Watch this: Hula Hoop Girl - Happy (Pharrell Williams)
It's been a while since we posted any hula hoops videos, mainly because we've seen it all before! This new one from MuldersWorld.com is something totally different and extremely fun to watch:
It's been a while since we posted any hula hoops videos, mainly because we've seen it all before! This new one from MuldersWorld.com is something totally different and extremely fun to watch:
mischief abouts
ReplyDeleteI have a fuzzy hard on. Where's my Ernie??
DeleteThat was really up lifting video with a great chill out song,i'm going to watch it again and then i'm going out to buy myself a hula hoop,wish me luck xx
Deletei wish I wasnrt handicappmed.
DeleteGEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ
DeleteThat Ernie Street fella wanted some ketamine and pixie dust, so I pulled every string I had to call in some favors and the coward ran off when Joe got here. What gives?!?!
DeleteThis wasn't the easiest stuff to track down, Ernie, so you better step up and pay me.
Whoa there Daniel Campbell. Some of us work for a living. This is just a blog forum dude, it isn't real. You know that, right? I feel bad that you expect to get paid trying to deal illegal drugs over the internet - I was only inquiring what sort of head meds you took. You mad?
DeleteHey Bert, did you say you wish you weren't handiCRAMPZ? Poor guy ;(
DeleteInternet is serious business. To think, I even called Shawn to get you mushrooms.
DeleteYou're a disappointment.
Ernie's straight back into schooling where he left off... Just wait till the Troll Killer gets here too!
DeleteI'm Sorry I was late, I was busy at work today getting my boss, and his boss fired. Why do these little trolls minds want to test the Ice. At the first sign of a cold wind blowing and the lake gets shinny and still, out they run to play on the ice ---------- never to be seen again!
DeleteRevenge is a dish best served cold!
First for the TROLL KILLER xx
ReplyDeleteTroll killer is doing exactly what trolls want him to do, clutter up this blog with nonsense.
DeleteALL HAIL TROLLANDIA AND ALL HAIL TROLL KILLER!!
Keep up the good work Troll Hunter! You're sending em nuts!
DeleteALL HAIL TROLLANDIA AND ALL HAIL TROLL KILLER!!
DeleteTHIS IS A TROLL'S BLOG NOW!!
ALL ARE NSA BLOG... for your SAFETY
DeleteYou trolls are weak, give me a reason to come slay you. Let me find one with a gram of grey matter. I have know fear, when I speak, the deaf say quit shouting! Can one of you come up with something interesting or challenging to debate ------- sissy's everyone of you anona's
DeleteDan is the only one to have the huevos to SAY HIS NAME ------- And alas, they are tiny little things. He needed so baddly for someone to see them that he felt compelled to show the world. Yet, still a virgin and now with a drug habbit!
webe deep inda trolls..........
ReplyDeletebigfoots in the bush ...
DeleteHe was quite a character, and had always been. He'd been a competitive rodeo cowboy, part-time rancher, and full-time slacker. Few who knew him had anything positive to say about him. His reputation was that he never paid his bills. He borrowed money, lied about it, and never paid it back. He was physically very strong — not an ounce of fat, and thick with muscles — and was fond of showing it off. He knew everything better than anyone, and nobody could tell him a thing. He never kept interest in one career very long. One day he'd build stagecoaches for miniature horses; the next day he'd repaint junk found at the dump and sell it. But his one saving grace was his wife Patricia. Patty had a brother in Yakima, WA, Al DeAtley, a successful asphalt contractor, who provided money whenever it was needed. It was this even keel that got Roger Patterson through.The story goes that Patterson and Gimlin had developed a strong interest in Bigfoot, and in October 1967 they rented the movie camera and went off on horseback for a couple weeks to look for it. Next thing they knew, they'd become the luckiest Bigfoot hunters in history, when the creature obligingly stepped out of the woods and strode across the clearing for Patterson's camera, in the early afternoon of October 20th. Gimlin chased it on horseback, lost it, but found its footprints; then they rode about 5 kilometers back to camp for their plaster of paris. They rode back, poured plaster into the footprints, waited for it to dry, then went back to camp again. They loaded their horses into the trailer and drove 40 kilometers on rough fire roads back to Willow Creek, and posted the film off to Yakima to get it developed. It was about 4:00 in the afternoon.The glaring impossibility of this timeline is what first raised suspicions among skeptics. In response, Patterson and Gimlin began providing all sorts of different versions of their story. Other suspicious cryptozoologists, such as Peter Byrne, found holes and contradictions in those stories. In the end, the version Patterson and Gimlin settled on was that they put the film onto a plane and flew it to Yakima, where Al DeAtley picked it up to have it developed. Byrne found that the only charter planes that could have flown that route that day were all grounded due to rain and bad weather. Since then, few serious researchers took Patterson and Gimlin's story seriously.But the film had already grown larger than all of them. It was a sensation, and to this day, rakes in revenue in licensing fees. DeAtley backed Patterson and formed Bigfoot Enterprises on November 1, just 10 days after the shoot, and reported $200,000 in the first year. Make no mistake about it: for the late 1960s and a man who used dig through the dump, Bigfoot was big money. Throughout the 1970s, Patty Patterson, Al DeAtley, Bob Gimlin, and a wildlife film company fought numerous lawsuits with one another over the rights to the footage. The biggest winner was a Bigfoot fan named Rene Dahinden, who ended up with about half of the rights, and Patty with the other half.
ReplyDeleteBloke in a suit.
DeleteBigfoot died when Ray L. Wallace died.
Deletehttp://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/skeptoid-botches-analysis-of-patterson.html?m=1
DeleteIn Wales all women are like Eva
DeleteBigfoot died when Ray L. Wallace died.
Delete"At the end of 2002 the time had arrived to accept the meaning of the fake feet possessed by the heirs of Ray Wallace, a wealthy contractor who had started planting fake Bigfoot tracks in 1958 and saw his ruse succeed only too well to the time of his death in November of 2002. While always discrediting himself with extravagant claims to have film, recordings, and colorful stories of Bigfoot activity, Wallace nevertheless was one of the people who saw genuine Bigfoot tracks at the start of the Bigfoot publicity that began in 1958. The distinctive fakes that Wallace put into circulation can be sorted out from the record and disposed of. I addressed this issue in Volume 7 of Wonders. There I related the history from 1958 onward when what appear to be genuine tracks were first given widespread publicity.
DeleteSome faked impressions, made in imitation of genuinely large footprints, were discovered in at least three instances, in 1958, in 1960, and in 1967.
In short, after the initial sensational interest in Bigfoot was sparked by a genuine set of strange footprints, Ray Wallace hired two men to look into the matter. Soon thereafter he began to deposit false footprints along creeks and roads in Northern California. Those carved tools for hoaxing appear to me to have been based upon a find of genuine footprints made by his employees. Bigfoot seekers, who had little experience with Bigfoot prints in 1958, were fooled by those bogus impressions. Until the presentation of the hoaxing tools in December of 2002 one particular set of fake feet has had a significant impact on the record of Bigfoot. With further study of genuine Bigfoot tracks, more can now be said about how this success was gained and how genuine Bigfoot tracks can be viewed."
http://www.cryptozoonews.com/hall-ii/
Joe gets his info from cryptozoonews.com. BAHAHAHAHA
Delete9:23,your right.........Hot xx
DeleteJoe has all the most credible sources saved. Steven Struedalfart's blog, crytpozoonews, the Loren Coleman Tribune, Soap Digest...
DeleteSoap digest! Lol good 1.
DeleteNo more nonsense about Wallace anymore though, is there?
DeleteHe hoaxed tracks which RP saw and started hoaxing his own tracks then a BF suit. That's it.
DeleteIs normal.
Actually read the comment I left up top this time.
DeleteI know what happened, I don't need your cryptonews laden nonsense to paint me a picture.
DeleteYou think you know what happened... That 'cryptonews laden nonsense' put you right and is better than any agenda driven drivel you can find.
DeleteSure it did, Mr. Cranky, sure it did.
DeleteYou can't stop the trolls. You can try but in your heart you no you can't stop them. They thrive on your complaining and moaning. The more you cry and think you can win the stronger they get. The only way to win is ignore them but you can't because your ego won't let you. Pgf is a hoax
ReplyDeleteHow much good am I? Bet nobody can't copy/paste like this
DeleteSomeone post that link to the study that all footers are deluded.
Delete"In a survey conducted by the group of psychologists, people who partake in so-called trolling online showed signs of sadism, psychopathy, and were Machiavellian in their manipulation of others and their disregard for morality."
Deletehttp://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/online-trolls-are-psychopaths-and-sadists-psychologists-claim-9134396.html
Doesn't make bigfoot real when you breakdown to posting about psychology.
DeleteSays a lot about you though... Don't it?
DeleteNothing more than it says about you, ol' chap.
DeleteRemember where you are, old bean.
DeleteApparently retardville.
Deleteno worries NSA archives all, for you safety
Deletevery cute
ReplyDeleteabout 5'-7"
Joe, just to let you know myself and some others I know, we know that these things are out there. We also all agree that the patterson film is NOT one of these creatures and is clearly an ape costume.
ReplyDeleteYou are making a mockery out of the community and we would appreciate if you could stop stating your OPINIONS on what is clearly a hoax, as facts.
-just another bigfoot knower
"... whooooooooOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"
Delete(Your nose got longer and made that noise)
; )
Come join us over here in the deep woods of the PNW. You wont find bigfoot sat on a computer in Wales.
DeleteThese things are out there and the patterson film is not one of them.
-just another bigfoot knower
Everyone knows a real bigfoot would never show up on camera.
Delete^ that's why I'm an armchair expert. Why bother to make an effort if I would not succeed?
Delete9:28...
DeleteThey got lucky... Just like the handful who have. I know plenty of hunters and trackers of decades that concur with exactly what's in that footage, we also have the inumerable eyewitness accounts.
And anyway, you've played this card before.
When you see these things in the flesh believe me, you know about it. There is zero doubt. The patterson film however is just not one of these creatures. If patterson had filmed a real one then the scientific community would be in uproar as it would be undeniable what is on the film. Come out in the woods with us and open your mind.
Delete-just another bigfoot knower
With all due respect... I'll take the word of my friends who've seen them multiple times. Don't get me wrong; plenty of enthusiasts who don't think Patty is real, but they are outnumbered totally by those enthusiasts that have seen them. The 'scientific' have never given this subject a chance and footage can always be a 'man in a suit'.
DeleteI'm curious; what was your encounter and how did it contrast the footage so much?
"Out numbered totally?" I think not mr. Joe. Every convention I go to always seems to be about 50/50.
DeleteLook at how many in those conventions have seen a Bigfoot and compare that to the gorilla-esque accounts that have been documented.
DeleteYour sighting???
Hey joe, make up some more figures and stats why don't ya!! I think you'll find that's the way to receive acceptance in the scientific community.
DeleteYou can bleeve Mikey b and Chuck all you want but that doesn't make them right either, especially when they can't even get an actual picture of anything but streaks and blobs.
10:08 here Joe, I described to you my sighting about 2 wks ago. I work for the department of forestry here in oregon and have had since '91. Believe my when I say I know what I saw.
Delete'Figures'? Or just plain old knowing what you're talking about?? And who said this creature should be accepted by those facts alone???
DeleteThe accumilation of credible, multiple person sightings, along with the mounds of physical evidence there is... Should at least be enough to get science to go have a look.
Your sighting??????????
Prepare for joe to fondle your sack and whisper in your ear now. He knows all the pg tidbits you could ever want to know.
DeleteYour sighting???????????????
DeleteI'm not the one with the sighting but you're not going to get a good response with all that crying and demanding, Mr. Cranky Pants.
DeleteBigfoot probably come in all sorts of shapes and sizes just like people xx
ReplyDeletetrue but most adults however are between 7'-6" and 9' tall
DeleteI now have 10 millions links saved on my PC
ReplyDelete:-)
10 million? You're an awesome researcher bro!
DeleteMuch respect!
NSA for all your safety needs.........
ReplyDeleteNo more Bigfoot videos ?
ReplyDeleteGRAYs all abouts bigfoots working for the GRAYs taken U DNA and making hybrids, been doing it for years
Deletesorry ! this isn't th BE site anymore. It's the BS site for sure .
DeleteBigfoot is BS. Fits quite nicely.
DeleteHI JOE!!!
I asked a question yesterday but nobody answered so i'll have another go,how do non believers explain that the descriptions of the Yowie match those of Americas bigfoot and of course they can't be misidentifying bears because there are no bears in Australia xx
DeleteBuncha hairy aborigines though.
DeleteBF is a psychological feature built into the human brain from when there were actually different types of "people" out there that would hunt us, kill us, rape out women, etc.
Until a couple thousand years ago if you wandered too far from your own home there was a good chance you'd get a club over the head and ripped apart.
Combine that with the fact humans tend to project themselves as monsters when the fear response is triggered and we have bigfoot.
We project a natural fear of predators from the past in combination with projecting ourselves in a hideous and monsterous fashion.
The only similarities between the 2 as far as their physical description is concerned is they are both said to be ape-like.
DeleteSo what are the Australians seeing?they must be seeing something xx
Deleteanonymouse 10 47 . that's the most pooed up reasoning I've ever read.
Deletemost folk be outz hunt in tham thar woods, cawz U got guns and no vid, ifn U seein tham bigfeets U goin fer U gun fer shure
DeleteAnd paychological features built into the human brain (I think the term you're looking for is anthropomorphism), causes leaves physical evidence behind, does it?
Delete(Sigh)
Check out this link to a video of a school teacher called Neil Frost. He is a multiple time witness, who has people who have seen the Yowie with him, whilst his community has been pestered by Yowies for years. Check this out and tell me what you think bro...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhiyAg_RA_Y
Neil contacted the local aboriginal tribes elders to which he was advised to take care, because the Female Yowie, who steal children's clothing from washing lines are actually in the premature stages of taking a child. This has an eerie similarity to Missing 411, where David Paulides' current book tells of missing people in Australia, to which there are two many to count.
Here's another interview with a gentleman of the name of Dean Harrison. Now this guy is tough and I think you will agree is very credible...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsDM4b5SqaQ
The following link are wildman stories from Australia, from early printed media. You will notice, a fascinating woodcut from 1790, of what appears to be a wildman/Yowie being held by two men with muskets...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&ei=KiyRUaSgJMuY0QW194H4DQ&q=1790+yowie+woodcut&oq=1790+yowie+woodcut&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.12...5967.12963.0.13855.19.18.0.1.1.0.534.2710.5j9j0j2j0j1.17.0...0.0...1c.1.12.mobile-gws-hp.wiD28BCR3j8&biw=320&bih=444&sei=H68sUvSYN5Gd7gbu-IGgAw
Here is a historical perspective of the Yowie...
http://www.davesact.com/2013/01/canberra-yowies-historical-perspective.html?m=1
When considering the Australian Yowie (and I use this creature in comparison as I firmly believe I am talking about the exact same creature as Bigfoot), there is a fascinating account of 'The Wildman of Monaro' (you can find this in Google Image Search) that tells of a sighting of a gorilla-type being holding what appeared to be a nulla-nulla; this is an Aboriginal war/hunting club. Furthermore; the images of Medieval European Woodwose almost always portray these beings as possessing a large stick-like club. This is also true of some of the accounts from American 19th century printed media that D L Soucy reads out on YouTube, that account for many American Wildmen with clubs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izmGdRWYbmI
The similarities between the Yowie and the North Amercian Sasquatch are too much to label as a psychological problems or hairy aborigines. I think that's disgusting... And furthermore, the fact that these creatures have been sighted in nearly every indegenous culture on nearly every continent, some if which has moulded these cultures, is a pretty big effort, don't you think?
We project a natural fear of predators from the past in combination with projecting ourselves in a hideous and monsterous fashion, it manifests itself in the form of bigfoot.
DeleteThe literary world has shown prime examples of human like monsters for thousands of years.
Don't hate me because you people have never been to college in a related field.
... Yeah, 'all that', that leaves physical evidence.
DeleteDidn't think that one out too hard, did you?
Oh... And explaining multiple eyewitness accounts is pretty much your biggest obstacle when suggesting this is all anthropomorphism. Cultures don't develop over something they 'think' they've seen... That's the single most ignorant thing I've ever heard, and doesn't really show much understanding for indegenous cultures.
DeleteJoe, you do know half of the links you post don't work, right?
DeleteThat has guided me from ever clicking a link you post.
Besides, there's only 1 thing you could ever do to convince me of bigfoot...drop a dead specimen on my doorstep.
Anything short of that and you're just whistling Dixie.
Those links work just fine, and I think you'll find plenty of documented accounts of biological evidence by some of your countries oldest institutions.
DeleteSometimes some things are simply out of your imediate experiences, shall I list the things you are happy to believe in without such a requirement?
Joe is like the guy you work with that walks up and forces himself into an ongoing discussion.
DeleteJoe, these cultures grew up with the boogeyman legends, therefore when they get scared in the dark they have a natural response to see the boogeyman.
Dead specimen or it's not real. That's the rules.
All of your physical evidence is not organic evidence. It can be faked and manipulated in different manners. You cannot fake conclusive genetic results, just use bad science to get there.
All those tracks CAN be faked. All those stick structures CAN be faked. All those howls in the dark CAN be faked. Not too mention they CAN ALL be misidentified.
That is smoky language and actions whether you see it or not. Just the fact that it CAN be rules out using it as conclusive proof.
Now provide organic evidence that cannot be faked and we'll talk. Drop a type specimen on my doorstep, then we'll talk.
Until then you are just playing te speculation game with a whole bunch of coulda, woulda, shoulda's.
lots of folk seein bear but they thinkin bigfoot cawz tham folks alookin fer bigfoots, so thar seein whatz thay wantz,,,
Deletehttps://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&ei=KiyRUaSgJMuY0QW194H4DQ&q=1790+yowie+woodcut&oq=1790+yowie+woodcut&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.12...5967.12963.0.13855.19.18.0.1.1.0.534.2710.5j9j0j2j0j1.17.0...0.0...1c.1.12.mobile-gws-hp.wiD28BCR3j8&biw=320&bih=444&sei=H68sUvSYN5Gd7gbu-IGgAw
DeleteThis one doesn't and most of your google links don't work.
We have ten thousand of years of Native American culture. Wall paintings some 8 feet tall true to size and if you know anything about indigenous culture, you would know that ceremonies, dances, utensil designs like baskets, all these things indigenous people do to pass down historical events, identity and culture because, as some may claim; written texts can be manipulated and missinterpreted. There is an easily attainable timeline of Native American culture by the determining the age of settlement sites. Burnt wood and other means have been used to carbon date areas where indigenous peoples who maintain the Bigfoot culture have resided.
DeleteYou have ten thousand years (the natives say 50) of acknowledgment of this creature that you then have a transition from this into settler's diaries that had no link to one another geographically that told of the same consistencies. You have 150 years worth of archaeological and anthropological studies that have documented giant skeletal remains in libraries up and down your great country. You have a transition into that of modern accounts that tally the tens of thousands (that is of course just skimming the surface of those accounts), much of which are multiple person. You then have tracks with dermals that show scare tissue and toe bending, consistencies with species traits from different States decades apart, that are also found 50 miles into wilderness interiors. You have a transcribed language that was recorded from a similar description of the country. You have film footage that you cannot explain and you have science, in all the time it has had to debunk this subject and hasn't; asking the questions.
You have a frequency of sightings that are in complete conjunction with what one would expect to see from a highly intelligent nocturnal creature that buries it's dead and evades in social groups. With DNA that is sure to be sequenced (not to mention the unknown matches of DNA we have already), you have one heck of a case suggesting this creature is the 'boogeyman' and expect it to wash.
; )
11:22... That's really odd? It works for me?? Ok... It might be because I'm using an iPhone; type if '1790 Yowie Woodcut' into Google image search and it should be the first thing that comes up.
DeletePeace.
11:15... Also, all forms of evidence that can be presented in the court of law can be falsified and so have your precious peer review processes, do your argument is stupid and evidence of cognitive bias.
DeleteFurthermore... Physical evidence could quite easily turn into biological evidence if sconce would have got on board by now, but it's too busy ridiculing the subject.
But we aren't talking about a court of law, that's a straw man argument.
DeleteWe're talking about biology where the only type of evidence excepted is biological. All of those stories and all that "physical" evidence is circumstantial at best.
I know you hate it and you don't like to hear it said but that's the way it is.
All of those excuses you like to type up are worthless. Science has and does look at your bigfoot evidence all the time. I find it funny that you complain about science being unfair and not looking into bigfoot when there have been 2 long term genetic studies done in the past decade alone. Sounds like you're stuck in a state of denial.
You're as biased as I am, Joe, the difference is that I use established science and protocol to draw my conclusions. You use anecdotes and circumstantial evidence.
It's not as convoluted as you pretend it is.
Strawman arguments? Bringing up evidence in the court of law IS comparable because the law system stands for a procedure that gets the bottom of 'interpretation' in order to attain facts. No, just because you don't have an angle to wangle out of the accumilation of physical evidence, that doesn't mean biological evidence is the only means to what science should pay attention, that is cognitive bias and stupid. If science looked at this accumilation and participated, then your biological evidence may have been found by now and then your idealism could apply.
DeleteJust because you can ignore physical evidence then that doesn't mean you should rearrange the acceptance of such to suit your agenda. It's the funniest thing that you should maintain that biological evidence is the only means to investigate, because it goes against so many major examples of scientific breakthroughs, it's incredible. No amount of crying 'pretend science' will change that and your inaccurate understanding of genuine science is something I can fuel for a heuristical example at your expense.
Also, I find it quite off that you would draw on a genetic study that is a prime example of how this subject hasn't a chance to breath, and secondly... The current one that is still in full swing and being peer reviewed? Were you aware of this before you stumbled into it?
More double talk.
DeleteBiology is simple. You either have organic evidence or you don't. All the organic evidence proposed to date has come back as known animals.
Preliminary "unknown non-human primate" results aren't acceptable in the field and quite frankly goes against you "bigfoot are a type of human" argument.
Attach whatever connotations you wish, call it stupid, call me names...none of that changes what is accepted and what is not.
A first year bio major knows that.
Danny Boy...
DeleteYou snake around the point I make, yet again. The accumilation of this evidence is largely down to civilians to accumilate, on two occasions this has rendered submitted samples with initial testings to be contaminated or degraded too badly for the initial results to be repeated. If you had the same effort from a large scientific body, that went into these vastly remote areas to apply their respected fields, then who's to say that we wouldn't have had this evidence by now? But no... This subject's information, whenever brought to the table is ridiculed and the process of evidence and research evolving like it should, doesn't happen.
And it's plain and simple; an unknown primate would account for an unknown hominid, something potentially very close to us indeed. This happened to be sequenced once, but of course these results have to be 'verified' meaning they need a source to the contrary because they are subject to cognitive bias.
Nobody is saying that this species should be verified on the evidence alone, but the decision to not investigate, and I'm not talking about two skeptical documantaries... Is as heuristical as your two old arguments.
Given the complete lack of organic evidence, the merit of the people putting forward the evidence, and the past 50 years of science giving you shot after shot, I'd say the bigfoot field is exactly where it should be.
DeleteMore scientific effort has been put forward on bigfoot than any other cryptid but it still fails miserably. Every.Time.
Doesn't help your king pins like Peter Byrne go down for fraud.
And you have been saying bigfoot is human, which would not align with your admittedly degredated and contaminated samples that preliminary results said were non-human primate. Human is not hominid, Joe, sorry.
Keep calling me names and saying science is stupid though, it really will change what is accepted as evidence.
Who's calling you names? You're as sensationalist as the people who are bringing up the PGF and then claiming others are having meltdowns. Nobodies calling you names so stop suggesting anyone is.
DeleteNow then... You're wrong. Science has not looked at this subject with any level of seriousnous because it's been hard for it to... A bipedal gorilla would have been found by now. Science has not concurred with this because it has had plenty of reason not to, purely because the notion is what it is. When you say science has given this subject a shot, it's lies and you know it. We have four teeth for a fossil trail of chimps for six million years of their existence on the African continent, whilst we have imumerable documented accounts of giant skeletal remains in the exact area where native cultures claimed they shared with them on a temporary basis. These are by some of your most credible institutions and the fact is that if such remains were public knowledge, his subject wouldn't be so easy to snake out of.
Tell me something... If Peter Byrne was such a fraudulent character, why didn't he make up he's seen a Bigfoot?
My assessment that Bigfoot is human would be an effort to draw on the cultural attributes and high social bonds that would explain why both remains are hard to come by (burial) and how these evade so well (social groups) and I draw on the cultures that have maintained that they are but another tribe. A tribe of hominids, that are so very close to us could quite easily have such traits that would comply to someone referring to them as 'human' though there specific classification could/would be slightly different.
Stop lying to yourself. Decade after decade there is scientists on the ground researching bigfoot. Grover Krantz? Scientist. Don Meldrum? Scientist. Michael Merchant? Scientist. Todd Disotell? Scientist. Natalia Reagan? Scientist. The list goes on and on but even those people fail to bring anything substantial such as biological evidence to the table. People like Grover Krantz spent 30 some years looking for it.
DeleteNational Geographic has done special after special on bigfoot. Ketchum spent over 5 years on a genetic study. Sykes has spent over 3 on his study and it's still not published.
Regardless of an ape or hominid, EVENTUALLY ITS GOING TO LEAVE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE. Even the best snipers and military soldiers slip up in 50 years and leave forms of biological evidence.
Saliva, blood, soft tissue, hair, bones.
Drawing comparisons to chimps is a straw man argument. We catalogued chimps long ago, there was no everlasting hunt for the mythical chimpanzee. There was no 50+ year hunt for the Gorilla. Even the Bili Ape had poachers that had clear trail camera pictures and biological samples before the expedition for them took place...and they were found in a time efficient manner.
So now you are going back on all that garbage you were spouting about bigfoot being a human? A modern human, as Zana was?
Be clear Joe, you get too convoluted in your speculation and assumptions. Modern humans like Zana are not hominids, there is quite a difference between modern humans and hominids hence the distinctly different classifications.
You go by anecdotes, conspiracies, and circumstantial evidence. I go by biological (hard, conclusive proof) evidence and use an established protocol.
Is that really your list of scientists who've given this subject the time and effort you claim sciences has? Weak. Grover Krantz was looking for a bipedal gorilla, and though his work is pioneering and did a lot for his respected field outside of this subject, he fits the model in which I explained was never given a chance in a precious comment. Stating someone who's brought the hypothesis to the table only to get ridiculed does not fit your argument but mine. Meldrum, well he's still plugging away and though his fundemental theory as to what this creature is is starting to get slightly dated, I find his research and points on the cryptic nature of this creature amazing and very valid. I use them all the time and you get totally angry. Merchant is now an enthusiasts and what are we left with sorry? Disottel and Reagen?? Your 50 years of scientific agknowldegement is complete! Two Nat Geo docs don't cut it and you were the first to ridicule Ketchum's study, and though people are looking at her work ever increasingly, it never stood a chance... Sykes is another kettle of fish however.
Delete70% of the United States is covered in wilderness and we still manage to find hair, scat, all the things that you suggest ain't there. If you have not one predator to content with and you have all that space to conceal your dead then it is what it is; difficult.
The difference between Bigfoot & chimps is the level of intelligence. Chimps don't have culture and like I said up top; this sets them different from animals in the sense that they are more calculative and strategic.
The mountain gorilla was first discovered by a German officer, named Captain Robert von Beringe in 1902 and apart from the American physician and missionary Thomas Staughton Savage and naturalist Jeffries Wyman first described the western gorilla (they called it Troglodytes gorilla) in 1847 from specimens obtained in Liberia, the gorilla was reported for many hundreds of years. Even after this discovery, it took wildlife biologists almost another 50 years to be able to track them properly.
Sykes is still investigating the relict properties of Kwit and until then I'll have an open mind about the Bigfoot proportions of Zana because that's what good science does; it looks for all the answers.
To elaborate on that last point; we also have examples of Microevolution from one species in the world. To people who require closure, the fact that Zana was described as a Bigfoot many, many years before Bigfoot was popular culture, and then Kwit just so happens to have watered down versions of those features, is something they are happy to conclude upon, but that's not good science and like good scientists; Sykes wants to know why.
DeleteSykes ain't governed by heuristics.
Now if Sykes doesn't come up with anything then it's "oh well, back to the drawing board", and carry on. You won't see me running away. You're the one with the easier job just sitting there scoffing, remember that. The difference is that I don't hide behind anonymity and I'm not afraid of what people think of me, regardless if I'm wrong ocassionally, which I have been and sure to be many more times in my life; that's life. Trying to unravel this mystery means you have to stick your neck out now and again, and I'm not afraid of doing that.
I don't know all the answers, and if Bigfoot is successfully proven but to be none of my theories, I don't care... All good examples of scientific research self correct and evolve. Look at the recently sequenced elongated skulls; maybe they aren't Bigfoot... But maybe they're a race of giant early hominids that lived side by side humans, other hominids AND Bigfoot populations? The truth is things move forward and as we evolve, so does our ability to open up to progressive thought processes; this means having the guts to ask questions that traditional science would normally laugh at.
You dig?
Oh... And lastly before I'm off to bed; we have references to elongated skulls in Egypt and we have examples of pyramids in North America where similar skulls have been documented and now sequenced from the South America's.
DeleteInteresting.
More excuses, huh?
Delete"Science doesn't look at the subject."
Proven false. Regardless of what you feel they were looking for, they were looking and they were testing.
It seems you wouldn't be satisfied if you had a gaggle of Nobel prize winners looking on their hands and knees at scat and a list of top geneticists hovering over them.
What exactly do you want from science? They already test what you people provide. They already go in the field across the world looking for bigfeet.
National Geographic has had magazines on bigfoot long before a film production station was a thought. Weren't they one of the original publishers of the PGF stills?
Maybe you don't see it there in Wales but we have bigfoot specials every year here in America. Leonard Nimoy was even doing specials on it in the early 80's.
But nobody pays attention, right? ;)
You said it yourself about gorillas - "1847 from specimens obtained in Liberia."
Specimens obtained. There has never been a BF specimen obtained...ever...in scientific history. Not in America, not in the world.
PS - Sykes already told you Zana was 100% MODERN HUMAN of subsaharan Africa descent.
100% modern human, not hominid, not unknown non-human primate. You'll keep an open mind about her being 100% modern human? Cool.
As far as we know, Sykes paper has nothing to do with Zana anyway. I mean they used that in part 2 of the Bigfot Files and according to your oft quotes Rhettman Mullet, they didn't use anything in those documentaries that would conflict his paper, right?
I know you'll have more excuses though, you're full of them.
There are only a select few of reputable scientists in the field conducting research, there is no way your claim that there are bordering on what ever ridiculous number you have in your head, will be listened to hear. It's common knowledge. This is Meldrum's main argument and I have yet to see many counter with any conviction.
DeleteYour theory that Nat Geo in the 80's is an equivalent to 'science' giving this subject the time of day, is poor because in those days the scientific community were still scoffing at the idea of a bipedal gorilla... And I bet more often than not the outcomes were as cynical as the theory deserves to be. This is something I have addressed numerous times in this thread.
As for gorilla's; let's compare the hundreds of years of indigenous peoples seeing them to that of the native Americans and Bigfoot; compare the biological evidence being found in Liberia to that of the Smithsonian in New England... The quest that followed that took researchers almost 60 years (in fact) to track them successfully has not been pursued at the same length or with the same enthusiasm as the gorilla had. Again; giant skeletal remains were found in ridiculous numbers, exactly where native cultures that had a co-existence with these creatures/people said they had for a time.
Also, there could quite easily be something in Zana's DNA that was not identified in preliminary testing; this is something you stand by, remember? And we have to understand that off the back of Sykes investigating these relict properties, his book on the yeti has been put back a few months. Now I'm quite happy to admit that I could be totally wrong, but I am willing to wait for all the facts to come out... You should also; for once you could make a stand against those heuristical ideals.
Sykes' project is also three projects in one; living hybrids, what this creature is exactly... And of course the Yeti subject.
Peace.
More excuses.
DeleteGo tell Ian Redman, that hot oxford primatologist, Grover Krantz ghost, Don Meldrum, Michael Merchant, and all the hundreds of scientist that have spent time and money on searching for Apemen that they just aren't reputable enough for you to consider them worthy of their titles and degrees.
Honestly, I don't think there are more than 4 people in the world with the reputation to please you.
Keep moving dem goalposts.
And as far as Zana, they were the final results, he even stated they went back to dig deep and double check it. And it didn't take him 12 years to get preliminary results like OSU.
Anymore excuses?
Excuses?
DeleteThese are but the handful that confirm my argument Daniel, not yours... Do you see that? These don't tally in the hundreds like you suggest, and the fact these are so often ridiculed by people like you; supports my argument. If these scientists were taken seriously and were given the means to conduct proper backed studies, then who's to say we might have a new species, a new phenomena, heck... Maybe even a debunked subject. That hasn't happened and you listing our pioneers (oddly enough) doesn't support that.
'Preliminary results' that require an investigation into the relict properties... Yes.
"Bryan Sykes emailed me back earlier today. I replied asking him I could post his response here. Hopefully he allows it, but if not, I'm sure I could share a synopsis of what he wrote me. It's quite interesting.
DeleteTODD PRESCOTT"
This was regarding the relict properties of Zana. It appears there's more to this yet.
More excuses.
DeleteMore hearsay.
Quite frankly if Sykes were to break the silence on the contents and findings of his paper during peer review and the embargo, it would destroy it.
How about some more excuses? I'm sure you have a slew of them still.
Discussing what a study entails doesn't affect the outcomes of which are being peer reviewed.
DeleteExcuses, shmexcuses.
The story goes that Patterson and Gimlin had developed a strong interest in Bigfoot, and in October 1967 they rented the movie camera and went off on horseback for a couple weeks to look for it. Next thing they knew, they'd become the luckiest Bigfoot hunters in history, when the creature obligingly stepped out of the woods and strode across the clearing for Patterson's camera, in the early afternoon of October 20th. Gimlin chased it on horseback, lost it, but found its footprints; then they rode about 5 kilometers back to camp for their plaster of paris. They rode back, poured plaster into the footprints, waited for it to dry, then went back to camp again. They loaded their horses into the trailer and drove 40 kilometers on rough fire roads back to Willow Creek, and posted the film off to Yakima to get it developed. It was about 4:00 in the afternoon.
ReplyDeleteThe glaring impossibility of this timeline is what first raised suspicions among skeptics. In response, Patterson and Gimlin began providing all sorts of different versions of their story. Other suspicious cryptozoologists, such as Peter Byrne, found holes and contradictions in those stories. In the end, the version Patterson and Gimlin settled on was that they put the film onto a plane and flew it to Yakima, where Al DeAtley picked it up to have it developed. Byrne found that the only charter planes that could have flown that route that day were all grounded due to rain and bad weather. Since then, few serious researchers took Patterson and Gimlin's story seriously.
cryptoz like bigfoots, chupacabras, ogopogo. creatures been here for years. folks knowing that these and others are real.
Deletehttp://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/skeptoid-botches-analysis-of-patterson.html?m=1
DeleteHey joe!
DeleteWhen are you actually going to get in the field and do some of your own research?
Just wondering!
When you can afford fund me to leave my current employment and take significant time off to go to the States.
Delete... And I meant that jokingly of course.
Deletelike GRAYs find U, U dont find them.....
ReplyDeleteAnyone here interested in harvesting a sasqwatch ? Seems like the only option left in this field of research, my attempt will be this fall!
ReplyDeleteTeam Ontario LRP
Once you harvest your sasquatch, what will you do with it?
Deletejist shoots 1 of tham thar onry bigfoots, harvast takin tu long
DeleteWell we have 5 different steps were going to take after but the one being most important will be $ money and that will determine everything else following the harvest. It could turn into a situation were a buyer might want another sasqwatch, then everything would change agian, so time will tell what happens!
ReplyDeleteTeam Ontario LRP