Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Did Diseases Brought By Early European Settlers Decimate The Bigfoot Population?


Richard Soule believes that bigfoot and Native Americans used to live side by side in large numbers. When European settlers brought contagious diseases to the continent, not only did it have a huge impact on the Native American population, but it decimated the bigfoot population as well.


41 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Hey TripleCheese!

      This is not a new theory... Sharon Day came up with it first.

      Delete
    2. ^ stop replying to yourself you jerkoff

      Delete
    3. I'm not the one who thinks everyone on the Internet is Joe, weirdo.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Like your ID's to try and get served alcohol.

      Delete
    2. They would of never been close enough to the Europeans! Period end of this fable.

      Delete
  3. Ok lets look at the evidence for this
    1.there is no bigfoot
    2. End of story
    So as you can see the Evidence has shot this theory down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

      The reasons people like you try and persuade yourself as well as others, every day of your life that there is "no Bigfoot", is because it self reassures from the boogeyman, and you're too stupid to debate the evidence to the contrary.

      Stick to Call of Duty kid.

      Delete
    2. " evidence to the contrary" ?

      ...all the evidence IS to the contrary

      now feel free to get back to your fishfingers and chips

      Delete
    3. The evidence is something you're too dense to fathom, regardless of your deep requirement to be rhetorical towards it. Let me know when an adult is close at hand to explain to you the big words, and I'll stoop so low as to try and explain it all to you one time.

      Delete
    4. ^ it`s clearly way way past your bedtime.

      Delete
    5. ^ another idiot getting his thrills by trying to be me

      Joe

      Delete
  4. Reason # 127 why Bigfoot can not be found and there are sure to be more as years pass and no Bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know right? The only mystery bigger and more confusing than this ridiculous bigfoot stuff is WHY THE F*C YOU HAUNT THIS PLACE 24x7. Now THAT is the real perplexing mystery.

      Delete
    2. I do check in about once or twice every two days or so to see what's buzzing. No mystery why I do, it's simply because of the psychological aspects fascinate me. This relentless pursuit and belief that such a creature exists is interesting to watch even though time after time nothing indisputable comes from it. It's simply fascinating to read all the excuses put forth why they always fail to prove it's existence. This belief system just seems like it has aspects of religion and faith to it.

      But I admit it - it's just plain fun

      Delete
    3. ^ T`is simply the fact that soppy fools such as yourself get SO wound up.

      Delete
    4. Maintaining something that has scientific backing is not legitimate, without presenting a single equivalent case to dismiss this, merely on the aspect of FAITH... Is as belief based and religious like as you can ever point to. To suggest that thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports that have modern forensic evidence in support, are misidentification or lies, is a bigger leap of faith than anything you can reference.

      What cleverer, more open minded people than you think threatens you, that's why you're here... And pseudoscepticism is a fundamentalist, quasi-religion.

      Delete
    5. I'll be back in the morning to tear apart any dribbles left here with solid science.

      Goodnight!

      Delete
    6. ^ The only dribbles here are those of your own creation...the TripleCheese Dribbles kind.

      Delete
    7. We'll see how many excuses you have then, 2:10.

      : )

      Delete
    8. ^ Nightmares of reality keeping you awake ?


      hahahahaha

      Delete
    9. Yes - the faith is strong with this lktomi.

      Out comes the "thousands of years of cultural reports". Sure and there are cultural tales of animals speaking so that must be true as well - right? Out comes the "scientific backing" again. By whom? A few of your professional Bigfoot enthusiasts? That does not constitute the whole community backing it now does it? Out comes the forensic evidence card also but it might as well be the joker because none of this "evidence" has gotten your argument the respectability you crave. You try so hard but time and the lack of new and conclusive evidence is working against you - tick tock, tick tock.

      Oh well, you still have the Ketchum and Sykes cards to hold on to.


      Delete
    10. Your a loon kid. LEAVE ME ALONE!

      Joe

      Delete
    11. Well... If talking animals had the same frequency of evidence to support such an idea, such as footage, professionally verified audio amongst other things like modern reports in the tens of thousands, then you would have to just as much difficulty trying to explain it away, wouldn't you? You've been told this before, but clinging to the same versions of cultural references for dear life, probably because you've never picked up a book, nor listened to anything that has any respect for indigenous cultures, doesn't help your cause. The physical and spiritual realities of native Americans are intertwined; this is how you get such legends.

      Also... Most certainly scientific backing, by the people who count no less. The best conservationists and primatologists in the world are enthusiastic about such a creature's existence, and for whatever frequency that should represent in relation to lesser qualified mainstream minions who wait on the shoulder of pioneers to tell them what's hot and what's not; is highly irrelevant. Breakthroughs in science were always conducted by a minority... Again, go pick up a book.

      And to the forensic evidence; again, what are you going to do about the many scientists who lack an equivalent expertise to denounce?? Where has this got the field? To a stage where us enthusiasts can point to irrefutable physical sign of a currently unclassified bipedal primate... You still need the primate to go with those tracks but if something exists, it leaves it's sign and no ad hominem, no mere cynicism makes solid science go away. You can't hoax forensic sign... I don't expect someone who clearly doesn't pick books up to realise this.

      Lastly... Sykes published a book called Nature of The Beast, where he smashes apart your versions of how he's getting along with the field. Let me know if you want extracts from that, god knows it's not like you're about ton pick up a book now, is it? Keep praying kid. Your burden around your extraordinary claim that spans thousands of years to which transitions physical, biological, audio and video evidence remains.

      Delete
    12. Modern reports in the tens of thousands? Film footage and professionally verified audio? Now I ask - where has that gotten you? Even the most rabid Bigfoot believer will readily admit that most Bigfoot reports are hoaxes or misidentification. Of course you cherry pick and use only those native American stories that you feel supports your cause. Most of these stories handed down generation after generation are unreliable at best so for me offering them as truth is a non-factor.

      YOU call them the best conservationists and primatologists in the world but are they? You know them because they support your cause but what of all the others out there who are out there who have no interest or time to refute their claims. I imagine if you took ALL the professionals and set them to studying the evidence you may come out with different conclusions. Many simply do not want their name associated with Bigfoot in any way (much to your disdain).

      Why hasn't Sykes findings and book made a bigger splash if as you say it's so revealing. Except for the hybrid bear thing it hasn't gotten much coverage. I do hope he puts out his paper and it will get the scrutiny it deserves. The we shall see what his fellow colleagues think. I do hope he does better with relic humans than bears.

      So what you call sightings I call hoaxes or misidentification. What you call cultural reports I call stories. What you call evidence I call interpretation. Seems to me you should be the one praying as your "messiah" has not been proven yet so the burden is yours. I'm afraid you will go to your grave without the proof you so desperately crave but at least you will have your faith.

      Delete
    13. Yes, modern reports in the tens of thousands, made by every credible pillar of society that have nothing to gain and everything to lose for their accounts. Why would someone with a professional obligations risk this for ridicule? Where has verified audio got us? To the point where I can reference it in an accumulation of various required sources of evidences and you don't have one single qualified equivalent to condemn it... You dig? Allow me to explain something... Not even enough enthusiasts are progressed past Finding Bigfoot, and are aware of such sources, how can we expect restricted scientists to have the first idea about it? And what the **** are you talking about enthusiasts agreeing to that frequency of accounts being false? It's not so much cherry picking, as it is flat out lies with you kid, which leads me to your next area of education. Oral history in indigenous peoples is what it is; their oral history. I would love for you to try and tell that to a Native American, you are not educated enough not are you remotely credible enough to expect that to fly around here... What's more; is that should such traditions span thousands of years, then have the same reports from cultures who found the previous undesirable, that then have forensic evidence to support, then legends move from myth to legitimate oral history. You really aren't too good at this, are you?

      Delete
    14. Jane Goodall is a world-famous primate researcher and author, she revealed, in studies of chimpanzees in Tanzania’s Gombe National Park, surprising behaviours in humanity’s closest living relative. Goodall has won numerous international awards for her contributions to conservation, anthropology and animal welfare. Currently affiliated with Cornell University, she serves as the National Geographic Society’s explorer-in-residence.

      George Schaller is an International science director for the Wildlife Conservation Society. His pioneering field studies of mountain gorillas setthe research standard later adopted by Goodall and gorilla researcher Dian Fosse. Schaller’s 1963 book, “The Year of the Gorilla,” debunked popular perceptions of the great ape and reintroduced “King Kong” as a shy, social vegetarian. Schaller’s studies of tigers, lions, snow leopards and pandas also advanced the knowledge of those endangered mammals. In 1973, he won the National Book Award for “The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations,” and in 1980 was awarded the World Wildlife Fund Gold Medal for his contributions to the understanding and conservation of endangered species. During the past decade, he has focused on the
      little-known wildlife of Mongolia, Laos and the Tibetan Plateau.

      "I am convinced that the Sasquatch exists, but whether it is all that it is cracked up to be is another matter altogether. There must be SOMETHING in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints. The evidence I have adduced in favour of the reality of the Sasquatch is not hard evidence; few physicists, biologists or chemists would accept it, but nevertheless it IS evidence and cannot be ignored."
      John Napier MRCS, LRCP, DSC(Lond.) "Bigfoot- The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality"- Sphere Books Ltd.

      Russell Mitterneier is a trained primatologist, herpetologist and
      Biological anthropologist, he has discovered five new species of monkey, including two very recently. Mittermeier has conducted fieldwork in more than 20 countries around the tropical world, with special emphasis on Brazil, Guyana and Madagascar. Since 1989, Mitterneier has served as president of Conservation International, which has become one of the most aggressive and effective conservation organizations in the world during the last decade. His publications include 10 books and more than 300 scientific papers and popular articles.

      Daris Swindler is an Emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of Washington, Swindler is a leading expert on living and fossil primate teeth and one of the top primate anatomists in general. His book, “An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy,” has become a standard reference in the field. A forensic anthropologist, Swindler worked on the Ted Bundy and Green River murder cases along with hundreds of others.

      Esteban Sarmiento is a functional anatomist affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History, Sarmiento focuses on the skeletons of hominids. In 2001, he participated with George Schaller in a search for Congo’s Bili ape, a possible species super-chimp reported by natives but unknown to Western science. Sarmiento has also studied the Cross River gorilla, a critically endangered subspecies on the Nigeria-Cameroon border whose population is thought to be numbered in the hundreds. He has taught in the U.S., South Africa and Uganda.

      Delete
    15. Others account for John Bindernagel, former advisor to the UN, PhD Courtenay, BC, Canada, Colin Groves, PhD Australian National University Canberra, Australia, Chris Loether, PhD Idaho Sate University Pocatello, ID, Jeffrey McNeely, PhD Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union Gland, Switzerland, Lyn Miles, PhD University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, John Mionczynski Wildlife Consultant Atlantic City, WY, Anna Nekaris, PhD Oxford Brooks University Oxford, England, Ian Redmond, OBE Conservation Consultant Manchester, England, Esteban Sarmiento, PhD Human Evolution Foundation East Brunswick, NJ, Zhoua Guoxing, PhD Beijing Museum of Natural History Beijing, China... That's not me claiming anything, these account for the best in the world, with too many knew species of primate discovered between them. I have the facts, you have hypothetical nonsense to counter it such as "'may coming out with different conclusions".

      "They will be published in the regular scientific press so I can't be more specific," he (Sykes) said"
      http://www.techtimes.com/articles/44347/20150406/dna-test-suggests-russian-apewoman-zana-was-not-human-and-yeti-may-not-be-a-myth.htm

      You hope it get's "what it deserves"? What agenda ridden rubbish is that? You can't understand the most basic of scientific principles and equirements, yet you somehow feel you are qualified to tell the best and most pioneering geneticist in the world what his latest work "deserves"? What a scary little fundie you are. And that's what it comes down to... The psychology of a fundie is to attack what it fears. In your case it's the boogeyman and what cleverer more open minded people than you think. 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.

      Get busy, and pick up a book for once while you're at it.

      Delete
    16. My goodness what a tirade! The exact sort of response from someone whose FAITH has been challenged. Instead of shrugging your shoulders and simply stating "well - that's YOUR belief" you come charging back with no less than 3 postings. I'm afraid your BELIEF borders on the edge of fanaticism lktomi. The same lashing out as someone whose religion has been challenged. This indicates to me your defensiveness is a result of desperately trying to convince others so you can feel good about your own uncertain belief. After all this time and no body - well, that has to shake even the most strongest faith.

      Have you even met a native American? I have firsthand and they lie, embellish and like to pull the wool over people's eyes just like everyone else. To suggest their oral history is rock solid after being told hundreds of time is well . . . ludicrous.

      Time after time I have told you that your "evidence" is open to interpretation but you continue to insist that there is only one answer - the existence of a unknown humanoid. The only problem is all this "evidence" and all these sightings and all these researchers and still not one single conclusive thing that will convince the world. You can shout about the evidence all you like but the FACT remains that Bigfoot is still not recognized as a living breathing thing. Drop every name you like but I have to wonder what each PRESENTLY thinks. Yes - they have made statements in the past indicating their strong BELIEF but one has to wonder if they continue to hold that position simply because they HOPE it to be true.

      To have something that is (supposedly) as big as Bigfoot and to have (supposedly) been sighted as much as Bigfoot and to have been (supposedly) recorded in numerous states and to( supposedly) have all this evidence proving it is real . . . than how in the world has it escaped detection for so long? I'll tell you why - because it does not exist. It's because MAN lies, hoaxes, exaggerates, fabricates, and creates his own monsters. You Bigfoot advocates are no different from all those who have their religion. You all operate on faith and all produce relics to prove that faith. However they cannot produce their God and you cannot produce a Bigfoot.

      Bottom line: Once the Bigfoot community produces a flesh and blood body the game is over - you win unconditionally. Until that day comes you are simply acting on faith and evidence which is open to interpretation.

      Now let us pray.

      Delete
    17. "The exact sort of response from someone whose FAITH has been challenged. Instead of shrugging your shoulders and simply stating "well - that's YOUR belief", blah, blah, blah..."
      ... Please, demonstrate that the scientifically verified evidence is none existent, then you will have a subject that can be defined as faith based and your burden will be lifted... Something tells me you're a little out of your league. Remember, you are here trying to persuade others that their enthusiasm is unwarranted. I am not anywhere else, and seemingly far more content in what I am convinced by than what you believe. Actions speak louder, and all that.

      I have met Native Americans, and to state their oral history is untrue because it is lies, is circular reasoning, is again avoiding the burden you have in explaining away the scientific evidence that supports their ideas, and down right prejudice. So far, you're representing your theory group wonderfully, whilst adhering to your fundie ideals as expected.

      I have been told by someone who is clearly uneducated, unqualified and without any integrity (prejudiced) that my evidence is "evidence", please... How does this get around to demonstrating it isn't what it is?? This is your burden. Writing four paragraphs using words such as "supposedly" when the main burden you have is to demonstrate with data that your ideas are factual is not adhering to the requirements of adult scientific debate. Sasquatch is not a classified species, yet we have every source of evidence required just short of a modern type specimen, all the while we are accumulating more and more reputable scientific opinion which inevitably leads to more professional boots on the ground. What is so far conclusive, is that a large, unclassified, bipedal primate is leaving it's physical sign on the environment. Now, if I thought you could understand scientific principles such as Occam's Razor I would explain them to you, but in the mean time I'll just say that by this data we are more than warranted to keep looking for this conclusive evidence. You dig?

      "Supposedly" goes right out of the window by the very manner in which your burden remains. Circular reasoning that "Bigfoot does not exist because Bigfoot does not exist" isn't even used by even the most die-hard of pseudosceptics anymore, because it is recognised as a major intellectual fallacy; it appears with your predicament it is never more aptly applied. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence. How this is relevant to my situation, is that there is reason to invest enthusiasm in the subject matter based on the accumulated data that accounts for the experiences of tens of thousands of people, spanning different cultures, that is supported by means of physical and even biological evidences that can't be scientifically shown to be false. Religions include revelation, faith and sacredness, and how this is relevant to your situation is that you have nothing but dataless opinion void of any scientific factual basis, with a requirement to be devoted in expressing your sentiment at every opportunity.

      Science is founded on the premise that we exist in a rational reality and from this premise it follows that every scientific belief can and should be based on evidence, otherwise it is not science. To be completely clear as to what is science it can be defined in one simple sentence; science is the unbiased effort to understand reality based on the observable physical evidence;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
      ... Now grow up and counter the evidence.

      Delete
    18. LOL - you tout your "scientifically verified evidence" like it's undeniable. I'm sorry I must have missed it on the evening news. If it was scientifically verified that would mean that there was indeed something out there we did not know about and it would be in the mainstream news. Just because a few "experts" pronounce it verified does not mean it is accepted as a whole. It's safe to say no large creature has been discovered in North America for well over a hundred years and yet there are those such as yourself who would have us believe there are thousands of these giant humanoids roaming all over the country?

      But I'm not going to convince you nor you me however I say to you again if a flesh and blood body is produced the game is over - you win unconditionally. That is all that is needed. No amount of "evidence" is going to convince the world but a carcass would astonish the world and much to your satisfaction completely silence and shame me. I don't believe that is going to happen but keep on . . . praying

      Delete
  5. and all the bidies evaporated into thin air
    or maybe the skin walkers ate them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bigfoot does not get close enough to man while in man's dimension, to let him sneeze on them, nor touch them. So there is no likelihood of transmitting diseases. The Bigfoot population was already estimated at 1 million by the FBI in the sixties. Which is well past any introduction of diseases from European settlers. So you can file all of this dudes theories in the round file.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You people are complete fools. Why cant you just leave me alone and move along? Where are the mods?

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ why can't you stop trying to be me mate ?
      Has the lobotomy not worked out for you ?

      Joe

      Delete