Colorado Springs Bigfoot?
This is so frustrating. This clip was brought to our attention by BFE reader Mark S. Mark discovered this video over earlier and was unable to see what the uploader is pointing out at the 10 second mark. Can anyone else? The uploader Sand0 writes: "Possible Sasquatch caught on camera @ the 10 second mark in this video. This was taken in the Garden of the Gods during October 2014. The woods where the possible Sasquatch was about 20 feed below the road where tourist are often parked."
Turdly
ReplyDeleteGarden of the Gods.Beautiful place we go 2-3 times a year. As do millions of others. There is no monkeyman there.
Deleteabsolutly beautiful country .
DeleteNothing there. Waste of time.
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to think there might be a trend starting in footery,its called hoaxing.I know I'm as shocked as the rest of you but it might be possible that since every film is a hoax...there just may not be a monkeyman.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. I wouldnt stop there though. I can say with 100% certainty that bigfoot does not exist.
DeleteCircular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
Didnt read any of that.
DeleteWhy on earth would i have a monkey suit?
Strange individual.
Yes, you didn't read any of it because that would require you having literary maturity to fathom it, and people like you are here to self serve reassurance, as opposed to reading other people's opinions.
DeleteIf all sources of footage are a hoax, go get a monkey suit. You've been told this every day you've decided to post here for the past three years... And I'm strange? I don't think strangeness is your issue so much stupidity.
Yawn wheres the big fella?
Delete4:21 is here more than I am, and I know Bigfoot exists. I'm going with financial issues, he has way too much time on his hands. I'm sure unemployment can be hard, but this is just his way of lashing out due to the stress. Keep trying 4:21, you can do it.
DeleteWell i know bigfoot dont exist. Therefore you are wrong.
DeleteThen why are you here everyday? Then why bother? Surely you would have more important things to do.
Delete^^ doesn't
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
DeleteGet a teacher to help with the big words.
wow ! ^ , 2 sentances,,you're learning.
Deleteglad to help the handicapped !
Dr B Sykes
Online Trolls are literally losers according to study
ReplyDeleteI do not need some stinking study to know online trolls are losers. I have seen them, I know they are.
DeleteChuck
Before the Internet trolls faced getting lit up.
DeleteBigfoot doesn't exist according to reality.
Delete^ third prayer of the day.
Deleteiktomijoe,, aka, "KING TROLL"!!!!!
Deletelol, yup ! just too EASY!
Dr B S
Love the first line, "This is so frustrating . . .". better get used to that when you hunt for imaginary creatures!
ReplyDeleteImaginary creatures don't leave physical sign on the environment, Einstein.
Delete"Duuuuuuuuh, Bigfoot don't exist..."
Prove it kid.
Deletehttp://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
DeleteJust did.
You proved that you are delusional yes
DeleteUh, uh, uhhhhhhhh... Be a big boy and find a countering scientific opinion, now... There's a good lad.
Delete: )
"Bigfoot dont exist"
DeleteEvery scientist ever
"The evidence is not there because scientists who have not studied it say it isn't... Also the evidence does not exist because Sasquatch doesn't exist (circular logic fallacy)."
Delete"Every scientst ever" except for those better qualified who say otherwise.
Bigfoot is real. There have been too many credible sightings over many decades to dismiss it out of hand. What we have is a very rare intelligent primate that is extremely shy.
ReplyDeleteAre there hoaxes? Is there wishful thinking by bigfoot enthusiasts? Of course. I personally believe that bigfoot do not exist anywhere outside of the Pacific Northwest.
Make that thousands of years of sightings.
DeleteThere have been extensive trail camera projects in that area proving there are no bigfoots there let alone anywhere else.
DeleteShould Sasquatch have the perfect blend of both animalistic and human attributes to their evasion, then it would be an extremely difficult creature to spot, unless it makes the odd mistake or is partial to bouts of curiosity (both very much being the case). An experiment shows that chimpanzees have startling photographic memories; they easily beat humans. From the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University;
Deletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz7ShiQqLQg
Both animals and humans obviously leave sign of their passage in addition to tracks. These include chewed or bruised vegetation, droppings, scratches in tree bark, hairs snagged on branches or in bark, rubbings on trees, gnawed bones, feathers, opened nuts, dens, burrows, and nests. You may also find well-worn trails and runways through the grass that many animals use regularly. These signs may not be obvious at first, but with practice, you will see them. If Sasquatch somehow had Photographic memories as well as the level of sentience as humans, all this could be why they see sign of human interference and things like trail cams having been erected.
There's a reason why the very best trackers in the world refer to them as things like "Boss of the Woods".
I believe smell has a lot to do with it. Imagine an animal that could smell like a deer, but had a mind of an primate. They would be next to impossible to find.
DeleteInventing attributes that you can not prove as an excuse to why you cant find them. Pathetic.
DeleteWho is inventing attributes? Simply stating a possibility which makes sense.
DeleteNo. You are starting with the conclusion that bigfoot exists and then bending over backwards to explain the lack of evidence. It is intellectual dishonesty.
DeleteDetails on primates having photographic memories = fact.
DeleteDetails on tracking physical sign = fact.
Reason to invest enthusiasm on the existence of a creature such as this = dermals, hair, audio & footage.
Warranted to theorise as to how such. A creature therefore evades in line with available date = logically scientific.
Our room to theorize is in fact your biggest obstacle on the flip side, especially when you fail so miserably in showing us that the evidence for such a creature isn't there.
6:09... We are starting with the premise that Sasquatch exists because we have the intelligence and lack agenda to acknowledge the evidence. There is no lack of evidence, except in your version of events, because from this premise you don't look stupid trying to explain the evidence away, which makes you rhetorical, in denial, stupid and intellectually dishonest.
Delete" These include chewed or bruised vegetation, droppings, scratches in tree bark, hairs snagged on branches or in bark, rubbings on trees, gnawed bones, feathers, opened nuts, dens, burrows, and nests."
DeleteSounds like many opportunities to collect DNA for analysis. A perfect memory isn't going to interfere with a DNA test.
So it's either the incompetence of every bigfoot researcher ever, or bigfoot does not exist that explains the complete lack of tangible proof.
Utter drivel.
DeleteUtter rubbish.
Utter twadle.
"Sounds like many opportunities to collect DNA for analysis. A perfect memory isn't going to interfere with a DNA test."
Delete... It does! To which keep coming back human. You know this of course, Donald. It's not so much incompetence or a question of existence, than it is your rhetorical approach to the subject matter.
Lol the old bigfoot is human bait n switch. Footery was at least plausible when it was the big dumb ape of the 60s.
DeleteExplain how it is rhetorical please. I raised a valid question.
DeleteIt's ironic that you use words like rhetorical when you don't even really know what they mean, solely for style or effect.
Sorry you're behind the times, 6:46, and here in lies the issue with you I think... Your bipedal gorrilla didn't show (it never was) and now you're a little bitter?
DeleteIt is rhetorical because you have been a party to many exchanges with not only myself about the state of DNA evidence, yet you ask the question like there is no matter.
"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."
DeleteIs there any DNA proof of bigfoot? No? Then I don't really care about exchanges with you on the matter. Exchanges with you are simply you cutting and pasting nonsense you find on the internet.
DeleteNot exactly edifying.
Scientific consensus, huh? Funny that you would quote something like that. Where is the scientific consensus on bigfoot? Oh yeah, the evidence does not support the claim. That is the consensus.
DeleteJoe just got BLOWN THE F UCK OUT. No wonder he wont dare show his face on the ISF.
DeleteDonald, there is no DNA "proof" for Sasquatch, because most enthusiasts are still expecting some sort of new primate classification, let alone "sceptics" who would expect the same of a creature they don't even find credible (wonderfully logical! Sarcasm of course).
DeleteThis is why DNA, though it exists, will largely be useless until someone finds a specimen to compare such DNA, or the wider understanding of what we're dealing with sinks in with everyone.
The premise you allude to is set by people who aren't interested enough to even know the evidence exists, let alone actually analyse the evidence impartially. The scientific consensus by those who have actually looked at the evidence, is that there is likely something to the evidence. You should consider their expertise one time, you might even learn something.
7:12... The cheerleader who always sniffs around Donald's backside, regardless of whatever futile ramblings he posts, who would want to go over to there? Those fundies are a scary lot... I'm quite happy waiting around here and responding to the copy and pastes people like you post, and take their mantras apart accordingly.
DeleteOk. If you wont i will be signing up and copy pasting your arguments on there. Youre welcome:)
DeleteYou always were incapable of finding your own arguments, eh? How's that Smithsonian email response coming along, how's that Andy White chap going for you?
DeleteTotal, pathetic, little whimp.
: p
Every time the evidence is analyzed it fails to support the claim. Every. Single. Time. Yet, you want to pretend that alleged bigfoot evidence never gets looked at by science. It does. It just fails miserably, so you pretend it does not happen.
Delete"Every time the evidence is analyzed it fails to support the claim."
Delete... Donald, you'll have no issue in finding an equivalent collective expert opinion on this then;
http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
... You MUST support your ideas with data, you must do this Don or there is no substance to your claims.
You lost me at "woodape.org"
DeleteLOL
The site isn't relevant, the paper that has a long line of forensic experts in it, is.
DeleteLollaz.
Joe, you cite a crypto source. How about something actually respected? How about a scientific journal? Once you present something that has been published in a scientific journal, then it will attract attention and generate opinion. Until then, it only attracts fringe nutters like you.
DeleteThe data that supports my opinion is the complete lack of a bigfoot. There are supposedly thousands of bigfoots running around the world and not one iota of proof that they even exist.
Got bigfoot proof to support your ideas? No? Then pull that tin foil hat down a little tighter and keep on "researching" you lunatic twat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo Donald, I cite a paper by Grover Krantz; a very repurable anthropologist that has many of the world's leading forensic experts supporting his ideas... That's in a website designed for Sasquatch research. What you have in that paper, is anything akin to what people normally adhere to from peer review processes, in that a series of the most qualified people to analyse the data have done impartially. What's the difference? Are they not credible because they deliver a positive conclusion? Is this ad hominem because it is not published in Nature? Surely the most qualified forensic people around wouldn't be so concerned with such a fringe topic now, would they? You see, what you are doing, is attempting one of your most utilised fallacies; a suppression of evidence fallacy. Until you find a qualified opinion to counter that which is in that paper, then there is no reason to doubt that long line of experts delivering consistent scientific method.
DeleteThe data that appears to "support your opinion" is no body, but here in lies the second of your most utilised fallacies; a negative proof fallacy. Because there is no body, that does not make you logically sound in pushing a "version" of the legitimacy of this subject. You don't get to call BS on the topic because audaciously, you can't support your ideas or contest the physical evidence that exposes your negative proof fallacy; that's some pretty narcissistic stuff right there. Research doesn't start at conclusion, and considering the steady influx of evidences, in scientific logic we might simply have not come to that conclusive stage of research just yet.
I haven't got "Bigfoot proof to support my ideas", I have the physical evidence of an unclassified bipedal primate to support them... Don't like it? Grow up and deal with it sucker, cause I love seeing you blubber away like some intellectual throw back whenever I cite the evidence you simply have nothing to counter.
: p
So, what journal was that paper published in originally?
DeleteContest the science Donald.
DeleteSo, no journal then?
DeleteYou have science... Go take a looksy.
DeleteYep, no journal.
Delete... Yet science. Sweet, sweet, consistent, pure science.
Delete"Leading academic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a "tyranny" that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner who has declared a boycott on the publications.
DeleteRandy Schekman, a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine this year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would no longer send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science.
Schekman said pressure to publish in "luxury" journals encouraged researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make a splash."
"These journals aggressively curate their brands, in ways more conducive to selling subscriptions than to stimulating the most important research. Like fashion designers who create limited-edition handbags or suits, they know scarcity stokes demand, so they artificially restrict the number of papers they accept. The exclusive brands are then marketed with a gimmick called "impact factor" – a score for each journal, measuring the number of times its papers are cited by subsequent research. Better papers, the theory goes, are cited more often, so better journals boast higher scores. Yet it is a deeply flawed measure, pursuing which has become an end in itself – and is as damaging to science as the bonus culture is to banking."
- Randy Schekman
If all else fails, attack the process...LOL.
Delete... More like, if all else fails in countering science, move the goal posts to a process that has some of the best minds calling for reform. I could go on and on about your beloved peer review process too, in that it's been manipulated to lie to the scientific community. Using your logic; this process should be thrown out for not being reliable now that there's examples of it being falsified... Right?
DeleteGoodnight America.
You're complaining because your evidence is weak or non-existent and the majority do not accept it. Do not try to obscure that with "the system is broke". Your problem is at a fundamental level.
DeleteAdmit it folks, if it wasn't for Joe/Iktomi we'd all be watching porn on our computer screen right now
Delete"You're complaining because your evidence is weak or non-existent and the majority do not accept it."
DeleteOk, allow me to walk you through this as I normally do when I'm baby sitting, I'm very far from complaining, I've got the forensic physical evidence that you cannot even attempt to explain away, and this is "weak or non-existent". If this evidence is so weak and so many do not accept it, then you will have no issue with finding an equivalent scientific opinion against it, no? Again... I'm car from complaining darling, I'm celebrating you and your kind having their safe little world crumble around them.
"Do not try to obscure that with "the system is broke". Your problem is at a fundamental level."
... Audacious to chronic levels, darling. It is not I who maintains the system is broke, it is people who encompass Nobel Prize winners, if you didn't notice? Considering you silly people are hypocritically deflecting to journals when you have yet to counter the forensic sign I have sourced you, I would say the fundamentals of your stance I kind of in need of reassessing, you dig?
As John W. Jones Spoke told me some time ago, many 'bigfoot researchers' are to lazy, to scared, lack hunting experience,woodsmenship to go after this creatures. They (The researchers) just don't want to put the time in, or travel really deep into the wilderness to get the evidence that is needed to prove they exist. Most are "Weekend Road footers" that are mostly middle-aged, pot belly, out of shape men. If they DO go into the woods, after a mile of hiking, they are out of breath and tired.
ReplyDelete95% of "Researchers fit into the above categories, and B/C of this no real hard Physical evidence is being found.
That doesn't prove that there is physicial evidence to be found in the first place.
Deletehttp://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
Delete6:10... Do you actually understand that "physical evidence" means? Something tells me you don't.
Very true Blowhard. In his book Big Footprints, Dr. Grover Krantz suggested that a lone professional big game hunter with extensive tracking experience could stay in the wilderness for weeks and likely track and kill a bigfoot. However, as you eluded to, this kind of expert experience is not being used.
DeleteNot one specimen.
ReplyDeleteI can tell you believe. You just don't want to admit it.
DeleteYour bias is coming through in multiple ways.
DeleteIt's not bias, you're here. Your actions speak louder than words ever will.
DeleteYour actions say you lack evidence and need to resort to ad hominems in an attempt to boost your argument.
Delete6:07... No MODERN specimen; negative proof fallacy.
DeleteYou got nothing haha
DeleteWe got everything just short, keep praying four times daily, chump.
DeleteSo nothing then ha ha
Delete"Duuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh??????"
Delete"We got everything just short, keep praying four times daily, chump."
DeleteThat's a load of BS and you know it.
Foothage, audio, thermal, hairs, dermals, scat, bones DNA... Yes chump, we've got it all but a modern type specimen on the slab.
DeleteLet me know should you come from behind the couch and man up to listen to it.
I highly recommend this area for vacationing. Stayed in nearby Manitou Springs last summer. You have the Garden of the Gods, Caves of the Cliff Dwellers (where you can study the ancient architecture of the Anasazi), and of course Bigfoot hotspot Pike's Peak.
ReplyDeleteIn 1988, a Green Mountain Falls resident (just west of Pike's Peak) heard a strange banging on his house at night. When he went out to see what caused the commotion, he found large human-like footprints in the snow, and then he saw two large hairy creatures running down the road. Another local reported that their cat had a scuffle with an unknown creature and there had been a break-in. Fur left on the broken screen door was taken for testing but wasn't conclusively identified as being from a bear, human, dog or any other known creature.
As always, NC chimes in with the comment of the day!! Thanks for that NC, fascinating!!
Delete: )
DeleteNice comments NC. Wonder why it is they like to bang on or slap houses, or in my case knock on the window. I really think in most cases it is a game for them, just like to mess with us on occassion.
ReplyDeleteIn other cases for the ones that migrate a bit it might be a signal that hey I'm back.
Chuck
There are no bigfoots knocking on your house. Get a grip.
DeletePerhaps a housing material they're not familiar with? Experts got your pick Abdullah putting up a combined total of 1,100 yards this season.
Delete"... Said 7:29, sweating profusely and climbing on to the couch. The shrink sighs, wipes his brow, removes his jacket... He knows he's in for another tough night.
DeleteTry telling a shrink you believe in bigfoot and see how that works out for you.
DeleteI'm pretty sure given his field, he'd be inclined to LISTEN to the evidence, don't you think, Einstein?
DeleteLike Clear TV, Bigfoot is for real!
ReplyDelete