Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Are Bigfoot Normal Or Paranormal? Thom Powell Discusses


Once you get over the initial hump of whether or not to believe bigfoot even exists, people often have differing beliefs in whether or not these creatures are normal flesh and blood animals, or if they have some sort of paranormal abilities that have allowed them to remain hidden for so long. Author Thom Powell this along with his own personal encounters with bigfoot in this video.


153 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Nobody's discussing your intellect here pal.

      Delete
    2. Are unicorns normal or paranormal?

      Delete
    3. I would categorise them as irrelevant, considering nobody sees them.

      Delete
    4. saw one yesterday. Your argument is now dismantled

      Delete
    5. Now get tens of thousands of eyewitnesses reporting the same thing, and get a long line of scientists confirming scientific evidence, and you have a comparison.

      Delete
    6. what long line? Name me more than 2 dozen

      Delete
    7. John Bindernagel, 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.

      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.

      ... Good enough for you, chump?

      Delete
    8. He said name more than 2 Dozen, dingbat.

      Delete
  2. It's neither, they just don't exist. Only whack jobs and mental infants believe in bigfoot. Clearly if bigfoot was real there would be a corpse or live specimen in captivity. It's simple people. Bigfoot isn't real folks!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This guy is correct but not all of them are whack jobs. A small proportion are just role players enjoying playing monsters in the woods with their buddys having a few beers and getting away from the wife.

      Delete
    2. "Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four;
      1. true
      2. false
      3. unknown between true or false
      4. being unknowable (among the first three)"

      Yeah, that's right... A role playing game maintained for ten thousand years, where there have been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing role players all conspiring to get your money. 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 role play their way in cheating the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too. Go figure!

      3:0... The role of "confident sceptic" played awfully. The role of "JREF prized prat" however; Oscar winning performance!

      Delete
    3. Only a complete moron would state they don't exist and spend their time on a bigfoot site.

      Delete
    4. Your b-slap isn't anyone's else's "meltdown", kid.

      Delete
    5. Are you going to have another meltdown today, Uncle Icky?

      Delete
    6. Um... Hardly. Where did you run off to yesterday? So much for "ambiguous ambiguity", I guess.

      : p

      Delete
    7. Wow! What... Like the meltdown you just had on the Hybdrid comment section about Mike B? Ha ha ha!!

      Just for kicks, here's that link again that embarrassed you yesterday;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
      ... Why would I have a meltdown? I'm the one with the evidence?

      Delete
    8. You call that a meltdown, you twonk? Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    9. Ha ha! Uncle Icky having another meltdown!

      Delete
    10. I find it hilarious that you cannot grasp the simple concept that if a certain type of evidence could be faked, and has been faked successfully enough to fool even the top bigfoot experts, then that source of evidence is not reliable and can never be used to prove the claim. Hence, why only DNA, physical remains or live specimen are worth pursuing.

      Poor Joergy, not so good with the critical thinking.

      Delete
    11. Your 100 percent correct boy joerg. And you too dmaker. Joerg is already having meltdowns and is taking a ridiculous beating at your hands. Joe dreads the site of dmakers avatar. Combine that with boy joerg who is pounding joerg into the earth, and Joe is going crazy with rage. Joes BS is being called out and he is scared to death. So scared, he admitted to writing an email to Mike B yesterday to try and get Mike to help him in the fight against boy joerg and dmaker, and even daniel. Keep up the great work dmaker and boy joerg. And daniel, plese join in. We are playing a game of b @tch slap the Joerg.

      Delete
    12. "I find it hilarious that you cannot grasp the simple concept that if a certain type of evidence could be faked, and has been faked successfully enough to fool even the top bigfoot experts, then that source of evidence is not reliable and can never be used to prove the claim."

      ... But you've not presented one example, where a forensic expert has been fooled by artificial dermals? Where's the ambiguity? One doesn't even require critical thinking in opposition to your claims, there is no data to be critical of, in fact, the only thing to be critical of is the fact that there is nothing coming my way other then the mantra that "it can be faked". Where is there the example? Do you scream in the mirror naked through the night? Why is it so difficult to get you to support your arguments?

      Anyone would think you're a little out of your depth??

      Delete
    13. And another thing... Something you missed yesterday in your literary shortcomings. Nobody is claiming that dermals is proof. This is something good old Dmaker does emotional cartwheels about. But you and Dmaker both know what reliable physical evidence means... And that's your ickle meltdown, isn't it??

      Delete
    14. >>Nobody is claiming that dermals is proof...

      Except you have many times joe.

      Delete
    15. Notice how Joe is trying to goad you into debate boy joerg. Dont fall for it. He wants long debate on the issues. Dont give it to him. Instead, hit him with turd jokes, sexuality jokes, and maybe a little racism. Keep up the good work boy joerg.

      Delete
    16. And bravo to you on your satire bigfoot hoaxing.

      MMG

      Delete
    17. You have claimed dermals as proof of a bipedal ape in America.

      Why are you imagining me naked in front of a mirror at night? That is very icky and creepy, Uncle Icky.

      Delete
    18. Jimmy Chilcutt was fooled by the Onion Mountain dermals.

      Just sayin.

      Delete
    19. 7:33... Ok, quote me! There's any of a million comment sections with me discussing dermals, just quote me.

      : )

      ... No, I'm imagining your home life where whatever you say goes. You're not in be funny farm now. Still no evidence of ambiguity??? Would you now like to admit you simply no nothing of what you vomit?

      Delete
    20. http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence/

      Delete
    21. http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/02/08/dermal-ridges-updated-review-material/

      Delete
    22. Did you just use the CSICOP stuff? Oh dear me... Ok, allow me to put that rubbish to bed. Jimmy Chulcutt, the forensic expert out of him and Crowley we just remember, is very adamant about the prints that he has verified, and though they are from different locations, they still have the same texture and ridge flow pattern, like a humans however twice the size. Chilcutt stated as plain as day that even Crowley (who's far more enthusiastic than what psuedosceptics would prefer) has stated that even he feels that Walla Walla casts are genuine (25mins in the link below). "He's made me think of being more careful", is all that Chilcutt states, I'm not sure of any source where Chilcutt states that the casting process can accidentally accurately make what are considered convincing biological dermals. On the 36mins, Chilcutt explains that the faked dermals that Crowley sent him was covered in artificial ridge artefacts from the pouring process. The three casts in question that Chilcutt examined, they 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://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/03/
      ... So where is the forensic expert being fooled?

      Delete
    23. Joe caught in a lie yet again.

      GO BOY JOERG GO!!!

      Delete
    24. And with regards to the orgonresearch... Half way down this page;
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/32050-dermal-ridges-or-casting-artifact/

      ... Dermals in the actual impression. And half way down here;
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36334-suit-possibly-key-to-final-hoax-proof/page-5

      ... A comparison of casting artifacts and actual dermals. Artificial desiccation has it's own uniform style that does not match one school of alleged Sasquatch traits, whilst the only way to makw something that looks remotely like dermals is under laboratory methods... Which the average anyone attempting to hoax wouldn't be aware of or have access to.

      ... So your burden remains, where is the forensic expert being fooled?

      Delete
    25. So, you're saying dermals are proof of bigfoot then?

      I never said forensic experts, I said leading bigfoot experts.

      Delete
    26. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43206

      Delete
    27. Joe is just lying to try and goad you into debate Boy Joerg. Continue to school him, but dont give him debate. Thats what he wants. I suggest incorporating more turd comments, more urine comments, more sexuality comments, and some racist comments every now and then. Joerg longs for debate about his "evidence" that bigfoot exists. When daniel and dmaker stopped humoring him with conversation, it left a giant hole in his life. Now he hopes you will fill it boy joerg. And we shoudl fill it, fill it with a nice basket of turds that is. Maybe a urine cake for your face Joe? Maybe a taste of "joerg milk"?

      Delete
    28. I got Mike B sippin on my Joerg Juice, my Joerg Juice. I got Mike B sippin on my Joerg Juice, my Joerg Juice.

      Delete
    29. No, I'm saying that's what the expert Jimmy Childutt attributes these traits to... And he's a forensic expert. B-b-b-b-but you can have all the "leaving Bigfoot experts" in the world fooled, the premise here is forensic evidence? These are the "experts that have been fooled" according to you? And don't give me that, it's just evidence of a pathetic side step, almost a capitulation on your part that now, "you were only talking about Bigfoot experts". Well it's impartial scientists that count (remember?) and they've verified dermals.

      Where are the experts that verify forensic evidence that have been fooled?

      Delete
    30. Eww, that last thing I want to do is fill Joergys hole.

      Delete
    31. Krantz and Meldrum are not impartial scientists?

      And ultimately with no specimen or sasquatch foot to compare to, it's all speculation and proof of nothing.

      Delete
    32. No debate for you joe joe. Boy joerg is becoming wise to yoru game.

      Delete
    33. ... And another thing, if you type this into JREF;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      ... Guess what? Not a peep of opposition to the experts verifying those dermals. So I'll ask again... Where are the experts being fooled??

      Delete
    34. Whats wrong with being....whats wrong with being......whats wrong with being Joergident??

      Delete
    35. Joe is trying to get boy joerg to engage in lengthy debate. He longs to be schooled. But boy joerg isnt going to give it to him. Maybe some urine comments for your face joe?

      Delete
    36. Research does not start at conclusion, you were told this yesterday. And how does a wildlife biologist, let's say, discover a new animals via the tracks they follow? Your logic gets worse by the second... Anyone would think I'm talking to Danny Campbell here???

      Delete
    37. Once in a lifetime, a Joerg can do, what no other can do.

      Delete
    38. Again... Where are the forensic experts who have been fooled? You're running out of chances and I will assume you have not an ounce of substance to your claims...

      Delete
    39. In fact, both Meldrum and Krantz focused on sasquatch tracks as evidence. That is their main focus Meldrums ichnotaxa paper was based on Pattys tracks.

      Now you are telling me that they are not worthy in a discussion about alleged track features?

      Delete
    40. I'd rather take the word of a couple of phds vs a police detective. Thanks.

      Delete
    41. And just like daniel campblell, boy joerg isnt going to engage in deabte with you joe. You are furious that he wont and that us trolls recognize your need to try and get someone to give you conversation on the subject. Boy Joerg is wise to your game.

      THERE WILL BE NO ON TOPIC DEBATE FOR YOU JOE. AHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    42. But track impression can and have been shown to be hoaxed, where are be examples of artificial dermals fooling forensic experts?? Try and keep up???

      Delete
    43. So many Joergs. So little time

      Delete
    44. You'd rather PHD's as opposed to Jimmy Chilcutt? The following have all verified forensic physical evidence of an unclassified bipedal primate; Tatyana Gladkova, Dermatoglyphics expert at the USSR Institute of Anthropology. Mikhail Urisson and Vladimir Volkov-Dubrovin (Deputy Director of the Institute) agrees with her opinion. Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Douglas M. Monsoor, Supervisor, Criminalistics Unit, Department of Public Safety, Lakewood, Colorado. Certified Latent Print Examiner, and fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom. Robert D. Olsen, Sr., Criminalist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas. Certified Latent Print Examiner, Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom,Member of International Association for Identification, etc. Edward Palma, Fingerprint examiner for the Laramie County Sheriff's Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Benny Kling, Instructor, Law Enforcement Academy, Douglas, Wyoming. Jimmy Chilcutt, fingerprint technician at the Conroe Police Department, highly regarded by agents of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and state and local law enforcement agencies for his innovative techniques and ability to find fingerprints where others fail.

      Delete
    45. THERE WILL BE NO DEBATE FOR YOU JOE. BOY JOERG IS WISE TO YOUR GAME. YOUR DESIRE FOR DANIEL CAMPBELL STYLE DEBATE WILL NOT BE MET. AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    46. DO NOT ENGAGE JOE IN ON TOPIC DEBATE. INSTEAD FOCUS ON URINE AND TURDS

      Delete
    47. 8:06... Are you having a meltdown by any chance??

      Delete
    48. THERE WILL BE NO BIGFOOT CONVERSATION HERE TODAY JOE. BOY JOERG IS WISE TO YOUR GAMES. JUST LIKE DANIEL AND DMAKER BECAME WISE. YOU WILL GET NO DEBATES.

      THIS IS THE BEST DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!

      Delete
    49. Joerg is in a frenzy. He cant comprehend that boy joerg is going to leave him debateless just like daniel and donald. its a thing of beauty

      Delete
    50. Do try to control your meltdown, Uncle Icky.

      Delete
    51. NO DEBATE FOR JOERGY, NO DEBATE FOR JOERGY. NO NEED FOR FRUIT LOOPS, JUST GIVE IT TO JOE IN HIS POOP CHUTE!!! AHHHH HAHAHA

      Delete
    52. In short... You need substance in relation to claims you make. This is pushed on enthusiasts daily, only to be forgot when the one thing that "sceptics" demand stands up to scrutiny; evidence.

      Anyway... I'm off until later on... I just wanted to say...






      Schooled!!!!

      Delete
    53. Joergaseena vs the urine cake. Who will win?

      Delete
    54. In your long list of people, Uncle Joergy, are there any relevant phds? Looks to be mostly LEO type folks.

      Do you have a list where all of their confirmations of an an unlisted bipedal ape in North America can be cited?

      This is getting embarrassing for you, isn't it, Uncle Joergy?

      Poor Uncle Joergy, he just doesn't get it.

      Delete
    55. I like how Joe tries to goad boy joerg into more debate by saying "schooled". He hopes this will make boy joerg mad and make him get back on here later for debate. But you wont get that, will you joe. Instead you will get turd comments and sexuality comments. You will get no debate on bigfoot. this is the best day of my life!!!

      Delete
    56. Ssssssssshhhhhhhhh...

      (Whispers)

      ... Where are the fooled experts? Where are the PHD's to counter the claims of dermals? Sssssssshhhhhh... Go back to sleeeeeeeeeeeep... Sssssssshhhhhhhhh...





      : )

      Delete
    57. Joe is getting destroyed by boy joerg. And boy joerg wont engage joe in the debate he craves. Insted hes getting urine cakes. AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    58. I rarely comment here anymore, but even i must say that Joe really got it handed to him today.

      Delete
    59. When dermals get shown to be nothing genuine, then someone will hand it to me.

      Adios! Ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    60. How about you show that dermals are actually something genuine? You could do this by showing us the animal that made the track. How about that? No? Empty handed again poor Joergy?

      Delete
    61. Joe has been destroyed so badly today, that it could be said that boy joerg, slapped the "joerg" right off Joes face.

      Delete
    62. Again, dear Donald... The idea flies in the face of people tracking new and unclassified animals. The Bili Ape took a whole year to track. Did these primatologists require the specimen for the tracks they were following, to show that the tracks they were following were worthy of following?

      Wow, you're on form today Donald...

      What makes thw dermals authentic, is robe repetitive nature of this evidence... This being traits States apart and decades apart.

      Delete
    63. If they tracked the Bili Ape for decades with nothing to show for it, then yeah, I would suspect they were following the wrong tracks, or fake tracks.

      They demonstrated that the tracks they were following were worthy of following by actually locating a specimen.

      See how that works, Joergy?

      Delete
    64. "They demonstrated that the tracks they were following were worthy of following by actually locating a specimen", so they demonstrated that they were following a genuine animal before having a specimen, how? Your comment doesn't make sense, Donald? Might I add, they just had tracks, no dermals.

      Delete
    65. Boy Joerg is the newest addition to the league of super trolls or the newly reformed culture club . I'm not afraid of toddlers like you. only need to give them a pacifier and they wont bother us adults on here.

      Joe

      Delete
    66. While i agree with some of your points fake Joe (9:42), your imitation of me is quite far off, you stupid wanker. Grow up mate.

      Joe

      Delete
    67. AHHHH HAHAHAHAHA. Dmaker calling Joe by his real name (Joerg), never gets old. And yes , its spiritual Joe Joe. Now, if daniel comes along and calls you by your real name, my life will be complete.

      Delete
    68. Toddler alert at 10:04. Imitation is such flattery but please get off the game boy , you are annoying me

      Joe

      Delete
    69. I never said the demonstrated anything before finding a specimen, Joerg. Try to pay attention to logic and grammatical tense.

      Their tracks were confirmed by actually locating a specimen successfully. Now run along like a good little numpty and find an example of where alleged bigfoot tracks, with or without your precious dermals, have actually lead to a bigfoot. Until then, your comparison to the Bili ape just hurts your case. But you were never really clever enough to notice things like that, were you Joergy?

      Delete
    70. Urgh, yes you did do that, Donald. In your own words up top, you stated that the tracks they were following were confirmed to be legitimate before the creature was found to exist, why did they not consider these tracks legitimate prior to this conclusion? To use your analogy from yesterday, that's the cart before the horse. But they did not require a specimen to confirm those tracks as legitimate, because as the process follows, one naturally uses tracks to find an animal. One does not need an animal to confirm that the tracks leading to that animal are legitimate. You're making yourself look foolish by trying to wriggle out of this logic fumble, Donald.

      The reason where this is comparable, is that now there should be a consorted effort by primatologists to locate the creature leaving those tracks. By this method, we may determine who those tracks belong to.

      Are you having an off-day?

      Delete
    71. This is what I said Joerg:

      "They demonstrated that the tracks they were following were worthy of following by actually locating a specimen."

      Do you not understand tense?

      Delete
    72. In other words, the Bili ape tracks actually lead to a Bili ape. So we can assume with a fair degree of certainty that the tracks were, in fact, tracks of a Bili ape.

      Bigfoot? Not so much. That is the point, Joerg.

      Delete
    73. Yes, cart before the horse. Considering there was no specimen, what were the initial reasons for trusting those tracks to be genuine?

      Delete
    74. Let me break this down for you... They had reports, they found tracks, they followed the tracks, they found the creature. At no stage did they require the end result to confirm what they were tracking was worthy of the tracking.

      An off-day indeed.

      Delete
    75. What did I miss? By Jove, By George, Boy Joerg....I think he's got it. Look. I left the comments section for a year. But ...bbbb but, just when I think I've given up on this site....you pull me back in. Now......I don't have a lot of money. But what I do have are a particular set of skills.....skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. :).

      Delete
    76. (Sigh)

      Donald, you say that dermals in Sasquatch tracks are useless without the creature. Yet, tracks with less verified data were good enough in leading primatologists to the Bili Ape. They didn't need a creature before going out to track that creature.

      It's basic point A to point B.

      Delete
    77. Research = conclusion

      NOT

      Conclusion = research

      Delete
    78. Donald ...are you familiar with the "Grape Ape"? He rode around in a van full of skeptics with his head out the sunroof. You should try it. It probably won't blow out your few remaining follicles.

      Delete
    79. My Soldier. Great to see you. I'm off today. For the holidays. What have I missed?

      Delete
    80. "Donald, you say that dermals in Sasquatch tracks are useless without the creature. Yet, tracks with less verified data were good enough in leading primatologists to the Bili Ape. They didn't need a creature before going out to track that creature.
      "

      I never said they were useless, I said they were inconclusive and could be present through either deliberate human fabrication (Bloomington tracks), or an artefact of the casting process.

      Bili ape tracks with even fewer features than alleged bigfoot tracks have actually led to the animal. In this case, a chimpanzee. How many bigfoots have been confirmed by following the feature rich bigfoot tracks?

      Why you insist on using examples that make you look like a fool is beyond me.

      Delete
    81. Mike, are you familiar with the "Brown Crown"? You stick your head up your ass and try to sound smart. Ask Joe, he is pretty good at it.

      Delete
    82. You've missed nothing my friend! Only trolls doing that they do... You've missed nothing as a regular source of intellectual exchange, anyway.

      Delete
    83. Donald. They didn't track the damn Bili Ape. They relied heavily...admittedly on local tribes that were describing a huge chimp like ape they described as a "lion killer". Mike drafts email to Donald picturing a scientist with a looking glass on his hands and knees looking for an ape print in leaf litter in the Congo basin

      Delete
    84. Donald. I used a cartoon reference and you went scatological instantly. You are better than that. Despite what your teachers and standardized tests have lead you to believe.

      Delete
    85. What's conclusive, dear Donald, is there is an unclassified bipedal primate leaving it's sign. Now, what is required here is a consorted effort to get to the bottom of that, because there is no scientific reason to doubt thow tracks as genuine. Bili Ape tracks have actually lead to an animal, where is the consorted effort in this instance with dermals? You stated that the tracks were considered legitimate because of the end result, how can something be considered that if the end result is not reached?

      Again... You are expecting B = A. It's not good logic and you contradict yourself epically.

      Delete
    86. Oh, and thanks for revealing you're Boy Joerg, you creep, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    87. Donald. There's two books I need you to read. "Erectus Walks Anong Us". And the controversial follow up "Erection is Humongous". I think you are referenced in the second one. It's a pop up book. Now behave.

      Delete
    88. Iktomi. You've got this situation well under control. Just wanted to wish you all, even you Don, Happy Holidays.

      Delete
    89. Mike, it was Iktomi that brought up tracking the Bili ape by its footprints, not me.

      Joergy, I have stated many times that I find dermals to be inconclusive.

      Who's Boy Joerg?

      Delete
    90. Oh I'm certain they found prints. I guess my point was that the locals kept stating that these Subjects were there. They even identified the area where they could likely be found. And it turned out to be some great inside information which lead to that discovery. Yet when local timber cutters, trappers, hikers, hunters and fishermen describe Sasquatch, there's no team of scientists who get funded to search for this bipedal primate. They ought to fund a team and put them in a hot area and let's just see what real educational funding and top technology reveals.

      Delete
    91. Why would it require scientists to find bigfoot when we have such top notch researchers like yourself on the case?

      Delete
    92. As good as Mike is, why would anyone consult you on what's "top notch", you cynical, rude pig? Surely someone who contradicts himself as much as you do, shouldn't be calling the shots?

      Delete
    93. I havent seen Joe take such a pounding from dmaker in quite a while. I mean Joes arguments have been dimanatled. Its fun to watch him meltdown. And then Mike B shows up and gets destroyed by dmaker. Or was it the falcoln project that was so horribly destroyed. Mike, how bout a duck lipped pose for the cameras. Its nice to hear that gay sense of humor once more

      Delete
    94. Getting a little upset, Icky? I never said anyone should consult me or that I should run the shots? I merely asked why Mike seems to think we cannot find bigfoot unless we have scientists out in the field. This is a bit puzzling when we have no end of amateurs out there claiming to have the goods. What's the hold up?

      Are you a bit frazzled, Icky? Mom take away your kidney pie?

      Delete
    95. Upset? It takes something significantly bad to happen for me to be upset, dear Donald... And last time I checked, I'm sitting on another long thread of points as to the reasons why dermals stand up, all the sweeter at your expense. You made a cynical statement dressed up as a question... In response, I stated a fact. Is there a problem with that?

      Delete
    96. I have no problem at all. By all means, play dress up, Icky.

      Delete
    97. Dmaker, as much as i enjoy you schooling Joe. Please stop debating him. Its what he wants. Instead hit him with turd and urine comments, sexual comments, and maybe some racist comments. Joe has been trying to goad you, daniel, and boy joerg into arguments/discussions for months. Dont humor him. He only feels complete when he debates guys like you dmaker. He fears you, greatly. But dont humor him. Hit him with the turds and dont enter discussion with him. Make him squirm. AHHHH HAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    98. You are probably right, 12:58. There is no debating that knucklehead, never has been. All he does is repeat the same comments, miss the point entirely and then prance around proclaiming victory. Since this blog seems to be his only purpose in life, we really shouldn't aid him in getting any enjoyment out of it.

      Delete
    99. Yet... Where's the ambiguity, dear Donald??

      : )

      Delete
    100. It would be nice if Joe would just go away. I was googling a topic recently and came across a thread here from years ago. There were people like Sharon Hill participating in the discussion here. This place has gone way down hill if that's the case.

      Joe stifles the discussion. He spams the same crap constantly. He plagiarizes and belittles people constantly. He acts like this is his own blog and bullies and demeans those that disagree with him.

      If this was my blog, I would turf his arrogant, ignorant ass in a heart beat. This place could possibly recover and have decent discussions again. Who knows? That will never happen as long as that pompous blowhard is allowed to act the way he does.

      Delete
    101. "A hypocrite despises those whom he deceives, but has no respect for himself. He would make a dupe of himself too, if he could."
      - William Hazlitt

      ... Upset, Donald?

      Delete
    102. there he goes spamming again with quotes from his man crushes. What about bertrand russell Joerg? Did you and him have a lovers quarrel? Where is boy joerg. HIm and dmaker need to gang up on joergy and send him back to the pit he came from

      Delete
    103. And since you are the biggest hypocrite on this site by far, that quote is very applicable to you. Dont you remember when you referred to yourself as King Hypo? I remember you being called King Hypocrite, and you adopted it and told the trolls to bow to there king, and even signed a few posts King Hypo. How quickly your meltdowns and hypocracy slip your mind joergy my boy

      Delete
    104. D'you know something? I've seen you have some epic meltdowns in my time, but his thread really has been one of the best.

      Are you upset by any chance? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

      Delete
    105. Dmaker and Boy wonder make a good team but no match for Iktomi.
      They may even be one of the same person- split personality !

      Joe

      Delete
    106. I have never seen such a beating. Joe is being pummeled. Its amazing. Yes Yes Yes. Joe went full blown meltdown today. YES!!!!!!

      Delete
  3. Just read the book Erectus walks among'nst us. This will explain all accounts of bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You never posted the link? What are you getting at exactly, anthropomorphism??

      Delete
    2. Uncle Icky likes when erections are among us.

      Delete
    3. Boy Joerg is amping up his obliterations of Joerg. This is the best day of my life!!!

      Delete
    4. Yeah yeah, dude looks like a lady. Yea Yeah

      Delete
  4. Hi Iktomy, just google the title and it will pop up. This really is the seminal book on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll do that, but what is the general premise of the book?

      Delete
    2. to the shrine of your moms used sanitary napkins

      Delete
  5. The premise is that relic populations of Homo erectus still exist today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will get straight on the case then brother. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. I got Joerg sippin on my swag juice, my swag juice. I got Joerg sippin on my swag juice, my swag juice.

      Delete
    3. Err not really. The book mentioned could be construed as racist pseudoscience.
      its the type of easy history the Nazis would teach their kids. tread carefully!

      Delete
    4. Elivs is correct. That is exactly what that book is.

      Delete
    5. Anyone know if MMG came out from hiding, from the embarrassment I continue to cause him??
      ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS FIND ONE VIDEO OUT OF MY 792 THAT IS FAKE MMG.....WAITING!!!!!

      HE CALLS THIS SATIRE.....I CALL IT PUTTING A DOUCHEBAG IN HIS PLACE!!

      Delete
    6. Been hittin' the sauce again eh?..look dr scotch. The person your calling out is not mmg...as joe stated yesterday..you have a bad case of look at me,look at me

      Delete
    7. Yes yes DS, keep up your satire trolling. All of your 792 vids that show any type of, what you call, evidence, is faked/hoaxed. Theres your answer. every vid you make is hoaxed

      MMG

      Delete
  6. Dr, Scotch is a mental case. Chiropractors are quacks. Shameful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. uh no they aren't. Neo-Atheist progressive Skeptards are shameful.

      Delete
    2. Looks like joe made up a new account. timothy guy sure is a gay sounding name

      Delete
  7. I was at this conference "Sasquatch Summit" this weekend. it was one of the best times ive had. Always wanted to go to one and it did not disappoint.

    I loved all the speakers but i liked Thom the best, Bought his book "Edges of science" and a cast from him.

    I think the evidence points to something a natural and a little more than natural going on in the forests of the world.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no one cares. leave the blog

      Delete
    2. Thom looks like a drunk homeless person.

      Delete
  8. I graduated top in my class from the Knoxville, Tennessee School of Medicine and Faith Healing, so I think that Bigfoot is both normal and paranormal.

    ReplyDelete