Sunday, November 15, 2015

Do You Agree With This List Of The Best Bigfoot Evidence?


This particular youtube channel reached the conclusion that these are the top 5 pieces of compelling bigfoot evidence. Do you agree?

Bigfoot also known as Sasquatch is the ape like creature believed to inhabit all areas of the world but most commonly the Pacific Northwest region of North America.

It is described as an enormous, creature with dark brown or reddish brown hair and although it has not been proven to exist, million of people around the world believe that they do roam the woods with thousands of people having first hand experience with the beast. So here are five of the strongest pieces of evidence to prove the existence of Bigfoot.

Big thank you Matt Moneymaker for allowing me to use the Jacobs footage.

21 comments:

  1. None are compelling to anyone who doesn't already believe that bigfoot exists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ni gg er s in Missouri now complaining that all their spotlight is going to Paris and the terrorist attacks instead of them. LOL

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/14/mizzou-campus-activists-and-black-lives-matter-complain-about-paris-stealing-the-spotlight/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not the venue dude.

      Let's stop the spread of prejudice and racism, okay.

      Delete
    2. ^ hes just saying what we all think. Time to call a spade a spade and this venue is perfect! Keep up the good work 2:35

      Delete
    3. Be advised that MMC is black and he whines everytime someone makes racist comments

      Delete
  3. So, the best physical evidence is the Skookum elk lay?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joetomi will cling to dermals.

      Delete
    2. The best "evidence" is the Patterson costume.

      Delete
    3. You guys are the best evidence for psychopaths who know how to use a laptop .
      Seriously ,check your pampers because I think they are full

      Joe

      Delete
    4. Yes... An "Elk lay" where the elk methodically hides it's tracks leading up to it... Totally believable. I'll celebrate dermals, because you numpties haven't got a single case against forensic opinion.

      Oh... And got monkey suit???

      Delete
    5. Yet you believe it's a Bigfoot that somehow didn't leave a track? How did it get up without leaving a footprint or hand print? There are elk hoofprints in the casting. There are elk prints all around the mud wallow. No Bigfoot prints. It's an elk lay. Sorry, but you guys lost this one.

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

      Delete
    7. There were unknown primate hairs found there that have the exact uniform morphology to a collection Henner Fahrenbach has in his collection, to which some are currently being studied by Dr Bryan Sykes. And we just so happen to have the dermals there too... And, where were the Sasquatch tracks I hear you say? Well this would appear to provide a reason for the subject crawling in the mud up to the fruit, so as to not leave any recognisable sign in tracks; giving an explanation for the body impression on the ground. The scientist that lifted the dermals has also got thousands of track castings under his belt, practically totally eradicating any chance of casting artefacts being a contributing factor. There has also not been a source of scientific equivalence to have conclusively shown that the Skookum cast is not what the scientists at hand claim it is.

      Delete
    8. There was a single hair found that matched PRESUMED Sasquatch hair. The verdict of primate hair is yours, and has not been demonstrated conclusively.The small area you describe as dermals has only been declared so by two or three scientists, two have no credentials that apply to that field. How did the Sasquatch get up wifh out leaving a hand print, footprint (there are prints from numerous different animals, yet no Sasquatch) , palm print or other sign? It's an elk lay. I would love if it were a Sasquatch print, but its not.

      Delete
    9. No, no, no... You obviously don't follow. The hair sample taken from that area is the same in morphology to hairs found my government officials who've had their own sighting and tracks cast... That is in turn linked to other samples with their own circumstances surrounding sightings and activity. These hairs have been verified by multiple camps of primatologists... And now have been the focus of Dr Bryan Sykes who's results show them to be a match to feral humans in Uzbekistan. Anyway... Using the word "presumed" when you are slightly naive to highly relevant information is slightly audacious. And we have the matter of dermals, that I might add, are still classified as that by scientists... Using that like it's an argument against the matter is slightly silly (let me know if you want a crazy line of forensic experts regarding dermals). How does Sasquatch get around without leaving half as many tracks as it does? Remember the best trackers in the world call him Boss of the Woods.

      Delete
    10. Oh... And since you are suddenly so interested in the credentials of the scientists at hand, might I remind you that there has also not been a source of scientific equivalence to have conclusively shown that the Skookum cast is not what the scientists at hand claim it is.

      Delete
    11. Iktomi, Henner Farenbach himself uses the word presumptive to describe the hairs, and he's a proponent. He's an advocate. All we can say about the hairs is that they have unique features. They have not been proven by anyone to be primate hairs. Please site your source.

      Delete
    12. I think you'll find I always go straight to the source, it's DNA that Fahrenbach finds tricky; he's pretty made up on what the hairs are from...
      "The testing is being done for the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center. "Oregon has a large number of (Bigfoot) samples all of which they treat with great skepticism," said Paul Fuerst, OSU associate professor of molecular genetics. "These two batches sent to us had the best possibility of being real. The creatures reportedly were observed at a distance of about 100 feet in a dense, dark forest. "It was a sighting by forest rangers," Poirier said. "After the creatures left, they picked up hair from the locale, as well as footprints and knuckle prints. Tests so far suggest the hair did not come from a primate, Fuerst said."

      "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."

      You have multiple camps verifying hairs to be of an unknown primate (ORPRC and Fahrenbach), that are consist met with other samples aligned to their own activity, and then Sykes rocks up with this;
      "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".

      Delete
  4. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum_hokum.htm

    ReplyDelete