Friday, November 13, 2015

Researcher Uses A Little Creative Engineering To Solve Bigfoot Problem


Some researchers speculate that bigfoot are somehow able to see the sensors on game trail cameras, and do their best to avoid them. Thus we have no luck using them to get photographs of the elusive quarry. Robert Dodson thinks outside the box, and comes up with a possible solution to this dilemma.


93 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Why don't you tell s all how much you hate the people on this blog, and the subject?

      Delete
    2. Your the one who drinks haterade everyday. I show nothing but respect on here. Your the hateful homophobic racist.

      Delete
    3. Schools out bitches!!!!!

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

      Delete
    5. Please... Just tell us how much you hate people around here and why you're filled with so much anger towards the subject? What are you AFRAID about?

      Delete
    6. 2:35... Would you like to demonstrate how I am a "homophobic racist"?

      Delete
    7. No need, you do it everyday. Your a disgusting human. I feel sorry for you.

      Delete
    8. Don't beg Itkomi it's pathetic!!!!!

      Delete
    9. Nargh, come on bro? What's your issue with the people of this blog, the admins and the topic? You are readily expressive every day of your life? Why not have the belly to tell everyone why? What's the matter?

      Delete
    10. The admins are great. Do a great job. The topic is really interesting and well discussed. There's just a couple of unintelligent people that bring the whole thing down a couple of notches. Hint hint talking about you dopey.

      Delete
    11. So if I bring the topic down, why not simply request that I be banned? Why not shut me up on the subject matter? I tell you what would be a great way of getting rid of me... Showing me all my arguments are wrong, and the reasons as to why I bring the subject down? Surely for someone who's arguments "bring the topic down a couple of notches", and who is so unintelligent, there would be any one of a million arguments you can find online or from someone more capable to shut me up... Right?

      Wouldn't that be easier than ruining the blog for everyone, posting the hate comments that you do? Your actions are a direct attack to the the admins who invest their time and efforts, and to other people JUST LIKE YOU who find the topic interesting? Kids who might come here when they Google "Evidence for Bigfoot"?

      Delete
    12. I'm not a little bitch that try's to get people banned. I honestly just don't give a s hit about any of it. Just enjoy laughing at the amount of s hit people give you on here. It's so funny to me how you take it seriously and think your cut and paste comments get through to people. People just come on here for a laugh and your the joke.

      Delete
    13. Hmmmmm... I'm confused??? First you claimed;
      "The admins are great. Do a great job. The topic is really interesting and well discussed."
      ... And now it's;
      "I honestly just don't give a s hit about any of it. Just enjoy laughing at the amount of s hit people give you on here."

      ... Can you be a little clearer in what you're babbling about, please? So it's me you have your issue with?

      Delete
    14. I'm a bit worried about why your so obsessed with my opinion. I couldn't care less about yours. As I said, I don't give a s hit about what anybody on here thinks or says. It's just a laugh and your the joke. Turds!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    15. I'm hardly obsessed, it's more of basic observation and one not hard to make since you crave this attention literally EVERY day of your life. And if you don't care about my opinion, then why write;
      "It's so funny to me how you take it seriously and think your cut and paste comments get through to people..."
      ... You're contradicting yourself now, dear boy? Anyone would think you are of limited intelligence at this point? Try and be specific... Do you care for my opinion in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary, or do you hate the topic and the admins?

      Delete
    16. And do we have a Freudian slip here somewhere? Would you like someone to be obsessed with you, for once in your life? Mum and dad not around?

      Never been kissed?

      Delete
    17. I understand your not the sharpest tool in the shed but I really can't be much clearer. Your obsessed with me. I enjoy laughing at you and I enjoy everybody owning you on a daily basis. I never take anything you say seriously your just a loser on a Bigfoot site. Any other questions you dopey turd?

      Delete
    18. "sharpest tool in the shed", it's nice to read you're picking up on at least SOME things from others, in this instance an idiom, but nobody is obsessed with you. You post here every day of you life, calling people names, preaching nothing but the most vile of hate campaigns against people who are quite frankly far superior in intelligence, then naturally people are occasionally going to respond to you. It might be another knock to that self esteem of yours, but nobody careas about YOU. You are merely represented by your actions; hateful.

      I used to think that you were simply raised by tramps, but now it appears that mum and dad weren't around, were they? I think you're a sorry individual and hope that one day you can get over your mummy issues and stop inflicting your filth on good people.

      Delete
    19. Nwah... Someone just needs a cuddle.

      : (

      Delete
    20. i'll never understand why these trolls come on this site and engage in their nasty nonsense when they clearly have zero interest in bigfootother than the fact they have no lives . You'd think that they'd be busy playing the new fallout 4 in their basement to even care about anything else

      Joe

      Delete
    21. I keep my poop in a jar.

      Delete
    22. BILL BROCK don't need no stinking jar !!!

      Delete
  2. Zero bigfoots. Plenty of conmen. Rekt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, according to you, it's thousands of years worth of reports from a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing scoundrels, from cultures that found each others customs undesirable... All out to get your money ans such. You're not one of these conspiracy loons, are you?

      Oh... And plenty found, none caught.

      Delete
    2. It's not mine... And it's great to hear that you admit it's rather delusional, we agree on something regarding your ideas at least.

      Delete
    3. Believing in magic apes is not delusional? Ok kid time for your pills.

      Delete
    4. "magic apes" is your "angle" or "version" on what 99% of the people enthusiastic about this topic consider rubbish. From here, you don't have to have the intelligence to counter the real physical evidence for such an idea.

      You adhere to the wildest of conspiracies, and I need pills? Sounds like you're a little paranoid there, mate?

      Delete
    5. For them to exist without being detected or ever leaving biological evidence or ever slipping up even once means they would have to be magic. Unlike you though i dont believe in nonsense. Get a grip.

      Delete
    6. Well here again lies a significant version of events; a platform for the unintelligent, it seems... Because Sasquatch have the last few thousand years to been detected to reside in the US, have three databases of modern reports to account for how many time they've slipped up, and we have many hair fibres and even studies on skulls that attest to biological evidence... So there is no requirement of anything being "magical", just a consorted professional effort once and for all.

      Nonsense? Um... Last time I checked, I wasn't the one who believes in thousands of years worth of lies from a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing scoundrels, from a time when Native peoples didn't even know what an ape looked like, and from cultures that found each others customs undesirable.

      Something about a grip?

      Delete
    7. Again. No biological evidence. Just ask disotel. Anecdotes are not evidence. Many hoaxes have been proven. People lying is a proven trait. Zero actual bigfoots.

      Delete
    8. Yes... Disotel who's a part of the same Relict Hominid Inquiry editorial baord, who has the opportunity to read this;
      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Nature-of-the-Beast.pdf
      ... Regarding Dr Sykes' assessment on hair samples and a skull, and still offers nothing in a countering claim?

      So you say you've actually lifted that heavy burden of thousands of years worth of lies from a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing scoundrels, from a time when Native peoples didn't even know what an ape looked like, and from cultures that found each others customs undesirable? Great, I can't wait to read this! Where has this happened??

      Delete
    9. Lol so disotel has read that and he still says he is 99% sure there is no bigfoot. Oh damn you just smoked yourself there.

      Why dont you mention all the other "creatures" these native people believed in?

      Haha fish in a barrel i kinda feel bad

      Delete
    10. Itkomi is getting f ucked from all angles.
      This is hilarious. I've never met a more deluded retard in my life.

      Delete
    11. 4:24... That's just it, where is Disotel's rebuttal to the evidence Sykes has submitted? In fact... Where is Disotel's countering claims to any of Sykes' work? It's all very well you claiming Disotel doesn't believe in "Bigfoot", how does that get around to explaining the genetics Sykes presents away? Considering that's one of his areas of expertise of course?? Surely someone so critical of the Ketchum results would be all over this if he had a means to denounce it all, right?

      : )

      Well there is in fact a fossil trail for Thunderbirds, and coyotes, beavers, mountain lions; all these live in native myth and legend, and even though you've been told a million times... The perception of the spiritual and the physical are all one in Native belief systems.

      Try and keep up now, turd-nerd... I know this is advanced for you...

      Delete
    12. Sykes hasnt even submitted any evidence for bigfoot what the f uck are you talking about now

      Delete
    13. Um... You've just been sourced a link to a book review of his... You silly twat;
      "They will be published in the regular scientific press so I can't be more specific," he (Sykes) said."
      http://www.techtimes.com/articles/44347/20150406/dna-test-suggests-russian-apewoman-zana-was-not-human-and-yeti-may-not-be-a-myth.htm

      ... Tick, tock!

      Delete
    14. "They WILL be"

      And that there sums up joe. Dreamer.

      Delete
    15. Denial in the face of a statement by the scientist I'm referencing... And anyone else is a dreamer but you?

      Schooled.

      Delete
    16. Ha! Disotel- ha ! That guy is more interested in trying to be some punk rock singer than anything else. He would have also stated that there is a 99% chance that gorillas didn't exist more than a hundred years ago. I think Jane Goodall is way more highly respected in science and she believes in bigfoot .

      Joe

      Delete
    17. ...Are you kidding? That a tenured NYU professor is interested in cryptozoology at all is a boost the subject badly needs..The more real scientists involved, the better the chances of discovery if bigfoot exists...

      Delete
    18. beheading of a 9-year-old girl in Afghanistan
      religion of peace onit

      Delete
    19. "THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF REPORTS"? What the hell are you talking about, iktomi? Who was " reporting" these thousands of years ago? Man, you are too much!

      Delete
    20. Native American cultures have spanned many thousands of years, and have these creatures deep within their cultures spanning all that time. The Natives actually say they have inhabited "Turtle Island" for 50,000 years.

      Delete
  3. Anyone want to give odds that this will solve the Bigfoot problem?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BILL BROCK will find BIGFOOT and get the JOB DONE

      Delete
  4. Pwned like bob h strolling along a creak in a hairy diaper butt with comedy breasts all the while roger is struggling to hold the camera still he is laughing so hard and bob g is in tears laughing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob H, is 6 foot... The subject in the footage is 6 foot five inches tall... Sorry!

      Page 15;
      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
      Also... It might be news to you, but the big ass on a Sasquatch is a very commonly reported. You'll find the same anatomical feature on the Leaping Russian Yeti who is very, very athletic in it's motion.

      Your happy daily reminder.

      Delete
    2. Oh its 6 foot 5 now is it? They change the height every other week and its still not agreed on. Bloke in a suit. Deal with it.

      Delete
    3. Um... No... It's always been around that height because of the McClarin comparison. Patty could in fact be closer to 7 feet tall, what's for certain is Bob H isn't tall enough.

      Do you feel stupid now? Good.

      : )

      Delete
    4. So you still dont agree on a height? Lol. Pathetic.

      Delete
    5. Well it's not so much of a height gap to be in any real disagreement with really, is it? What's "pathetic", is you having your argument rammed down your throat every day of your life, and not having the b*lls to admit it and persists in your stupidity.

      Now that's as close to a definition of pathetic as I've come across.

      : )

      Delete
    6. You have never been able to provide an actual bigfoot or a published paper that proves bigfoot. Patting your self on the back daily to prop up your self delusions does you no favours.

      Delete
    7. Actually, I have presented papers that show evidence for large unclassified bipedal primates... And since you fail so miserably at finding a magic monkey suit... One merely has to look here to see what a "Bigfoot" looks like, dear boy;
      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... "Delusions" like a ten thousand year old conspiracy?

      Delete
    8. And coming here DAILY acting like a spoiled child does you favors? The fact you come here daily tells me you are not being true to your beliefs.

      Delete
    9. There he goes again posting the "bigfoot" journal. Do you even listen

      Delete
    10. Here comes joes lapdog also providing zero bigfoots

      Delete
    11. Ikytomi why don't you shut up and go tongue punch Eva's fart box.

      Delete
    12. 4:45... the papers I reference are actually not on Meldrum's journal, and considering some of the world's very best conservationists and primatologists are involved in Meldrum's journal, the question begs asking; are you capable of listening?

      Delete
    13. Are you capable, Joe?

      You come on here constantly and demand that someone prove alleged bigfoot evidence as not bigfoot evidence or it remains bigfoot evidence. There is a whole of wrong going on there. That is pseudoscience.

      One can only falsify evidence that is falsifiable in the first place. Let's take a very basic example and see if you can follow along. I go out in the woods and I hoax a bigfoot track. It includes all the convincing hallmarks that have fooled many experts in the past. Then I say this track was made by a bigfoot. I have presented evidence, and by your logic, it is a bigfoot track until proven otherwise. Now pseudoscience is in high gear. The problem is that this is not a falsifiable piece of evidence.

      Imagine this. You are tasked with proving, beyond a doubt, that the track was NOT made by a bigfoot. It's impossible to do. You can talk about forensics all you want, but you simply cannot prove what made the track based solely on the track. Not 100% conclusively.

      Hard evidence is required. DNA samples or a body. Nothing else will suffice. Nothing else could prove existence. Because then you would have truly falsifiable and repeatable evidence. You could sequence the DNA and share the results and other scientists could repeat those results, and voila, proof of bigfoot! Tracks. No, tracks will not do it. Stories? Don't make me laugh. Legends? Nope. Ambiguous hair morphology analysis? Nope, not that either.

      Until some DNA or a body is found, you are just spinning your wheels and churning out the same pseudoscience nonsense day after day after day.

      Delete
    14. Why do you suppose it is that the only type of evidence that matters, that can be used to prove a new species, is precisely the type of evidence that can never be found?

      Delete
    15. lord almighty ! A talking shark. We must get some DNA from you because i just don't believe in talking sharks .
      lots of DNA has been analyzed and has come up with no match to any known animal because guess what- it most likely is a bigfoot and just because we lack a body doesn't mean it doesn't exist

      Joe

      Delete
    16. "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true
      skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof
      and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
      - Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4,
      1987

      "You can talk about forensics all you want, but you simply cannot prove what made the track based solely on the track. Not 100% conclusively. "
      ... Well tell me Donald, why is it that you backtrack now after citing Crowley? Surely this is a way of falsifying dermal ridges, right? You remember doing that, right? So by this very method, you have already acknowledged there is a method of testing forensic sign, in that it can be measured by it's anti-thesis; casting artefacts. One may struggle to falsify track impressions alone, but not forensic sign I'm afraid Donald. To hoax convincing biological dermals, one would have to have a complex knowledge of primate dermals (that not many on the planet do), have a lottery win's chance of faking the
      same biological idea over a period of decades and being States apart, and then fool multiple forensic experts... A leap of faith is required to swallow that, if you will.

      Physical evidence in dermals =
      there are ways of testing this, notably forensics against casting artefacts, you've been asked to provide drawing on this on multiple occasions; you cited Crowley, failed and now this is "not falsifiable". Hmmmm... ???

      I keep reading you trying to sell the idea that people are suggesting they have proof. This was asked of you yesterday, it seems a little "panicky" of you; a safety net argument. You see, nobody is claiming to have proof, only proof of evidence; but you are not stupid and you know very well what that means. People like you like to reduce this topic to that of being anecdotal based so it is easier for you to argue your case, but it doesn't wash around people like me. Your burden is to present a case against the evidence I reference. You claim it is not there, you contradict yourself by demonstrating how dermals CAN be falsified, only to back track (because your ideas fall flat, it seems). Come on Don, how many times do we have to have this same argument?

      Lastly... Dr Sykes has taken hair samples collected by both Paul Freeman and two other government employees, samples that are linked to a direct sighting where tracks were sourced also. the hair sample being studied is consistent with many other hair samples in Fahrenbach's collection, that have been linked to their own reports of activity, tracks, etc, that have the same uniform morphology and have been verified by different camps of primatologists. I'm pretty sure that the definition of "ambiguous" is being open to more than one interpretation; well get busy and falsify these hairs brother, ha ha ha!! Cause you'll be up against a long line of experts should you try.

      Delete
    17. Tray again Joe, but this time with substance.

      Delete
    18. 5:04 i let my cat have a go on the keyboard,i've no idea what she's said but she owns you :) xx

      Delete
    19. tham gummint folk sayin thay bein indeespensibull

      Delete
    20. It is profoundly amusing that Joe constantly shifts his main point of "evidence" when it comes to bigfoots existance. For a while, it was the patterson film that was Joes main talking/copy/paste point. Then when that never went anywhere, he switched to Sykes and Ketchum and "unknown" dna. And that failed miserably. Sykes came and went and nothing at all came out of it short of humiliation and failure. Now, Joe is clinging to "dermals". They are his main talking point now. After a while, it will be something else. Bigfoot doesnt exist, and Joe knows this. He just trolls here for fun. And frankly eva, im a little afraid of what you do to that poor cat of yours. Joe is a laughing stock, a deluded fool if you will. He thrives on threads like this where dmaker shows up. The truth is, that Joe misses daniel and dmaker. He missed daniel so much that he once tried to kiss daniels butt about a year ago. Joe basically was flat out asking daniel to come back, because without him. This is the kind of crowd bigfoot drawls folks. I have no doubt that people like Joe, Eva, and Chick all are the same new age liberals that keep crystals in there house to ward off evil spirits.

      MMG

      Delete
    21. sorry to disappoint you Mister Mean Guy but I don't keep magical crystals or prance around in hemp wear .
      Maybe i should wear a talisman round my neck in the shape of a bigfoot print to ward off trolls such as yourself

      Joe

      Delete
    22. ^ but your not the one and only lktomi joe. You are Mike B, who has a profoundly gay sense of humor

      Delete
    23. 2:12... What's "amusing", is you simply proceeded to list the points I've nailed you on over the course of the last couple of years, ha ha ha ha!! Nobody was more humiliated about the Sykes stuff than people like you. Even when Sykes changed eve title of his book, you were in so much denial that you looked more of a loon than the fool you usually are.

      If "Bigfoot" doesn't exist... Then you need t get busy, busy, busy proving your point. There's a reason why even your heroes don't use that mantra anymore, because quite simply, you are the stupidest person who frequents this blog... And I love it.

      : )

      Delete
    24. I see that scar still remains. Get a real hobby, PJ. How many years of your life can you possibly waste here?

      Delete
    25. Daniel, I told you before... When I post, I don't have you in mind. If someone brings up the the same arguments as you then I'm simply responding to the same arguments as I did with you. I'm not trying to anatagonise you.

      Why don't you post anymore? Or do you post under anonimaty?

      Delete
  5. No Joe there really is no evidence. The Smithsonian channel has a documentary that debunks all of your pseudoscience. Only a hand full of scientists believe bigfoot exists and they are generally considered kook's by the greater scientific community. Another Professor at the same school as Meldrum described him as an embarassment to the school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry anon, the reality is that there really is. I tell you what, why don't you cite something from your beloved channel and post it here against my "pseudoscience"? Should be easy, right? Actually, the amount of scientists hat favour the authenticity of this subject consist of some of the very best, if not THE best primatologists in the world. Pioneers were always in the minority I guess.

      "Dr. Meldrum joined the ISU faculty in 1993, after a stint with Northwestern University. His research revolves around questions of vertebrate evolutionary morphology, especially primate locomotor adaptations. His formal study of primates began with doctoral research on terrestrial adaptations in African primates, and has since taken him from the dusty skeletal cabinets of far-flung museums to the remote badlands of Colombia and Argentina in search of fossil New World primates. He has published extensively on the evolutionary history of the South American primates and has described several new extinct species. He has documented varied primate locomotor specializations in laboratory and semi-natural settings. More recently his attention has returned to the emergence of modern human bipedalism. His co-edited volume, From Biped to Strider: the Emergence of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport, proposes a more recent innovation of modern striding gait than previously assumed. As the acting director of the Center for Motion Analysis and Biomechanics (CMAB) he is collaborating with engineering faculty, paleontologists, and the Idaho Virtualization Lab, to model the pattern of evolution of the hominid foot skeleton. His interests also encompass the evaluation of the footprints purportedly left by an unrecognized North American ape, commonly known as Sasquatch. He has authored an expanded companion volume to the very successful Discovery Channel documentary, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. He edits the online refereed journal The Relict Hominoid Inquiry."

      None of this would have been remotely possible if he wasn't respected by his peers. He's also got people like George Schaller, PhD is recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America, a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society, writing forewords in his book. Some of the universities that some of those experts in his RHI are affiliated with are the Australian National University, Idaho State University, University of Tennessee, Oxford Brooks University, not to mention the IUCN - World Conservation Union, Human Evolution Foundation, Beijing Museum of Natural History and the Bronx Zoo-based Wildife Conservation Society.

      So much for the typical cynical professor who doesn't know a thing of what he burps, eh?

      Delete
    2. So ,how can sasquatch be a homo Sapien Sapien. if it has eyeshine and a mid tarsel break??
      and don't give me any crap about flatfoot pathalogy
      AC collins

      Delete
    3. Sorry Ikytomi, another fail on your part.

      Delete
    4. AC Collins... We do know that homo sapiens can have genetic throw backs in foot morphology. As for eyeshine, I have no idea... There are reports of Sasquatch falling into two categories.

      What do you think it is? I am genuinely interested in your ideas.

      Delete
    5. 11:25... I didn't see any Smithsonian Channel debunking methods? And I failed?

      Delete
    6. I'm sure i read that lemurs are the only primates that have eye shine so maybe Melba is right xx

      Delete
    7. didn't lake Turkana boy have a Calcanneocuboid joint (fused arch) in his foot??
      Since lake turkana boy was a Homo erectus dated at @ approx 2 million yr's
      ago,we are talking one HELL OF A GENITIC THROWBACK!!
      However that being said ,Eva R has a cool theory,, loyd pye's Anunnaki hybrid
      theory!! The only problem is that neanderthal's also had the 46 fused based chromosomes pairs ,wich allows
      fine motor control to produce beautiful
      mousterian stone tools,dated to 400,000 yrs !

      A gentic bottle neck can easly produce mutations that pye say's were created. by annunaki spacemen !!
      Hey Eva R ! the most stalwart of warriors,,lol,

      AC collins

      Delete
    8. as of today homo erectus from the rift vally is considerd the most likely progenetar of homo sapien sapien,
      any hominid with a mid tarsel break ,
      would have to be of a. more primative biped,, astrlapithacus R, or paranthrotropus assholelishness, and also a product of parralelle eveo,,
      Are we not men???
      AC collins

      Delete
    9. I just cracked open my 8th pacifico. cerveza ,Oh Yes!!
      AC collins

      Delete
    10. That's the thing, AC, we are indeed talking one heck of a throw back;

      http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/06/bigfoot-trouble-mid-tarsal-break-not-indicative-of-bigfoot-anymore/

      Delete
    11. quit trying to kiss ACs butt Joe

      Delete
  6. ifn yous jist gits sume mo gummint educayshun yous bein gitin reedin tham blogg lack we folks heers be doin

    ReplyDelete
  7. its Friday the 13th - so no worries : )

    ReplyDelete