Sunday, February 7, 2016

Bigfoot Investigator Finds Strange Anomaly While Ghost Hunting

Skunk Ape hunter Tim Fasano recently relocated to a new condo in the Sunshine State. Before he moves all the way in, Fasano wants to check the place for any previous occupants that may not have left yet. Namely, ghosts. 


  1. Replies
    1. T-FATS, just think if your new condo is haunted by a ghost that loves food as much as you do?

    2. zabo just blew joe the f#ck out!!

  2. This is really interesting xx

    1. Great little find, Eva. Thanks for that.

    2. That's ok Iktomi,it's fascinating isn't it xx

    3. Yes... It says a lot about the psychology of the easily influenced to conditioning.

    4. fancy some bloody piss?

    5. Maybe you will have some after you get kicked in the peanut.

  3. PJ still thinks bigfoot exists. Incredible.

    1. ^ says this after a weekend bender


  4. And bigfoot "researchers" still wonder why real scientists don't take them seriously?


      Plenty of "real scientists" here... I don't think anyone with real credentials would be worrying about the opinion of someone who uses ">>>" for quotations.

    2. Look at this guy right here. He can't support any of his claims, so he resorts to trying to make cheap shots about quotation marks.

    3. If you were able to read properly, you'd have noticed I just supported my ideas with a list of very real scientists, who take this topic serious enough to be a part of Meldrum's online journal editorial board.

      Keep up the good work, you're doing your like minded proud.

    4. That list that started with the USSR? The same USSR that promoted Lysenkoism for decades? That list?

      Yeah, "real" scientists.

      Oh, and are we talking about the same Jeff Meldrum who, when coming upon an elk wallow, decides it "must be bigfoot"? The same Jeff meldrum who gave that fraud Standing the time of day? What the hell was he even thinking? I'm sorry, but Dr. Meldrum has not been doing his career any favors these last few decades with this bigfoot nonsense. He's a decent anatomist, but he has a bad habit of forgetting occam's razor where bigfoot is concerned.

      Also proof by authority isn't.

    5. Um... You do realise that Lysenkoism came from the late 1920's, right? Ever heard of things like the Space Race?

      And no, if you actually opened the link, you'd know that the list read like this;
      John Bindernagel, PhD Courtenay, BC, Canada, Colin Groves, PhD Australian National University Canberra, Australia, Chris Loether, PhD Idaho Sate University Pocatello, ID, Jeffrey McNeely, PhD Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union Gland, Switzerland, Lyn Miles, PhD University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, John Mionczynski Wildlife Consultant Atlantic City, WY, Anna Nekaris, PhD Oxford Brooks University Oxford, England, Ian Redmond, OBE Conservation Consultant Manchester, England, Esteban Sarmiento, PhD Human Evolution Foundation East Brunswick, NJ, Zhoua Guoxing, PhD Beijing Museum of Natural History Beijing, China.

      I wonder how many wildlife biologists would be as easily tricked if people were hoaxing animal tracks? It's a dud argument, and expecially that such instances have been used conducively to identify fake tracks in future. Todd Standing, regardless of his controversial photographs, in fact presented Jeff Meldrum and John Bindernagle an encounter that was verifiable by physical evidence in tracks... In a research area that most enthusiasts came to dislike Todd for stealimg a legitimate research spot.

      Nonsense? Last time I checked, he was getting some of the very best conservationists writing forwords in his book. George Schaller is an International science director for the Wildlife Conservation Society. His pioneering field studies of mountain gorillas setthe research standard later adopted by Goodall and gorilla researcher Dian Fosse. Schaller’s 1963 book, “The Year of the Gorilla,” debunked popular perceptions of the great ape and reintroduced “King Kong” as a shy, social vegetarian. Schaller’s studies of tigers, lions, snow leopards and pandas also advanced the knowledge of those endangered mammals. In 1973, he won the National Book Award for “The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations,” and in 1980 was awarded the World Wildlife Fund Gold Medal for his contributions to the understanding and conservation of endangered species. During the past decade, he has focused on the little-known wildlife of Mongolia, Laos and the Tibetan Plateau.

      Tracks = dermals = hairs = audio = thermal = footage = whole cultures = thousands of contemporary reports = Occam's Razor

    6. > "You do realise that Lysenkoism came from the late 1920's, right?"

      Um, that's my point. For all that it was junk science from the '20s, Lysenkoism was official soviet party scientific policy for decades up until the end of the '60s when it officially ended (while still leaving shadows in soviet "scientific" work until almost the '90s. So any time any scientist, especially biologists and ESPECIALLY anthropologists, sees USSR, he knows to take everything surrounding it with a huge grain of salt.

      Oh, and while some anatomists are also conservationists, not all conservationists are anatomists, or even scientists. Yet you seem to be implying they are one and the same.

      Good luck with that.

    7. Tracks can be faked. And have been.

      Dermals can be faked even accidentally.

      Hairs have all been proven to be known species upon examination.

      Audio can be faked and misinterpreted. And has been.

      Thermal images can be ridiculously misinterpreted.

      Footage can be faked. And has been. And can be misinterpreted. And has been.

      And whole cultures also have believed in fairies and goblins and thunderbirds and gods and ravens that create the world. Just because it's a good story doesn't mean it's true. And humans love to make up good stories.

      You seem to think that if you pile on enough crap, you'll somehow transmute it all into gold.

      None of it is proof of bigfoot. We need a specimen. Nothing less will do.

    8. ... And like all Russian anthropologists are not with Lysenkoists, sometimes forensic experts are not differentiated from anthropologists? (Cringe) There are many, many American scientists in the 20th century who have been creationists, does this gave any bearing on the development of scientific research in the last 25 years?

      And in the case of USSR scientists verifying dermals, the same agreement in verification came from British and American forensic experts. You'll find plenty of scienific backgrounds in the people in that editorial list.

      You seem to be deflecting from the original point that put you straight.

    9. This comment has been removed by the author.


    10. To hoax species traits in convincing biological dermals, one would have to have a knowledge of primate dermals (that not many do), have a lottery win's chance of faking the same biological idea, and then fool multiple forensic experts... These are not hoaxes.
      Audio recordings that became the subject of a year-long University based engineering study, with the results determined that the vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges, that the recordings were spontaneous at the time of recording with no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed... Cannot be hoaxed.
      Over a dozen unknown primate hair samples, verified by multiple camps of primatologists, all morphologically uniform and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure, found around sightings and tracks... Cannot be faked.
      Thernal hits of two subjects at one time in the region of 9 feet tall, cannot be misinterpreted.

      None of it is proof, but myths don't leave that frequency of evidence = Occam's Razor. Nobody is seeing fairies or goblins, and they certainly don't have conservationists endorsing the idea that they exist.

    11. > "To hoax species traits in convincing biological dermals, one would have to have a knowledge of primate dermals (that not many do),"

      NO YOU DO NOT.

      All you need are your own primate dermal ridges, which every human on the planet has literally right at their fingertips whether they know it or not.

      A few isolated regions of dermal ridges are NOT PROOF. Anyone who claims otherwise is only putting their own credibility into question.

      Also you keep saying "cannot be hoaxed" as if that's a fact and not just your baseless opinion. Prove it.

      > "all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair"

      Which means they came from humans. Not bigfoot. At best that's sample contamination, but it's far more likely it's not a sample at all.

      And "faking" human hair is easily done by anyone with a source of human hair. Like a human. So all you've "proven" is the human sample source, whether hoaxer or just incidental bystander, probably isn't bald. Congratulations.

    12. You do... Using the morphology of a human fingerprint "unwittingly" does not work. Even though the delta ridges on prints with verified dermals are similar in places to modern Homo sapiens, such as changing directions over 45 degrees, they also converge and deviate, they have the same texture and ridge flow pattern like a humans BUT twice the size. There is however enough unique data in them to be considered an "unknown primate", they follow traits of all other primates but are unique, which could imply a "different version of us". Similar to us but different in it's unique morphology, just like ancient versions of us such as Cro-Magnon that shard our exact DNA but had anatomical and morphological differences. So you see, using a normal human's fingerprint doesn't even begin to account for what is seen in impressions, because they are too small... And even if that was the case, it's an even bigger leap of faith to assume that someone using the same method would have the exact traits and patterns decades apart, States apart. Using things like the base of the thumb to a forensic expert of 30 years would, um... Would be identitied just a little.

      I don't think you actually know what the **** you're talking about, do you? When you are walking barefoot on the forest floor, the foot comes in contact with both fallen leaves and the soil in making an impression. Therefore, casting artefacts for example would be present in consistency right across the different soil areas of the foot fall and they're not. There are castings with dermals across different areas of the foot fall, which indicates even more of a difficult task for someone to jigsaw together the morphological consistencies that would be expected to exist by not only one professional, but by several. I don't think you've seen much if I'm honest.

      I just proved it.

    13. And to unknown pimate hair, verified on an instance where a sighting occured by multiple people, at least one of these a government employee (where tracks were accumulated in the same instance), verified by Dr Paul Fuerst of Ohio State University & the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre. The hairs were collected by forest rangers at a sighting where tracks were accumulated too. Dr Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's department of anthropology confirms this. These were later confirmed to also be be case by Dr Fahrenbach;

      "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."

      So you see, the hair sample was accumulated via government officials from a direct sightings, whilst we also have Zana's son's skull with ancient morphology that has been confirmed to have homo sapien lineage. Hairs are also screened for contamination, and they still come back human;
      "Bob Daigle, a friend of Mary Green’s, sent a hair sample collected from the Tennessee site to a DNA geneticist (named only as Dan), who found nothing but human results, the sample sequence being an exact match. He sequenced some 300 nucleotides from a mitochondrial gene called cytochrome b, and amplified a 1100 base pair fragment, then ran the results through GeneBank. The GeneBank is an open access annotated collection of nucleotide sequences and their protein translations. It lists some 100,000 distinct organisms and having in 2006 some 65 billion nucleotide bases and 61 million sequences. Control tests were run that were deliberately contaminated with dog and cat DNA despite which still the Fox hair turned out to be human. The rest of the scientific community and senior Bigfoot researcher’s deniability is reaching the point of being ridiculous. At some point some very public agency or noted personage is going to declare that the creatures are actually human beings, just different from modern man though a subtle shift in the genetic code. Perhaps just a few genes are involved though important ones and they might add up to huge differences and need to be identified. It might be what actually makes us human and them sub-human! This might be what made the jump between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens some 200 thousand years ago in Africa – we became intelligent beings almost overnight."
      - Ray Crowe

      ... Sasquatch are human.

    14. You appear to have full faith in "real scientists", yet when a scientists of Jimmy Chilcutt's credentials steps up to try and debunk evidence and finds authenticity, or when multiple camps of primatologists tell you that there is unique uniform morphology across hair samples, or when world beating geneticists (Sykes) theorises that Yeti could in fact be archaic human... Your credentials are what to denounce these professionals?

      You contradict yourself sir, and ad hominems because they deliver a positive conclusion on the evidence doesn't help your stance.