Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Man Claims To Have Knowledge Of Ape-Man Hybrid


We know that the Soviet Union experimented with creating human/ape hybrids for a super soldier program, but that it ultimately failed. Even though it sounds like it came straight from a comic book, it did actually happen. So is it possible that such a program may have succeeded? One man claims to have knowledge of this, as well as extensive knowledge about bigfoot.


153 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. FFS! viable hybrid species FFS!
      FFS! this has been my theory from the beginning, only it's no human + monkey lol! This is a viable hybrid species from relic hominid + human :) FFS!

      Delete
    2. lookin lack tham muzrats folks shure do!

      Delete
    3. That is one creepy nasty looking avatar pic FFS

      Delete
    4. You seem to have a strange fascination with FFS's photograph don't you? Nothing more creepy than that.

      Delete
    5. The thing is that these experiments were performed by someone who was hired by Stalin because he successfully bred a zebra and a donkey or something along those lines around the second World War in the 1940's. They needed a soldier that was fairly strong, aggressive and could survive the extremely harsh and brutal weather and the climate that most of Russia is covered in. Although chimpanzees and humans share almost 99% of the same DNA they soon found out that some species, even being as closely related as we are, can't successfully breed. These experiments were performed over 70 years ago. So it does make you wonder if the technology and science has caught up with the concept. But what could you do with a human-chimp hybrid? Honestly, it would more than likely be a wild animal with extremely aggressive tendencies. Something like that couldn't possibly take orders and commands like the Russian military had originally intended

      Delete
  2. Peace, pot and micro dot!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ifn tham amurkins gits readin da constitushun fer tham rites

      Delete
  3. Iktomi, wow that is a really good portrait of you. I did not know you were so handsome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've actually got more hair than that!

      Delete
    2. Teenage Islamist 'poster girl' who fled Austria to join ISIS 'is beaten to death by the terror group after trying to escape from Syria'

      THE NEW NORM

      Delete
  4. You go to these conferences and you will find people with all sorts of theories. Some are just opinion, and some are adamant they know the truth. Personally I think they are as related to a gorilla as are we.
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's just it - all these different stories and theories being put forth just muddle the waters and does the person who really wants to get to the bottom of this mystery no favors. Even the most hardcore Bigfoot advocate must realize most of these stories could not possibly be true because they could not all fit the attributes of one single type of creature. I wonder sometimes if the stories told gives insight into the person telling it themselves.

      Delete
    2. Bigfoot doesnt exist. This is a problem for the believers. A very big problem. When some wackjob comes up with an insane story footers try and sweep it under the rug. Failing that they embrace it because they have no other option. It has got to the point where every possible attribute has been described which has even led some footers to suggest there is more than one species (we are getting into mental illness territory here). The solution is so so simple and its a shame to see so many people lose their minds to the topic.

      Delete
    3. Now you've guys have done it. Here come lktomi (Joe) with his usual tired old links just like clockwork.

      Delete
    4. Yes, "Bigfoot doesn't exist" every day of your life... Actually, for something so simple, you fail so humorously in supporting it with facts. Why is that? Why for something allegedly so simple, do you only have a logical fallacy? Here's a scientific principle called Occam's Razor;
      "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
      ... What has fewer assumptions, the school of thought that says for ten thousand years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing conspirators all out 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 cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too... Or the school of thought for all that time people are indeed seeing something very genuine in line with the forensic, video and audio evidence that supports it?

      I think the only person with the "problem", is the person above who really needs to spend every day of his life worried about what other people far cleverer than he thinks, and angrily tries to convince people in the way he quite clearly fears the topic. In actual fact, there are a reported two types of Sasquatch; the Native American looking type and the gorilla looking type. What type of person attempts to use sensationalist versions of "every possible attribute"? Someone trying to "muddy the waters" because he fails in proving what allegedly is so obvious, and needs an intellectual step ladder.

      Delete
    5. My position does not need supporting with facts but here are some anyway.

      Zero bigfoots or proof thereof anywhere ever.
      There have been proven cases of people lying about bigfoots.
      There have been proven cases of people hoaxing bigfoot.
      Paradolia is a scientifically proven thing.
      Misidentifications are a scientifically proven thing.

      Delete
    6. LOL - told you guys. Hey - where's the same old tired links we have seen hundreds of times before?

      Delete
    7. Your position doesn't need to be supported with facts? Are oh somehow more special than everyone on the planet? That would fit with our psychological diagnosis I guess, but here it goes... Even your heroes try and support their ideas with facts. It's what logical, half clever people try and do. You might kick and scream around the house and boss your parents around to taking you to Disney World when you see fit, but it doesn't work around people who are not obligated to deal with your tantrums.

      "Zero Bigfeets" therefore "Bigfoot doesn't exist" is a logical fallacy. Not even the most religious of pseudosceptics use that anymore, expecially due to a long line of evidences that show that if something doesn't exist, then it wouldn't be leaving it's physical sign. Because people have hoaxed something, to then state that thousands of years of reports are lies, is as crazy a leap of faith as any religious ideals you can reference.

      In short, if you really want peace of mind, and really want people to listen to your crying, please demonstrate that the evidence for Sasquatch is non-existent, then you'll even persuade me that it's all misidentification and PAREIDOLIA.

      You silly spoiled brat.

      Delete
    8. Here we go, 8:46;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      Thousands of years of sightings = hairs = dermals = video = audio = Occam's Razor.

      Delete
    9. My position is the default position therefore it requires no facts to back it up. You arent too clever are you?

      Delete
    10. The "default position" is that which represents the frequency of evidence. Since you can't show me that isn't there, then I'm at the default. You've been into this topic for years, with "Bigfoot don't exist" being the brunt of your hopeless capabilities, and I'm stupid?

      Delete
    11. Curious... You see, I really don't think anyone's views "muddy the waters"... I find different ideas, however whacky they seem totally fascinating. In an age where the theories behind quantum physics are outshining the most far-fetched of Stephen King books; then why not? I find anyone willing to think outside of the box, practicing gutsy science, how science once was and very much worth listening to.
      "If you've never been wrong, you've never been creative. The bigger the ideas, the more you're wrong."
      - Todd Disotell

      Now even though I don't agree with this hybrid theory, I enjoy reading about it. On the topic of Henry Franzoni yesterday, here's an example of things I don't exactly necessarily 100% endorse as factual, but find essential in thinking outside of the box and don't dismiss any of it;
      "Seatco is a nineteenth century term from the Chinook Jargon, the one-time trade language of the Pacific Northwest. Indians described the Seatco as a mysterious tribe of Indians that possessed puzzling powers... Among which was their ability to kill game with hypnotic power and their ability to turn invisible. Since the 1920s, modern society has disregarded Indian wisdom about the Seatco as superstition and myth, coinciding with the rise of mechanism and reductionism and the defeat of vitalism in institutional science. Institutional science has found no place for the Seatco (known today as the Sasquatch)... After 50 years of cursory interest, institutional science has acquired no hard evidence that they exist. However, the places the Indians said they lived still exist. Explore the location of over 4000 early place names and embark on a quest to find out if the Seatco are still there. Accompany the author as he seeks to understand the puzzling powers of the Seatco... Exploring the possible connections between science and spirituality... Between Indian wisdom and the discarded 19th century idea of “field lines” as well as the long abandoned scientific school of thought named vitalism”. Learn about a possible explanation for the puzzling powers of the Seatco using the 19th century theories of Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla, and the vitalists. Journey across North America and learn how extraordinary proof of their theories awaits discovery in the high and lonely realm of the Seatco."

      That's just me... Maybe I haven't been into this topic as long as you and have a decent amount of patience left in me, but I just really enjoy it myself. Hope you are well mate.

      Delete
    12. You think the default position is bigfoot exists? Are you retarded?

      Delete
    13. Oh come now lktomi, even you have to admit that all these stories put forth cannot be taken at face value. If you were referring to me in the above comment I am not trying to convince anyone because I realize minds are made up here but simply pointing out the discrepancies in all these stories does not do the Bigfoot advocates any favors. Truly - how many different types of these creatures do you believe exist in the United States? If one was to believe all these different stories we would have a whole plethora of sub-species with different traits. Even these native legends you are so fond of referring to give different abilities and appearances. I could possibly entertain the possibility of ONE unknown creature that large remaining undetected but it completely stretches the credibility of multiple creatures existing and all these stories seem to indicate exactly that. Believe what you wish but as a former believer I just cannot accept stories such as falling into a Bigfoot's lap and such. The psychology of Bigfoot belief continues to interest me however and there he mystery remains for me.

      Delete
    14. Ok, allow me to hold your hand and walk you through this, these are the revised default positions;

      "Bigfoot" doesn't exist = scientific evidence for the existence of "Bigfoot" arises = HERE IS WHERE YOU NEED TO COME IN = if you can't then the default position is that there is scientific evidence that is attributed to a large bipedal primate, and your "Bigfoot doesn't exist" logical fallacy looks even more desperate.

      Delete
    15. Yes, he is. Which makes it redundant to do anything but poke him with a sharp stick. Key feature of being retarded is not being aware that you are retarded.

      Delete
    16. What the f uck is joe even talking about has he finally lost his mind?

      Delete
    17. Curious... That's just the thing, I don't take anything at face value, that's putting words in people's mouths possibly due to an underlying agenda to dismiss, if I may say so respectfully? Was I referring to you above? No... I did use your "muddying waters" premise to keep on topic, and demonstrate the hypocrisy of the anon' poor logic.

      People are in fact reporting what appears to look like a bipedal gorilla from afar, but to even look at the close up of Patty is to see very human like features;
      http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-human-side-of-bigfoot-comparing.html
      ... Even Bobb Gimlin stated that when he saw the subject in the footage, to him it looked like an "incredibly large, hairy human being". Even the forensic drawings done by Harvey Pratt show a creature that has a very human face. We also have recent DNA studies, that have shown biological evidence of what an entire community reported to be exactly what we expect to see in our mind's eye of a Bigfoot, to have not only human DNA, but the exact DNA that we have (Zana). It is a very, very, very natural human trait to theorise on the origins of fringe topics, expecially with concepts as crazy as this... Does that mean that accumulative data is therefore untrustworthy? Is that another leap of faith? You see; I'm not so sure there are more than two types being reported? I think what you're confusing, are the many different alleged origins of this creature, with the different takes on what people are actually reporting... The reports are consistent; human like and gorilla like.

      Delete
    18. Quick diaper butt troll! Danny Campbell just popped in to call me stupid! How "spiritual" is that?!

      Danny, I wish I knew what you were talking about.

      Delete
    19. FFS! Cross breeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal...Their offspring where "viable hybrids" or you could say US :) this is just 1 of the reasons behind my little theory. But then its just really an opinion more than theory lol! Hybridation often can increase over all size, muscle tone, hair well you get the point...I don't believe modern human evolved from ape though. I know this will confuse many here hahahaha FFS!

      Delete
    20. But do you not feel that some of the stories such as dimensional portals and telepathic abilities do more damage than good for the field? It may be that "thou shall not speak disparagingly of other advocates" but some of these need to be called out by those who are serious about the subject. They say that having an open mind if fine as long as it's not so open as your brain falls out. I truly think that all the rubbish that has entered this field has done more damage to it's credibility than any skeptic. I no longer believe and I haven't for many years but I can respect some well-intentioned belief however I cannot respect or entertain some of the garbage I have read on this very forum. When it comes to separating fact from fiction on a unknown creature one still has to use a bit of common sense.

      Delete
    21. FFS!! You seriously might be on to something. There is not enough genuine discussion about this. Whenever AC Collins is on about this, I genuinely find it fascinating. Another great theory, is that Cro-Magnon versions of us were much larger, modern Homo sapiens becoming smaller and less robust due to agriculture. A hybrid of an ancient version of us is with something like Neanderthal, Denisovan or another mystery hominid, is completely plausible. Many, many enthusiasts claim Homo Erectus is what is being reported as Sasquatch.

      Curious... Can I just say that I have an open mind without leaving my brains falling out. I don't disbelieve in telepathy, in fact there are studies on remote viewing & such that have had some incredible results. Now if humans can be telepathic, and Sasquatch are humans (possibly evolved longer than us), then why not? I'm trying hard to not come across crazy here because I know I sound crazy, ha ha ha ha!! But I will always listen to people's theories, however far out they might seem.

      Delete
    22. Well FFS. Dr. Ketchum would certainly agree with you and I certainly lean this way. Here is more food for thought. Ketchum said this process took place 15,000 years ago. Just one month ago scientist discovered the modern dog also appeared 15,000 years ago in Kazakhstan I believe. Kazakhstan is close to the area of the Almasty. What happened 15k years ago.?
      Chuck

      Delete
    23. FFS! Not crazy at all sir, infact it fits in quite nicely to the "Viable Hybrid" opinion / theory :) Brain capacity, electrical output, frequency all could be heightened by hybridation :) so NO that's not crazy at all bro! FFS!

      Delete
    24. FFS! Hey Chuck interesting brain candy :)
      Connecting the dots could take some time, but I find this topic very cool indeed. FFS!

      Delete
    25. The default position is that bigfoot has not been proven to exist, not that it does not exist. Since that burden has not been met, the default still stands.

      Delete
    26. "On the topic of Henry Franzoni yesterday, "..

      On the "topic"? That's a good one. You mean to say, "Yesterday when I was blatantly plagiarizing Henry Franzoni".

      Delete
    27. Boy Joerg, where have you been all my life? I love you!!!!!!!!!!! We needed your account here so bad. Now watch Joerg go off the handle.

      Delete
    28. "Bigfoot has not been proven to exist, therefore Bigfoot doesn't exist" is a double logical fallacy regarding circular reasoning and negative proof. You require next to no intelligence to think like this, and are akin to medieval fundamentalists to expect cleverer people to abide by it. The default position once the claim is made is requiring evidence to support the idea, with the aim of inevitably proving that Sasquath exists. Research does not start at a conclusion, at goes against every scientific breakthrough based on consorted efforts in history, pick up a book for once in your pitiful existence. Once that evidence is presented, you need to now lift that burden in line with your critical claims, or what exists, is a currenlty unclassified, bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates.

      Occam's Razor.

      Delete
    29. Do you realize you make no sense when you talk?

      Delete
    30. The burden of proof has not been met, therefore the default position remains. It is not up to anyone else to disprove your crappy, pseudoscientific "evidence".

      Delete
    31. It's very simple, Uncle Joergy, you need evidence that will meet the burden of proof. That means it cannot be ambiguous. So far, that has not happened. All the evidence for bigfoot, so far, could also be evidence for something else. So the case goes on with the default position intact--bigfoot has not been proven.

      What you need is DNA or a specimen.

      It's really very simple and if a fat kid like me can explain fully in a couple of short paragraphs then your inevitable nonsense, rambling paragraph to come really isn't going to help you.

      Delete
    32. Do you still wear that bib when you post, Uncle Joergy? I sure hope so, because I can just see you frothing at the mouth as you furiously clack away at the keyboard right now.

      Don't get too upset, Uncle Joergy. You will get a handle on this stuff some day if you just concentrate really hard.

      Delete
    33. 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.

      What's more... To state to use a negative proof fallacy, and ignore the evidence that constitutes the existence of a creature that can be attributed to reports of Sasquatch, is another fallacy called suppression of evidence, and as pseudoscientific as you can shake a stick at.

      Delete
    34. If the evidence is "ambiguous", if it can be deemed as being "something else", show us! Ha ha ha!! This is your critical assessment, that is your burden. Oh the requirements of adult debate, eh? Just gets in the way every time!

      : )

      Delete
    35. Oh, and by the way... Dr Bryan Sykes just published a book regarding DNA, didn't you know? Ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    36. Uncle Joergy is probably typing numerous emails to shawn and matt K right now to try and ban you. But lets not forget one of Joergs central ideas: "Extraordinary claims shouldnt require extraordinary evidence". Bit contradictory to your statements above huh Joerg? Pwned once more. It looks like Boy Joerg is the new Daniel/dmaker. Pwning Joe one reply at a time. AHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    37. Sykes is coming.....tick tock tick tock. Oooopppssss! Joe fails once again. AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    38. Bertrand Russel flows through me, like a strong sip of Joerg Juice

      Delete
    39. My claim, precisely, is that bigfoot has not been proven to exist. Am I wrong in that? No, I am not. Therefore the default position that bigfoot is unproven remains.

      What is so difficult to understand about that, Uncle Joergy?

      The evidence has been shown to be something else on multiple occasions. Tracks have been hoaxed many times. Photos and video have been hoaxed many times. Now this does not mean that all are hoaxes, of course. But it does highlight the ambiguity of that type of evidence. You simply will not be able to prove your case without solid, physical evidence that can be taken to a lab and tested. An indentation in the ground simply does not cut it. All it takes to understand that is a bit of logic. Try it some time, Uncle Joergy.

      Delete
    40. ^ Yes yes yes!!!! Boy Joerg for president!!

      Delete
    41. Ban who? In sorry, what's happened that someone needs to be banned?? Allow me to explain, I like taking pseudosceptical mantras, in this instance "extraordinary evidence", and turning it against them. Marcello Truzzi's stuff is so good at this, and even though I have read and used varying philosophical ideas regarding "extraordinary evidence", the simple truth is if you abide by it, you are obligated by your biggest burden. How ironic, eh?

      Actually Sykes came, lost you your bet and is likely to come again, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    42. "My claim, precisely, is that bigfoot has not been proven to exist. Am I wrong in that?"
      ... The problem with that is it has no bearing on the scientific legitimacy on the existence of "Bigfoot", ha ha ha!! You busy idiot. It is a logical fallacy to assume that it doesn't exist, a negative, because it has not arisen... ESPECIALLY given that there is physical evidence that points to a creature that fits the anatomical make up of a Sasquatch. Ya dig?

      Tracks impressions being hoaxed has no bearing on forensic evidence in those tracks that can't be. A couple of kids running around in monkey suits, again has no bearing on that level of physical evidence.
      "Now this does not mean that all are hoaxes, of course." Did you just rip your own argument apart? "But it does highlight the ambiguity" no, it doesn't... Ambiguity is the quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness. By your own admission, your own stance is not exact, ironic, eh?

      Not very good at this, are you?

      Here's many experts associated with many labs who have verified the physical evidence;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
      ... Now go get another contradictory ambiguous source to support your accusations of ambiguity, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    43. "Absolutes, absolutes, where have you been? I think you're by the wayside, in a psuedosceptical dream."

      In short, if something is "ambiguous", then show it to be. There is nothing ambiguous about forensics and a long line of consensus amongst impartial scientists who present it. Sorry it's at the expense of your self esteem.

      Delete
    44. Sigh. You're a little bit slow in the head, aren't you Uncle Icky?

      I never said bigfoot that I assume that bigfoot does not exist because it has not been proven to exist. Stop changing what I say and try to do a more accurate reading.

      There is nothing contradictory or ironic in what I said, Uncle Icky. Tracks HAVE been hoaxed and they HAVE fooled the so called experts. Even ones that had supposed details that could never be faked. Yet later they were proven to be fakes.

      Meldrum and everyone else stuck their neck out on the Snowalker video and proclaimed that it could simply not be a human in a suit. Guess what? It was a human in a suit.

      Your short list of experts have been wrong in their assertions in the past. They have proclaimed absolute certainty in some cases and still been proven wrong and fooled by hoaxes. You point out that ambiguity is the quality of being open to more than one interpretation. Well, there you have it. Could a certain track be real, or be a hoax? We have examples where a track has been claimed to be both. Well, it can't be both can it? Yet, there are two valid interpretations. Especially when the interpretation of the track as valid by all of your experts is embarrassingly turned over and the track is revealed as a hoax.

      All of this explains why any evidence that is open to more than one interpretation is too ambiguous. But, do you know what is not ambiguous? DNA, or a specimen. But, gosh darn it, no one seems able to get anything like that, can they? So in the meantime, let's all circle the wagons and circle jerk over anecdotes and experts who "verify" fake evidence.

      Yeah, you're not very good at this at all, Uncle Joergy. No wonder everyone here laughs at you.

      Delete
    45. FFS! So many different hominids were cross breeding and through selective breeding of those "Viable Hybrids" you get the Big Guy :) No I do not have proof much like there isn't solid proof of ( evolution ) that's why it's still a theory and not a law... FFS!

      Delete
    46. Ugh. I hate that you can't edit a post here. The first sentence above should read:

      "I never said that I assume that bigfoot does not exist because it has not been proven to exist."

      Delete
    47. I suspect there is less proof of you passing the 5th grade, FFS, than there is of bigfoot.

      Delete
    48. "I never said bigfoot that I assume that bigfoot does not exist because it has not been proven to exist. Stop changing what I say and try to do a more accurate reading."
      ... Wait for it... His comment previous;
      "My claim, precisely, is that bigfoot has not been proven to exist. Am I wrong in that? No, I am not. Therefore the default position that bigfoot is unproven remains."
      "There is nothing contradictory or ironic in what I said, Uncle Icky."
      ... Um, unfortunately, black and white doesn't lie. I think you hold so much devalue in contradictions, that you're in denial in a perverse fashion; cringey.
      "Tracks HAVE been hoaxed and they HAVE fooled the so called experts. Even ones that had supposed details that could never be faked. Yet later they were proven to be fakes."
      ... Ok, what example of dermals have been shown to fool what expert? This is your claim, now it is our burden. I can't find anyone to fit this scenario on the Internet, please support your ideas with concrete data.
      "Meldrum and everyone else stuck their neck out on the Snowalker video and proclaimed that it could simply not be a human in a suit. Guess what? It was a human in a suit."
      ... Yes, but Meldrum is not a video analyst, and what bearing does this have on the forensic physical evidence?
      "Your short list of experts have been wrong in their assertions in the past. They have proclaimed absolute certainty in some cases and still been proven wrong and fooled by hoaxes."
      ... Ok, you'll have no qualms about sourcing am argument against the forensic experts that I've given you in that link then, right? Again... Your burden.
      "You point out that ambiguity is the quality of being open to more than one interpretation. Well, there you have it."
      ... Yes, I gave you the definition to show how ambiguous your stance is, try to keep up kid...
      "Could a certain track be real, or be a hoax? We have examples where a track has been claimed to be both. Well, it can't be both can it?"
      ... Hmmm, no it can't. But this is where testing of science and falsifiability comes into play. Your heroes tried it, and guess what, there is no scientific reason to not consider dermal ridges, or the opinion of the list of forensic experts who have verified them.
      "Yet, there are two valid interpretations. Especially when the interpretation of the track as valid by all of your experts is embarrassingly turned over and the track is revealed as a hoax."
      ... No, valid would imply that you have tested it and you have at least an equivalent countering scientific opinion, or even an example of where this has occurred. You seem to think putting things is writing is akin to trumping actual data that has been posted to you, your burden grows...
      "All of this explains why any evidence that is open to more than one interpretation is too ambiguous."
      ... Um... But you haven't demonstrated that the evidence is ambiguous yet?
      "But, do you know what is not ambiguous? DNA, or a specimen."
      ... Yes, and the guy who wrote the book on mitochondrial DNA says Sasquatch share our exact DNA. Do you now contradict yourself by denying the main source of these principles now?
      "But, gosh darn it, no one seems able to get anything like that, can they? So in the meantime, let's all circle the wagons and circle jerk over anecdotes and experts who "verify" fake evidence."
      ... Um no; you have forensic evidence and hominid skulls attributed to Sasquatch skull morphology, with world beating geneticists attributing to things like Yetis, to support anecdotes. Your burden grows so much, I can't keep up?
      "Yeah, you're not very good at this at all, Uncle Joergy. No wonder everyone here laughs at you."
      ... Oh the irony.

      Delete
    49. ^ yes folks we have a category 5 meltdown from Joergtomi. Boy Joerg is putting a hurting on Joe.

      Delete
    50. ^ speak for yourself toddler

      Joe

      Delete
    51. So we'll try this again... Only because I've got a cruel streak...
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      ... Where is the ambiguity of this?

      Delete
    52. Uncle Icky, see if you can tell the difference between the two statements below:

      I assume that bigfoot does not exist because it has not been proven to exist.

      Bigfoot has not been proven to exist.


      Delete
    53. Boy Joerg- how did you manage to unlock the cabinet door to get to your parent's laptop ?. i wont ask you how you managed to do the same to their liquor cabinet

      Joe

      Delete
    54. When your "default position" is subjective with a logical fallacy, then who's "unlucky"? You're with adults now kid, try and keep up. Again...
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
      ... Where's the ambiguity in this? Anyone would think I'm talking to Danny Campbell with the manner in which we go around in perfect circles, never addressing he points posed your way??

      : )

      Delete
    55. You want examples of Krantz being fooled by supposed dermal ridges and other alleged forensic details in a track?
      Ok, here you go. The Mill Creek, Indiana tracks:
      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skeptical.htm

      From that article:

      "After an eight-month effort, I was able to talk with Parker, then living on the East Coast. He told me the footprint was a fake. He knew this because he had made the imprint and the cast! Originally he had intended only to see if Krantz could, as he bragged, "differentiate between [a track] made artificially or naturally." Parker said he now feels the thing has gone too far and regrets he made the [Bloomington] track. I asked how it had been made. "It took about twenty minutes to form the print in the mud," he said. The dermal ridges came from his foot and hands, placed in areas where the "least amount of wear or abrasion would occur." What about the "two traits"? "Oh," Parker replied, "I wasn't sure about that. I thought they might be toenails and scars, so I added both." Parker also told me he made "the ball of the foot appear deeper near the inside of the foot to simulate the weight-bearing area during a light push-off." At the last minute, he embedded the shell of an American black walnut where the fifth toe would have been to make the print look more realistic."

      "Throughout my investigation into the Bloomington track I received help from many people who think there is a Sasquatch. Most of these "researchers" feel other "evidence" provides better support for the existence of the Bigfoot creature. One of these, Cliff Crook (1993), summed up the issue: "Science is about discovering the truth. It is evident that Grover Krantz has consistently abused his scientific credentials by his constant failure to acknowledge plain facts.""

      Delete
    56. I chose Krantz as an example because he is the author of the paper you linked.

      Delete
    57. Pwned like the clueless moron you are.

      AGAIN

      Delete
    58. So, here we have the author of the paper you linked being fooled by a hoaxed track.

      Now explain to me how that does not raise issues of ambiguity in this type of evidence. If the leading expert cannot tell genuine from fake, then that is not a great body of evidence to be waiving around, Uncle Icky.

      Delete
    59. Bigfoot enthusiasts and researchers need to stick to trying to obtain a specimen or DNA. Nothing else is going to help at this point.

      Perhaps some HD, up close, prolonged footage would go a long way to cleaning up the public image. But we all know that cameras never work around bigfoot.

      Delete
    60. Tut, tut, tut... You merely digress from what was put to you. This can be attributed to either poor debating skills, or simply no minerals for what required of you. You see, Gover Krantz is an anthropologist. He's not a forensic expert, and the tracks you reference are not in the paper I sourced you. Tut, tut, tut... Shameful oversight. Allow me to source you who is qualifide here and who is in that paper endorsing dermals. 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.

      Would you like me to source you their actual comments on the dermals in question? Again... Where is the ambiguity????

      Delete
    61. Hmmmmm, OK... So where is the ambiguity??? Why can't I get a straight answer here????

      Delete
    62. Seriously? The ambiguity is that there is no reliable method to distinguish fake from genuine. This has been demonstrated by people like Krantz, an expert in the field, proclaiming fake tracks as genuine.

      When this happens it calls into question that entire body of evidence.

      Delete
    63. The paper you sources was by Krantz. Now you want to complain that he is not a "forensic expert"? Then why did you source his paper for your argument? Seriously, are you retarded?

      Delete
    64. It does not matter whether the tracks were in that paper or not. Even one example of an expert, or experts, proclaiming hoaxed evidence as genuine is enough to cast doubt on that entire source of evidence.

      But never mind all that, just use your head. Without the creature that allegedly made the tracks, how can you prove beyond a doubt and to the satisfaction of the world and scientific community that the track was made by bigfoot? You cannot.

      In the very paper that you sourced, Krantz comments on this very thing:

      "The more unlikely or unexpected the species, the more proof is required to establish its existence. A new subspecies of chipmunk might be seriously considered on the eye-witness testimony of one competent zoologist. But if the giraffe were unknown to science, five expert accounts, supported by photographs and footprints, would hardly suffice."


      Delete
    65. "The ambiguity is that there is no reliable method to distinguish fake from genuine."
      ... Um... Not according to he forensic experts I've just listed. You know, the experts that count, yeah? Actually,
      forensic science is such a reliable method of science, that is applied to the field of law. Forensic scientists are tasked with the collection, preservation, and analysis of scientific evidence during the course of an investigation. Are you sure you are aware of what you're talking about?
      "This has been demonstrated by people like Krantz, an expert in the field, proclaiming fake tracks as genuine."
      ... But Krantz was an anthropologist and not qualified to pass a credible evaluation on dermals? Are you a moron by any chance, or getting rather desperate??

      : )

      Delete
    66. Oh, so now Krantz doesn't count? Despite the fact that you sourced his paper twice now in the thread?

      Delete
    67. "But never mind all that, just use your head. Without the creature that allegedly made the tracks, how can you prove beyond a doubt and to the satisfaction of the world and scientific community that the track was made by bigfoot?"
      ... That's because the premise here is not to prove the existence of Sasquatch, but to prove there is reliable evidence for something that fits the anatomical features of Sasquatch... Try and keep up dear boy? You come across all sweaty? Are you having a meltdown????

      Delete
    68. Krantz counts for putting together the excellent piece of work, and counts when it comes to his field once applied to this topic.

      Try and keep up, you're like an old man?

      Delete
    69. So... Ok... Where's this "ambiguity" again???

      Delete
    70. (Tumbleweed goes by...)

      Oh... And to answer your comment up top regarding this;
      "Uncle Icky, see if you can tell the difference between the two statements below:
      I assume that bigfoot does not exist because it has not been proven to exist.
      Bigfoot has not been proven to exist."

      ... You butted in on the long exchange that a logical fallacy was warranted in confirming a scientific default position on the extistence of Sasquatch. Even though we both know that this is indeed your stance but are wary of hitting a logic hurdle, if you don't want to be painted in the same light make you're own arguments in another thread.

      Delete
    71. Here's about as simple a way of putting it that I can think of. In the absence of a type specimen, or the severed foot of one, how do you know that alleged bigfoot creatures even have dermal ridges?

      Think about that for a second. With this type of evidence, and no specimen or physical remains to support it, the conclusions are all supposition.

      The following are all possibilities, logically speaking:

      Bigfoot exists and does not have dermal ridges. All tracks that are purported to display dermal ridges are the result of human fabrication or an artefact of the casting process
      Bigfoot do not exist. All tracks that are purported to display dermal ridges are the result of human fabrication or an artefact of the casting process
      Bigfoot do exist and do have dermal ridges. Some of the tracks purported to display dermal ridges may, in fact, contain genuine bigfoot dermal ridges.
      Bigfoot do exist and do have dermal ridges. All tracks that are purported to display dermal ridges are the result of human fabrication or an artefact of the casting process


      You are putting the cart before the horse. You have no means of verifying your assumptions about the evidence. You have no bigfoot foot to compare. For all you know, maybe they don't even have dermal ridges.

      If you truly cannot see the ambiguity at this point, then I am done trying to reason with a retarded lampshade.

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

      Delete
    73. How do we know that the "Bigfoot creatures" have dermal ridges? Hmmmmm, OK... Basic deduction. Sasquatch if it exists (and it does), is a primate of some sort. One merely compares this with other primate species traits, and to falsify them compare it to casting artefacts. The delta ridges on prints with verified dermals are in fact very similar in places to modern homo sapiens, in that they change directions over 45 degrees; they converge and deviate. They still have the same texture and ridge flow pattern, like a humans but twice the size. There is however enough unique data in them to be considered an "unknown primate", which could imply a "different version of us". For repeated data, the dermals type has been found in casts spanning decades and States. 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 EXACT same biological idea, and then fool multiple forensic experts.

      So, since there is no scientific means to not consider these traits authentic, if the forensic sign in these casts are not attributed to Sasquatch then you have be awkward reality of explaining to us what other as of yet unclassified bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates, is leaving it's sign on the environment of the US? I am not putting the cart before the horse. Research is research and it evolves to its conclusion... And I have verified my "assumptions" by the sheer lack of data you have presented in proving how ambiguous it is. Research does not start at conclusion, and you would have a very difficult time trying to explain to wildlife biologists that tracks are worthless without a conclusion. The Bili ape took a year to track... I wonder how they did this??? No... You are "done" because you failed in proving your premise.

      Delete
    74. How many bigfoots have been tracked, Joe?

      Delete
    75. How many words have you used to denounce those who have tried?

      Delete
    76. You know dmaker - that's a good question and one that I have wondered about for decades. Why doesn't someone - ANYONE follow these tracks to their conclusion? We can all agree that something is making these tracks - yes? I have seen many pictures of tracks in the snow with one right here just a couple of stories ago. It would seem to me that snow would be the easiest medium in which to track. I remember reading right here where it was claimed there was several Bigfoots making lots of tracks in a muddy lakebed. Why doesn't the show Finding Bigfoot or a documentary set up a procedure where they follow fresh tracks in the snow or wet ground? I'm sorry but I cannot accept any excuses for not doing this. It IS in the realm of possibility and there is no reason why it could not be carried out if the will and desire is there.

      Delete
    77. Even the very best trackers in the world, refer to these creatures as the Boss of the Woods.

      Delete
    78. Then I don't consider them the very best trackers in the world if they cannot simply follow tracks in the snow. SOMETHING has to be at the end of these tracks. If something leaves tracks it CAN be tracked.

      Delete
    79. Have you actually seen how effective these people are at tracking people, Curious?

      Delete
    80. Not personally but I have seen a TV show called Mantracker where a professional tracker hunted down human "prey" and was successful most of the time. I believe he even did it without the help of snow on the ground. Seriously - how good a tracker do you need to be to simply follow tracks in the snow?

      Delete
    81. Boy Joerg, i applaud you. But i must ask you to stop using logic to debate Joe. He loves this type of thing. He has been trying to get daniel and dmaker to come back and give him any kind of debate or exchange. And althougth you are schooling him royally, he enjoys these exchanges. So Boy Joerg, i must ask you to stop trying to speak to Joe logically or debate him. Instead, please incorporate more talk of turds, and add some sexual comments frequently. Dont give Joerg what he wants. He sees you and is excited that someone is paying him attention. Keep hitting him with the same type fo thing you are doing Boy Joerg. But dont acknolwedge what he is saying. Instead, hit him with mainly turd and sexual comments. Then through in a little racism.

      Delete
    82. ^ has a man crush on a boy
      What a sicko !

      Delete
    83. Remember boy joerg, more turd and sexuality comments, and less debate. Joe will appreciate that style more if you know what i mean.

      Delete
    84. Boy Joerg...with your comments..."do you really want to hurt me?....do you really want to make me cry " (laughing) ? Tell ya what ....there's a DNA study that's close to completion. 4 samples had viable DNA, and from what I understand the mtDNA and nuDNA were isolated . They have been run through GenBank database for comparison and viable results were obtained and contamination was ruled out as the potential submitting specimens we're identified as to potential source donors. Preliminary SPECULATION is human Native American female mtDNA and the nuDNA is looking more and more like straight up Denisovan. JC submitted at least one of these samples. And they are being very tight lipped about it now. Curious, as to your question, I've followed 3 trackways in 3 years. They go places I simply am physically unable to traverse. But tracking any wild animal to its source in thick cover and differing substrate and terrain is very difficult. But I have obtained hair samples that were preliminary vetted by tracking them and their marked areas. And honestly. If any of you all want to pay for the testing, I'll send you a portion of my sample. I'm pretty confident they're legit. You guys can be truly funny. I miss posting here. Enjoy your holidays. Mike (comedy genius----never, but humorist, which is important in a genre that takes itself way too seriously---always )

      Delete
    85. ^ this guy totally ******* rocks. I'm going to shoot you an email.

      I wonder where Dmaker and Danny were to condemn the idea that mere racism and toilet should be out my way?? That's all I got from the anon up top was "please don't try and debate Iktomi! He's just a few leagues above any of us!"

      Delete
    86. You're completely full of sh i t, Mike. The DNA results, if there even is a study happening, will be complete bullsh i t.

      Were you born a lying douche, or did you have to work at it?

      Delete
    87. Are you having a meltdown there, Boy? Are you sweating at all?

      Delete
    88. Boy Joerg is decimating Joe and Mike B. Yes Yes Yes!!

      Delete
    89. If that DNA study has anything to do with Ketchum then you best not get your hopes up Mike.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. GOV Black Ops keeping Bigfoot off the radar - so bigfoots will always be in the realm of folklore

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. FFS! :) FFS! :) FFS! :) ha ha ha ha such fun!

      Another comedy genius.

      Delete
    2. You're just angry because you were caught eating pizza in public toilets again.

      Delete
    3. FFS! I consider myself a commodian, I tell really crappy jokes :) FFS!

      Delete
    4. Look out Mike B. there's another comedy genius on the rise!

      Delete
    5. FFS! I'll be here all folks twice on Thursdays FFS!

      Delete
    6. . . . and don't forget to tip Shawn and Matt!

      Delete
    7. First, FFS has a disturbingly creepy avatar photo. Next, Mike B is a comedy genius. I often think about him and Joergy while im sitting on the toilet eating pizza. I keep hoping Joerg will give me some of his Joerg Juice to go with it, but he keeps turning me down.

      Joe Joes Syrian Toilet Boy

      Delete
    8. FFS! Jeal, Jeal, Jeal bro lol! What's creepy about a great looking guy who's dog think he is as well? FFS!
      FFS! Poor Mr. Anonymous lost in his own little world...
      in his blissfulness anonymity lmao :) :) FFS!
      FFS! enjoy the new Avatar lol! FFS!

      Delete
    9. that ugly avatar is even creepier FFS

      Delete
    10. Hmmmmm, what you gonna do now, psycho-nerd?

      Delete
    11. I got FFS sippin on my Joerg Juice, my Joerg Juice. I got Eva sippin on my Joerg Juice. My Joerg Juice

      Delete
    12. FFS! Ha sure bro, all you have is yourself... well maybe mommy comes down to the basement every now and then to tighten your helmet lmao! FFS!

      Delete
    13. Wow FFS, that is one nasty looking avatar photo you have. And its creepy as heck

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. look for the GRAYs you will find that BIGFOOT

      Delete
    2. Yes, that's what a lot of people say!

      Delete
    3. plenty of floating zombie heads found, zero caught. Same as bigfoot.

      Delete
    4. It's a shame nobody is seeing floating zombie heads, but we're at least used to your poor logic, aren't we?

      Delete
    5. i saw one yesterday, i promise. thats as credible as any bigfoot witness. the poor logic is yours

      Delete
    6. It's a shame that there is no physical evidence, nor is there any scientific backing for floating zombie heads. "Logic boy" is a great nickname for you... Though I shudder to even address you in the same sentence as the word, in reflection.

      Delete
    7. I can buy some green slime from the toy store and say it came from the zombie head. I then can pluck some dead hairs off of a stiff and say they came from the floating head as well. And low and behold, we have physical evidence. More compelling than bigfoot i might add

      Logic Boy

      Delete
    8. Great! Get the scientific equivalent of an anthropologist, a primatologist, and a wildlife biologist to support your scenario, and you have a comparison.

      Well done Logic Boy.

      Delete
    9. No problem. The colleges pump out plenty of anthropologists, primatologists, and wildlife biologists each year. Many fall on hard times or are simply corrupt and greedy. Offer up money in the right amount, and they will certainly support the zombie head. Just as many bigfoot proponents are only in it for cash.

      Logic Boy

      Delete
  8. Please red the book Erectus walks among us. This will explain many of the bigfoot sightings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this it?
      http://erectuswalksamongst.us

      Delete
    2. No thats not it lktomi. Ill source a link later

      Delete
    3. Iktomi, just wanted to send you some encouragement, if a troll says "No BF"...Send them to me, I have all the proof, and face palm people like MMG, Who can't refute a single video of mine!

      Delete
    4. Hey DS!! By be way... That's a psycho imposter using the name "MMG". Hope you are well.

      Delete
    5. Nice satire trolling style DS. Your a classic.

      MMG

      Delete
  9. It's called telling the TRUTH, MMG! I'll ask a 10th time, WHICH VIDEO DID I FAKE?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BOBO says Bigfoots are real, he said he seen them while he was in the bush

      Delete
  10. None of them contain a bigfoot, so who gives a flying @#$!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BILL BROCK ... #1 cryptid beasts hunter

      Delete