Monday, December 7, 2015

Native American Jennifer KuyKendall Talks About Bigfoot Folklore


Member of the Ojibway, Jennifer KuyKendall talks about stories of the "wildmen" and how she remembers being warned about them, especially if you were a young woman. Warnings of being alone in the woods elude to something that would cause you harm or kidnap you.


84 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. If I was to think that Sasquatch were giganto, maybe... But then again, his "maybe, maybe not" conclusion leaves a lot to be desired.

      I like Andy.

      Delete
    2. Oh!! And anyway!! I thought we were to not bother taking Andy seriously, until his ideas are published in a reputable journal??

      Just ask Dmaker.

      Delete
    3. Difference there is he is not making any wild claims

      Delete
    4. No you're right, certainly not with that level of ambiguity.

      Delete
    5. Dr.Meldrum thinks that bigfoot is Giganto or possibly Australopithecus. But I know better. I know bigfoot is human because I have seen more Monster Quest episodes and have read more stuff on the Internet.

      I don't mind holding up Meldrums journal whenever a skeptard asks about peer review, or his editorial board, but I don't share his scientific conclusion on bigfoot. My conclusion is better, because I am smarter. I don't have any evidence, but that doesn't matter. We're talking about bigfoot, after all.

      Delete
    6. What is your line of work Joe?

      I am asking because I also want a job where I can f uck off all day and post about meaningless garbage.

      Or are you on the welfare?

      Delete
    7. I'm on the dole and live in me mums basement. I sometimes do chores for a wee bit of money. I guess you could call it an allowance.

      Delete
    8. Fake Iktomi... Meldrum believes "Bigfoot" to be a relict hominid; hence the name of his online journal;
      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/
      ... So it appears that me and Meldrum really aren't that different in opinion. I don't claim to be smarter than Meldrum, only people like you... Oh, and here's some evidence!
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      ... Anyone notice how this blog is quiet when the one psycho-nerd troll is sleeping? And if you want evidence of him talking to himself, just take a look at this very thread of comments... What a psycho nerd!

      : )

      Delete
    9. Joeholi Stonereader is taking the pounding of his life in this thread. You can almost see the Joerg juice coming out of him from here.

      Delete
    10. Hey Iktomi keep up the good work you are the only one around here with any real knowlege. The rest of these illiterate idiots really do not have any sort of life outside of coming here. I totally roll when you get over on that giant puss Dmaker, what a sap! I just have this mental pic of him weighing like 350lbs pin stripe shirt and greasy tie, balding and wrapping one hair around his head to hide it hunting and pecking the keyboard while he stuffs his face with food and spitting because he can't keep up. HEY GREAT JOB PAL! Keep it up, I know its easy for you with all the dimwits who post so religiously on here. I personally think they got kicked off the skeptic site and meandered over to here.

      Delete
    11. ^ Leon is so upset that he didnt even bother to use his TK or Troll Killer accounts to troll with. Leon the fool, Leon the fool, show him daniel bendovers buttcheeks, and watch the fool drool

      Delete
    12. Leon (the fool) Troll Killer is a special guy. Special Ed that is.

      Delete
    13. Agreed 6:34, and glad you included the fool part. You must always end any remarks to Leon with: "Leon the fool, Leon the fool, Show him daniel bendovers buttcheeks, and watch the fool drool".

      Delete
  2. People think that there are a species of creatures that resemble patty that stroll around casually all over america yet remain uncatalogued. Embarassing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People invest their entire lives in denial of a species of creature that resembles Patty, strolling around casually all over America yet remain uncatalogued, with just a logical fallacy as a countering premise against the physical evidence that supports it.

      Embarrassing.

      Delete
    2. What is even more embarrassing is how stupid everyone here is to think that I actually believe bigfoot exists. Only an idiot would truly believe that bigfoot is real. It's the idiots that funnel money into the pockets of people like Meldrum, Krantz and Binderfoble.

      Delete
    3. Go home Iktomi, you're drunk.

      Delete
    4. I want to make love with Kekky Shaw.

      Do you think he likes when I cheer him on? I use all caps so that he will know how much I love him.

      Delete
    5. Fake Iktomi... One can measure how severe your meltdowns are when you bust out the fake Iktomi and start talking to yourself.

      What caused it... Was it realising that Andy White's latest enjoyable article didn't "pwn" me after all??

      : )

      Delete
    6. I am able to tell the difference between the real and fake Iktomi.

      The real....IktomiMonday, December 7, 2015 at 2:50:00 AM PST
      Get in there!
      IktomiMonday, December 7, 2015 at 2:58:00 AM PST
      If I was to think that Sasquatch were giganto, maybe... But then again, his "maybe, maybe not" conclusion leaves a lot to be desired.

      I like Andy.
      IktomiMonday, December 7, 2015 at 7:31:00 AM PST
      I'm drunk. Injun is a bad word. You should not say that, you filthy racist pig!

      the fake...IktomiMonday, December 7, 2015 at 7:30:00 AM PST
      Dr.Meldrum thinks that bigfoot is Giganto or possibly Australopithecus. But I know better. I know bigfoot is human because I have seen more Monster Quest episodes and have read more stuff on the Internet.

      I don't mind holding up Meldrums journal whenever a skeptard asks about peer review, or his editorial board, but I don't share his scientific conclusion on bigfoot. My conclusion is better, because I am smarter. I don't have any evidence, but that doesn't matter. We're talking about bigfoot, after all.
      IktomiMonday, December 7, 2015 at 7:41:00 AM PST
      I'm on the dole and live in me mums basement. I sometimes do chores for a wee bit of money. I guess you could call it an allowance.
      IktomiMonday, December 7, 2015 at 6:28:00 AM PST
      What is even more embarrassing is how stupid everyone here is to think that I actually believe bigfoot exists. Only an idiot would truly believe that bigfoot is real. It's the idiots that funnel money into the pockets of people like Meldrum, Krantz and Binderfoble.

      Delete
    7. Oh this is also fake Iktomi....

      IktomiMonday, December 7, 2015 at 9:03:00 AM PST
      FFS!!!

      Delete
    8. Excellent! The "injun" comment wasn't me either though.

      Delete
    9. it's very easy to tell the real from fake Iktomi other than the fake one spouts garbage . if you look at the name the fake one is in black and the real one is in blue.

      Joe

      Delete
    10. Hi Iktomi !
      and to fake Iktomi - hope you enjoy your turds with your morning orange juice

      Joe

      Delete
    11. Seeing Joe talk to himself amongst his various acccounts never grows old. He is a comedy genius

      Delete
    12. @5:34 Just like Mike Brookreson ???????????????????????????????????????????????????

      Delete
  3. I liked the bit where sykes and evans where laughing at dumb footers who knock back and forth at each other thinking they are communicating with bigfoots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I particularly liked it when Sykes then went on to publish a book drawing upon Zana being a relict hominid.

      Delete
    2. I particularly liked where Sykes said he had no conclusion yet and was going to publish in peer reviewed scientific journals.

      Delete
    3. ... Actually... I particularly liked it when he claimed Zana's description "well researched", claiming all her traits and behaviours to be true. I wonder what other relict hominid she was if she wasn't a "Yeti"? And, I also wonder what he's putting through peer review if he isn't claiming the case??

      Hang on! That's right! He's putting his work through the "regular scientific press" to prove that Zana wasn't a Yeti!! That would be totally sound logic considering I murder logic every day of my life.

      Delete
    4. Where did Sykes claim all of her traits were true? I know he mentioned well researched, but I don't recall him outright claiming her anecdotal traits to be true. How could he possibly do that?

      Yes, you do murder logical thinking here every day. You make quite the mess of it, actually.

      Delete
    5. Why don't you ever wait for the results before you start strutting around like the pigeon that crapped on the chess board?

      You never learn, do you? You just might be stupid enough to believe what you bleat.

      Delete
    6. Ge claims this to be true when he doesn't doubt her behaviour and calls her description "well researched"... Please tell me Donald, where would that imply that he even remotely finds them to be untrue?? And then he appears to be putting this study through peer review... Something about logic??

      "Why don't I wait for the results?" You didn't appear to take your own reasoning when you were championing Mark Evans after Bigfoot Files, eh? I've been flicking that pigeon poop in your eye since then, and so far it's worked out rather nicely I think... Something about "learning"??

      Delete
    7. Championing Mark Evans? Care to provide some links about that? And it is still beyond me how you think you didn't lose that bet. The first Sykes study did not provide the conclusion you said it would. Plain and simple. Then you welched.

      Yes, he said they were well researched. That is not the same as confirming them, now is it? You are a sneaky one with the crap you try to get in under radar as "fact". Either that, or you really are as delusional as you seem at times.

      Delete
    8. The actual quote from Nature of the Beast is:

      "The well-researched contemporary descriptions suggest to me that Zana had nothing to do with the modern world." That does not claim " all her traits and behaviours to be true"

      My, but you like to over state and extrapolate too much, don't you Joergy?

      Delete
    9. Yes... YOU championed people like Mark Evans, Donald. When Danny was getting all excited, claiming that Sykes was done and his research was not progressing anymore, and therefore the end of the matter and the bet, I maintained it wasn't the case and look what happened? God, I wish I could have seen the look on your face.

      "Well researched contemporary descriptions"... Meaning that these methods have credibility, "suggest that Zana had nothing to do with the modern world"... Meaning archaic in appearence, that is highlighted by her hair covered body, main, etc. Not the first time have had to hold your hand through a comment... He also appears to believe the stories regarding her ability to outrun a horse, etc.

      "You are a sneaky one with the crap you try to get in under radar as "fact". Either that, or you really are as delusional as you seem at times."
      You see, "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
    10. Oh and Donald... You didn't appear to address the elephant in the room. Why would Sykes approach the regular scientific press with the premise that Zana isn't a relict hominid???

      Ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    11. He would approach the regular scientific press with any number of interesting findings, Joe. Not just "Zana was a Yeti" nonsense.

      It would be in your best interests to wait until that is published and generally accepted by the scientific community. Do you not remember the error with the bear DNA that Sykes made?

      But of course you will not wait. You will do your usual tick tock nonsense and then when Sykes publishes and it does not confirm bigfoot or yeti, you will find some way to twist the results into a version where you have not lost and do not have an egg covered face. Meanwhile the rest of us laugh and see right through it.

      Then you go merrily and blindly on your way. Same as it ever was.

      Delete
    12. You can speculate all you want on what Sykes believes, but he categorically did not state that all claimed traits and behaviours are true. You are the only one claiming Sykes stated such. Let's be clear on that, sneaky boy.

      Delete
    13. He's a scientist, Joe. So this may be hard for you to understand, but he simply cannot state that historical anecdotes are true because there is no way to prove that statement. He would never, and has not, made such a statement. YOU have on his behalf.

      Delete
    14. You seem to be getting upset, Joe. It must be a little upsetting to have me pop in every now and then and totally expose you for the sneaky plagiarizing and misrepresenting weasel that you are.

      But you make it so easy, it's hard not to do it.

      Delete
    15. Yes, and to you, Sykes would do things like approach the scientific press with things like Neanderthal genetics in modern times. Tell me Donald, how many times has that already been shown to be the case? Why would a geneticist, widely acclaimed for challenging the scientific paradigm do something that's already been done? And tell me... With the scientific community already cynical of things like Yetis, what would be the point in wasting their time trying to convince them that Zana wasn't a Yeti? Your level of denial is chronic, dear Canadian. I also keep reading about the bear stuff, well it's fortunate that Sykes' area of expertise is human genetics, eh?

      My best interests? That's really worked out against me up until now, hasn't it? And again, Donald... "Well researched contemporary descriptions"... Meaning that these methods have credibility, "suggest that Zana had nothing to do with the modern world"... Meaning archaic in appearence, that is highlighted by her hair covered body, main, etc. I am not the one twisting anything, Donald. Sykes is on record claiming to have belief in the reports that describe Zana as a Sasquatch. The source that goes a significant way to showing Zana's description by an entire community is true? Quite simply her son's skull.

      Upset?? Now is this Donald messing on the chess board?? When you're not contradicting yourself and making a hash of scientific theory, you really are just one big fat hypocrite. 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 bear thing, and how readily people are going to be in scrutinising his ideas. It's his reputation on the lines. Sasquatch sharing our DNA is what's stopped DNA being confirmed years ago.

      Delete
    16. Oh and Don-Donz! How's that "exposure" going on things like dermals and alike? Wow... I'd really better watch out when Donald "7000 posts and no closer to lifting that burden" Maker comes to town.

      : p

      Delete
    17. I'm not denying anything, Joe. I am simply saying why not wait and see what Sykes has to say, when he actually says it. That way, you may just look like less of a moron when you are wrong.

      Delete
    18. "Sasquatch sharing our DNA is what's stopped DNA being confirmed years ago."

      See. It is crap like this that makes you look foolish, Joe. You cannot prove this and it simply is not a fact. Yet, you constantly throw shite like this out there as if it was a common fact.

      That is intellectually dishonest.

      Delete
    19. I'm a dishonest turd eater, what do you expect? If I have to play by the rules, then I cannot make my case for bigfoot look as real as when I can lie and cheat.

      Delete
    20. Donald... This was the case with Ray Crowe's little delve into DNA, and this was the case with the Walla Walla hairs, again via Sykes... It is not so much my alleged dishonesty, but more like an astute knowledge of the subject.

      Delete
    21. Not even close, Joe.

      You said:

      " Sasquatch sharing our DNA is what's stopped DNA being confirmed years ago."

      That is another bold statement on your part that is nothing but wild conjecture presented as fact.

      In order for it to be true, we would need to know what sasquatch DNA looked like so that we could point to where the sasquatch DNA ends and the human starts. And then you would have to prove that this published and confirmed event somehow stopped sasquatch DNA being confirmed.

      That is your claim, that is your burden. Now get to it.

      Delete
    22. But I like wild conjecture because I don't really have any facts.

      Delete
    23. Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA. This did not halt chimpanzee genetic research in its tracks.

      Delete
    24. But chimps are non-human primates. Donald... It's not conjecture when hairs consistently come back as human, in fact one can argue that this is repeatable scientific evidence. Hair samples that have unique uniform morphology, that have been accumulated via sightings have yielded modern human DNA, can be aligned with ancient versions of us (Cro-Magnon) that were more robust and had longer arms, archaic morphology, etc. Now... How many Sasquatch samples over the years have come back "contaminated"?

      Delete
    25. ^ All the contaminated ones, idiot.

      So, you can't prove another one of your wild conjectures as fact, can you?

      No big surprise.

      Delete
    26. Just another day of dmaker slicing and dicing Joe's arguments. I never get tired of reading them.

      Delete
    27. And here in lies the reasons behind Sykes being careful, Donald... Relict hominids sharing our DNA is gonna take time and another handful of instances where reliable samples are tested and come back as human. I'll leave Sykes deal with the conjecture.

      Tick, tock.

      Delete
    28. Joe got blown the f##k out today by Dmaker. This was amazing!

      Delete
  4. Yah-Tah-Hay! Yah-Tah-Hay! Hay-Hay! Indian Outlaw, half Cherokee and Chaktaw, my baby is a Chippewah, she's a one of a kind.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just more injun lies. I bet she is drunk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm drunk. Injun is a bad word. You should not say that, you filthy racist pig!

      Delete
    2. Is it ok if I make fake injun profiles and talk to myself on here?

      Delete
    3. I do. I am also a white man who pretends to live in Wales and have no hint of injun blood.

      Will this be a problem or can I still play pretend with you guys?

      Delete
    4. I thought Joe was going to get verification brought back? Guess not.

      Delete
    5. Dmaker, are you still ABP's lady ?

      Delete
    6. Dmaker... What would happen if someone suddenly started busting out a fake you and started talking to himself?? It would be easy to seem convincing... He would just need to contradict himself, ad hominem a few times and when that doesn't work claim "ambiguity", even using ambiguity to claim ambiguity.

      They would have nailed it!

      Delete
    7. ^ You should come back when you learn to speak properly.

      Delete
    8. FYI "joe" is in actuality a woman named Sandy.I stumbled accross this fact when looking thru Mike's photos...seems as a sandy fitsgerald from england likes his photos...coincidence?

      Delete
    9. ^
      Wore ass-less chaps at J Randi's gay wedding.

      Delete
    10. >>Dmaker... What would happen if someone suddenly started busting out a fake you and started talking to himself??


      Um it was me fake iktomi was talking too you clueless idiot. The only person who does that here is you.

      Delete
    11. 9:12 can you please provide the source of this?

      Delete