Sunday, December 6, 2015

Bigfoot Discovery Project Posts Sighting From Just Outside Santa Cruz


California is known for its encroachment into wildlife habitats. There are often reports of Mountain Lions and other wild animals being seen on the outskirts of towns and even within some suburbs. So it really isn't shocking to think this same thing might happen with bigfoot. That appears to be the case in this sighting which took place just on the edge of Santa Cruz:

A few years back Ric posted a sighting report on the BFRO web site about a sighting he had in April 2002 near Santa Cruz. I contacted him by emails, to follow up on his report with a personal interview. Because Ric is a vagabond and on the road quite a bit, the best I could do was to get a message phone number belonging to a friend of his. A a result, I was eventually able to speak to him by phone and get additional details on him and his sighting, which compelled me to go to the outskirts of Santa Cruz to the area he described to see if the story made sense. In other words, could I find a location right on the edge of town where he could have had the experience he described in his report?

To read the full report by Michael Rugg, click here. 

66 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Yes... So you insist on trying to persuade people of every day of your life. How closer are you to proving that?

      Delete
    2. Of course it does... There are simply too many sightings for it to not. Pseudosceptics are fully aware of this, but TRY and bust out the scientific theory to counter it because they're not being honest with themselves.

      Until someone better than them at scientific theory comes along and plays them at their own games. They really don't cope too well then, like a troll being trolled. They go on a life's mission.

      Delete
    3. I just can't buy Bigfoot being in Santa Cruz

      Delete
    4. Tons of sightings. Zero proof. That's one magic Bigfoot.

      Delete
    5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

      ... Not too magic to leave it's sign on the environment though.

      Delete
    6. In the UK we have wild Wallabies http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-28658308

      They are hardly ever seen so if wallabies can be so seldom seen in the UK bigfoot with it's high intelligence and with umpteen miles of wilderness can easily keep it's self hidden xx

      Delete
    7. What I have a difficult time in understanding is how - with the constant encroachment of humans into the wilderness, with the increase of technology, with the seemingly increased number of "researchers" looking for it and it being reported just not in large wilderness areas but in localities that are highly populated - why not one single specimen in all these years of reports has turned up. Yes, I realize there is "evidence" of their existence but that evidence is always disputed and never officially confirmed. If the evidence was so conclusive I find it hard to believe that serious, well-funded expeditions would not be organized to search for it. Instead we get "Finding Bigfoot" and other comedic attempts such as the Falcon Project being presented to the public.

      For me the interest is now in the Bigfoot community. I find some of the personalities intriguing and now tend to look at it from a psychological perspective. Bye the way I have read some of the previous posts and it is my opinion that Stonereader1 is none other that Khat Hansen who is well known in the Bigfoot community. I do not agree with her conclusions but she is certainly . . . . . interesting.

      Delete
    8. The wallabies have been proven, correct? Mainstream science accepts this proof, correct?

      You can't have it both ways... use the immense amount of poor quality evidence as your proof and then turn around and excuse the complete lack of proof... and then back up those excuses with more unproven ideas. That's a logical fallacy.

      Oh, and Joe, one can't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, which is why the burden of proof is on those claiming that it does exist. That burden to most people has not been met. We all know it has for you. I've never claimed that it doesn't exist but there is no logical fallacy in saying that proof is lacking. If I apply Occam's Razor to form a hypothesis, my hypothesis is that bigfoot doesn't exist.

      Delete
    9. 8:55, agree with you in your first paragraph.

      Delete
    10. The probability in my mind of no conclusive proof surfacing and bigfoot existing given all the facts stated in 8:55's first paragraph is very low and getting lower all the time. Each day a new sighting surfaces and no conclusive proof only increases that paradox. It doesn't strengthen the case for bigfoot.

      Delete
    11. Joe is not interested in your reason 8:55. He is only interested in plagarizing, copy and pasteing, and being a liar. These are all facts

      Delete
    12. Same with you 8:58, he has no use for your logical reasoning

      Delete
    13. Joe is now plagarizing trolls. He is using the phrase "bust out" more and more. Which has always been the troll term when Joe would "bust out" one of his many accounts. Joe is now plagarizing trolls! Disgusting.

      Delete
    14. The wallabies have been proven in the UK because they escaped from a zoo but my point is if they can hide so well without even trying in far less wilderness then bigfoot has an even greater chance xx

      Delete
    15. wow if you: look up bigfoot evidence the skeptics forum is listed first. guess shawn and matt need to buy a bigger ad package!!

      Delete
    16. 10:30, they dont believe in bigfoot, just like all other sane people. They just run the site to troll the bigfoot world and make a few bucks. They are smart men.

      llktomi Sr.

      Delete
    17. Curious... Yet... Every single time someone presents you a case of modern documentation via modern technology... Nobody can get you to respond?? I've given you anywhere (seemingly) near a hundred examples of technology being a counter factors why is it so hard to get a response to that? Yet... I'm sure to see another seemingly naive response to be subject in a couple of weeks time... Why would anyone assume you're thorough in your work????

      Delete
    18. Joes modern technolog........dermals, "unknown hair" dna.

      Delete
    19. I'm not sure what you mean by "thorough in your work"? To be sure I am only an individual who has been interested in the subject for many years (possibly more than you) with no academic credentials (possibly such as yourself). I may not respond because I only check the site occasionally and sometimes the conversation has long been past over.

      Now let me ask you this - with all your modern documentation via modern technology, where has that advanced the case for the existence of what some refer to as an "archaic hominoid". Yes, I see you list the same link after link but it always seems to come from those who ALREADY are advocating the existence of such. What would do more to change my mind is having a multitude of skeptical professionals chiming in and agreeing with such. Is this so much to ask if you have "indisputable" evidence?

      My apologies if I don't always respond immediately. I am very busy and this is merely a subject of interest to me not a job.

      Delete
    20. Joes responses above show why he should be banned, and why he was originally banned. Notice that curious hasnt been demeaning or negative in any way, just skeptical. Joe meanwhile is so frustrated by rational questions that he begins to demean and insult Curious for no reason. I will be contacting Matt K and Shawn about this, and hopefully Joe will be banned once again.

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

      Delete
    22. "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

      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.

      Delete
    23. Well it's a matter of asking yourself this, Mr Curious... For all the links that I post, where is the slightest scientific liberalism? The study in dermals was published in the early 1980's... In all that time, the only thing that has occurred in relation to it, is one uneducated un-equivalent (Crowley) producing something that LOOKS like biological traits, and forensic experts get compromised for a short fall in falsifiability, in so called "sceptics". I keep reading the comments of people who would "love Sasquatch to be real", yet a long list of forensic scientists don't seem to penetrate that alleged "impartiality".

      The reality is... That not enough enthusiasts are aware of these studies. I mean... You've been into this subject for "years and years", and you seemingly haven't an awareness of such a study, let alone a reason to not consider it?

      Delete
    24. 8:58 is Eva xx.

      Lets see if this comment gets deleted again.

      Delete
    25. That is why Joe's comment is deleted.

      My anon comment pointing out this obvious weirdness was removed. So he deleted his comment.

      Delete
    26. "The study of dermals was published in the early 1980's."

      So this "study" was done over 20 years ago and nothing has come of it and why is this? Has there not been more evidence gathered to support this? Could it be that this "study" has never been presented in a scientific paper and peer reviewed by a committee of experts? Maybe the scientific community would take the subject more seriously if this was done with all the "evidence". We continue to wait for Syke's paper and his book although interesting is not the final say on the subject. If you want to be taken seriously you have to run with the big boys and that means presenting your "evidence" through official channels.

      You know lktomi, I have been interested in this subject even before the PGF. I have read thousands of posts on the subject over the years and breathless promises of "proof" countless times. Why should I continue to be hopeful when year after year, claim after claim and book after book the field seems no further along in proving it's existence? Do we continue to hold out hope another 48 years if no body materializes? I did believe at one time so my mind wasn't immediately closed to the idea but I just can't reconcile myself to the idea that it has escaped detection this long. I know this - never underestimate what a determined and clever person is capable of and that includes faking dermals or any kind of evidence. Why they would want to do that is the mystery for me and that is what interests me now. Which is more farfetched to believe: someone faking evidence or a relic human escaping detection all these years?

      Believe what you wish but I'm throwing in the towel on Sasquatch's existence. However I am still curious (hence the name) about the human element in all of this.

      Delete
    27. Oh Mr Curious... Of course there's been evidence accumulated in that time and before, that supports such an idea. There has been audio published, as well as hair samples that have been very conducive to presenting a steady continuum of evidences that could only be the case if a legitimate unclassified species of primate was leaving it's sign in the environment. Also... To state the obvious that these evidences have not penetrated mainstream scientific mediums, is an oversight of what I've already stated. However, how can an anthropologist or a wildlife biologist come out mid-career and state that he/she would like to analyse the readily available data, without it effecting his/her career? We already have Nobel prize winners calling out the process of peer review for being biased and such, why would anyone "sceptical" use such a medium to set that bar of scientific integrity? Your "official channels" are not so "official" when you have so many people conforming to the idea that the process is flawed and subject to anti-impartiality. It's not a mantle I adhere to... Expecially when it comes to progressive thinking ideas.

      You've been into this subject a long time, but for that time, the majority of researchers have been screaming in the woods at night for a bipedal gorilla... Anyone with half a brain can see how flawed a research field is by such a means.

      Delete
    28. Didn't seem to bother Meldrums career. Or Bindernagles. If I recall, Krantz had a pretty decent career as well. Kathy Strain has went on record stating that he has received no negative feedback at all for her bigfoot interest.

      Better yet, how about you provide an example of a career destroyed by bigfoot interest?

      Delete
    29. "She". I understand that Kathy is a female. Twas a typo.

      Delete
    30. the same skeptics would have said the bili ape also didn't exist and it took a real scientific team quite a bit of time to finally get proof . If science devotes the same effort into finding bigfoot i'm sure they will also come up with 100% proof but just don't expect it to happen after a few days in the woods , it will take some time

      Joe

      Delete
    31. Good science does a little thing called "self correcting". And last time I checked... Meldrum believes Sasquatch to be a relict hominid (inquiry).

      You get a few pioneers who are ready to challenge the paradigm... You'll always get that in the way science evolves. Strain works closely with native tribes expressing their culture and Bindenagle is retired, also.

      Delete
    32. That does not answer the question, Joe. You were asked to provide examples of ruined careers due to bigfoot interest.

      Delete
    33. Shouldn't be that hard to find a dozen wood apes on a ten acre parcel of land. Not nearly as challenging as find a bili ape.

      Delete
    34. It appears to me that all methods seemed flawed as nothing seems to come from it. Once again I say that anyone serious about proving this has to submit papers thru the existing medium. Is it biased? Maybe, Is it flawed? Possibly. But they at least have to try. Ketchum's attempt at self-publishing was a sham and pathetic. It proved nothing. Perhaps Sykes who has the credentials to be taken seriously can prove his case. We await his paper and then we may have something to talk about.

      Delete
    35. The process is flawed if Bigfoot exists. It's not flawed if Bigfoot doesn't exist.

      Delete
    36. The methods that have been successful to date in gathering evidence of known species are somehow powerless when dealing with bigfoot?

      Queue special pleading...

      Delete
    37. Possible reasons why mainstream science isn't pursing bigfoot to Joe's satisfaction:

      1. Scientists are too stupid. They can't see what Joe sees because they lack intellectual skills or the ability to consider alternatives to the norm.

      2. Scientists are too afraid. They don't want to risk challenging the status quo even though they see compelling evidence and the discovery of bigfoot would be the scientific breakthough of the century and career-making chance of a lifetime.

      3. Scientists have examined the evidence and do not find it compelling.

      Which of those three scenarios requires bias to accept?

      Delete
    38. Donald... Gover Krantz, who has been recognised by his peers and one of the very best anthropologists of his day, received enormous flack for his work into the existence of Sasquatch. Why do you need this pointing out? It's only in the last 15-20 years, largely with the development of the Internet, that reputable scientists are willing to get on board, and these people simply don't care what there lesser peers think. The evidence is in the frequency of scientists that have come forward to look at the evidence... Simples! And this goes for scientists contrary to enthusiasm too.

      4:27... No, the process is simply flawed, period.

      Donald again... The methods are just fine, we wouldn't have the evidence if that wasn't the case. It would be special pleading to suggest that the consistency of this should be discarded because it doesn't present a preferred conclusion.

      4:55... None of them. Scientists are either uninterested or restricted to participate, and the evidence that the small few analyse is not tested sufficiently and sits there. It requires no bias to test the evidence... Your "millions of scientists who haven't even looked at it" don't help your cause either.

      Delete
  2. Hey, Joe. Looks like you're going to have to go "school" Andy White again. LOL.

    This should be hilarious.


    http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/there-are-no-known-postcranial-remains-of-gigantopithecus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dmaker, Andy white took Joe to town. He used to like to tell people that Andy wouldnt respond to him because of his "legitimate" arguments for bigfoots existence. That was until he was told that us trolls told Andy that Joe was just a troll from this site, and listed a few things that Joe has done on this site. Including being banned for harassment, etc. Andys forum is moderated, and the comment that us trolls sent never was published. but obviously andy read it, and realized that he should never engage joe in conversation. To this day, i dont think joe believes thats what happened, which makes it all the funnier. I still think he believes andy was just blown away by joes knowledge, lol. Sorry Joe, we told andy about you, and if we need too, we will remind him again, if you begin posting on his forum once more. Keep up the good work dmaker. :)

      Delete
    2. TARE ELONGATED SKULLS ALL OVER THE PLANET THAT SCIENCE IS WAY TO SCARED TO ADDRESS. THEY ALSO TEST WITH AN UNKNOWN CONTRIBUTOR ON THE FATHERS SIDE----------- WHATS YOUR POINT CRYBABY.

      Delete
    3. You are lying TK. You have no idea what the paternal side tests as. You are only repeating what you read from the ketchum study. A study that has become a laughing stock of the bigfoot world. And even that study was on a handful of hairs. lol. You are just like Joe. You falsify data and interpret it the way you want, and claim it as fact. Those elongated skulls you reference are also a huge hit on "Ancient Aliens" and they have been debunked as well. Its been shown that humans used to form there heads into that shape using tight wrappings from a very early age. Stop twisting information to suit your own needs Leon.

      Delete
    4. Hey Troll Killer - more nephilim, flat earth and the myth of evolution please! I love that stuff - comedy genius some would say.

      Delete
    5. I think I read somewhere that something like only 200 Neanderthal fossils have been found all over the world to date. Now we know they do exist but it just shows that it's a rare find to dig up a complete skeleton of anything that is ancient .

      Joe

      Delete
    6. I dont think so. Bigfoot doesnt exist. HAHAHA ^

      Delete
    7. Donald... I've seen some of the funnest PhD "impartial" comments (about hominid skulls that by modern anthropology shouldn't be there) used as an argument against archaic hominids and it's futile. I've not only seen Joe take Amdy apart about giant skeletons, but if you frequent the blog as much as I do, you'll notice;
      "You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation). Greg Little makes the argument that there were more very tall individuals excavated from those mounds in the Eastern Woodlands than we would expect by c hance (given the distribution of stature in a "normal" human population). He may be right about that, and I suspect that is the angle of your argument also. I haven't spent a lot of time looking at those cases yet, but I'll get there. My guess is that the "tall individuals are over-represented in mound burials because of some mixture of social process and heredity" will be the last hypothesis standing after all the silly claims about supernatural Nephilim and 15' tall Adamic giants are falsified."
      .., Sasquatch are reported in he height range of 7 feet more than anything else.

      : )

      Delete
    8. You didnt quote your source above Joe. There you go plagarizing again. And it looks like someone has already warned andy about you on his site. :)

      Delete
    9. Actually... We're referring to Andy White... It's in the train of a thread of comments. We already know that you're too stupid and too much of a coward to take a stance and publish your name to your cowardice (homophobia and racism), so why should anyone listen to your comments?

      Can I ask... In sheer "out of depth" to the immediate topic at hand, where is Dmaker for you to plagiarise his ideas as an argument, out of all your attempts to nut-shine him??

      Delete
    10. Modern scientists are a bunch of brainwashed sissy's.

      Gooey young diosaur flesh!

      oil and coal test young!

      Marzuli had a skull tested, melba was right, only she still won't call it like it is ---NEPH, HA HA HA.

      YOU'LL SEE VERY SHORTLY, A NEPH, THEY'RE COMMING BACK. ALL TYPES INCLUDING ALIENS. AND THEY , WITH THE HELP OF MODERN SCIENCE WILL CONVINCE YOU BUNCH OF BRAINWASHED LIBTARDS THAT "YOU" HAVE SCREWED THE PLANET AND "THEY'LL" FIX IT IF "YOU / WE" DO EXACTLY AS THEY SAY. AND YOU WILL, AND YOU'LL BURN IN HELL FOR IT LOOK AROUND YOU FOOLS. THE END TIMES ARE HERE. GOD HELP YOU ALL!

      Delete
    11. Yes YES! That is the crazy Troll Killer we all know and love. This is great stuff. No one can fling the freak like him! Ladies and gentlemen I present to you the new comedy genius of Bigfoot Evidence TROLL KILLER!

      Delete
  3. Dmaker, Andy white took Joe to town. He used to like to tell people that Andy wouldnt respond to him because of his "legitimate" arguments for bigfoots existence. That was until he was told that us trolls told Andy that Joe was just a troll from this site, and listed a few things that Joe has done on this site. Including being banned for harassment, etc. Andys forum is moderated, and the comment that us trolls sent never was published. but obviously andy read it, and realized that he should never engage joe in conversation. To this day, i dont think joe believes thats what happened, which makes it all the funnier. I still think he believes andy was just blown away by joes knowledge, lol. Sorry Joe, we told andy about you, and if we need too, we will remind him again, if you begin posting on his forum once more. Keep up the good work dmaker. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YOU TOLD

      ISN'T THAT WHAT RATS DO.

      PROUD OF SNITCHING?

      YOUR A CLASSLESS BUNCH OF COMMY TROLLS

      Delete
    2. Yes of course us trolls told. Yes we ratted him out, and we will do the same to you too if we chose. Yes we are proud of snitching, and will do it again at a moments notice. We are trolls Leon, and we feed off of you!

      Delete
    3. Actually!! Andy White agrees that the Humbold skull is archaic and there is no known modern example of human skull that has the same nuchal crest...






      Exactly where Native Americans have claimed primitive hominid, cannibalisic tribes have loved for hundreds of years.

      Delete
    4. But what about you boing outed by the trolls? AHHH HAHAHAHA

      Delete
    5. You'll "out me", as soon as you win the slightest of adult exchanges... Until then you'll just fuel this ego of mine and like it.

      Delete
  4. Iktomi, I'd love to have your help battling skeptards over on these forums.

    http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/

    please sign up and help me, your arguments are the best I've ever heard

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TOO BAD FOR YOU 4:06.
      Jotomi is Way to Balless !!

      Delete