This lioness really wants to maul this guy
What if I told you in the full video the lioness breaks through the glass and bites the man's nose off? Would you still watch this?
Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from
I am
ReplyDeleteHey dude- turn the lights out when you leave, okay?
ReplyDeleteNO,leave the lights on or the boogie man will gets us xx
Delete"You merely adapted to the darkness, I was born it in, molded by it."
Delete"Hey dude turn the lights off when you leave"? Really?
DeleteYou know you can be a troll without being super gay, right?
Just sayin' there meatpacker.
"There is no danger that anybody reading this blog will come away understanding it."
Delete10 Reasons Why Bigfoot's a Bust Discovery
ReplyDeleteThis list by Discovery is just a remix/rehash of the most popular skeptics' questions concerning the very existence of Bigfoot and honestly, we're more than tired of hearing it. There are no skeletons, no fossils, no bodies live or dead, etc etc. The biggest problem with this list and others like it is that the skeptics fail to take into consideration the evidence that we do have. What about Bigfoot vocalizations recorded in several different locations by different people at different times, from the mid-1970s through the present? How about the best of the best examples of Bigfoot footprints, like this collection found in 2013 and considered by BIgfoot researcher, Cliff Barackman to be the "most significant footprint found in the last 40 years"? And how about that much-maligned Sasquatch Genome Project headed by Dr. Melba Ketchum? The results were muddled and inconclusive but still intriguing and also opened the door for further DNA studies by other projects. There's also the work of David Paulides to consider even though he never claims outright the mysterious disappearance of thousands of people in our National Parks are related to Sasquatch. After reading his research, it's impossible not to come to that conclusion..
Hey Dru..E-mail me!! I miss you!!
The "London Trackway" you were referring to, has been proven FAKE!
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the one the fellar from BFF had a hand in hoaxing? Tontar maybe? Just to show how guillible and unhinged many footers are?
DeleteKetchum's work was highly flawed and drew upon assumption in place of fact. It has been proven junk by at least 2 Harvard geneticists and others in the field.
Prove those sounds unequivocally came from a bigfoot. You can't, you just have allegations. Even in Scott Nelson's work, you can distinguish what it may be but you cannot unequivocally determine it was a Sasquatch.
Sorry, I think you mean the Elbe Trackway... Nothing to suggest the London Travway was hoaxed. In fact, the London Trackway was used as major source of comparative authenticity to determine the suspect nature of the Elbe Trackway.
DeleteMelba's work (though she did some very naughty things that have tarnished her reputation amongst the enthusiasts and skeptics alike) managed to get journal Nature to accept the paper and send it for peer review. Later, the Journal of Advanced Zoological Exploration in Zoology accepted the paper and it passed peer review, but they backed out of publication on the day the paper was to go live. If it was as flawless as suggested, that simply wouldn't have happene and like the poster up top rightly put; it's got the best geneticists in the world conducting hominid studies.
Once you have recorded language where Sasquatch have been seen, and experienced numerous times, with tracks being accumilated; an eight hour trek into wilderness terrain at a ridiculous altitude, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes.
When you have that many pages of raw data, theory, charts and graphs, summaries, hypothesis, explanations, etc. then it actually takes time to decipher and conduct tests to pass or fail peer review. It is almost guaranteed to be accepted into the peer review process because most things are, it's up the the merits of the work to stand or fail. Ketchum's failed. Then she bought a publication, renamed it, hosted her failed paper (not even in full may I add), charged $35 for it, then never published or had another Denovo piece ran. Oh yeah, now she writes Bigfoot teen erotica novellas. And beyond all of that, all of it, all the money from Wally, she still uses a head shot from 30 years ago.
DeleteBryan Sykes would have conducted his study regardless of Melba Ketchum. He was already testing alleged Yeti samples in the mid-90's. To suggest Melba or her study plays any role on Dr. Sykes is foolish.
I guess it does take Sherlock Holmes because there is no conclusive evidence to give my uncle or John C O'Reilly down the street to prove Sasquatch exist. We can't simply classify something so willy nilly, it's not the standard system. You must provide organic materials for genetic testing, you must provide a type specimen. Until then, there is zero conclusive evidence proving Sasquatch exist.
You can't prove that recorded language came from bigfoot because you can't prove bigfoot and the amount of variables involved.
I shouldn't have to explain this.
Hey, let's not jump the proverbial gun here... I never said I supported all of it's work, never said that I felt all of it was legitimate and never said that it was destined to pass peer review, you in fact point out things that I already knew...
DeleteBut it doesn't tell the entire picture;
"This study was met with outrage by some scientists, while much of the scientific community ignored it altogether. Some scientists supported it, but most were afraid of what would happen to their careers if they openly supported a study claiming to have proven the existence of the much stigmatized and controversial Sasquatch. Yet upon examination of the paper, it can be seen that it was a huge multidisciplinary effort involving a dozen labs and blind studies, and carried out by nine highly qualified scientists, aimed at quelling controversy about the discovery. In the most extensive study ever carried out on the subject, a total of 111 samples were analysed, and standard procedures used in forensic science were implemented, including blank and positive control samples, submitter profiles and laboratory personnel profiles, all of which were utilized in conjunction with the testing of the samples. Laboratories and scientists were not told what they were testing when they were contracted to test the Sasquatch samples. This ensured the integrity of the replication of the findings from test to test to test. The five year study costing over half a million dollars employed university laboratories, accredited private laboratories, state government and private forensic laboratories in its quest to test whether the Sasquatch truly existed or not. The different analyses in the study included genotyping using short tandem repeats (molecular biology method used to compare specific loci on DNA from two or more samples), standard nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequencing, Next Generation whole genome sequencing as well as whole genome SNP arrays, electron microscopy, forensic hair analysis and histopathology (microscopic examination of tissue). The labs responsible for the testing are listed in the paper and all data and test results are publicly available. The critics of the study say that the samples must have been animal DNA contaminated with human DNA. However, with the authors being forensic scientists, dealing with contaminated samples is a common occurrence that can be tested for. Not only were the DNA hair samples washed to remove contamination, but all samples were screened using species identification sequencing techniques that will work in all mammals. If the samples were contaminated, the electropherograms (the graphic representation of the sequences generated by the sequencer) would have shown the sequences from the different species superimposed on one another. Another critique of the study claims that the DNA must have been degraded. But according to yield gels, the DNA in almost all of the samples exhibits no appreciable degradation, which would appear as smearing instead of a clean band on the gel. Nothing has been per the status quo with this DNA study. First, there were numerous attempts to have the paper published via main stream science journals. Even with all the science incorporated in the study, only one, the well-known journal Nature, accepted the paper and sent it for peer review. Later, the Journal of Advanced Zoological Exploration in Zoology accepted the paper and it passed peer review, but they backed out of publication on the day the paper was to go live. In yet another ridiculous controversy, GenBank refused to allow the team to upload their sequences, sending emails requiring signed consent forms from the individuals the samples came from (i.e. Sasquatch!), prior to acceptance of the sequences, among other excuses."
... Now that's more like the full picture. So many similar mistakes by so many different sources it seems?
Sykes may not have evolved his work into delving into North America, you must remember that the Hominid study was only named about a year ago. That's cool, but it can be argued that the North American equivalent was already in full swing and nearly finished by the time Sykes decided to answer the Sasquatch questions. Either way, it's as significant as you like and is well worth celebrating.
Delete"The existence of the Sasquatch Being is hereby assumed, since any Being must exist before his language. Any argument for the existence of Sasquatch or his language should be given outside of this standard and outside any transcription endeavor that uses this standard. Transcripts should stand alone as tools for the language researcher; whereas S.P.A. transcripts and excerpts should be freely used in other works to support language arguments. Since the Sasquatch Being has the ability to produce utterance at frequencies above and below those of human ability, he must also be capable of producing utterance within the limits of human ability. Consequently, utterances that that fall within human levels, while evidencing characteristics of unknown language, remain useful in comparison studies of Sasquatch Language. If a recorded utterance is not Human (i.e. exceeds human ability in Frequency, Pitch, Prosody, Resonance, etc.), and,
If the utterance demonstrates language,
Then the subject producing the utterance is deduced to be the Sasquatch Being, any alternative conclusion being absurd (i.e. extraterrestrials, demons, angels, etc. in contrast to an undocumented species native to this planet)."
- Scott Nelson
Again... Pair this up with the track accumilation and sightings in that area of the said subject, not to mention a verified published study of the recordings by the university of Wyoming; you have something highly credible.
You see, when you have the accumilation of other sources in footage, hair, dermals, etc, from the same scientific methods that have served respected fields such as forensics and wildlife biology for many decades, it is a level of consistency that should transcend any prefudices to lend credibility; to deny the same methods is to deny the sceptic method period and is a contradiction. Nobody is suggesting that recordings or even the accumilation of all sources should prove the legitimacy of a species and classify it, but to suggest that recordings are not credible due to the Sasquatch not being recognized is a problem when every accompanying source to be presented as evidence in that process is outrightly dismissed with a preconceived preference to what really is going on.
You pointn out nothing new, just the same tiresome lark I've encountered a million and one times.
It's late in the UK and I have some writing to crack on with for a freind, I'll be along in the morning to respond to any comments left.
DeleteGoodnight.
Melba is a peach,baby...lapping it up...slobber,drool n` dribble.
DeleteExcept the "verified published study..." is nothing more than words. I can't find squat. I have access to a university server so I don't need to pay for these studies. I can't find it.
DeleteScott's quote clearly states "this assumes Sasquatch exists," but there is obviously a lack of conclusive evidence to convince anyone on the street it exists.
Those recordings may have come from something but you can't 100% prove it was Sasquatch. It might be alien, it might be some other unknown, it could be anything but bigfoot.
For every biologist and such you list, I can list 100 that say yours is whacko.
"These recordings later became the subject of a year-long University of Wyoming-based engineering study to determine their authenticity and to understand the nature of the vocalizations relative to those of humans and other primates. The results of that study were published by the University of British Columbia Press in 1980 in ?Manlike Monsters on Trial,? an anthology of professional papers presented at a 1978 UBC-sponsored symposium entitled Anthropology of the Unknown. The study concluded that the unusual vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges. Although the study did not rule out the possibility of human source, it established that the vocalizations were spontaneous at the time of recording and that there was no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed."
DeleteThe published paper is called Manlike Monsters on Trial - early records and modern evidence by Majorie M Halpin and Michael Ames.
Scott is a good scientist and and will assume, I on the other hand am not in a position to play it so safe for the sake of research being considered impartial and without a doubt think it's from Sasquatch considering the reports from that area.
It 'might be alien', but not Sasquatch? Though I am a total advocate for extraterrestrial life and UFO's being a major interest of mine, you do realize we have zero physical evidence to go by? Ok... Let's focus on the actual evidence there is for alien life, and then compare it the the actual evidence there is for Bigfoot (even though many 'skeptics' ignore this like some taboo) along with the probability that out of tens of thousands of very well detailed close encounters with Bigfoot the 'possibility' that at least a couple are legitimate?
The majority of biologists who are opposed to this field are that because it is a taboo to express any interest in the possibility of relict hominid species' roaming be wilderness areas of the planet. As soon as they look at the evidence, they very quickly come to the conclusion that it is if anything unscientific to at least ask the questions.
People simply couldn't have been merely hoaxing for the last ten thousand years.