Youtube Review Of Dog Films Bigfoot With A GoPro Video
Youtuber The Forest Pond takes a look at a familiar video, "Dog Films A Bigfoot With A GoPro". It probably looks familiar because he saw it posted right here on Bigfoot Evidence. So what does he think about the video? Well, you have to watch to find out.
Total Turds
ReplyDeleteDog films turd on go pro
ReplyDeleteTurd films dog on go pro
ReplyDeleteWell that cannot possibly be a Bigfoot. It is a well known established FACT that any dog will flee in utter fear from a Bigfoot or if it is stupid enough to approach it will get torn to shreds. Since this dog doesn't even react and since it presumably is still alive and not it pieces than it simply must be a person. Case closed and beyond dispute or argument.
ReplyDeleteIn actual FACT, dogs don't always flee... They just become uninterested in any level of pursuing scent. The reason this video is not what is being suggested, is because it looks totally and utterly ridiculous.
DeleteNo dog has ever seen a Bigfoot because they don't exist. It is impossible to know how a dog would react.
DeleteWell consider this your daily reminder that there is nothing, based on the current data available to analyse, nor in intelligent logical thinking, to assume you are correct. One day, you might develop from a 10 year old's level and provide something in substance for your claims, but I doubt you'll find anyone around here holding heir breath on the matter.
DeleteIn fact, there is something in the environment of the wilderness of the US causing dogs to behave this way, and no other recognised creature causes trained dogs to behave this way. Dogs sense other creatures better than anything else, and we already know that there are thousands of years of cultural references to relict hominids taking people. We also have a published study that shows that there is an unknown primate in the US that is capable of achieving sounds both above and below normal human capabilities. We have innumerable examples of what effect ultrasound has on dogs.
So if dogs behave a a bit weird it's bigfoots fault. That's a new one. I love the fact that you don't realise how stupid your Bigfoot " facts " sound. You know so much about something you have never seen and doesn't exist. Imagine you spent your time doing something productive. You might even become a real person. Instead your a fat turd with eyes that lives in moms basement. Suck a d ick!!!!
DeleteIt's pretty simple...
DeleteWhat other as of yet unrecognised creature in the wilderness of the US is causing dogs to refrain from practicing what they literally live to persue once the scent is caught? And if you don't like that, then please demonstrate that the evidence for such a creature, such as dermals, hair samples, audio recordings, footage, etc, isn't what it is. From here you will have a means of not only showing that your mantra holds weight in a little credence, but also show that the thousands of years of cultural acknowledgement attached to such disappearances are mere boogeyman stories.
If you are so sure that something doesn't exist, if this is so obvious, then why do you struggle to demonstrate how other than a intellectual, logical fallacy? Oh and I apologise, I forgot that posting the word "turd" and attacking people with profanities from behind anonimaty, like a true coward, is the bench mark of productivity. Now there's something to aspire to.
: )
If Bigfoot was real then Steve Irwin
Delete( crocodile hunter ) would have found one. He also probably would have
f ucked one. How can you study something for 20 years and never get any proof that it exists. You must be extremely bad at what you do or Bigfoot doesn't exist. There has never been a proven Bigfoot body found. Even though Bigfoot gets seen running across the road, hanging out in people's backyards and eating out of a dumpster at the back of Walmart still no proof. Americans are gun crazy but yet Bigfoot has never been shot by anyone. Everyone has a camera in the phone but nobody ever gets footage of Bigfoot. You just need to face facts that Bigfoot doesn't exist and if your so sure that it does and your such and expert. Get out of moms basement and go find it. You will be rich and famous and prove all of us skeptards wrong. You won't do that though will you because even you don't really believe in it.
Wow! Such an honour to be in the presence of a real genius. So we've established you have no answers what so ever for the questions posed to you in my previous comment, right? Ok... Allow me to proceed...
DeleteFor 20 years of research, we have everything, all the aforementioned evidence that I just listed. Now, because there is such a plethora of sources, one might simply deduce that should this creature exist (and if something doesn't exist, it doesn't leave its 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 it. 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, only yesterday 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 pick up what I'm putting down... Sasquatch are very tall, robust, Wild humans.
Could you look down the scope and soot something that you both cannot quite identify, and looks so human? One of the main issues for gunmen who have opened up on one of these creatures, is the persistent details that they move too fast. You also have to consider that for these creatures to have evaded so well as they have, they would have to do so in social groups, with this bringing the added possibility of mama and papa coming along to see what the commotion is should one be shot. Plenty of missing hunters, remember. Oh, and might I add, you claim there is no reliable video evidence, yet you rhetorically claim that every source is a hoax anyway?
Got monkey suit?
Got proof?
DeletePlaster casts, an old film, and some hairs that could very well be known animals are not proof of a new species. That's not my opinion, its the facts. These pieces of evidence are proof to Bigfoot believers and no one else. That's just the truth. The "dermal ridges" are not proof of anything either. A small number of professionals assert they are proof, there is not a consensus. Decades keep passing without any body or sustained, detailed footage. The only reasonable conclusion is that it does not exist. If you disagree, show us a specimen. Not a hair, not a casting, not an old film, but a physical specimen. You can't. You just can't. There isn't one, and there won't be. That is what is required. Nothing less.
DeleteOf a currently unclassified bipedal primate, yes.
DeleteGot corpse that isn't Rick Dyers?
DeleteHow . . . how DARE you question Bigfoot's existence Anon 4:56! How brazen of you to attack lktomi's credentials as a Bigfoot authority! Why we have thousands and thousands and thousands of years of STORIES! We have a (singular) published STUDY showing a SOUND that is beyond human capabilities (although Bigfoot is now thought to be a HUMAN relic). We have other evidence that has astonished the WORLD although the stupid science community works daily to suppress it. You cowardly hide behind you anonymity while brave IKTOMI puts his real name out there for all to see. It's obvious he deals with FACTS not silly points such as you have brought up. How can you question these videos we see EVERY day here? How can you explain the elaborate stick structures seen everywhere when you enter a wooded area? No my friend, it's obvious you are a skeptard and will burn in hell for your lack of faith.
DeleteNow go find that monkey suit!
Actually forensic sign found in those plaster casts, from the actual impressions, and hair fibres linked to sightings and physical evidence that have been verified to be consistent with many other examples accumulated around the country to be of an unknown primate; is pretty much sealing the deal on my premise. This premise is not that "Bigfoot exists", but that there is a currenlty unclassified primate leaving its physical sign on the environment. Funnily enough, that's not my opinion either, but the opinion of the people who actually count and that's the scientists. Actually, dermals again match my exact premise of that unclassified primate, that's unless you can find an equivalent out of all the mainstream sources you can find to which should be easy right? A small number of professionals are what you abide by via the peer review process, as they are lire qualified than their many, many peers to pass their opinion, let's not contradict ourselves now, yeah? Let's not fall into an ad hominem trap because the same reliable scientists are now delivering an enthusiastic stance on something you demand should be there now, right?
DeleteDetailed footage?
http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
... Plenty of comparative data in that source to make ample conclusions. The only reasonable conclusion, given how spectacularly you fail at demonstrating something that should be so obviously false, is that you are not clever enough at it, or it's not all that obvious after all, and the evidence to warrant further investigation exists. Specimen?
https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/1933-article-about-discovery-of-giant.html?m=0
... Oh, and even if I didn't have many examples of documented giant human skeletons, your promise would be another logical fallacy anyway (negative proof). Oh... And you'll get dermals, hair, etc just fine, because you haven't the means of explaining it away.
What is required is you lift that burden of proving that thousands of years of reports that are accompanied by physical evidence isn't what it is.
Why don't you skeptards understand? Iktomi provides the same links over and over and over and you just don't get it. The findings were PUBLISHED so they must be true right? These scientists supporting this are our BEST and BRIGHTEST the world has to offer. SOMETHING has to be leaving this evidence and it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest man is capable of fabricating a hoax. No one is that smart (except for the scientists supporting the proof of Bigfoot of course). I'm sure that proof positive is coming as soon as soon as Dr. Ketchum and Dr. Sykes release their findings . . . someday. There will be no lemurs or bears to confuse things this time I will tell you.
DeleteWhat a skeptard - the next thing you will be questioning Bob Gimlin's word and that my friend will be crossing the line!
Almost 5:44, you're surprising me with the manner in which you suddenly appear to be able to learn, however you still haven't brought me any hard data for your ideas, and most scientific breakthroughs appear to be "singular", that's how they tend to work? Oh... And, um... Relict humans are still primates, yeah?
Delete(Sigh)
Oh... And I didn't think I was anonymous? You seem to express daily what my identity it, right? But hey! We should all listen to you, cause for ten thousand years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing conspirators all out to get your money, right? These people, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what an ape looked like, have in fact managed to cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too, right?
You're a conspiracy theorist as well as a religious, right?
Nargh! Just as I though you were getting it right intellectually, you go and ruin it all for yourself. Oh well... Um no, it's pretty much impossible to hoax forensic sign, I would recommend you listen to those experts you claim to adhere to so badly. To hoax convincing biological dermals, one would have to have a knowledge of primate dermals (that not many on the planet do), have a lottery win's chance of faking the same biological idea, and then fool multiple forensic experts. It's almost as big a leap of faith as that burden you have.
DeleteIt's lucky Sykes' expertise is human genetics, he is the pioneer of mitochondrial research after all... Tick, tock.
: )
I would never question you Mr. Fitzgerald . . . eh - I mean lktomi. You are the leading authority on Bigfoot and I apologize if you think I was questioning you in any way.
DeleteI am religious sir - I truly believe in Bigfoot with all my heart!
I think you would be adhering to the principles of impartial and consistent scientific method then, actually, but I'll let you off this once.
DeleteIktomi, you haven't shown us anything that lies outside the community of Bigfoot proponents that backs up anything you say. It's all nonsense. You'll resort to insulting our intelligence when we don't find your sources credible, because you can't make your case. Where is the type specimen? Why, why, why must you keep making excuses for a simple, reasonable request? There is no body because the species does not exist. You can type all day for the next ten years, and it will still be unproven, and believers like you will stick to your guns, while you take shots at people reasonable enough to accept the truth. It's baloney, pal. Folklore and nothing else. Why don't you walk into any physical anthropology class in the world (besides Meldrum's) and see what they have to say about your claims? Your position is not even worthy of contempt, its just silly.
DeleteShame on you Anon 7:02. Wise lktomi tries to enlighten us with his facts but you skeptards just keep demanding unreasonable requests such as a body. Do you not understand these things are endowed with super eyesight, super hearing, super speed, super strength and are near impossible to capture dead or alive? I know these things to be true because I have read them here on this very forum! I just can't think of any explanation that would account for all these reports we read here every day.
DeleteI can tell you lktomi will be very disappointed that you don't understand Occam's razor.
OGTG just serves up s hit sandwiches everyday and Itkomi/Joe just keeps eating them. Don't you get tired of looking like a joke Itkomi/Joe?
Deleteeveryone loves my turd sandwiches .
DeleteI consume them daily myself. gotta feed the crap monster inside of me
OGTG
"Iktomi, you haven't shown us anything that lies outside the community of Bigfoot proponents that backs up anything you say."
Delete... In actual fact; that's all I've done. Again, it is merely an ad hominem fallacy;
"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3] Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance."
The scientists who have analysed the data have merely analysed what is in front of them. The forensic experts that's reference have not had a predisposition to favour any Sasquatch proponents, and d'you know what? Even if they did, you still would require an equivalent professional opinion to counter there's. This is how science works dear boy. You can't merely dismiss scientific data, because less qualified and oblivious mainstream scientists don't even know it exists. That's laughably embarrassing logic, but something we've come to expect form someone such as yourself. Audacious that you should suggest anyone is "insulting your intelligence". If my sources are not credible, you have to demonstrate this with data, with an argument, these are the requirements of adult debate. You have not once done this in all the time you have engaged me, except state that the people delivering such a conclusion are not trustworthy. Where is the type specimen? You have been given no less than two examples in this very thread of comments. You have been given a skull that has prehistoric morphology akin to what reports describe in Sasquatch, attached to areas where cultural references have said it would be for thousands of years. You have also been given photographic evidence of a large skeleton, yet you inquire as to where the type specimen is?
"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."
If the species does "not exist based on there being no MODERN type specimen in mainstream records", then apart from this not being scientifically accurate from the outset, it certainly cannot be accurate given the frequency of evidence that points to the contrary.
I find it funny that you should suggest that I am no closer to proving my premise for my efforts, when you are no closer to lifting your burden for yours. I find it curious that you should reference physical anthropologists on the matter of type specimens;
Delete"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 anymore.
7:29... You're impressing me again, keep it up.
DeleteIktomi telling someone else they are committing a logical fallacy. Oh the irony.
DeleteHey pal, why don't you show me precisely where my logical fallacies begin? Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from you?
Delete: )
Where are all the adults gone?
Some famous examples of Joetomis stupidity and locial fallacies:
Delete1.) "Extraordinary claims shoulnt require extraordinary evidence"
2.) "Sasquatch resemble autistic children in the face"
Joe is a simpleton of epic proportions. His "logic" only makes sense in his little troll mind.
AHH HAHAHAHA
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGot an actual quote from me about autistic children? Poor sicko, ha ha ha!! Amazing.
DeleteNeed more of the video, at least down to where the "whatever" crosses the trail and then see the dog's reaction. You would have a better idea.
ReplyDeleteThe Hood to Coast Race does not allow dogs, and no part of the race goes down a forest trail.
ReplyDeleteART BILL a BIGFOOT GURU
Delete