Sunday, November 29, 2015

Thanksgiving Is Over And These Ohio Bigfoot Hunters Are Back In The Woods


No better way to burn off those Thanksgiving calories than to hit the woods in search of bigfoot. That's exactly what these bigfooters in Ohio are doing, and it looks like they even brought some of their leftovers with them. Although I'm not too sure their idea of how to prepare "brown and serve" rolls will work out for them.


100 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. OK turds -
      but not BILL BROCK he the #1 cryptid GURU

      Delete
  2. Did anyone else see the Goatman in the news this week. I don't live too far from Scape Oar Swamp and we were passing through there yesterday, and stopped to see one of my good friends. She said that apparently some good photographs were taken of the creature and its causing a stir. She said its what is responsible for the trending stories on goatman on the news right now. And from what she said, these photos are clear and up close and there is no way that they could be faked. I hate to hold out hope, but who knows. Im kind of excited. Happy Holidays guys :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joe, earlier I noticed that you claimed that Sykes published a book where he "...stated that Zana was a Yeti". Wow. That is a bold claim. Could you cite that please. Could you please provide a citation where Sykes is CLEARLY stating that Zana was a Yeti? Thanks.

    If you do not, then this is just another sad example of you overstating and misrepresenting others. Kind of like you did what the Army Corps of Engineer almanac. Or that time you were using a non-existent newspaper article from a never existed newspaper in Halifax to brow beat and demean others. It took me about ten minutes of fact finding to discover the paper never existed.

    So you really need to find a citation where Sykes says, with no ambiguity, that "Zana was a Yeti". You are going to look pretty foolish, again, if you cannot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you see him earlier today dmaker. He was claiming that native americans were telling tales of giant apes for thousands of years, and because they couldnt have known what an ape looked like, then it must have been true. But this contradicted his argument, because natives described them as people, not apes. Joe will twist anything and plagarize at will if it will suit his purpose. And his cheerleader Troll Killer was there going off the mental deep end once more.

      Delete
    2. Hey Itkomi/Joe, why don't you go out and catch a bigfoot? You have more knowledge than anybody on the subject. If you truly believed in Bigfoot you could sell all your stuff get on a plane and go find Bigfoot. After you get one you would be rich and famous and travel the world talking about how you got one and how smart and amazing you are. Sounds like a no brainer. That is unless you don't actually believe in Bigfoot and your just a fat loser who never leaves the house.

      Delete
    3. Easy there 2;23, dont tell joe that he knows more about bigfoot than anyone. Thats the impression he likes to give off, and thats what he likes to tell people, but in reality he knows very little. Guys like you and dmaker prove that to him every day of his life. In reality, Joe doesnt know much at all about the mythical ape, other than what he has read online. Joe copies and pastes and saves hundreds, if not thousands of articles in an effort to sound intelligent, but he is not. He just quotes others who are likely just as ignorant. Bertrand Russell anyone?

      Delete
    4. Actually Donald, I still stand by the Army Corpse of Engineers' Atlas (I don't know what's to misrepresent about a government document including Sasquatch in an Atlas and taking the time to allude to physical evidence), and the gazillion newspaper sources regarding wild men accounts was the only reason I ever committed to writing a comment on the article in question... And they still stand to the credibility of my premise which was sheer frequency of reports over hundred of years.

      Here we go;
      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Nature-of-the-Beast.pdf
      ... Now go take your face for a sh*t.

      Delete
    5. Joe is a troll who lives in the USA. He trolls on here for the promise of spare turds and garbage juice.

      Delete
    6. Just looked at that Joe, and it doesnt state anywhere where Sykes said directly that Zana was a yeti. Please tell us where it states that. Quote it for us. Surely you can.

      Delete
    7. Joe, you need to provide a citation where Sykes states clearly that "Zana was a Yeti".

      Delete
    8. LOL. So, instead you provide a link to a book review by Coleman?? That is an epic fail. Even for you.

      Please provide an exact citation from Sykes where he states that "Zana was a Yeti". That is your claim, and it is pretty crystal clear. If true, it should not be difficult for you to provide verification.

      Delete
    9. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Read the review, TURDS! Ha ha ha!! And I do believe I'm waiting on a response for the Native American perception of what Sasquatch are.

      : p

      Delete
    10. It seems you dont read your won sources critically Joerg. The word Zana is only mentioned 5 times in that article, and here is the closest thing mentioned to what you lied about. Here is what it states.

      "(2) Sykes’ verdict on Zana, an alleged almasty
      captured in the 1850s on the southern slopes
      of the Caucasus Mountains, is a nod to the
      labor of the Russian hominologists during four
      decades of the Snowman Commission at
      Moscow’s Darwin Museum. The mainstream
      media has completely misinterpreted what
      Sykes’ book has to say about this, and talk of
      Zana being an “escaped African slave”
      demeans what appear to be the genetic
      realities behind the case. You must read
      Sykes’ Chapter 29, to fully appreciate what he
      has discovered".

      Note that Sykes doesnt even come close to saying directly that Zana was a yeti. So you outright lied about it. In this paragraph, its says that simply Zana was described as being a yeti by the people of her time. It doesnt say that Sykes said she was. You are an outright liar Joe.

      Delete
    11. Joe has been caught in one of his bigger lies to date. Poor little Joe, your just making yourself look stupider and stupider, and dmaker look better and better. AHHH HAHAHAHA

      Delete
    12. Here we go, I'll do it for you, Donald Duck, amongst other things;

      "1) In an unnumbered chapter after Chapter 27, entitled “Postscript,” Sykes details an intriguing finding from a hair sample from Dr. Henner Fahrenbach. It had a result that Sykes is still pondering, and we may hear about in the future. The DNA sample of a “Sasquatch” from Walla Walla matched that of a feral “individual from Uzbekistan,” Sykes exclaims (page 282).
      (2) Sykes’ verdict on Zana, an alleged almasty captured in the 1850s on the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains, is a nod to the labor of the Russian hominologists during four decades of the Snowman Commission at Moscow’s Darwin Museum. The mainstream media has completely misinterpreted what Sykes’ book has to say about this, and talk of Zana being an “escaped African slave” demeans what appears to be the genetic realities behind the case. You must read Sykes’ Chapter 29, to fully appreciate what he has discovered.
      “Part-human, part-ape with dark skin (Zana means ‘black’ in Abkhaz) she was covered with long, reddish-brown hair which formed a mane down her back. She was large, about 6’6″ tall, and extremely muscular with exaggerated, hairless buttocks and large breasts. Her face was wide with high cheekbones and a broad nose,” notes Sykes (page 296).
      Zana was no slave from Africa, but an individual with genetics who tells us much more about the population from which she sprang. As Bryan Sykes hints, “Zana’s ancestors could have left Africa before the Laran exodus of 100,000 year ago” and “they might well be still there [in the Caucasus Mountains] to this day, living as they have for millennia somewhere in the wild valleys that radiate from the eternal snows of Elbrus,” (page 306).
      (3) There is one more revelation in this book that caused me great astonishment. I have written an entirely separate article about it. Few seem to have read the book closely enough to realize that part of the DNA testing that Sykes did gives a complete revision to the status of the Pangboche finger findings of only four years ago, when it was dismissed as merely “human.” Read here for the big reveal that Sykes shares on that case. Please see, “Pangboche Finger’s ‘Human’ Verdict Clarified By Bryan Sykes DNA Finding.” The fact is, the Pangboche hand may yet be an important artifact to re-study and re-test, regarding a piece of the puzzle to solve the mystery of the Yeti."
      - Loren Coleman

      Delete
    13. I don't care if others think that is what Sykes stated. I want a direct quote from him saying that "Zana was a Yeti". That is Joes claim and he cannot even come close to backing it up.

      Funny how I only directed my questions in this thread to "Joe" and Iktomi immediately jumped. Almost as if he is Joe...

      Delete
    14. Unlucky Donald! Ha ha ha ha!! Now try and Ad Hominem that, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    15. Uhm, Joe, there is nothing in that post of yours that demonstrates Sykes stating that "Zana was a Yeti".

      Is that all you got?

      Delete
    16. Your precisely right dmaker. You have caught Joe in a major lie. He cant come up with a direct quote, because it doesnt exist. That review he linked too as proof, only mentions Zana a few times. Yet he linked it and said that the quote was within and you should read up. Yet it was nowhere within that review. and now he posts a review from Loren Coleman, that he didnt link too in his original reply to you. And Loren Coleman is simply making assumptions. No where does sykes state that she was a yeti. Joe has been proven to be a huge liar once again.

      Delete
    17. He cant come up with it dmaker. So he will just make troll remarks and try and spout some random nonsense, to try and get you to change the subject or engage him in futile debaet. Futile for Joe that is.

      Delete
    18. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      Unlucky TURDS! Why don't you go and buy the book and read it yourselves, you know... Actually "read a primary source for once"? That's the best geneticist in the world claiming that relict hominids were alive on the planet at least 150 years ago.

      Tick, tock, tick, tock!

      Delete
    19. He may be one of the best geneticists in the world, but he is certainly not stating that "Zana was a Yeti".

      Nice try. You fail again.

      Delete
    20. LOL! You are too much. Go read a primary source for once says the guy who provided a link to a book review by Loren Coleman. A link that failed to even support his claim. Yeah, nice primary source there, nitwit.

      Delete
    21. A word of advice, Joe. Why don't you wait until Sykes paper is published before you start trading on his conclusions?

      Delete
    22. That's because I'm not talking the time to type out extracts from a Sykes book, Donald.

      But let us backtrack a little... Can you remember how sure you were that Sykes would state that Zana was an African Slave? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Unlucky Donald... Now back into the shadows with you, you lost again.

      Delete
    23. I guess you have nothing to verify your claim that Sykes stated that "Zana was a Yeti"?

      Well, not the first time you have misrepresented and overstated something. Won't be the last either.

      Delete
    24. I guess you have nothing to verify your claim that Sykes stated that "Zana was a Yeti"?

      Well, not the first time you have misrepresented and overstated something. Won't be the last either.

      Delete
    25. DMAKER, please stop at this point. You destroyed Joe, worst beating hes had all week. But he now is trying to troll you and draw you into his gay debates. Dont do it dmaker. Dont humor him. Dont give him any debate. Instead, give him turd and urine comments. And maybe some racist comments thrown in. Dont give him anymore conversation. Its over for him

      Delete
    26. Again... These are actual extracts from the book Nature of the Beast;

      "Part-human, part-ape with dark skin (Zana means ‘black’ in Abkhaz) she was covered with long, reddish-brown hair which formed a mane down her back. She was large, about 6’6″ tall, and extremely muscular with exaggerated, hairless buttocks and large breasts. Her face was wide with high cheekbones and a broad nose,” notes Sykes (page 296).
      Zana was no slave from Africa, but an individual with genetics who tells us much more about the population from which she sprang. As Bryan Sykes hints, “Zana’s ancestors could have left Africa before the Laran exodus of 100,000 year ago” and “they might well be still there [in the Caucasus Mountains] to this day, living as they have for millennia somewhere in the wild valleys that radiate from the eternal snows of Elbrus,” (page 306).

      ... So, if Sykes isn't calling Zana a Yeti, Donald, then what other hair covered ape-human species of woman is Sykes referencing?? Ha ha ha ha ha!! Like I said, read the review. I hope it broke your heart every bit as I'm picking up that it did.

      : p

      Delete
    27. Just in case anyone is interested, and for clarity sake, here is the quote, Joe:

      IktomiSunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:34:00 AM PST
      "You won't find me referencing Ketchum (not at least until she has a second round of testing anyway), and if you didn't know... Sykes published a book where he states Zana was a Yeti."
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2015/11/eyeshine-and-bigfoot-sometimes-its-not.html#moretop

      Delete
    28. Donald... Your pervy cheerleader is pleading for you to not debate me (because you look stupid again) and address me with racism? Are you going to associate yourself with that? I haven't seen you ONCE condemn such an idea, and in fact I've read you do nothing but use his exact child-like insults... I think you owe people an explanation as to your stance on that, actually???

      Can you man up and answer this post please????

      Delete
    29. Sykes is not calling her that, he is describing anecdotal reports from Zanas lifetime. You do understand that Sykes was not around when Zana was alive, so those words cannot possibly be him describing anything directly.

      Delete
    30. Why don't you quote directly from page 296 of Sykes book, Joe? Rather than pull excerpts from a third party review? Have you not read the book? Do you not own a copy?

      Delete
    31. No Dmaker, that's Sykes agreeing with the description of her in line with what people have reported and the morphology of her son's skull. If Sykes didn't agree with that description, he would have stated that it nonsense and not referenced it as a means to support his theories as to a subspecies of Homo sapiens, you twit. That IS a direct extract! Can you read?!

      Now... Answer the ******* question, do you agree with the anon about addressing me with racism? Do you stand by his filthy remarks and anti-social behaviour??

      Delete
    32. dont debate him anymore dmaker. You already pounded him into the ground. He wants you to debate him, it makes him feel important. Dont respond to him. Hit him with racism, turds, and urine comments. Hands Up Dont Shoot

      Delete
    33. I'm telling you NOW Dmaker, you better condemn that psychos comments or EVERYONE will know that you are endorsing them... I swear by everything I own.

      Delete
    34. You can swear by whatever you want, in a pathetic attempt to detract attention from your failure to support your claim ( and I might add making it painfully obvious that you have not even read Sykes book).

      I am not responsible for anything anyone else says on this blog. It is beyond me that you would even imply otherwise. But to be clear on one point, I do not condone, in any way, any racist comments made by anyone.

      Delete
    35. So, come on Joe, why don't you provide direct quotes from page 296 of Sykes book?

      I know why. You don't own it and have never even read it. LOL. What a wanker.

      Delete
    36. Detract? I've just posted you direct extracts, Donald... Do you expect me to take the time to type extracts out for you? What a tosser you are, you've got a nerve claiming anyone else has detracted when I've just flicked dog **** in your eye.

      So can you come out and address the troll please? There are people who are wondering why you haven't done this, it's slightly odd behaviour Donald?

      Delete
    37. Ok Donald, I have the book in front of me... What would you like me to write from it? I'll play your little game since I'm in a cruel mood.

      Delete
    38. Joe is officially meltding down and making wild threats against dmaker. This has been the best meltdown in months. Thanks for this dmaker. But dont debate him anymore. Hit him with racism, urine and turds. Hands up dont shoot.

      And guess what Joerg. Even if dmaker said he hated me and wanted me gone. Id still be by his side. Now proceed with your meltdown little Joergy Poo.

      Delete
    39. You did not post direct extracts, you posted excerpts of a third party review. That is not the same thing.

      I have the book in front of me as well. Please point me to where Sykes says "Zana was a Yeti"

      Delete
    40. WE want you to quote Sykes stating Zana was a Yeti. Those exact terms Joergy my boy. Oh whats that? He didnt say it. Ooops.

      Delete
    41. I know you are simply going to repeat sections where Sykes repeats historical descriptions of Zana. This you will attempt to twist into support for your claim. It simply is not.

      Sykes is a scientist. He is not going to go from historical anecdotes to "Zana was a Yeti" without hard evidence to support such a conclusion. Even still, he never made that conclusion. You made it for him and then attributed it to him.

      Poor form, Joergy, poor form.

      Delete
    42. In a cruel mood? Well that is very adult of you, Joe.

      Delete
    43. Donald?? I have the book in front of me, don't waste my time... You wanted extracts, I'm willing to give them to you...

      Delete
    44. Then by all means, Joe, please quote Sykes stating that "Zana was a Yeti". I have my copy in front of me, so I an easily confirm any quote you provide.

      Delete
    45. Don 3:37... So you would now like me to post the same extract but from my own hand to show that Loren's extract is the same? Are you trying to be a clown?

      Don 3:41... Sykes is a scientist, and in line with Zana's son's skull morphology, and in line with anecdotal evidence, Sykes states that she was part of a sub-species of Homo sapiens. Again... What other large hairy hominids were around at the time in that part of the world, Donald? Are you just trolling or are you being stupid? I suspect a bit of both...

      Delete
    46. come on joerg, we are waiting

      Delete
    47. At this point DMAKER, you just have to realize that Joe knows he cant produce such quotes and is a liar. He is just trying to troll you. DMAKER dont respond to him anymore. You made a fool of him. He is just trying to troll you because he thinks it bothers you and it makes him feel special. Dont give it to him. Instead hit him with turds, urine, and some racism. Hands up dont shoot!

      Delete
    48. Joe, all I want you to do is reference where in Nature of the Beast does Sykes clearly state that "Zana was a Yeti"

      This is a very simple request. I wonder why you are not complying.

      Delete
    49. Because he is caught in a lie.

      Delete
    50. Well from just flicking through the pages, on page 304, Sykes whole heartedly agrees with Zana's appearance. And on page 305, Sykes states that;
      "The well-researched contemporary descriptions suggest to me that Zana had nothing to do with the modern world." He goes on the theorise as to what hominid she might have been drawing on the genus Homo. Now, again... I'd Sykws accepts the description of Zana and states she is a relict, ancient homo sapien... What other hair covered ape-woman is he suggesting she is?

      Delete
    51. Donald, can you type me the first line of page 49???

      Delete
    52. I'll do you a favor, Joe. I will quote directly from the primary source. This is from the conclusion, pg 294 ( of the Google Play edition).

      "The case of Zana, the wildwoman from the Caucasus, is also a very rewarding outcome. We now know a lot more about this famous case, thanks mainly to the persistence of Igor Burtsev and his colleagues from Moscow’s Darwin Museum. Their diligence and effort in finding and sampling Zana’s relatives is a great achievement. With further genetic investigations actively under way, they might soon be able to say they have found perhaps not a Neanderthal survivor, but an antique race of humans living in the Caucasus. I have often been asked whether I believe the yeti exists. Up to now I have refused to answer, lest it stops me having the open mind I needed. It was also an irrelevant question since I was trying to find some evidence on which to base an opinion. Funnily enough, even though there were no anomalous primates among the hairs I tested, I think my view has altered more in favour of there being ‘something out there’ than the reverse."

      No where in that conclusion does Sykes state that "Zana was a Yeti".

      Delete
    53. I have the Google Play digital edition, so if you have a printed copy, the page numbering will be different. Do you have a printed copy or a digital one?

      Delete
    54. I suggest you never let him live this down DMAKER . Make a point to shove it in his face every day. This was an epic lie he was caught in

      Delete
    55. "...there were no anomalous primates among the hairs I tested, I think my view has altered more in favour of there being ‘something out there’ than the reverse."

      Yeah, that does not equate to "Zana was a Yeti"

      You have failed repeated to support this over statement on your part. No surprise.

      Delete
    56. I was a fan of yours lktomi, i thought you spoke the truth. But after seeing this. I am turning to dmakers side. Its a shame lktomi. I thought you were one of the good guys

      Delete
    57. From pg 292 of the Google Play edition"

      "From what I have seen, Bigfootologists are not, on the whole, good researchers. They lack the necessary degree of self-criticism. One of the elements of scientific training is that you should be your own fiercest critic, though many of us fail to live up to this dictum. You don’t have to be right every time – indeed progress in science is a process of evolution where one theory supersedes the last, however strongly held, as new information or new thinking is revealed. All of it is based on evidence, testable, repeatable and – most important – publishable in peer-reviewed journals 1 . There has been precious little of that in the search for anomalous primates. "



      Don't look know, there is your tick tock hero putting emphasis on peer review.

      Delete
    58. He states it when he's theorising as to what genus of hominid she was, Donald. In acknowledging Zana's descriptions, Donald. So you actually lied as to having the book in front of you, Donald? Also... That statement would be in relevance to there being people like Zana living today.

      Delete
    59. joe has officially been destroyed and now somehow trying to say that dmaker is the liar. Man Joe, your psychologist would have a field day with you. Of course he had the book in front of him. The ebook opened on his computer. Are you tryin to say thats not a book now Joe? That ebooks dont exist? Please say this. But again DMAKER, Joe knows its over and that he was caught lying. Just like you busted him plagarizing yesterday and the day before. But he is just trying to troll you now. I suggest hitting him with teh usuals and not give him further debate.

      Delete
    60. I have the book in front of me. What difference does it make if it is a digital copy?

      Again, please provide a direct quote of Sykes stating that Zana was a Yeti. Something definitive please, not your interpretation or Colemans.

      He didn't acknowledge her descriptions, he merely repeated them. How can he acknowledge something he wasn't even present or alive for?

      Just admit it, Joergy. You got caught out, yet again, over stating something to make your case look stronger.

      Delete
    61. YES YES YES. THE DESTRUCTION IS COMPLETE. THIS IS THE BEST DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!!

      Delete
    62. Again...
      "The well-researched contemporary descriptions suggest to me that Zana had nothing to do with the modern world." He goes on the theorise as to what hominid she might have been, excluding Neandethal but drawing on the genus Homo. Now, again... I'd Sykes accepts the description of Zana and states she was an ancient homo sapien... What other hair covered ape-woman is he suggesting she is?

      Delete
    63. Joe, pg 287 ( digital edition):

      "Throughout The Nature of the Beast I have been critical of the speculation of others, and of premature disclosures. Suffice to say that the scraps of Zana’s DNA that have floated down through time like fragments of a faded photograph, to her descendants are very, very unusual. I am hard at work making sense of it and I hope to know soon"

      Delete
    64. Ah yes, he may indeed do those things you describe, Joe, but what he does not do, quite clearly does NOT do, is provide a conclusion. Any conclusion, much less state that "Zana was a Yeti".

      You cleary misrepresented him either willfully or through an inability to understand his comments.

      Delete
    65. Like I said earlier, Joe, you should wait for his peer reviewed paper before you start bleating on about conclusions that he has not made and are unsupported.

      Delete
    66. You lost this one, plain and simple, Joe.

      Have a pleasant evening.

      Delete
    67. Donald... Sykes has offered genetic evidence to prove that she wasn't a slave. He is in agreement that her descriptions and behaviour were valid, in line with a whole community and her son's skull morphology. He then theorises as to where on the hominid tree she belongs.

      Again... What other hominid is outrunning horses in the Caucasus 150 years ago, Donald??

      Delete
    68. You got caught in a lie Joe, even the superfriends are shaking there heads. And noone was outrunning horses 150 yrs ago Joerg. And you cant prove they were. Its just heresay

      Delete
    69. Oh, Donald... Ha ha ha!! Please don't make me cringe. You have a world beating geneticist attesting to every element of the anecdotes and actual physical evidence for what constitutes reason to believe in the existence of a relict hominids living on the planet 150 years ago, ha ha ha!! I'll still be referencing Sykes tomorrow, and the day after and the day after, and I'll still be reminding you of the question you failed to address right through this comment section.

      Goodnight sucker!

      Delete
    70. Is there anything more pathetic than the ungracious loser?

      I think I will wait until Sykes actually publishes his conclusions rather than take Joes prediction on what Sykes unstated and, as of yet, unpublished opinions might be. Even if Joe continues to state them as fact.

      Delete
    71. You see DMAKER, this is a part of Joes psychology. He did the same with daniel campbell. When Joe lost the bet, he of course went back on his word. Which we now know means nothing. And even though he lost and everyone knew he lost, he still today tries to goad daniel into debate and conversation by saying "Hows the bet going". Daniel no longer responds to it though which makes Joe even madder.

      Dont play into him dmaker. We all saw what went on today. Just ignore him and hit him with the insults we know he loves. Give him no conversation.

      When he loses, his only tactic is to take whats happenign to him and project it on someone else. I really do believe he may be a psychopath.

      AC

      Delete
    72. Donald, ok... Let's put the pessimistic angle into perspective in accordance with Sykes' opinions.

      Sykes says that Kwit's skull possesses archaic morphology and is an indication that his mother was indeed an archaic human.

      Sykes says that the reports of Zana's description and behaviour are "well-researched" and these cannot be attributed to any modern human.

      Excluding the possibility that Zana was Neanderthal (and at this premise excluding that idea that Zana was not a modern a hominid) Sykes says that given this data, Zana must be a sub-species of Homo sapiens that Sykes in which he writes that Zana's ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago and lived for many generations in the remote Caucasus region.

      Donald Maker = Sykes doesn't state anywhere that Zana was a Yeti.

      4:45... The day you lost the bet is the day you lost that little mind of yours pal.

      Night all!!

      Delete
    73. You see dmaker, he just proved it for the world to see.

      Delete
    74. It's the same lame and embarrassing argument you people had by claiming Meldrum didn't claim Sasquatch was real, ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    75. Oh and Donald! I know you'll check this... I should think you should be concerned more with Sykes' acceptance of the peer review process than anyone else... It's you after all that "wants" a peer reviewed paper on the matter.

      Don't wish too hard now... Tick, tock.

      Delete
    76. I have no problem with peer review. I have been clear on that all along. You are the one whos recent mantra has been how obsolete and biased peer review is. Yet, in his book, Sykes points out how critically important it is that his findings be peer reviewed.

      Delete
    77. Dont play into him dmaker, unless you are in the mood to troll some. Joe is just using the same tactics he has tried a million times before to lure you and daniel into conversation. He is that desperate. He loves when you reply to him. Dont ignore him, just hit him with urine and turd comments. Maybe even a little...Hands up Dont Shoot

      Delete
    78. You know, dmaker, I should apologize. You are right. You caught me out over stating what someone else said. Sykes has not even published his findings on Zana, so it was premature of me to say anything about it.

      I'm sorry, I was wrong. I should have just said that at first instead of arguing with you when you were clearly right.

      Sorry.

      Delete
    79. Well, if you're being serious, Joe, then no problem. It's nice to see you mature enough to admit you were in the wrong on this one. I'm impressed. Perhaps there is hope, after all.

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

      Delete
    81. Donald, that's my point... Forget about me. You invest all your pseudoscpetical faith on the peer review process, and here in Sykes you have someone who is actively investigating the DNA of alleged relict hominids, with the intent of using that very medium in due course. There'll be no more excuses, you won't be able to accuse the peer review process of being a bad source when Sykes uses it to support his ideas.

      Don't wish too hard.

      "Part-human, part-ape with dark skin (Zana means ‘black’ in Abkhaz) she was covered with long, reddish-brown hair which formed a mane down her back. She was large, about 6’6″ tall, and extremely muscular with exaggerated, hairless buttocks and large breasts. Her face was wide with high cheekbones and a broad nose. Zana was no slave from Africa, but an individual with genetics who tells us much more about the population from which she sprang. Zana’s ancestors could have left Africa before the Laran exodus of 100,000 year ago and they might well be still there [in the Caucasus Mountains] to this day, living as they have for millennia somewhere in the wild valleys that radiate from the eternal snows of Elbrus... (But Zana wasn't a Yeti)."

      Delete
    82. Man, Joe was destroyed so badly, he was forcet to admit to lying. Man oh man, this is one for the record books

      Delete
    83. But guess what Joe, damker and daniel have seen this tactic before as well. No doubt you are hoping that be apologizing to dmaker, that he will engage in conversation and debate with you more. You tried sucking up to daniel a few weeks ago to do the same. DMAKER is way too smart for that though Joe. Kissing his butt, isnt going to get him to have debates with you. Debate is what you crave. You are so sick of trolls, that you are practically begging dmaker and daniel to come back. In fact, you have done so. But they dont want to enter debate with you. ITs over Joe, and no amount of butt kissing is going to solve it.

      Delete
    84. Yes... Another couple of fake Iktomi's now and then another request that people use racism... You'll feel a little better about yourself, I'm sure.

      Delete
    85. Are you saying that wasnt you at 5:45?

      Delete
    86. You need to be careful when claiming relict hominids share our exact DNA. You need a major case to present to scientists to convince them, and I think Sykes is being exactly how he should be considering how wrong he got the best thing, how readily people are going to be in scrutinising his ideas and having his reputation on the lines. Sasquatch sharing our DNA is what's stopped DNA being confirmed years ago.

      Also... Why would he write a book on Neanderthal DNA in present Homo sapiens? What's new about that??? Ding dong! Earth to troll!!

      We already know he's shooting for publication on this, so what's he shooting for, an ambiguous claim as to what Zana was?? What would be the point in that??
      "They will be published in the regular scientific press so I can't be more specific".
      ... Are we to expect that Sykes is going through the regular scientific press with the premise that Zana wasn't a relict hominid? It's not very well thought out, Donald.

      "Ambiguity" is Donald's favourite method of trying to muddy the waters when he can't ad hominem on people presenting an enthusiastic stance on evidence. Rookie pseudosceptics take note, this is dense-ville 101... He tried this with George Schaller's forword in Meldrum's book, he tried it with the Army Corpse of Engineers when they listed sightings, even physical evidence and even satire regarding the average ignorant who considers Sasquatch a myth... He EVEN claimed that Meldrum wasn't on record stating he believed Sasquatch to be real when a like minded troll tried it... the list goes on. He'll even do it to the point of using ambiguity to drive home the idea of ambiguity... Like maintaining scientific evidence is ambiguous, when there is no scientific equivalent to the contrary of a list of scientists confirming said source.

      Delete
  4. uh oh! Iktomi Joe just got served with a fresh, hot steamer. Spoon it down, son. Act like you are enjoying it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hes truly pathetic isnt he haints. He has been caught in yet another lie

      Delete
    2. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/biscardis-group-searching-for-bigfoot.html?showComment=1424265382593#c7861569630984876498

      haints Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 5:22:00 PM PST
      Despite what Iktomi may think, I am an active Squatcher who worked with Biscardi and Fasano in Florida. Yes, Tim; you know who I am. And while I do not support your view of Lettuce Lake, I haven't attacked you.
      However, I will say that Biscardi's team are freaks. They made us sign lots of legal agreements. They are all heavily and openly armed. I did not see Tom carrying, but his bodyguards had rifles, pump shotguns, .357 magnum revolvers, and other weapons on public lands where no open carry was
      haints Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 5:26:00 PM PST
      Biscardi brought me along as a witness. I will say this in his defense: There was no hoaxing by him or Fasano. Nothing was found, but there was no hoaxing. And of all the times I went out with Tim, I did not see a hoax.
      haints Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 6:27:00 PM PST
      DS, I did not jack researchers. I did jack those who pretended to find something where it did not exist. I found a long series of footprints in Green Swamp. I showed it to Tim. He ran with it. I later learned that they were from a wacknut survivalist. You never know. I was a volunteer for the USFS in Leon Sinks, near Tallahassee, maintaining trails. Miles from nowhere, some buck-ass naked naturist was out on the trail. Stuff like that happens.

      .. What a weirdo Haints is.

      Delete
    3. Joe just got destroyed by haints once again
      YES YES YES

      Delete
    4. Haints couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag . What a nut tosser

      Joe

      Delete
  5. Yeah so anyway, why don't you go out and find Bigfoot yourself Itkomi/Joe. Go out and prove us all wrong. We all know your just a fat pathetic loser who can't back up anything he says.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can just imagine Itkomi sitting by the campfire. A thick c ock in one hand and his iPad in the other. 15 yards from a road, to scared to venture out into the woods because he's afraid he might come across his fake idol. He sits there polishing his bf knob and getting plunged in the bum hole. The whole time praying that Bigfoot would appear and join the f uck fest.

      Delete
    2. you both are supreme tossers who have no life outside of your keyboards . You use pillows while watching netflix to get your jollies. Whack nuts

      Joe

      Delete