Rictor Riolo Claims to Have Found Dr. Matthew Johnson's Habituation Site
Could this be the secret SOHA site? Bigfoot After Hours host Rictor Riolo says it is. He writes, "At Dr. Johnson's secret habituation site. Is it a cloaked Bigfoot?"
Follow Rictor on Instragam: http://instagram.com/rictor_riolo
First for everyone xx
ReplyDeleteFine first.
DeleteThanks rushferlife xx
DeleteA Florida woman discovered this recently when she made the mistake of allowing her child to go to a neighborhood park. The police told the woman her child was unsupervised. She was arrested and charged with child neglect, a felony.
Deletefor your SAFETY
A thousand children said to be fleeing the violence in Central America will be welcomed to Chicago, where local children are routinely in the cross-fire of gang-related grudges.
Deletewho gives a flyin ball sack
DeleteISIS do : )
DeleteISIS=SISI
DeleteISIS the NEW NORM : )
DeleteGaza Crisis: Isis Pledge to Join the Palestinian Fight Against ‘Barbaric Jews’
DeleteGAME ON BOYz
Did you know that the palestinians have kids shows like Barney where their children are taught that "Jewsa are like blood sucking vampires and that they should want to kill Israel's". They "Paleatinians" teach this to Just babies. This Is why they don't have a hard time getting suside bombers???
DeleteLook it up on youtube, Don't take my word, see for yourself. Barbaric?
WIld Bill gots that BIG bowie knife - so he needin tham tight pants to gits to his weapon : )
ReplyDelete"Wild Bill" The PHONY Marine!
DeleteWhats not to like hillbilly mountain men huntin and trappin critters @ night with guns
ReplyDeletewild bill is the new clint eastwood
ReplyDelete^ with a BIG KNIFE
DeleteAnd small dick, and broken nose, and all his teeth got kicked the F...ing out for being a PHONY Marine!
DeleteWild Bill say he abin a SGT in the USMC and carries that Big Knife for cuttin and slicing like tham pork ribs
DeleteMark Evans: "And what about the rest of Bryan's american results?
ReplyDeleteThere were 7 samples from Washington state.
2 were cows.
1 was a black bear.
1 was a white tailed deer.
Derek randles high hopes sample was canine, a wolf or a dog.
And so was the hair from marcell cagy's backyard.
And elsewhere in the USA, there was a horse in texas, a racoon in Arizona and way up in Michigan a porcupine."
Bryan Sykes: "Am I disappointed we didn't find a bigfoot? I guess it would have been fun if we had but my ambitions of the project are entirely fulfilled in that we have identified and examined the best evidence and done it in a scientific systematic and successful way, so I'm really very pleased."
Let me summarize the latest bigfoot developments:
Delete1. The Ketchum DNA study was a fiasco and laughed at even by most footers.
2. The Sykes DNA (testing the "cream of the crop" of supposed bigfoot samples) found only common and known animals.
3. Finding Bigfoot has found no bigfoot after five seasons of visiting every alleged bigfoot hotspot.
4. The Munns report is being torn apart by Kitzake.
5. More blobsquatch videos and photos from opportunists trying to make money from the phenomenon.
6. NAWAAC field study has collapsed into disarray and Bipto shamed into leaving BFF.
7. No specimen or hard evidence of bigfoot's existence, but plenty of awful excuses which completely shatter rational credulity.
William Parcher again? Come on man, you've spent several years of your worthless existence pretending to be a skeptic on JREF, sock puppeting on the BFF and posting here day and night. You're Bigfoot obsession is making you lose what little marbles you started with.
DeleteTRAPPER got a photo of the grassman - and almost traped that critter!
Delete@9:31
DeleteAre you the mentally ill JREF footer that was pretending to be fighting off insurgents in another country while posting about Bigfoot or are you one of the numbskulls that believed him ?
Sykes still looking for samples, going a hybrid study.
DeleteYou don't find squat with a film crew.
Kitakraze and his super suit; nuff said.
Leaping Russian Yeti.
Plenty found, none caught.
T'is all.
As a JREF footer, I feel it is my moral obligation to educate the public regarding pseudo-scientific assertions, so that people approaching topics such as the bigfoot (and other absurd claims for the existence of paranormal beings and entities) will be granted an objectively judicious perspective of the matter. In this attempt at applying calm logic to the subject, it is my hope that people will resist the temptation to be seduced by clever appeals to the emotional yearning to believe in a mythological legend.
Delete^
DeleteLOL..look at this asshole. Does your husband, wife or horse or whatever you're into believe that you're a Bigfoot skeptic ?
"They've hijacked the term "skeptic" to refer to the one who suppresses the act of questioning, rather than to the questioner himself. In doing so, they've pretended to be the opposite of what they are to hide their true agenda, which is to protect the agenda of the status quo power elite and keep people remaining sheeple. See here for more info.
DeleteAdditionally, they've hijacked terms such as "rational, reason, logic, critical thinking" to mean the "proper" thinking and behavior that supports materialism and orthodoxy, and rejects against anything that challenges it. That is not what those words mean of course. It's a form of mind control and disinformation. And it seems way too calculated and militant to be due to some accidental misunderstanding, ignorance or closed mindedness. Hijacking a word to mean its opposite is more indicative of a deliberate agenda, such as a disinformation campaign or form of mind control. If that sounds terrible, well, we are here to expose it thank goodness.
Furthermore, oddly enough, they treat Science as if it were some kind of authoritarian "entity" that takes positions and views on issues (their own of course), when it is in fact merely a tool and method of inquiry based on logical principles. In reality, science does not take positions or hold dogmatic beliefs on subjects. People take positions, not Science, which holds no more views than my computer does. Science is not a living entity. These pseudoskeptics are projecting their own views and Atheistic philosophy into Science, which they hold as the ultimate authority, aka Scientism. (Oh well, I guess pseudoskeptics need something to worship too)."
Joe, sub-saharans are not bigfeet. You should be ashamed.
DeleteThe Amazing James Randi achieved notoriety in successfully debunking the "magical" spoon bending feats of Yuri Geller. During the time that Mr. Randi was waging this effort, many Geller adherents relentlessly badgered him with insults, claiming that Mr. Randi was "jealous" of Geller and that Randi actually believed himself in the Geller's talents. Others labeled Mr. Randi as "mentally diseased" for relentlessly pursuing the matter. But in the end, Mr. Randi was unconditionally vindicated and Geller's carnival act was revealed to be a sham. As a result, rational thinking and objective, reality based scientific analysis was the true victor in the contest. The struggle against pseudo-science continues and bigfoot is one of many fronts in that continuing battle.
Delete10:05... Go and learn something...
DeleteCro-Magnon.
Siolen.
10:09... Oh no! He's not declaring a war, is he?
DeleteNothing more fundementalist than people who not only don't understand consistent scientific method, but those that desocrate interpret the true meaning of skepticism and it's application to denounce tens of thousands who have had impartial and unprovoked experiences that, which in turn have undeniable physical and biological evidence to back up.
Pseudoskepticism is a fundementalist quasi-religion.
So you have "tens of thousands" of anecdotal experiences -- that is quite a big number and worthy of notice. But at the same time, there is no solid physical evidence to accompany the voluminous amount of testimony. When the state of the evidence is in such a state of imbalance, the rational observer will conclude that something else is going on.
Delete@ 10:09
DeleteYou and the other Randi followers obsess about what most people consider common sense. You're making what is common sense, a term you refer to as skepticism (skeptic) and turning it into a religion. Randi is your Pope who collects and lives off the donations.
And vibrating butt plugs. Don't forget those.
Delete10:29... Tracks, footage, unknown primate hair, recorded language, archeological and anthropological studies... All to accompany ten thousand years of cultural and contemporary anecdotes from professionals of all walks of life with everything to lose.
DeleteIt's time travelling Leprechauns in Hijacked alien bigfoot suits.
DeleteSounds legit.
Delete@ 10:20 +1000 and major league pwnage.
Delete10:19... Also, I think you're a free thinking nazi that oppresses progressive scientific concepts that have consistent data to support.
DeleteAll I can say is
Deletehttp://bigfootresearchuk.com/
Great stuff! Looking forward.
DeleteTo a certain degree, you may be correct. I am sure that Mr. Randi has sustained a comfortable living in pursuing the cause of rational, scientific inquiry. But if not for the staggering amount of lazy, pseudo-scientific quackery in the world, he would have nothing from which to earn a living. So in reality, you are feeding and nourishing the beast which you claim to abhor.
DeleteThe "physical evidence" to which you refer is meager and has been thoroughly discredited. There are some bigfoot enthusiasts who put great credit in some of those sources of evidence, but my point is that there is something questionable when the anecdotal evidence is amazingly abundant, but corresponding physical evidence is non-existent.
DeleteHarwood Forest, Bigfoot wood knocks heard on another expedition with Adam Davies.
Deletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=WTYM6WF1lfA
"I find it interesting that the legal problems between Uri Geller and James Randi are a result of Randi's attempt to ruin Uri. Randi never sued Uri for fraudulent claims. But Uri sued Randi for defamation two times, winning one, and overruled on another.
DeleteIn 1990, Geller sued Randi for "Libel". The japanese court ruled "Insult". True .. Randi is an insulting person.
In 1991, Geller sued Randi for "defamation, false light, invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with prospective advantage"
Sounds like a stalker charge, for sure."
Thanks 10:37!!
Delete^
DeleteGive it up Drew. The jigs up, you're only pretending to be a skeptic you mealy mouthed simpleton.
FER SHURE
Delete^
DeleteThat was at 10:33
So I take it that you believe in Geller's supernatural powers?
Delete10:39 was @10:33
Delete10:37... The evidence I put forward has been 'investigated' and concluded upon that it's not worth considering because it has examples of being falsified... It stops there. What your 'science' does not account for, is the fact that all sources of evidence even in the court of law are falsifiable, and further to this; it then shuts out the logical explanations, forgetting it's scientifically consistent application that have excelled fields or decades.
Delete@10:41 You're a simpleton if you take that from the 10:20 comment. You must be a JREF footer.
Delete^ a Snallygasters or i am a FOOL !!!
Delete^ nah just a small infant Jabberwocky who's cloaked in a stolen bigfoot costume.
DeleteOkay, you have "tens of thousands" of anecdotal experiences. That's a mountain of evidence. Now lets look at the physical evidence.
DeleteHairs-- Some pre-DNA studies concluded unknown primate which were disputed and inconclusive. Since DNA testing has become common, no studies have found anything but common animals.
Film and Video -- A massive collection of blobsquatches which prove nothing. It's interesting that the seminal piece of evidence in this form remains a 47 year old grainy film shot by a known con-artist.
Sounds -- Highly subjective analysis from bigfoot enthusiasts claiming howls and noises from an unknown animal. All objective analysis has found mundane explanations.
Foot casts -- The history of this form of evidence is filled with known hoaxes. A few attempts to read "dermal ridges" in prints have been determined to be artifacts.
You can argue about how reliable that evidence is, but the point is that, when viewed objectively, it is meager. It fits better into an explanation of bigfoot enthusiasts trying to fill the vacuum of physical evidence with attempts at interpreting various selections in a highly biased manner.
There are types of evidence that CANNOT be hoaxed, misidentified, or otherwise be subject to interpretation. A live specimen, a body part, or a DNA test would be a few examples. To date, no such evidence has been produced.
Therefore, I submit that something else is going on.
^
DeleteThen why do you still believe ?
It's time travelling Leprechauns in Hijacked alien bigfoot suits, what other conclusion can you deduce?
Delete^
DeleteNot just gay but incredibly gay.
you're just afraid you'll fall in love with me and I'll reject you like all women have.
DeleteHairs - None of the hair samples I reference have been disputed. There are samples that have sequenced as unknown primate to which later have been concluded upon as degraded of contaminated.
DeleteFilm and Video - one piece of which recommended for peer review by some of the most excelled scientists in relevant fields.
Sounds - published by the University of Wyoming as authentic.
Foot casts - toe bending, scar tissue, species traits from decades apart and States apart found miles into wilderness areas. Barely replicable under laboratory situations by skilled primatologists.
Supression of evidence fallacy. There is plenty to test, I have sourced it frequently, and falling on preconceived conclusions that support your agenda does not account for the logical explanations and circumstances that explain that those conclusions are fawlty.
By leaning to hearistical ideals, you are in fact suppressing evidence because you have questions still to answer in the process of either verifying or condemning consistent scientific method.
We also don't have a specimen after the mid-20th century when archeological studies had finished milking native Amercian historical sites.
If Joe isn't an American planeted troll I for one am going to be pissed. I like the idea of a Welsh man doing this and pissing off so many people.
DeleteIt is kind'a funny.
I like the idea of a Welsh boy letting the cyber psycho-nerds of America (and the UK for that matter), about what's in their own back yards, all the way from the sunny little valleys.
DeleteNow that's funny.
Anon 11:00am... At last a little sanity on here! However, it's an act in futility to appeal to logic and reason especially with Psuedo Joe even when he's thoroughly de-bunked he'll continue to argue the same point usually with a mountain of cut and pastes. The pusedo-sceptic cut and pastes are from a website that asserts that people have almost daily out of body experiences and berates the scientific community for not accepting the supernatural as real.
DeleteBy the way Randi made a living from stage magic not hounding or debunking people. The reason why he persued people like Geller is because they were being interlectualy dishonest presenting what he knew as stage magic as some form of psychic phenomena. Is it wrong that people use tricks to deceive others into thinking they can talk to their dead relatives and exploit their grief for financial gain? I'd say so and it's the category of people that individuals like Geller belong to presenting stage magic as reality.
Randi was following off from Houdini and pre-emoting people like Penn and Teller and Derren Brown to show these people for the frauds they were. :)
Like I wrote earlier Joe, you can argue for the merit of that inconclusive evidence (which you proceeded to do rather unconvincingly), but my point remains unrebutted -- the state of the evidence is grossly out of balance and suggests another explanation. I am open to being persuaded otherwise (I wonder whether you are), but to date all of the physical evidence is open to question and rational, non-paranormal interpretation, and no uncontroverted proof has been posited.
DeletePre-DNA studies have been disputed and no post-DNA studies have found anything but known animals, foot casts have been analyzed and found to contain artifacts, and interpretation of sounds is highly subjective and open to bias.
Your argument seems to be that there is some gigantic conspiracy in the scientific community to quash the marvelous evidence of bigfoot. All that you are doing is laying another layer of incredulity and paranoia to your argument, which puts you in the same class as 9/11 conspiracy mongers and those who believe the moon landings were staged.
@11:45
DeleteYou and the other Randi followers obsess about what most people consider common sense. You're taking what is common sense, a term you refer to as skepticism (skeptic) and turning it into a religion. Randi is your Pope who collects and lives off the donations.
shirtty power cut and APC and I ate this funking laptop keyboard thank god for an AC coupled ackup
DeleteJOE. Your post at 10 02 was quite distinct. Right to the point. You are dealing with cultist fools, nothing more or less. Tunnel vision rules their world. They know about as much about true science as Larry Fein.
DeleteChuck
Leaping Russian Yeti? How about just leaping Russian? I knew I'd recognised the movements but couldn't place it. He's wearing something similar to these http://www.pro-jump.co.uk.even the picture of the leaping man on the site banner looks like the movement in the video. Yes they are available in Russia
DeleteI find it quite humerous that anyone who's had his bed arguments shown as empty contradictions should suggest anyone else exhausts arguments, you debunk nothing, never have, it's why you're here... It's why you're fixated on me too.
DeleteThe SCEPCOP site I reference is simply the most comprehensive means of using scientific theory and philosophy against people who assert they are using science correctly. It's what's so threatening to these people, because once the penny drops on the true meaning of skepticism and the fundementals of scientific method, it twists their concepts back on them and shows that they are in fact way behind that which they attempt to ridicule. This is the type of mindset it attracts;
"Pseudo-skepticism, by promoting views of doubtful validity, can seriously distort the scientific enterprise. It is good that an organisation such as SCEPCOP exists that can bring to light manifest flaws in the pseudo-skeptical position."
- Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner in Physics, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Cambridge University
... A far more pub-brawl-esqu and cynical take on Randi from another source;
"But James Randi does have a history of libel and defamation of character. Calling James Randi a sh*t-tossing slander monkey IS supported by the evidence."
Also, you won't find SCEPCOP endorsing the average fortune teller. What you will see is an open minded approach to subjects such a consciousness, and oppose religions reigns for hindering the scientific persuit of psychic phenomena.
"GREG KOLODZIEJZYK’S 13-YEAR ASSOCIATIVE REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENT RESULTS
http://www.remote-viewing.com/ARVpaper.pdf"
Also... Go and take a look and see how much the US government spent on remote viewing during the Cold War.
"... the state of the evidence is grossly out of balance and suggests another explanation."
DeleteWhen you have any level of physical and biological evidence to support whatever frequency of anecdotal evidence, then it might be news to you, but it is in fact unscientific to be reliant on a preconceived conclusion, to recline to a position that centres around not explaning adequately the data in question. There is actually nothing in scientific logic that determines that a small frequency of physical and biological data condemns the source it is in fact supporting. Very basic stuff, unless you are brainwashed, trying to brainwash someone, or are a free thinking Nazi.
DNA samples that later turn out to be contaminated or degraded from intial results, don't prove a single thing, but are encouraging... because they could have been degraded it contaminated (sigh), whilst the only way to fake artifacts is in laboratory conditions, with people who have an undertanding of the way sad tissue heals, who both have the same idea decades apart and States apart; sounds legit. A leap of faith is you will.
No conspiracy? Why would a giant skull won't archaic features be archaised??,
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/could-this-be-bigfoot-skull-mk-davis-is.html?m=0
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/109783839
The big 'nothing' you insist is the case would actually account for an accumilation of evidence like tracks & dermals, hair, scat, footage, archeological & anthropologocal studies, verified and published audio recordings with language, ten thousand years of native culture, tens of thousands of eyewitnesses many of whom are multiple person. The frequency of sightings are exactly what one would expect from a highly social, highly evasive and largely nocturnal subject that bury their dead and have plenty of space to do so. The accumilation of tracks, hair, etc... May have turned into more definitive proof if mainstream science would have contributed by now. This though doesn't get wasted on the troll who uses this as a convenient argument in their quest for a rhetorical means of acting out 'debate'... When debate is far beyond them in realizing they have nothing in the way of an answer to the allegations of a major cover up of evidence... Of which the evidence for is undeniable (but not to the denialist of course).
Also, in the Leaping Russian Yeti; consider the subject's motion changes (bipedal and then quadrupedal motion after leaping what appears to be feet in the air), muscle tone, limb length and girth, speed and agility are not within the possibilities of a normal human... And the big butt.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTddczieNdQ
... At 1.47mins, you see it pull itself along with it's arms in that terrain after a massive leap into the air. A normal human would break their wrists jumping from bipedal motion to quadrupedal motion at that speed in that awkward terrain.
Quite a sophisticated hoax by an old Russian guy and his son, isn't it?
Here’s what Krantz writes about Bigfoot recordings: “One... tape was analyzed by some university sound specialists who determined that a human voice could not have made them; they required a much longer vocal tract. A sasquatch investigator later asked one of these experts if a human could imitate the sound characteristics by simply cupping his hands around his mouth. The answer was yes."
Delete"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."
DeleteThat was from the BFRO, and this is common knowledge amongst Bigfoot enthusiasts.
Here is this also -
http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf
Joe, please read my posts carefully before responding with nonresponsive, barely readable ramblings. I acknowledged the staggering amount of unverifiable evidence in the form of "anecdotal experiences." But in listing the "big nothing" of evidence, you included just that type of evidence! Looks like someone is trying to twist the debate rhetorically to misrepresent the subject of the debate! You and other bigfoot enthusiasts have freedom to believe in whatever crazy imaginary animals you can conjure up. No one is stopping you and if something compelling is put forward, I will be the first to acknowledge it. But going on some screed about skeptics having an elitist agenda to somehow silence objective inquiry (if I read your collection on non-sequiturs correctly), just demonstrates that you are closed minded on the issue and will refuse to acknowledge reality.
DeleteThe Web site and liner notes offer testimonials by “expert” Nancy Logan. Logan, their “linguist,” apparently has little or no actual training (or degree) in linguistics. Her self-described credentials include playing the flute, speaking several languages, and having “a Russian friend [who] thinks I'm Russian.” Logan confidently asserts that the tapes are not faked, and that the vocal range is too broad to be made by a human. She suggests that the Bigfoot language shows signs of complexity, possibly including profanities: “On one spot of the tape, an airplane goes by and they seem to get very excited and not very happy about it. Maybe those are Sasquatch swear words.”
DeleteIs that common knowledge among bigfoot enthusiasts?
Contrary to many Bigfoot enthusiasts’ claims, Bigfoot tracks are not particularly consistent and show a wide range of variation (Dennett 1996). Some tracks have toes that are aligned, others show splayed toes. Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes (see figure 1). Surely all these tracks can't come from the same unknown creature, or even species of creatures.
DeleteHair and blood samples have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters. As with all the other evidence, the results are remarkable for their inconclusiveness. When a definite conclusion has been reached, the samples have invariably turned out to have prosaic sources-"Bigfoot hair” turns out to be elk, bear, or cow hair, for example, or suspected “Bigfoot blood” is revealed to be transmission fluid. Even advances in genetic technology have proven fruitless. Contrary to popular belief, DNA cannot be derived from hair samples alone; the root (or some blood) must be available.
DeleteThe rationale behind my own copying and pasting isn't to establish anything other than that your sources of "undisputed" proof are in fact highly questionable and debated. At best, they represent a scintilla of evidence (and that is being generous) of the existence of bigfoot. So my point stands: there is a suspicious imbalance in the state of the evidence -- "tens of thousands" of anecdotal experiences with no accompanying physical evidence to support them.
DeleteErgo, something else is going on.
When you have people from walks of life like geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, historians, wildlife biologists, primatologists, anthropologists, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners, forensic specialists, forestry commissioners reporting the exact same thing from unprovoked and impartial circumstances you have an issue to deal with called precessional consistency. More so when you put ocassions of mutiple eyewitness accounts where physical and biological evidence had been accumilated from the same site. When there is steady level of reports that span cultures, then mediums, then physical and biological evidence, then the reports by reliable professional people hold weight. The truth is that sheer frequency of professional people who are accustomed to decades worth of experience in wildlife and the wilderness account for much of the opinion and accounts to which from the basis of this field. Police officers for example, are trained in the art of observation and attention to detail.
DeleteThis is what I am referencing by anecdotal evidence.
Remarkably... This subject is none of my conjuring, quite an ironic reference when you rely on a magician for your religion. If Sasquatch didn't exist; then we wouldn't have trace evidence, and people wouldn't see them. It's as simple as that. You don't do anything to counter those sources so they stand for what they are. You're only angry and scared... This subject does challenge a lot of people's securities about the world around them, it's natural someone with a weakened sense of imagination and an inability to understand consistent data should take offense and attack those who aren't agenda opposed to the sources that roll in every year. I find it audacious that after so many scientifically reputable people should endorse this subject, that you should suggest any one else is closed minded. It's people like you I actually feel a little but sorry for, if I'm honest.
Wait a second Joe, you rail on and on about how the scientific community is not taking bigfoot research seriously, but then you make an argument that relies upon scientists to support your view!!!! Which is it?
DeleteAnd to state again, my point is not that there are not "tens of thousands" of anecdotal experiences and that you cannot concoct creative ways to make them seem credible, the thrust of my conclusion (which you have not addressed) is that the quantity of sightings does not jive with the meager quality of the physical evidence. So there must be something else going on.
Professor R. Lynn Kirlin, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Had this to say, after a year-long university of Wyoming-based study of the Bigfoot Recordings. “If Bigfoot is actually proven to exist, the vocalizations on these tapes may well be of great anthropological value, being a unique observance of the bigfoot in his natural environment.”
DeleteIn 1980, the University of British Columbia Press (Vancouver and London) published a book entitled:
Manlike Monsters on Trial
“Early records and modern evidence”
by Majorie M Halpin and Michael Ames
At the time, Marjorie M. Halpin was curator of ethnology in the Museum of Anthropology and an assistant professor in the anthropology department at the University of British Columbia. Michael Ames was director of the Museum of Anthropology and a professor in the anthropology department at the University of British Columbia. In this book, there is an article, expanded from an earlier conference presentation, entitled:
“Estimates of Pitch and Vocal Tract length from Recorded Vocalizations of Purported Bigfoot”
Written by Professor R. Lynn Kirlin and Lasse Hertel. This article includes, in addition to material presented the conference, data from Lasse Hertel, “An Application of Speech Processing Techniques to Recordings of Purported Bigfoot Vocalizations to Estimate Physical Parameters” (MS thesis, University of Wyoming, 1978). A brief summary from this paper is as follows:
“Having analyzed a tape recording of purported Bigfoot speech using accepted techniques of signal processing, the authors conclude that the means and ranges of the recorded pitch and estimated vocal tract length of the speakers indicate that the sounds were made by a creature with ‘vocal features corresponding to a larger physical size than man.’ They also conclude that the tape shows none of the expected signs of being prerecorded or rerecorded at an altered speed and hence diminish the probability of a hoax.”
“The results indicate more than one speaker, one or more of which is of larger physical size than an average human adult male. The formant frequencies found were clearly lower than for human data, and their distribution does not indicate that they were a product of human vocalizations and tape speed alteration. Although a time-varying speed could possibly produce such formant distributions, an objective hearing and the articulation rate do not support that hypothesis.”
“Statistical analysis was applied to groups of vocal tract estimates from different vocalizations, and a significant difference was found between the groups. When compared with human data the results indicated that there could possibly be three speakers, one of which is non-human. The average vocal tract length was found to be 20.2 cm. This is significantly longer than for a normal human male. Extrapolation of average estimators, using human proportions, gives height estimates of between 6’4″ and 8’2″.”
Professor R Lynn Kirlin and Lasse Hertel
"The rationale behind my own copying and pasting isn't to establish anything other than that your sources of "undisputed" proof are in fact highly questionable and debated."
DeleteNope, what your pastes did is offer yet another cynical take and didn't really debunk anything. This is what psuedoskeptics do so well, they find ellaborate ways of saying 'BS' and then pay themselves on the back like they're some wise old truth teller. Pretty cringing if I'm honest. Splayed toes can be from poor casting processes to which there are hundreds of amateurs, and we have reports of divergent toes in the species. The root of hair samples in fact supports my argument (pfffffffft).
"At best, they represent a scintilla of evidence (and that is being generous) of the existence of bigfoot."
Nope, I represent sources of evidence that have scientists applying consistent scientific method if both the accumilation and verification of such sources. What you represent, are explanations that are not without counter explanations... It's very, very simple. You only stop asking questions after it supports your preference... What you have left is a source that in comparison to any other source of submittable evidence, can be falsified.
"So my point stands: there is a suspicious imbalance in the state of the evidence -- "tens of thousands" of anecdotal experiences with no accompanying physical evidence to support them."
Here's a lovely cut and paste for you;
"The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."
And for all your special pleading, science is still not mouldable to your preference, and consistent scientific method states that there is evidence to which an unknown primate is leaving it.
Okay Joe I have to go, thanks for debating the matter -- you are certainly good at that. No hard feelings, just an interesting topic to discuss and I enjoy reading the views of believers to give me another perspective.
Delete"Wait a second Joe, you rail on and on about how the scientific community is not taking bigfoot research seriously, but then you make an argument that relies upon scientists to support your view!!!! Which is it?"
DeleteEvery developing field of scientific research needs it's pioneers. It's nothing compared to the right to ridicule though processes you adhere to when you have some of the greatest and excelled supporting the subject. It's still a minority I might add, but in no way deminshes it's significance. Prisoners are seen as ahead of the rest of the game.
"And to state again, my point is not that there are not "tens of thousands" of anecdotal experiences and that you cannot concoct creative ways to make them seem credible, the thrust of my conclusion (which you have not addressed) is that the quantity of sightings does not jive with the meager quality of the physical evidence. So there must be something else going on."
I would suggest that you in fact read other people's comments, old boy;
"jo**********ld verifiedThursday, July 31, 2014 at 12:58:00 PM PDT
When you have any level of physical and biological evidence to support whatever frequency of anecdotal evidence, then it might be news to you, but it is in fact unscientific to be reliant on a preconceived conclusion, to recline to a position that centres around not explaning adequately the data in question. There is actually nothing in scientific logic that determines that a small frequency of physical and biological data condemns the source it is in fact supporting. Very basic stuff, unless you are brainwashed, trying to brainwash someone, or are a free thinking Nazi."
2:14... You're very welcome sir. Likewise.
DeleteOh, and one very last thing... I have no reason to merely believe, because I am convinced by the evidence.
DeletePeace.
Pioneers (not prisoners)... Jeez, my spelling was atrocious right the way through that.
DeleteDamn iPhones.
Still pushing the same arguments as before Psuedo Joe. There's no winning with out a body :)
DeleteOh, bet all those libel and slander suits were from those people with something to lose by being exposed as frauds by Randi and co. When you know your goose is cooked call in the lawyers.
DeleteI love watching Joe get trolled into dust by this JREF footer. Please keep it up JREF. But you should know that Joe is a friend of the blog and a paid troll. You will not get any scientific arguement out of him. Just meaningless dribble meant to only further pointless conversation. This is how he trolls and what he is paid for. Just be aware that he is only here to troll. Now please proceed.
Delete^^^ schooled.
DeleteScience isn't mouldable to your preferences, it is a tool to analyising the data and does not start at type specimen, but a tool leading to that process.
It's fun pointing this out to those who are slightly behind.
looks like rictor gots him a bit of a love gravy smidge on his cheek
ReplyDeleteobamacare covers all your needs and its FREE
DeleteI haven't said it in a while but RICTOR THE RECTUM ROCKET ROCKS!!!!!
DeleteI bet you $100 you wouldn't say that why showeing nude with him.
DeleteIt appears tensions have eased in the latest footer war between the JREF tribe and the NAWAC clan. Things may heat up if the JREF footer tribe decide to finance a trip for that frothing at the mouth footer "Drew" to stage a one simpleton march on Washington to get the NAWAC'ers brought up on reckless endangerment charges. It'll be money well spent folks.
ReplyDelete""Drew" to stage a one simpleton march "
DeleteLOL !
WHAT THE !!!
DeleteOh please let this happen. The laughter will be good for us all.
Deleter.i.p dick wagner great rock guitarist
ReplyDeletenext to Jimmy Page
DeleteAlso next to SRV.
DeleteWHAT THE !!!
DeleteJimmy Page is dead??
Delete^ HE BE DEAD!
DeleteNO WAY
R.I.P. Dick Smith, amazing make up artist who had real talent as opposed to Munns
Deletemud butt fer yer safety
ReplyDeleteNSA fer all your SAFETY needs
DeleteIs Drew the idiot who fell in love with Mellissa Hovey? lol
ReplyDeleteHe sure is. She was also his mentor.
DeleteI thought that was the sad sorry ass. A normal fat woman maybe, but Hovey? She is one butt ugly c*nt
DeleteJoe for President !
ReplyDeleteI love watching Joe destroy the pretend skeptics that get in his way.
DeleteSup dork
Delete^
DeleteWilliam Parcher again? Come on man, you've spent several years of your worthless existence pretending to be a skeptic on JREF, sock puppeting on the BFF and posting here day and night. You're Bigfoot obsession is making you lose what little marbles you started with.
Joe nominating himself for president of a bigfoot blog. Classy. Troll on Joe, its what your paid to do.
DeleteWhy don't all footers march on the White House demanding respect
ReplyDelete"Wild Bill" The PHONY Marine!
DeleteChase your tails, bigfooters, chase your tails. This is more nothing.
ReplyDeleteRictor does that all the time. Anyway what happened to Team Tazer and the love? I see good old Merchant is having ago at Poling, Ro and Smeja. Didn't the bromance work out with all you guys?
Delete^
DeleteThen why do you believe ?
Believe in what? Leprechauns, I see them all the time, bigfoot nah.....
DeleteObviously you take bigfoot more seriously than Leprechauns.
DeleteI hate Leprechauns I got abused off one in the forest once. I saved one from under a rock and he granted me one wish, so I wished for a big cock...I never expected him to stick his in my ass. I've never had that off a Bigfoot no matter how many times I have mind spoke to them or shared a meal, braided their hair or give them a good tugging.
Delete^
DeleteThere's your JREF footer mentality folks.
^Mid Michigan CUUUUUUMMMMMIIIINNNNNGGGG
DeleteGot any Leprechaun tracks? Leprechaun sound recordings. Any multiple eye witness encounters. How About a nice vid of a female Leprechaun with her ti.. hanging out??????
Deletesure lots but only certain people are it the know have seen it.
DeleteRictor is so dumb.....Forrest Gump dumb even.
ReplyDeleteI agree. But then, Forest became a huge star so maybe a different reference should be in order?
Deleteat least this guy is up front about his sexuality,which doesn't bother me eitherway, I findit amusing that 99% of footers are also gay
ReplyDeleterunning about the woods at night under the pretence of hunting for a big hairy muscular man, is very homo erotic and a pursuit that straight me wouldn't take part in
ro sahebi, barrackaman, bobo, smeja rico, onesilot etc are all aledgdly closets. they are have camp mannerisms andmany are single. Probably where the film idea for 40year old virgin comes from
even the woman high profile female in squatchin is gay also
they are a strange bunch and I for one wouldn't be going on any trips into woods with these type of people
this guy is looking for bigfoot?
ReplyDeletehe cant even identify the orangutan in the background
baboon, no, chimpanzee, no
go back to school you dumb hillbilly fuck before you shoot some innocent kid in the woods