FBI's says 'Bigfoot hair' came from a deer – as expected

The FBI says tests performed 42 years ago on hair purported to be from Bigfoot came instead from something in the deer family.

Of course it did. Because what else would the FBI say?

This is the same agency that claims Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing John F. Kennedy, that insists the NBA didn't fix the 1985 draft lottery to give the New York Knicks the first pick and contends that Bill Paxton and Bill Pullman aren't one guy pretending to be two different actors.

So of course it denies that Bigfoot is real.

I was raised in Bigfoot country: Humboldt County. I've seen the Bigfoot statue in the small town of Willow Creek. I've played at the Bigfoot Golf and Country Club.  I've driven past the Bigfoot Motel.

Those are all real, although the FBI probably denies their existence. Just like it denies the obvious truth that the Titanic never sunk and that the moon landing was staged.

In case you've been living in a cave for the past 100 years (in which case, say hi to Elvis, Amelia Earhart and John F. Kennedy, who likely lived there with you), here's the basics on Bigfoot: He is a large, hairy beast that walks upright and leaves footprints around the Northwest. No, not a defensive lineman for the Seattle Seahawks, silly!

Many people claimed Bigfoot lives in Washington or British Columbia, but smart people connect Bigfoot to Humboldt County, where otherwise-struggling communities where I grew up can make money off the connection.

Bigfoot is said to be nearly 7 feet tall, but notoriously shy. Or reclusive. Or nonexistent, if you believe the FBI.

Bigfoot is shrouded in mystery, like the Loch Ness Monster, Abominable Snowman, werewolves and Yeti (Wait. Was the Abominable Snowman just a representative of Yeti, portrayed in "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer?" if so, my apologies). If you're like me, the more that the official organizations downplay their existence, the more I'm convinced they are real.

Like when the FBI denied that "fluoride" in our drinking water is really just a sneaky way to dispose of industrial waste. If that's not true, why does my breath smell so bad?

Anyway, Bigfoot.

The FBI's Bigfoot report came in response to a Freedom of Information request to see the 1975 correspondence between the FBI and the Bigfoot Information Center, an Oregon-based organization that was dedicated to finding Bigfoot and Patty Hearst, while promoting the use of 8-track players.

After explaining that the FBI didn't do routine investigation into matters not connected with law enforcement (a cop-out, right?), the agency acknowledged testing a sample of hair that was submitted to it and said the hair came from the deer family.

So here's where we stand: After decades of research, there's no proof of the existence of Bigfoot. However, there remains a great Bigfoot statue in Willow Creek, the Bigfoot Golf and Country Club still exists, a reporter from the Trinity Journal newspaper in Weaverville was still seeking eyewitnesses of Bigfoot a little over a year ago and a Google search for "Bigfoot" turns up more than 46 million pages.

In other words, there's plenty of smoke, so there probably is a fire.

Here's all I know. The FBI may say the hair comes from a deer, but it doesn't account for two possibilities:

1. That Bigfoot is part of the deer family,
2. That Bigfoot owns the Bigfoot Golf and Country Club in Willow Creek.

That's enough for me, because I know the 1985 NBA draft lottery was fixed.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Dad again dishes advice on Father's Day

It's Father's Day, the 31st-most-important holiday on the calendar (just behind Siblings Day and just ahead of International Sushi Day – which is Tuesday). That means as always, a special treat for readers: Advice from a father.

In the spirit of Annie's Mailbox, Ann Landers, Miss Manners and Tim Jones (one of those things is not like the other!), what follows are pretend letters from imaginary readers with imitation problems that can only be answered by a father.

It's time for Dear Dad.

Dear Dad: I live in Vacaville with my daughter and son-in-law. While I am grateful for their hospitality, my son-in-law clearly resents my presence in the home. Sometimes while we're eating dinner, he will speak to everyone but me. He planned a vacation for the rest of the family, ignoring me. My question isn't about whether his behavior is right or wrong, but whether I should say anything. Should I speak up, or keep my thoughts to myself? – Uncomfortable in Vacaville

Dear Uncomfortable: The one thing you didn't include is where your son-in-law wants to vacation. I've found that the best vacations last between one and two weeks. It reminds me of the time when I was about 10 or 11 and my parents took us to Yellowstone Park for two weeks, but it seemed like it lasted forever, mostly because of how much we drove. This was before everyone had gaming systems or even iPods, so my sister and I sat in the backseat of the car. At one point we started fighting and the old man leaned back and took a swipe at us to make us stop. He missed and my sister and I started laughing, which just made him more mad. Those were the days. If that happened today, the kid would be staring at a screen while wearing ear buds.

Dear Dad: We have lived in the same home in Suisun City for 31 years and love our neighborhood, but recently our neighbors moved. The people who moved in have about six cars and they park them in front of our house sometimes – they even blocked the driveway recently. Do I have a right to the parking spots in front of my house? Can I call the cops? What should I do? – Frustrated Suisunite

Dear Frustrated: You know what frustrates me? Seeing kids try to parallel park a car. When I learned how to drive, that was part of the driving test – you had to be able to parallel park on a street. I remember one friend, Ronnie Franklin, who dented up his mom's car during the test. We called him "Crash" Franklin for the rest of high school. Hilarious.

Dear Dad: "Jane" and I have been dating for several months and I think I'm in love. The problem is that "Jane" constantly talks about her former boyfriend, who she says was the greatest guy ever. How can I get past this? – Lovestruck in Fairfield

Dear Lovestruck: Comparisons are tough. If you don't think so, ask LeBron James. No matter what he does, people compare him to Michael Jordan or even Kobe Bryant. But if you ask me, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was the greatest basketball player ever. He won six championships, six MVP awards and had that sky hook that was the most unstoppable shot in the history of basketball. I had a pretty good hook shot back when I played, but nobody does it anymore. Not sure why.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

When questionable surveys give you lemons, make lemonade

This is bananas! (You know, that yellow fruit with the non-edible peel.)

A survey by Hitchcock Farms, a California produce grower and shipper that produced legendary films "Psycho," "Vertigo" and "North By Northwest," revealed that only 22.8 percent of Californians could identify "everyday fruits and vegetables."

How do you like them apples? (The fruit that grows on trees and is a primary ingredient in apple pie.)

Per usual, the mainstream media made this out to be a "Californians are stupid" issue, like when we all got  sunburned that day that we forgot to wear sunscreen. Or when we spent 30 minutes looking for our glasses while they were on our face.

The mainstream media is so unfair!

But the issue isn't that Californians are stupid. It's that Kentuckians are stupid, because only 20.9 percent of them were able to identify everyday fruits and vegetables. We got 22.8 percent! Hah!

California and Kentucky being so far apart geographically, culturally and politically means that we're really comparing apples (see above) and oranges (the citrus fruit with a peel that again, you don't eat). Who knows why both states did badly?

Here's one potential reason: The report said the survey was done by showing people images of everyday fruits and vegetables, "such as an artichoke," and asking what it was.

Well, there's a problem.

An artichoke is an "everyday vegetable?" Anyone who likes artichokes knows that there is about a three-week period in the spring when artichokes are good. The rest of the time they are expensive and bad–like a Kardashian sister (more ammunition for the "Californians are stupid" crowd).

It seemed to me that citing artichokes as an example of "everyday vegetables" shows that the survey people cherry-picked the data. (Cherries are a red fruit that grows on trees and has a pit.)

Kentucky and California may be two peas in a pod (it's a green vegetable, grows on the ground), but the state with the highest recognition of "everyday fruits and vegetables" was none other than Utah.

Which makes sense, I guess, if you put salt on every vegetable (because of course, there is the Great Salt Lake and Salt Lake City in Utah. Get it?).

What's the takeaway? I suspect that somebody had the plum job (plums are the purplish fruit that grows on trees and are related to peaches and cherries) of creating the images and correct answers for this survey. It was clearly biased, which is what we always say when a survey reflects badly on us. In fact, claiming bias is the No. 1 industry in Mississippi, which routinely ranks 50th state rankings.

Anyway, the numbers were ridiculous. Heck, I took on online version of the test and I got seven of 10 right – which is well above 22.8 percent but also proves they aren't "everyday fruits and vegetables," because I would know them, right?

It seems that the idea of what constitutes "everyday fruits and vegetables" is open to interpretation. What one person thinks is obvious is not an "everyday fruit or vegetable" to someone else.

In other words, You say tomato (the  fruit that seems like a vegetable and grows best in warm weather), I say to-mah-toh. You say potato (the tuberous vegetable that's a staple food in much of the world) , I say po-tah-toh.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Ranking the Bay Area's best pro sports decades

We're approaching the final six months of the best decade in Bay Area sports history.

The 2010s have been that good. Championships. Star players. Memorable events. So I already took away the suspense: You don't have to go to the bottom of this column. You now know what is No. 1.

But in the spirit that has led me to rank the greatest generations, decades, days of the week, minor holidays and even punctuation marks, let's look at the best decades in Bay Area sports history.

This is about the 10-year spans with the most winning, the best memories, the biggest stars. The list focuses on major league professional sports, so sorry to Johnny Miller or Kristi Yamaguchi or Andre Ward, whose accomplishments don't count here. The list begins with the 1950s, the first full decade with major professional teams.

From worst to first:

7. 2000s: This was the first title-free decade in the Bay Area since the 1960s and it added some terrible memories. The Giants lost a heartbreaking World Series in 2002 and the Raiders lost the Super Bowl to former and future coach Jon Gruden a few months later. Other franchises had bright spots (the A's had a 20-game winning streak in 2002 and inspired the book and movie "Moneyball," the Warriors had the "We Believe" season in 2007), but for Bay Area sports fans, the Great Recession refers to sports from 2000 through 2009.

6. 1950s: For most of the decade, it was just the 49ers – and they weren't that good. The Giants moved to San Francisco in 1958, giving Willie Mays only two years of this decade in San Francisco.

5. 1990s: Other than the 49ers (Super Bowl wins in 1990 and 1994), this was a lean 10 years. The Warriors descended toward the bottom of the NBA; the Giants signed Barry Bonds, then struggled to make the postseason; the Raiders returned to Oakland from Los Angeles in 1995, then failed to win a playoff game. At least the San Jose Sharks were born in 1991, bringing the NHL back to the Bay Area after 15 years.

4. 1960s: The Raiders were born in 1960, the Warriors moved here in 1962 and the A's moved here in 1968 – so by the end of the this decade, most of the Bay Area sports scene was set, including the California Golden Seals, an NHL team that played in the Bay Area from 1967 through 1976. These were the glory days of Mays, Brodie, the mad-bomber Raiders, Rick Barry . . . but no championships, unless you count the Raiders 1967 AFL title (they lost in the Super Bowl).

3. 1970s: This was Oakland's greatest sports decade, as the A's won three championships and the Warriors and Raiders each won one. However, the Warriors and A's won in relative obscurity (the A's never averaged more than 13,000 fans per game during their three-year run as champions, the Warriors averaged fewer than 9,000 fans per game during their title season). The 49ers (other than a run at the beginning of the decade) and Giants were largely dreadful.

2. 1980s: The most popular franchise in the region had its greatest run of success as the 49ers won three titles (with the fourth coming in early 1990) so many fans will automatically pick this as the greatest decade. That the A's won a World Series (over the Giants, nonetheless) adds gravitas to that theory. But consider the whole decade: The A's and Giants were largely bad, the Warriors were mediocre and the Raiders (who won the Super Bowl in 1980) left for Los Angeles in 1982. Great decade, but not the best.

1. 2010s: If the Warriors win the NBA title this year, they surpass the 1980s 49ers as the greatest Bay Area sports dynasty –  in the same decade in which the Giants won an unimaginable three World Series. Add a 49ers trip to the Super Bowl, a 2016 Sharks trip to the Stanley Cup finals and four A's trips to the postseason (so far) and you are back where we started: With the greatest decade in Bay Area sports history. And we still have half a year to go.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.