Is this a Bigfoot hand or a Werewolf hand?



Lisa Rantala asked: Shawn Evidence, Michael Merchant and Phil and all TTBF minions, what do you guys think about this??

Michael Merchant: No answer. Probably catching turtles.

Phil Poling:  It was confirmed fake by the poster.

Shawn Evidence: Since werewolves aren't real, it's possible this is a Bigfoot hand.



Published on Dec 8, 2012

Capture Camera Night vision imagery from December 7 and 8th in Niles, Ohio wooded area. Bigfoot hand or hoax? Let me know what you think. The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature. In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented." In addition to the lack of evidence, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate, i.e., temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere; all recognized nonhuman apes are found in the tropics of Africa and Asia.

As with other proposed megafauna cryptids, climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely. Great apes are not found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains are known to have been found. Scientific consensus is that the breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility. In the 1970s, when Bigfoot "experts" were frequently given high-profile media coverage, the scientific community generally avoided lending credence to the theories by debating them.

A few scientists have been less skeptical about the claims of the existence of Sasquatch. Idaho university professor Jeffrey Meldrum characterizes the search for Sasquatch as "a valid scientific endeavor". and says that the fossil remains of an ancient giant ape called Gigantopithecus could turn out to be ancestors of today's commonly known Bigfoot. John Napier asserts that the scientific community's attitude towards Bigfoot stems primarily from insufficient evidence. Other scientists who have shown varying degrees of interest in the legend are anthropologist David Daegling, field biologist George Shaller, Russell Mittermeier, Daris Swindler, Esteban Sarmiento, and discredited racial anthropologist Carleton S. Coon.

Jane Goodall, in a September 27, 2002, interview on National Public Radio's "Science Friday", expressed her ideas about the existence of Bigfoot. First stating "I'm sure they exist", she later went on to say, chuckling, "Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist", and finally: "You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."

In November 2012 it was reported that Meldrum was planning to build a blimp with thermal-imaging cameras to hunt for Bigfoot from the skies. He says it will cost around US$300,000 to build and was seeking private donors.

Comments

  1. That's actually a rubber monster glove. Seriously, guys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THAT'S where I have seen it before. It has white fur and black hand right? Like the abominable snowman from the Rudolph claymation cartoons?

      Delete
    2. I seen that glove on ebay too.

      Delete
    3. Let's all make possible bigfoot hand videos http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0019D40LW

      Delete
    4. Latex. I know latex and that is latex

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. McCheeser,what do you call an Ethiopian with a piece of cheese on his head?
















      A Quarter Pounder with Cheese!!!!

      Delete
    2. Are we forgetting anybody?

      Delete
    3. "I don't care how many dago, guinea, greaseball, WOP, goombahs come out of the woodwork, Johnny Fontaine does not get that part!"

      Delete
    4. Somebody is gonna wake up tomorrow with a bigfoot head in their fuckin' bed...

      Vito Andolini

      Delete
    5. "Leave the squatch, take the cannoli."

      Delete
    6. ^Ha...No wonder we never get anywhere, we care more about Italian pastries...

      Delete
    7. You are all wrong, it's an owl.

      Delete
    8. Wow relax Vito it's all fun and games till people start leaving Bigfoot heads in beds. Hey I don't like cannolis I like the cheese stick pastries

      Delete
    9. can lawyers and politicians be included also?

      Delete
  3. This is so bad that it's good.*






    *Okay, not really. It sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's good to see the 26$ spirit halloween werewolf gloves are getting good use. -- d3w177

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's a dehydrated cow's udder.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Once again there is a large salami sized turd in my yard. I currently have this one on ice in case someone wants to study it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Werewolves aren't real? Whenever one of the skeptics says bigfoot isn't real the footers go ape shit. When Shawn Evidence says werewolves aren't real no footer opens his mouth? If you footers are going to pretend that anything (no matter how absurd) that “might” exist should be regarded as existing (because you guys apparently can't understand basic logic) then you footers need to call him out on this shit. Where are the cries of “prove it Shawn” and “you don't know that”? Fucking hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually werewolves are real. In fact I've seen more werewolves lately than Bigfoot. Though I don't know if you would call them werewolves - I don't think they change into humans. I hate the term dogman - these are way bigger than dogs and they don't really have human features. I guess big wolffoot works.

      Anyway, don't rag on Shawn - how do you expect him to believe in something he has never seen? You obviously have never seen a Bigfoot - I doubt you think it fair we rag on you for your lack of experience. You want to live in the dark and be a non-believer - fine. But don't be a hypocrite: if it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to anyone else.

      How Shawn puts up with the legions of morons here is beyond me. Money is good but sanity is useful too.

      Delete
    2. Skeptics don't say "bigfoot isn't real". We say there's no evidence to support such a claim, then laugh at the red-faced bloviators who insist it is not.

      Delete
    3. Also I'm sure you will think I'm crazy. Whatever - like I care what mental midgets think. Crazy is as crazy does and I don't do crazy. Going to sites where you have no interest and ragging on those interested - that's a mighty waste of life and pretty crazy. And if you think believers are going to read your sage words and suddenly see the light, well I guess you are just one of those crazy messiahs I've seen wandering all over the streets of Burlington, VT. You are not the wind beneath my sails - go away.

      Anyway, I had no say in how the Good Lord chose to populate this planet. I'm only happy He chose to store all the weird shit deep in the forests. I've yet to see Bigfoot or Big Wolffoot in a suburb or city. Now that's intelligent design!!

      Delete
    4. Anon 8:42,

      You are completely missing my point.

      Basic logic dictates that an infinite number of things could “possibly” exist. It also dictates that a stupendously overwhelming majority of things that “could” exist don't. Therefore it is illogical to say that something should be assumed to exist until proven otherwise. If all things were assumed to exist until proven otherwise then no one would get dressed in the morning because their closet might be full of gremlins. No one would take a shit because the toilet might be infested with leprechauns. In a world where there are an infinite number of possibly existing things but a fantastically small number of existing things (relative to the number of possible things) the default state of anything unproven is nonexistent (people couldn't function if they didn't assume as such). Whenever someone states that bigfoot isn't real the footers flip out and try to say that anything which “could” exist should be assumed to exist and that people “aren’t allowed” to say that bigfoots not real even though basic logic indicates that it isn't and can't be regarded as such until proven. In telling the footers to call Shawn out on his werewolf comment I am not being hypocritical, I am telling the footers not to be hypocritical by failing to apply their own flawed logic to Shawn’s comment.

      Delete
    5. 9:04 That is not completely fair. There is general agreement that there are honest people with outdoor experience that saw or heard an ape-like being and there are Indian myths and legends(the remainder of which have origins in real animals) whose central character is ape-like. You know that the same cannot be said for wolfmen.
      I know the bigfoot hypothesis put forward to explain the 2 things I mentioned has not panned out, but people do think an attempt at explanation is worthwhile. At least the guy who threw out the genetic memory idea thought so.......

      Delete
    6. Anon 9:04
      No I didn't miss your point at all. You have been mislead - you are not a real skeptic. Skeptics employ critical thinking to uncover the truth. They don't use knowledge to judge and boost themselves by diminishing others as you have done. They don't fall into black/white all/nothing thinking - as you have done. Logic is complex - it's more than throwing a bunch or words together and talking in circles.

      It's OK - it's hard to be a good critical thinker - most people can't think outside their comfortable boxes. So naturally, rather than treat those who differ from you as the individuals we are, each with varying level of experience, understanding, and belief, you have chosen to lump us all together - the "footers" as you called us.

      It's a myth - there is no such thing as "all footers" - humans aren't the Borg - no human group is capable of a hive mind. We are individuals - just like you are an individual - please treat us as such.

      IMO, I don't think you care about Shawn, anyone interested in the subject, or any topic posted here. It's just a convenience because you know that Shawn is not likely to delete your comment no matter how disrespectful you are to him.

      That you don't believe either animal exists - I get that. That's a majority opinion. I have no proof, I have no explanation why they should be here. There are a lot of mysteries in the world... is there a cure for cancer? Have we abolished poverty?

      I don't care if you (or anyone) think(s) I'm nuts and I don't think you really don't care what I have to say. IMO you didn't make a provocative statement to engage in debate. But you won't find the answers to your questions here or anywhere outside of yourself. Good luck with your journey.

      Delete
    7. I guess every person on here is just going based on some completely random assumption that bigfoot is real. It's all completely baseless.

      Each person decides what is good enough evidence to believe something exists. If yours differs then you feel completely justified in attacking the other side as inferior logic.

      I'll tell you what inferior logic is, arguing with someone who says they saw something you didn't see and telling them they didn't see what you didn't see. That's childishness. I think a lot of people on here are aware of this fact.

      The hallowed halls of science are another matter. If you want your peers to believe something, you ought to prove it before it's accepted. We aren't there, we're on an internet site devoted to finding evidence of bigfoot. We can say anything we want and believe in anything we want. That won't change.

      The future will be made up of multitudes of people who experience things that others don't. It will also include people who choose to argue that their individual experience is greater than another's, claiming science as their ally in the process of merely trying to bully. An infantile urge.

      Sure there are outlandish claims and bizarre theories that I'm not going to give much regard but if I feel someone is a complete nutcase, I'm certainly not going to waste my time arguing the matter.

      There is something to be said for intuitive intelligence. Science hasn't quite become the pinnacle of human ability or understanding it has aspired to be. In fact it fails miserably at so much, imperfect as it is. I give it a fair measure of regard and am able to later dismiss it when it's limitations exceed it's abilities to gain understanding. All the while keeping a check on the accumulative verifiable, testable, repeatable facts.

      Science itself is driven by intuitive intelligence to generate the right questions, which are far more important than the answers themselves.
      You have all the answers whenever you say you know anything at all. Science doesn't know very much at all. Any good scientist knows that. It's a fairly small scale structure in the face of the unknown. That I do know and you know as well, however, only intuitively.

      The greater mind observes things scientifically and also observes the limitations of science at the same time. It's a two minded approach. How do new theories come in to existence? Great imagination, random chance and/or complete folly. That's how we gain the questions that we later test.

      I think bigfoots are entirely possible and in fact are quite likely to exist.

      Is that outside the law....sheriff?

      Anyway, we're busy asking questions and collecting data so you'll have something to do later. You'll get your chance, you're just too jumpy.

      Delete
    8. UHHHHHH who let all the intellectuals in (with their well constructed sentences, paragraphs and lack of references to scatological topics). If you don't have anything constructive to say about taterholes then GTFO my friend. This is no place for you or those of your ilk.

      Delete
    9. Wait a minute, Anchorite. I'm not sure you realize what you said:

      We say there's no evidence to support such a claim, then laugh at the red-faced bloviators who insist it is not.

      "Insist it is not." Not what? Not existing?

      The way you've worded it, you've just insulted the scofftics, not the believers, if that was your intent.

      What dictionary did you get "bloviators" out of?

      Delete
    10. To whomever made this video: THANK YOU so much for the message "Did you see it?" The first few times the paw came on and engulfed 99% of the screen, I totally missed it.

      Delete
    11. "Anyway, we're busy asking questions and collecting data so you'll have something to do later. You'll get your chance, you're just too jumpy."

      Actually, no I won't. But thanks for the encouragement. That's why it is silly for me to argue at all - it's no longer my fight. My time has passed.

      Delete
    12. Yes, that's right, the scofftics (good word), though for clarity I should have said, "believe it DOES not"... exist, that is. Scofftics are just as irrationally devoted to their position as the true believers are -- two sides of the same coin really -- though believers tend to be more fun and less arrogant. The point was to draw the distinction between skeptics and scofftics. Scofftics are not skeptics. True skeptics are skeptical of them both, and unlike both are willing to listen.

      Delete
    13. 10:07 He is ridiculing people who say with certainty there are no bigfoots while defining what a skeptic really is. Around here, skeptic is sometimes confused with de-bunker. We should identify ourselves by what we reckon is the percent chance of these things existing.
      De-bunker 0%
      Renae Holland 50%
      Bigfoot 100%
      Matt Moneymaker 150%

      Delete
    14. Wow Anon 9:57, you really are fucking retarded. You can't actually refute my point so in typical footer fashion you insult and bully. Let me spell it out for you fucktard.

      If we lived in a world where there were 500 things that could possibly exist and 350 of them do then the odds of something which is not known to exist existing would be 350/500. which is equal to 0.7 or 70 percent. In such a world it would be logical to assume that bigfoot exists because it is more likely that he does than that he doesn't.

      However we live in a world where a literally infinite number of things could possibly exist while the number of things which does exist is finite. When we put a positive finite real number over infinity we get zero. Therefore logic dictates that bigfoot does not exist unless proven otherwise.

      But of course logic is anathema to you footers. You can't use it. You won't acknowledge it's conclusions. Instead you react with blind rage to it because you know that you're in the wrong. Your whole footer movement in built upon tearing others (specifically biology, but also reasonable people) down to make yourselves feel smart. I use the word retard a lot to describe people like you, but the truth is that a great many genuine retards are capable of understanding that bigfoot's not real.

      Being “open minded” does not mean agreeing with you retarded footers. One should not consider hypotheses based on bullshit. An open minded person considers hypotheses based on sound evidence, not lies and bullshitting. “Critical thinking” also does not mean buying your bullshit, or letting you disrespect biology unopposed.

      I have been accused of ad hominem fallacy at least twice on this website, but ad hominem involves making an argument based on personal attacks. I insult people, but also make valid arguments (which aren't based on personal attacks). Whereas your post at 9:57 is pure ad hominem. If you can't articulate your words into any kind of coherent thought then you shouldn't speak because you're too stupid to be speaking.

      Delete
    15. In other words,

      Bloviator 200%

      Delete
    16. Someone has been watching too much of the O'Reilly Factor.

      Delete

    17. Bloviate: To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner.

      For reference, see Anonymous 11:15 above.

      Delete
    18. 11:15...The math is not so good. The empirical probability of an event is the (# of times event was observed)/(# of observations). It is independent of the actual size of the sample space. Think of a poll :15/30 said they vote for X, so a randomly chosen person from the sample space, a voter, whether or not they were surveyed is, 50%. Basic shit.

      Now you said there are 500 possible things (irrelevant). 350 were observed to exist so 350 favorable/350 observed =1. Bigfoot exists!. Of, course you meant, I hope, that of 500 possible things considered, 350 were viable, or found to exist. So yes, the probability of any possible thing, randomly chosen-in or outside the 500, actually existing is 70%.

      Now, the infinite possibility scenario you talk about next is badly garbled.(We get what you think: bigfoot is longshot).You cannot have an infinite sample space and apply simple discrete probability formula p(E)=n(E)/n(S). You proved cats do not exist!
      prob of cat = (1 possible crit called "cat")/infinite # of possibilities. Silly anyway, you can't apply this stuff to bio.

      With infinite spaces you use calculus and ask about the probability of obtaining measurements within ranges. Or do it empirically!

      Delete
    19. I think I'm just goin' to reply with cock.

      Delete
    20. True, but I still should fix bad edit: s/b "..so the probability a randomly chosen person from the sample space of voters voted for X,whether or not they were surveyed, is 50%.."

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. Does look like a paw. You could actually size the hand to perfect scale, because it it right up against the lens.

      Delete
  9. Lisa Rantala's "article" consists of this:
    "Capture Camera Night vision imagery from December 7 and 8th in Niles, Ohio wooded area. Bigfoot hand or hoax? Let me know what you think."

    Ummm... I think hoax.

    This rest sounds like a verbatim wiki regurgitation. Lisa - if we can read your post, we can Google too.

    Shawn, I like you, but your articles suck lately. 90% of them have been brought to us by the letters "K" and "L" - Ketchum and Lindsay, whose combined credibility can fit in a bottle cap, and the rest has been cereal box PSAs. The only highlight has been the ParaBreakdown vids and we can just go to YouTube for that.

    Sometimes there is just no news. Post Powder Puff cartoons instead, the ones featuring Mojo Jojo - at least they are somewhat on topic. You'll still get traffic and the comments will be just as intelligent.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Drat... I guess we'll have to wait until next season before the Finding Bigfoot investigative team has a chance to re-enact this amazing footage.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Replies
    1. Is it because you feel that flushing it causes you to lose a piece of yourself? Why do you do it man? Why?!

      Delete
    2. Oh, ok poopster. I hear what you are saying, man. Have a good night..

      Delete
    3. My kittens breath smells like cat food

      Delete
  12. Glad you Tazer boys can stay entertained with BS like this. Sanh, if you don't quit posting BS like this you're going to lose clicks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you address Shawn as "Sanh" because you know him personally, or is it just to make the rest of feel like we're not privileged insiders like you are?

      Delete
  13. Ith that damn thape thifter agin!

    ReplyDelete
  14. no such thing as bigfoot

    ReplyDelete
  15. I keeps my moderation in a jar! : )

    ReplyDelete
  16. I remember seeing this video a few days ago and asked the poster of the video a few questions I had about it. 1. Where is the date/time stamp that is common on most game camera's? 2. Why does it look like a manacured lawn in the background, when he claimed it was set up in the woods? I did tell him it would be facing a lot of scrutiny and questions!

    ReplyDelete
  17. The paw is small but looks huge because it is close to the camera but with all that has been said. Two things come to mind Jello and Kool Whip most don't know how each is made but most are willing to eat both and sometimes together. It is not what goes in that defiles us its what comes out .

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dr. Ketchum's paper is getting me interested in the "paranormal" science of footery. Has anyone ever encountered a bigfoot and werewolf at the same time? Perhaps battling over territory? From what I've read werewolfs are very territorial, and something about their relationship with moonlight makes them impervious to Sasquatch mind-rape. I'd love to head anyone's personal experiences.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?