but I assume I had my head up my ass like the rest of them. Yes, the brain declines with age, but wisdom is good. The crystallized intelligence of age does have advantages over the rarely-used super-brains of the young. Our brains are slower, but with the gifts and harsh lessons of time, we are vastly superior at making decisions. Any tribe or civilization of any worth always put middle-aged to old guys in charge and revered its elders. We are cautious and careful, and we already did most of the dumb things there are to do, and we are not likely to do them again. Crystallized intelligence is more or less the stuff you know. As you age, you accumulate knowledge and theoretically wisdom. You don’t get a hardon with every passing breeze, but you’re much less likely to do stupid shit. It’s called a trade-off. A process called pruning occurs in which there is actually a massive loss of brain cells and connections. Most folks do not know this, but there is a massive overgrowth of brain cells in childhood. At adolescence, the brain decides to clear out all those stupid dirt roads that don’t go much of anywhere and make some superhighways instead. The result is like pruning a tree, and the brain works much better as a result. There is quite a bit of loss of brain structure in the process, but it’s all good in the end. In fact, pruning is an essential process for the adolescent brain. If you observe most adolescents, it would not seem controversial that they are experiencing massive loss of brain structure, but a lot of folks still refuse to believe this. There is a window in the brain for language that starts to close at about age 7. If you wait until later, you never really get language right. We have folks born deaf who got hearing at age 33 and have still never picked up language right. You can learn a foreign language in adulthood, but you will always have an accent, and you will never get 10 There is a blind cave fish that has a window for sight. If it is exposed to light before a certain age, it can see. If not, it just figures there is no light down in this cave, so it just goes blind and turns the visual portion of the brain over to something else. The brain seems to open up windows, so to speak. The brain opens a language window that says, “Any language here?” as it waits for input. If there is no input, the brain just closes the window, figures there is no language coming, and turns the area over to something else. The brain is plastic. That does not mean it is made out of polyurethane. It just means that it is smart. For instance, if one part gets damaged, your brain will try to reroute connections around the damaged area. Also, other areas of the brain will try to take over for the damaged area. Brains are smart! They actually think about how to fix up messed up brains! Cool!


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)