Saturday, October 31, 2015

Bigfoot In The Ozarks Is It Fact Or Fiction?


KSPR 33 in Missouri asks the question "Does bigfoot really live in the Ozarks?" Missouri and the area of the Ozarks are rich in bigfoot history. Sightings come in from the Show Me State on a yearly basis. They even have their own special bigfoot creature called "MoMo" which is short for Missouri Monster.

"Missouri has a long history of Bigfoot activity," says Bigfoot researcher. "News reports dating all the way back to the 1800s, the Kansas City Star, the New York Times have reports about the Wildman of the Ozarks."

Dozens of people across the Ozarks every year claim they see the ape-like creature. And the reports may not be from people you’d think.

"To this day, we still receive witness reports from people with character, police officers, college professors, scientists, doctors and lawyers," said Ron Boles.

"That Sasquatch are persistent mystery that have been in records in sightings and drawings for thousands of years," said Cliff Barackman of "Finding Bigfoot."

Ron Boles, the man who heads up the local chapter of the Bigfoot Research Organization and Cliff Barackman, the man behind Animal Planet’s “Finding Bigfoot” say a lot of people are fascinated with the idea of Sasquatch.

"I think that the idea of a real monster that is so similar to us walking around really grabs our attention," said Barackman.

And these investigators say there’s evidence.

Watch: Fact or Fiction- Bigfoot in the Ozarks Part 2

40 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. And a first for Iktomi and FFS and TK the owners of bad trolls xx

      Delete
  2. http://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Untitled-410.jpg

    xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because this site went sour and the cool posters left. Who wants to read this crap every day.(no pun intended).

      Delete
  3. Fact or fiction? I'm going with fiction.

    Bigfoot only exist in the Pacific Northwest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judging from all the videos I have seen here I believe they exist wherever you want them to exist.

      Delete
  4. So Dr. Kevin Johnson has never had a direct sighting of one so they must be something else and do not exist. Boy that is some science. Tell you what Dr. Johnson - get out from behind those computers you feeble moroon and park your rear end in any section of the Mark Twain National Forest for a month. Or better yet go with Mike Brookreson to his old stomping grounds a little further to the east on one of his excursions there and you just might come back with the surprise of your life. It ain't going to happen behind a desk.
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What form of autism do you have Chuck?

      Delete
    2. I find it laughable when any footer tells someone to get out from behind a computer and go hunt. Even with their army of "researchers" out there which we see videos of here everyday they always come up empty.

      Yes, come join us in our fantasy game, Support us so we don't feel like total idiots. Make us feel good about ourselves and that out time is not being wasted.

      Seems to me you guys are the ones who should be questioning your methods. As far as Mike Brookreson (comedy genius) goes - what exactly convincing evidence has come out of that?

      Delete
    3. ^ watch me post the physical evidence that blows this loser's "fantasy" argument out of the water, and make him look like a hypocritical fat nerd that's never been out in the woods.

      We have no need to be overly questionable of any of the methods used, because it accounts for every type of evidence short of a modern type specimen, and if something doesn't exist, it doesn't leave tracks.

      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVduOfaFsarC3b9Vb9R5YGA
      ... Plenty of cool evidence on Mike's channel, and you're only jealous because you're a fat nerd that's never amounted to anything in your life, let alone make anyone laugh with your childish toilet humour, homophobia and racism.

      Now shut up and sit down, fat nerd.

      Delete
    4. Hit a nerve eh? Reality burns sometimes and you can post all your so-called "evidence" all you want but the reality is you have proved NOTHING. Yes, your "evidence" is subjective, open to interpretation and has done nothing to convince mainstream science of your cause. Why don't you take your "evidence" over to the ISF? If you can convince THOSE guys than I might begin to think you might have a case. But all you do is preach to the choir - to those who WANT to believe already. You post the same "evidence" over and over and over because it's the best you've got to work with and expect others to waste their valuable time countering every single point which you won't accept anyway. I've seen it done many times here and you just ignore what people post to the contrary because you don't WANT to believe it so why bother? Your mind is completely made up and because a few (very few) may be impressed that you "blow my argument out of the water" you think you win. It makes you feel good to be an authority on a creature which for all this time and effort has escaped official recognition. If you receive such harsh criticism right here on a pro-Bigfoot site can you imagine what you would receive in a legitimate science forum?

      Jealous? Of Mike Brookreason??? Why on earth would I be jealous of him? What exactly is the convincing evidence that he has produced?

      So you end with personal insults . . . I understand - that's all you have left. Just go back to playing your little "it exists" game. It is fun isn't it? I suppose it's no worse than believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and it probably harms no one. You and others will be waiting all your life for that proof you seek but at least you will have fun doing it. Maybe that's the whole point.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Hit a nerve? No, not really... Not as much as the day you got so bitter when you read someone else get a compliment about their wit when you've tried so, so hard to get a laugh around here since you progressed from pulling yourself off half to death on the internet every given hour.... But back to that shortly...

      I can certainly post the evidence all I want, and I fully intend to, because for all your denial, typical rhetorical games, side stepping and ad hominen, you have NOTHING to explain it away... The best you have is to ignore it's existence in the very next comment like some sort of cyber psycho who experiences perverse levels of denial. What I have proved by the state of evidence, is that there is evidence... That to someone who's best argument is "there is no evidence", purely because you need a leg up to the big boys debating level, is as significant as you would prefer to swallow kid.

      Oh... And you'll notice that "Anatomy and Dermatoglyphics of Three Sasquatch Footprints", by Grover Krantz has been posted here on the JREF before;
      http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42523&page=38
      ... You'll notice not a peep as a means of a counter argument regarding the expert opinion on dermals. So don't tell me I need to go anywhere kid, your heroes have NEVER had a counter argument for the evidence I reference, and never will. Silly, little, naive, fat nerd who needs to know his subject matter before spouting how other people should think.

      And why wouldn't I post something that you and your heroes can't contend with? And this is it... You demand the evidence, I present it, you counter it (not you directly, you're too dense), and then I quash the closure desperation with scientific facts... And the evidence stands. This is how it works, if you don't like it, then it is now your cue to counter it. My mind is completely made up, alright... Because I am ten steps ahead of you, I have researched even your own best argument angles before you have and would be illogical, stupid or in denial to not consider the data to stand up afterwards. Who cares if lesser qualified scientists don't know it exists, not even enough enthusiasts do... Science is science and if it's solid then that's your problem kid, not mine. Making idiots of people like you is what makes me feel good.

      "Jealous? Of Mike Brookreason??? Why on earth would I be jealous of him? What exactly is the convincing evidence that he has produced?"
      ... And here we are, the cyber psycho who needs to deny, deny, deny so as to not look silly trying to counter the evidence. Again, here is his evidence;
      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVduOfaFsarC3b9Vb9R5YGA
      ... Now be a big boy and take responsibility for you burden, and prove that the evidence in that link isn't what it is. Not even your heroes use logical fallacies regarding negative proof any more, it's time to grow up.

      No... What I have is solid scientific data that you and your heroes cannot and will not explain away to your satisfaction AND insults for someone who spends his sad little existence somewhere that he not only finds disagreeable, but fails so miserably trying to prove what is allegedly so obvious to actually be the case, for all his time spent.

      And you're jealous of Mike B.

      : )

      Delete
    7. LOL - I believe your under the delusion that I am someone else but no matter. I read, laugh and make posts here once in a while and chuckle at your constant battle with the kids who post.

      We all know what would end this argument one and for all - a body. That would shut up every skeptic, silence every doubter and make fools of all the scientists who say it can't exist. Wouldn't that be a wonderful day for you - to actually be vindicated for all the scorn you have been through? Problem is you don't have that body. Now why is that? We have supposedly know of them for a long time, have "researchers" out constantly looking for them, have a high level of technology to get the job done and I could go on and on. From reading on this site there must be thousands of them roaming all around the country so surely just one would slip up. But still here we are still arguing over their existence. Now even you, the high priest of Bigfoot belief have to have doubt creeping into your faith. What good is your "solid scientific data" when it is not recognized by the world as such? What good is it when it's just presented on Bigfoot sites that most never read?

      In any case sport, knock yourself out. I'll continue to laugh and post as time provides. Keep providing that "scientific evidence" and lets see where that gets you. No burden on me - I'm not the one needs to produce a specimen.

      Yeah - I DID hit a nerve. Reality hurts sometimes.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. No, you're the regular bitter poster who name drops Mike B. I know your logical fallacies and rhetorical approaches to facts well. Argh yes, the safety net argument that has no bearing on the legitimacy of this subject... A body. Well, we already know that large human-like skeletons with prehistoric morphology have been documented by scientific big hitters for 150 years... That consists of three generations of scientists who can't be lying in the name of science, right? What a conspiracy that would be, eh?

    For 20 years of research and technology, we In fact have everything just short of that MODERN giant, prehistoric looking skeleton. Now, because there is so many evidences, one forensic in nature that you and your heroes can't seem to counter, one might simply deduce that should this creature exist (and if something doesn't exist, it doesn't leave it's physical sign), that it simply has successfully evaded being tracked for all this time. There has never been a consorted professional effort (that we know of) from mainstream science to tackle such a mystery; so this is why we're seemingly so bad at finding a body. One cannot easily compare this creature to the many beautiful but dumb animals mainstream science recognised a long time ago, because it is far more intelligent than an any animal by it's descriptions of being so human. So, from here we can theorise on methods of burial based on some of the earliest and most primitive hominids that we know of, that still had the capacity for some level of culture in concealing remains. 70% of the US is wilderness, which suddenly puts into perspective how hard a job locating a cadaver of this nature would be. Oh... And before you suggest that this is simply nonsense, there are plenty of missing hunters, and only a few days ago on this blog, was an article posted with photographic evidence of a large, very tall, robust human skeleton, to which there are 150 years of accompanying reports from reliable science journals. If you didn't already get the hint... Sasquatch are very tall, robust, wild humans.

    So what good is it merely being posted here? Well, the average ignorant on the street takes his mind bending to the next pseudosceptic worshiping Scientism, and one by one the ignorants fall whilst more and more become aware of the evidence. What better place than to promote it, other than a BLOG CALLED BIGFOOT EVIDENCE, right? In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. Your extraordinary claim is that there is nothing to thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports, that have 150 years of documented giant skeletal remains, that in turn have modern physical evidence to support, is non-existent. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

    Reality is you being out of your depth... And you'll hit a nerve in me the day you get close to lifting that burden, not before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh... And I'll be along in the morning to answer anything left here.

      Delete
    2. Itkomi it's time to give up. You just get butt f ucked on here day after day. Your such a dopey turd. It's time you removed the d ick from your mouth and joined the real world. You will never prove that Bigfoot exists because Bigfoot doesn't exist. In conclusion, your a cum guzzling s hit farmer and I bet you smell.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Argh yes... The racist homophobe, small man with a small ****. I'll be butt ******* when one of your denialist kind lift that burden, chump.

      Answer me something... How does it feel to not only be too stupid to comment on the subject matter, but be a total loser at even turd hurling?

      Delete
    5. You really have nothing better to do than argue with anonymous trolls day after day, do you?

      You should consider a physical hobby.

      Delete
    6. Ha ha - looks like I'm not your only fan judging from the last couple of posts lktomi. Please point me to me which museum I may view these large human-like skeletons which you refer to. Even your beloved "Lovelock skull" is disputed as being something other than a human. Every bit of evidence you point to can be disputed in fact. Matt Crowley has shown dermal ridges can be faked and are unreliable. Mid-tarsal breaks are not indicative of Bigfoot. There is nothing you can produce that is evidence beyond a shadow of doubt even you post it over and over. It just won't stick. I think you have it backwards - it is those who believe Bigfoot exists making the extraordinary claim and the burden is upon them to produce the SPECIMEN. It's really that simple.

      Actually I'm rather fond of Mike (he's a comedy genius but then you know that better than anyone). It's just that beyond all the bravado he has produced nothing of substance. I would think in that territory one would have the very best chance of tracking one down if they are as prevalent in that area as he claims. I have to believe the one that brings in a Bigfoot would reap riches beyond his/her wildest dreams so there would be plenty of incentive.

      It continues to amaze me how much you seem to know about their habits, appearance, abilities and intelligence in light of the fact that so many reports differ on those subjects and we have never had a specimen. One would say you hypothesize these traits as to cover every contingency why we cannot capture one. Take the missing hunters you mentioned - they could fall victim to an accident, being lost, attacked by a bear - all sorts of things. But you immediately raise the conclusion that a Bigfoot could be involved. Not good science there at all.

      For the record I have never used obscene taunts and names to make you look foolish. Your posts simply do that very well on their own. Now run along with your "superfriends" and have fun with your "Bigfoot exists" game. It is such fun to play isn't it?

      Delete
    7. Firstly... How's the bet Danny?

      Secondly... I can't show you where these skeletons are now, I doubt many who currently work at The Smithsonian would be able to locate any few of millions of artefacts that they have in storage. The Smithsonian Institution's Museum Support Center (MSC) for example is a collections storage and conservation facility in Suitland, Maryland which houses Smithsonian collections which are not on display in the museums. It is not usually open to the public, due to security concerns. More than 54 million collections items are housed at the MSC. This comprises approximately 40 percent of the Smithsonian's collection which is not on display, while the rest of the objects are housed behind-the-scenes in the museums themselves or at other off-site storage facilities. Termed "the nation's attic" for its eclectic holdings of 138 million items, the Institution's Washington, D.C., nucleus of nineteen museums, nine research centers, and zoo, many of them historical or architectural landmarks, is the largest such complex in the world. Additional facilities are located in Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York City, Virginia, Panama and elsewhere, and 168 other museums are Smithsonian Affiliates... The bones could be anywhere in all that, what we know is that they most certainly had them, because science bureaus don't lie. Three whole generations of scientists don't lie... Quite a conspiracy that would be, right? And again... Only a few days ago on this blog, was an article posted with photographic evidence of a large, very tall, robust human skeleton, to which there are 150 years of accompanying reports from reliable science journals. If you didn't already get the hint... Sasquatch are very tall, robust, wild humans.

      "You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation). Greg Little makes the argument that there were more very tall individuals excavated from those mounds in the Eastern Woodlands than we would expect by chance (given the distribution of stature in a "normal" human population). He may be right about that, and I suspect that is the angle of your argument also. I haven't spent a lot of time looking at those cases yet, but I'll get there."
      - none other than one of our heroes Andy White PhD

      When folklore manifests in physical, forensic evidence and there is a hominid fossil trail spanning 150 years of scientific documentation, then put your big boy pants can bring me something substantial other than circular logic and attacks on the characters of proponents. Take some responsibility for your claims and actually counter the data presented at long last, instead of denying I've referenced anything in the very next comment, you're not on the school yard any more.

      Oh... And According to Andy White PhD, the skull from Humboltd (Lovelock) is prehistoric, with an occipital bun he couldn't find a comparison for any known modern human... This attached to a culture that for thousands of years maintained an ancient cannibalistic tribe had always been there.

      Delete
    8. "One of the forensic experts I am referring to, is Jimmy Chulcutt. I believe the casting process that has allegedly imitated biological dermals were by Matt Crowley. Contrary to popular awareness, Jimmy Chilcutt is very adamant that the prints he endorses to have sincere dermals are genuine (though the actual prints are different they still have the same texture and ridge flow pattern, like a humans however twice the size). Chilcutt stated that even Crowley (who's far more enthusiastic than what "sceptics" would prefer) has stated that even he feels that Walla Walla casts are genuine (25mins in the link below).
      http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/03/

      Basically, artificial desiccation has it's own uniform style that does not match any one school of alleged Sasquatch traits, whilst the only way to mimic dermals is by Crowleys' method under laboratory methods, which the average Joe attempting to hoax wouldn't be aware of or have access to. On the 36mins mark of the link above, the casting tile that Crowley sent Jimmy Chilcutt was covered in artificial ridge artefacts from the pouring process. The three casts in question that Chilcutt examined didn't have this... This is because when you are walking barefoot on the forest floor, the foot comes in contact with both fallen leaves and the soil in making an impression. Therefore, these artefacts would be present in consistency right across the different soil areas of the foot fall and they're not. The delta ridges on prints change directions over 45 degrees; they converge and deviate. This is a major indicator that the dermals are biological and as Chulcutt states, these do not appear on any of the artefacts.

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36334-suit-possibly-key-to-final-hoax-proof/page-5

      ... in link directly above, half way down the page, you will see a comparison of casting artefacts and biological dermals. My main emphasis of dermal ridges not even compared to Crowley's artificial casts, are on the morphology of the three Elk Wallow track casts, which show the greatest detail, especially in terms of the pattern of dermal ridges that were observed in the actual impressions pre-casting, and that has been preserved in parts of the plaster casts afterwards."

      To hoax convincing biological dermatoglyphics, one would have to have a knowledge of both human primate and non-human primate dermals and there are really not that many people on the planet that qualified. They then would have to have a lottery win's chance of faking the same biological idea that exceeds decades and States, and THEN fool multiple forensic experts. And this is it, forensic sign simply is not falsifiable. You will be very hard pressed to find a single example of where this has been the case; especially when it comes to a long line of forensic experts all coming to the same conclusion on a matter;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      Delete
    9. More to follow as I rip your comment apart as casually as swatting a little fly...

      (yawn)

      Delete
    10. Basic life you lead. Time has shown your color and merits to be a false bravado.

      4 years later and you've cemented your legacy as a Do Nothing B",tch

      Delete
    11. Yes, yes all that writing and I can simply refute it all with one simple sentence.

      If Bigfoot exists why do we not have a body?

      You can't show me giant skeletons but can provide stories. You can show me a prehistoric skull but you can't confirm it's from a Bigfoot because you have no specimen to compare it too. You may have prints with dermal ridges but you cannot say they came from a bigfoot. That is putting the chicken before the egg. Things such as this can be hoaxed and misinterpreted but you cling to this like it's the holy grail.

      Believe what you want but you know and I know . . . hell, EVERYONE knows it will not be accepted as existing without a specimen. You have so-called Bigfoot experts going to every hotspot where they are reported to be and after 7 seasons, 69 episodes and 12 specials have come up with nothing, nada, zip. This is the face of Bigfoot being presented to national and international audiences. People now tune in not expecting to find bigfoot but the comedy relief of watching Bobo stumbling around and acting like a clown. We can locate terrorists in a foreign land trying to evade detection but we can't even locate a 7-8 foot tall creature in our own back yard and even in sparse desert-like areas? Look at the daily videos of "researchers" seen right here on this site and what do we have? Fallen sticks, distant howls, wood knocking, faint prints in the grass - hardly convincing evidence to anyone . . . except to those who will grasp at any straw to advance their case.

      STILL waiting on that paper by Sykes and Ketchum's collaborating evidence. Tick tock as you say.

      Delete
    12. So!!

      What did my long copy and paste prove with your silly rehashed mantra about dermals? We proved that casting artefacts have no comparable qualities that authentic biological traits have, and to maintain otherwise would be settling for a grossly lesser standard that amounts to pseudoscience: a belief or practice which lacks scientific status. For example; Crowley is not remotely scientifically qualified to comment on forensic sign, whereas the forensic experts I reference are... What's more, is you settle for something that does not remotely look like biological dermals, you really can't get anymore antiscientific really. Mid-tarsal breaks are in fact indicative of human lineage from two million years ago. Scientists have discovered that about one in thirteen people have flexible ape-like feet. Pair this in casts that have biological dermals, and you get what amounts to the physical sign of what Sasquatch typically are; ancient humans from our lineage.

      And I "have it backwards"? Ok, let's try this angle of walking you through scientific logic. I make the claim that prehistoric humans are still sharing the planet with us, that is indeed now my burden to present evidence to support that premise. Now, when I submit the evidence, the requirement is for you to show that such evidence doesn't stand, not reference the opinion of someone who is less qualified with data that doesn't stand up, and not bypass it because I as of yet have no conclusion to that evidence. There is nothing in scientific logic that makes that joke of an outlook correct, because to abide by that would be requesting that someone present proof of a premise before presenting the premise, is a suppression of evidence fallacy, and goes against nearly very consorted scientific effort in history that has yielded a significant scientific breakthrough. Now... Should I then proceed further to delivering more evidence based on my burden, referencing another three sources of scientific data that has not one shred of equivalent to condemn it, that transitions thousands of years of cultural references, it is now your burden in being critical to that data to deliver. In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. Your extraordinary claim is that there is nothing to thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports, that have physical evidence to support. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. Data... If it exists then it can be scientifically tested, therefore requiring no assumptions on it's existence either way. For example (and I am about to expose a glaring contradiction on your part), if there was no way of testing dermals, then why quote Crowley? You know how to test dermals, you compare known casting artefacts with known biological traits, and it is the logic of the very dense to suggest a breakthrough in identifying species traits of a yet to be classified primate isn't legitimate because we haven't found the unclassified primate. Do you know how many wildflife biologists would laugh at that? How would you track an as of yet unclassified animal?? It's laughable son. To suggests otherwise is a suppression of evidence fallacy and is basically a capitulation on your impartiality. Prove the evidence is bunk or you lose, however unknown to the mainstream community the data is. My burden is to produce evidence that eventually amounts to proof... If you can't explain away the evidence that puts me closer to finding proof, then you still have the evidence and we both know what that means. Oh... And a feature of the Lovelock skull is the large protrusions of the nuchel crest which is for the attachment of large neck muscles. Sasquatch are widely accepted to have no necks.

      Delete
    13. We can deduce a significant amount on the behaviour of Sasquatch because we have three databases of reports from detailed circumstances to theorise from, not to mention thousands of years of Native awareness. Reports differ like basic human appearance and behaviour can once put into such a frequency of data. We can deduce a significant amount on behaviour, diet, capacity, all these things based on hundreds of years of reports, it is in fact how any scientist would go about doing so based on accumulated data. When bears attack humans, they leave a mess. There are thousands of very experienced outdoorsmen that attest to this. I theorise based on the reported size and the forensic sign of Sasquatch (dermals traits like human's but twice the size) that a normal human/hunter wouldn't stand a chance and the fact that these creatures would have to evade in social groups to be that successful, that naturally should a hunter shoot one, they would run into the same significant trouble as they would with any group of aggressive wild mammals. There are also thousands of years of cultural awareness of Sasquatch, cannibal tribes taking people... That's what good science, good anthropology does it compares culture with the readily available scientific data. Something I have done in this comment kid.

      Lastly, I have no qualms in insulting you, it's not so much my "Bigfoot exists game" as it is yours... You're here remember with that bloody big burden of yours, and I'll be here to remind you how intellectually backward you are for your silly little version of how science works.

      ... More to follow...

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. "Yes, yes all that writing and I can simply refute it all with one simple sentence. If Bigfoot exists why do we not have a body?"
      ... I would say get an adult to breakdown the big words I've presented you in this very thread of comments. I would also get an adult to breakdown the wry deification of a negative proof fallacy. I in fact can show you a giant skeleton;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/1933-article-about-discovery-of-giant.html?m=0
      ... Photographs and science journals do not amount to mere stories. You have this air of denial regarding whatever someone presents in the previous comment, like you're reading right from the ISF cook book, in that the longer you ignore something, you might convince some poor fool who wants to be reassured that it's not there, but it IS there and it is your requirement to be a grown up and address it... Not wish it away like the boogeyman. We already know that the Smithsonian at the time of major archeological finds on native burial mounds were having a major academic tug of war with the question of human antiquity, and even published a statement that nothing of the sort would be studied... And we have aaaaaaall that storage. It's not a conspiracy, it's not a fantasy when you have the scientific authority of then and now publishing such finds and then stating it's negative stance on them.

      What I can give you with that prehistoric skull, is the morphology that would match precisely with what is being reported in the face of a Sasquatch, that is simply akin to a prehistoric human. If Sasquatch are prehistoric humans, and we have the skull of a prehistoric human that shouldn't even be there (most anthropologists are in denial that skulls with European Paleo people's morphology shouldn't even be in the US), then why would you expect something different unless you were trying to move the goal posts? Your antics might work on the school yard pal, but not around people with half a brain.

      (I keep reading this word, one of your favourites in fact; "misinterpreted", please son, shake that burden and first bring an argument that demonstrates that to be the case, not just shoddy data & face falls that can get kicked back at you with the most basic understanding of the standards to which science require.)

      Oh... And everyone knows you won't find a deer in the woods at night with a film crew screaming, but you'd know this, or are you just as susceptible to the same powers of suggestion that you see on TV? I don't know who's denser, the people who think Finding Bigfoot are gonna find anything, or the haters like you who think they know the first thing about the outdoors, and who rush to criticise in their own density of how wilderness situations supposedly work. There is in fact thousands of terrorists undetected, and the same frequency of them we kill may represent the same amount in sightings reports for Sasquatch's mistakes or curiosity.

      Nargh, you would love the state of evidence to be represented by fallen sticks, distant howls, wood knocking and faint prints in the grass... I would say grow a pair and at least find someone else's argument that helps you lift that heavy burden, because every point you've presented in this comment section has been knocked back worse than Danny Campbell in a round of speed dating. Oh... And I thought you would have learned from the last time about opening your mouth where Sykes is concerned.

      Delete
    16. If you feel that the "evidence" you cite is absolutely so foolproof that it could not possibly be faked than there is nothing I can say to change your mind. If you wish to be waiting for the rest of your life (and you will be) for proof of Bigfoot's existence than I wish you luck. If you wish to post voluminous posts every day trying to convince others of it's existence than knock yourself out. If you want to deal with the daily insults I see posted here mocking your belief than have fun with that.

      But I tell you this - you will be posting the same "evidence" year after year and be no closer in seeing the world accept it. You are convinced without having a body but most of us are not. Sasquatch will forever remain a mythical creature until a body is produced - it's just that simple. I absolutely swear that I will post an apology to you and everyone else on this site if a specimen is produced. However after all these years I think the only Bigfoot produced is in believer's minds.

      Delete
    17. It's not my mind that you require changing, forget about me, forget about sides and the way either of us appear to anyone else, you child... This is about getting around to showing that the data CAN be faked, not trying to persuade others with half arssed, shoddy data that doesn't stand up to PROPER SCEPTICISM! Offering explanations that falls short of achieving that once countered by consistent, qualified scientific opinion (not amateur, unqualified opinion, like Crowley's) is not achieving this. You should be massively interested in what I am putting to you as someone claiming to practice scepticism, not seeking closure for anything less than what scientific opinion DEMANDS! I understand that you might have been following his topic a long time, I understand that you may have run phrase of patience, but that's not the case for me. I can look at that data, compare it to the duration that science preciously thought was the gap between us and our ancestors (many thousands of years), and deduce the time that we've actually been looking as amateur researchers (50 years) is nothing to a creature that has evaded scientific classification this long.

      The audacity is you are here, trying to persuade others of what YOU BELIEVE. Why is that? What are you afraid of?? What are you threatened by? If you have a mere interest, why comment and attempt to belittle people who are simply far more impartial to acknowledge the evidence than you? I have no requirement for mere belief, because I have the evidence to be convinced by, and people posting names at me is nothing to me, it effects me not one little bit. I in fact encourage the focus of it at me so that other posters don't have to endure it.

      What I will see is more and more reputable scientists like Sykes getting on board and looking at the data for what it is. What I will see, like I have observed since the development of the Internet, is a far quicker progression of research compared to the previous 35 where the field was largely looking for a bipedal gorilla. What I will see is more and more cynics erode like the 90's with the idea of UFO's, and because we have reliable sources that have documented many hundreds of giant human skeletal remains, I really don't care what you think, because we already know that sownthing akin to a specimen is not impossible and in fact probable. There are many, many, many factors as to why this "mystery" is still that to people who are maybe hoping that their ship jump in enthusiasm doesn't come back to bite them in the bum.

      Delete
    18. You just try so hard, don't ya?

      Wipe the drool off the keyboard now, Mr. Warrior.

      Delete
  6. Hogzilla of Hocking Hills......

    ReplyDelete