Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Bigfoot Yells And Other Strange Things Captured On Audio In New Mexico


Bigfoot investigators Brenda Harris and Jon Lee were staking out an area of recent bigfoot activity, when they captured the following audio recordings. They captured what sounds like rock banging, wood knocks, and something very large yelling loudly. Check it out:


75 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Did a cloaked bigfoot whisper in your ear last night?

      Delete
    2. You seem to have a little boner for this cloaking stuff lately, don't you?

      Delete
    3. To which 1% of enthusiasts believe in. What's funny... Is no matter how much you sensationalise things, you still have physical evidence of said creature.

      Deflection is an incredible thing.

      Delete
    4. " enthusiasts " ? ...like a kind of sport ?

      You have no physical evidence but have circumstantial evidence.

      Delete
    5. Where did you get that 1% figure other than your fat arse?

      Delete
    6. Physical evidence? Can you point me to the Nature article discussing this thanks

      Delete
    7. 3:01... I think you'll find that's actually the correctly applied terminology, but I don't expect someone with your apparent literacy skills to understand that. Stop crying about it, prove it's merely circumstantial. Merely putting something in writing doesn't achieve that.

      3:01... Oooooh, surely you can find a better than that?

      Delete
    8. 3:05... Who would expect anything scientifically honest to come out of a journal like that?

      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

      Delete
    9. Okay so i should take my scientific knowledge from a welsh maniac on an obscure paranormal blog? Okay sounds good!

      Delete
    10. No, you should take it from a Nobel winner and some random dude like me on a blog that is catered for a topic you need better educate yourself about, before using those sausage fingers on a pizza stained keyboard and looking silly.

      Delete
    11. Remember Sausage Fingered Sally!? She's such a skeptarded b@tch

      Delete
    12. Is English this dope's second language?

      Delete
    13. Teen didn't want to go to school, shoots family...
      THE NEW NORM

      Delete
    14. 3;08 you have been laughed out of the arena you foolish boy

      Delete
    15. GRAYs sometimes using holograms so you thinking that's a BIGFOOT but its really a hologram in the image of a BIGFOOT

      Delete
    16. 4:43...Iktomi schools you skeptards and simpleton trolls time and time again, it's almost embarrassing how easy it seems to be for him. Keep up the good work Iktomi, the cement head line is a long one. Cheers!

      Delete
    17. ^ Won't be schooled by anyone until they produce a Bigfoot. It's that simple...

      Delete
    18. http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      You only had to ask.

      Delete
  2. The person proposing the existence of an unknown animal has the burden of proof no matter how the sentence might be constructed. If you add the idea that Bigfoot is a genetically manipulated person created by extraterrestrials, positive evidence in support of such a claim is clearly demanded by logic.

    Further, you wish to state that other posters are rejecting any evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Hardly. The evidence in favor is considered, but then placed in context with all the other known facts and observations. Claimed sightings, for example, do raise the possibility of a Bigfoot. But when this evidence is then combined with all the evidence against Bigfoot, the huge balance of the evidence is that there is almost certainly no Bigfoot. One important component of the evidence against Bigfoot is the lack of certain things that would have to be present if there was a Bigfoot: clear photos, pieces of dead Bigfoot, poop, DNA on hairs, etc. And these things should clearly have been discovered given the length of time that so many people have searched for Bigfoot. The logical conclusion then is that the claimed sightings are either in honest error or made up, something known to frequently happen when people try to report other phenomena. Finally, when the pieces of hair or skin that Bigfoot advocates swear are Bigfoot actually prove to be bear and people samples when analyzed for their DNA (nearly 40 different samples if I remember correctly) then this further indicates that the sightings were in error or are deliberate lies.

    Of course one can resort to ever more implausible and completely undocumented claims to try to make the known facts fit the existence of Bigfoot: he buries his dead, he can teleport, he does not shed, he can see infrared or hear trail cams, he emits a blur field whenever near a camera. etc. But this is only highly imaginative fiction piled in a pyramid to try to explain the facts post hoc, with all of these "explanations" also lacking factual documentation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "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

      "Headlines such as "DNA Debunks Bigfoot Myth" and "Genetic Testing Shows That Bigfoot Is Not Real" are completely false and misleading. The only thing the DNA tests proved were that none of the hair samples used came from an unknown primate such as a bigfoot or a yeti. Does that mean they do not exist? If the study had been about dogs living in the wild, but none of the test results matched a domesticated canine, would that mean no dogs live in the wild? It simply means the test samples did not come from the sources they were believed to have possibly come from."
      - Matt K
      Also... The only known researchers that I can find who submitted samples towards the initial stages of the Sykes study (AKA Bigfoot Files), were Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja and Derek Randles. The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples.

      Scat;
      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htm
      Hair;
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhair4.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhairroot.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg
      Bones;
      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/
      Forensic physical evidence;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
      Audio;
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      ... Stop putting words in people's mouths and get around to shifting that burden. Oh... And Sasquatch DNA is human.

      Delete
    2. Yes, having your best essays that you've spent weeks on rammed back down your throat in minutes will do that to you.

      Get well soon.

      Delete
    3. 2:48 does make a valid point the burden is on the believers.

      Delete
    4. Marcello Truzzi... Or uneducated anon 2:48...

      Not a contest.

      Delete
    5. I have to say that I thought that comment by Anon 2:48 was well written and no I didn't write it (but I wish I had). It echoes what I think and remember I WAS a believer at one time. Every time I come to this site there are reports after reports and seemingly countless groups out looking for them yet nothing substantial seems to come from it. Yes, I realize the claims of evidence but what good has come from it? Has this evidence brought us any closer to proving Bigfoot exists than the purported film of it over 48 years ago? I just cannot believe a creature this large, seen in so many states and reported so often could escape detection. Obviously many of the reports are hoaxes but if there truly is such a creature be it human or ape or something in-between it CANNOT escape detection forever. How much longer will people continue to keep believing - 10, 20, another 48 years?

      Delete
    6. Whoever 2:48 is, he has you in checkmate on this one

      Better luck next time..

      Delete
    7. No surprise there Curious. And for stating that you "were once a believer" for the 100th time... One can can draw upon the same amount of times the same tiresome rhetorical approach to the state of evidence has been used. It simply hasn't escaped detection. You don't have to wait another 48 years, open your eyes to the previous 48... There wouldn't be reports or tracks if that was the case. Tracking it is another thing altogether... But how many professionals are out there attempting exactly that? How many consorted mainstream scientific expeditions have taken place? It might take years to successfully track down something of this nature, we know it took a year to track down the Bili Ape and there is only one source of footage for that in it's natural habitat.

      Where has the evidence got the field? Well people are still plugging away at finding a conclusive means of research for that frequency of evidence, and as time goes on, more and more reputable scientists are getting on board and ending up enthusiastic. It's all very well people crying that there is no evidence and then people like you patting them on the back. The wake up call is that that entire premise is utterly, totally false from the outset. It isn't solid data, isn't factual and is as faulty as anything you can suggest of this topic.

      Delete
    8. 4:45... How about you get around to explaining away the evidence that's been posted back at you, as opposed to cheerleading on your own comments? It would be far more conducive to supporting your ideas.

      Delete
    9. Well lktomi, you may get tired of hearing it but it's the truth and there are many just like me who have come to the same conclusion. I used to frequent a now defunct website called Cryptozoology.com (now apparently defunct)and there were many who posted that started out as believers and over time came to change their view that it was real. When I talk about escaping detection I am referring to it being discovered as in proven to exist. It doesn't matter if it's more apelike or humanlike there still has to be some tangible evidence that can support it to the satisfaction of the ENTIRE scientific body.

      Look, I can understand your passion for the subject - hell, I would love for something like this to exist and I'm still interested in the subject or I wouldn't pop in here from time to time. But I just can't keep the hope up after all these years especially when the evidence always seems inconclusive.

      Delete
    10. Iktomi is a dunderhead and like all wishful thinkers refuses to accept the simple fact there is no valid evidence as yet..he will mumble and grumble and point out the circumstantial evidence but cannot provide the crucial piece that completes a puzzle..perhaps because it doesn`t exist as he wishes..he may need to accept the view that it is a supernatural creature (whatever that means) just as the native tribes-people state.He will say they say it is a type of person but more than that,importantly,they say it dwells in another realm and makles excursions into this world to the chosen few.

      But there you go..the blind are leading the blind in the search for bigfoot.

      Delete
    11. Curious... With the greatest of respect, you are not special. You are not some how excluded from what you demand of other people because you claim to have been a believer before. That's putting yourself on a pedestal that isn't even logical. I've seen you attempting to explain away the evidence and it doesn't stand up to even the most meagrely expectant of standards of scepticism. You have an opinion, that's great. You express that in ways that are far more preferable than most... But you must demonstrate that these ideas stand up to the same scrutiny that you like to practice.

      Maintaining something that has scientific backing is not legitimate, without presenting a single equivalent case to dismiss this, merely on the aspect of FAITH... Is as belief based and religious like as you can ever point to.

      5:55... Is the present Bigfoot evidence reliable? Well about as reliable as any falsifiable source that can be presented as evidence in any scientific or judicial arena. There are in fact plenty of facts that denialists choose to ignore, like the pristine professionalism that has transitioned scientific careers into this field, by methods tried and tested to be legitimate and totally reliable. Like the very best primatologists and conservationists repeatedly telling you that there is nothing in the environment of the US that prohibits the existence of an unknown primate, and in fact... It is likely to be there. Considering that every single source of evidence exists short of type specimen, is it healthy to maintain the tunnel vision, denialist stance that there is nothing what so ever to the claims of an unknown primate residing in the wilderness of the US?

      It is if you're a denialist... And you simply can't get more blind than that. Nothing sadder than someone who refuses to open their eyes than someone who can't.

      Delete
    12. "Whatsoever" is one word -- just trying to help you out there mate!

      Joe

      Delete
    13. Unknown primate residing in the wilderness of the U.S.

      Just a theory nothing more...

      Checkmate

      Delete
    14. Checkmate is the perfect analogy for summing up closure desperation in skepfooters and psuedoskeptics. In the game of chess, when checkmate is declared the game ends as the opponent has no remaining moves, this sums up the wishful thinking of the intellectually dim, because as the statement is being made, tracks and hair are being accumilated and sightings reported... Even the very best geneticists in the world rallying for samples to test. Just like in skepfootery when psuedoskeptics declare checkmate, it is quite appropriate in summing up their wishful thinking in the face of facts, skepfooters also have no moves remaining except praying that evidence stops rolling in and to then the game is done. The "jig is up"... Though the best primatologists in the world support the facts opposed to their delusions. It appears the only thing that is "over", is their stabelized mental health. We've checked, you don't qualify.

      Delete
    15. 10:23... Grammar correction from someone who uses "--". Now that's rich. Grow a pair, get an argument, waiting for someone's grammatical errors is just more evidence of your inferiority complex.

      Delete
    16. Im makin a bigfoot movie!! its called---!!

      "--"bigfoot, thirst for piss--",,

      Delete
    17. ^ This toddler must have broke his xbox in a fit of rage after gettin reked at gta 4, such a tosser!

      Joe

      Delete
    18. No I am not special but I mention this because I have followed the subject of Bigfoot for - I dare say longer than you and I have read more than enough to cause me to doubt. I do have to raise my eyebrows when you continue to mention scientific backing because the truth of it is that it is a relative few in those professions that advocate it. Many of those - Meldrum, Sykes, Ketchum have made mistakes, after all they are human and prone to errors of judgment as all of us are. Your mention of faith and belief works both ways in that you and others put utmost belief and faith that this evidence is absolutely flawless and the professionals presenting it cannot make mistakes in interpretation.


      This endless discussion will go on and on until a body is produced - you and I both know this. It's obvious that your evidence has done nothing to sway the scientific community in accepting it. You and others may hold it up as proof but until it is officially classified it will remain a myth. That is the cold hard fact that is your burden I'm afraid.

      Delete
    19. It really matters not about how few scientists are in favour of the evidence. Every scientific breakthrough in history as been attributed to a select few. Now imagine that "select few" in individual fields such as forensics, audio production, primatology, anthropology, wildlife biology... Suddenly you have all that deserves a consorted mainstream professional effort. A relative few is no less relevant... It's in fact expected from a discovery, with history books full of them I'm afraid. You can't keep hanging on to the opinions of a majority that have never analysed the evidence, mostly not even aware of it. It's not very good logic.

      It's all very well when you claim human error and interpretation... It goes out the window when you have repeatable and falsifiable evidence. It simply cannot be denied any longer. Meldrum has made mistakes, I'm sure many other anthropologists would if they were being deliberately hoaxed. They're not though and therefore don't have their professional integrity baited in such a way. Sykes made a mistake by an ancient bear, but nobody argues he's the most pioneering geneticist in the world, and his expertise is in human genetics.

      "If you've never been wrong, you've never been creative. The bigger the ideas, the more you're wrong."
      - Todd Disotell

      Ketchum had several labs blind test her samples, and a second round of testing should put that to bed. It's not mere faith when you have the data in front of you, that's how someone impartial would approach it. The evidence has not gone as far as it should have because not enough enthusiasts even know about it. How can anyone expect a restricted mainstream scientist to know anything, or do anything about it? And for 50 years of largely amateur researchers plugging away, we have the attention of the professionals that set them aside from all their lesser peers.

      I've never claimed to have proof. Just a scientific principle called Occam's Razor. For all the stimulating comments I've read from you, it appears you're not so interested in lifting your burden on the frequency of evidence you seem to religiously claim isn't there.

      Delete
  3. It's classic footery: Film a bigfoot, then instead of looking for the monkey in the movie, take the movie on the road and make money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Classic scepfootery... Cry about every single last thing about a piece of film except find a god damn monkey suit.

      If you'd just filmed one of the greatest pieces of footage ever, and were trying to bring the general public's awareness to the fact... You kind of go about things in that way.

      Delete
    2. Anon 2:52 just got royally schooled by Iktomi !
      Now anon will go back to bed in tears

      Joe

      Delete
    3. Haha- you're right! Iktomi just knocked him flat out. This entire thread is one fantastic slap down.

      Delete
    4. Fuckface Miley cyrus what a little nigger dick sucking little whore!

      Delete
    5. Howdy IK! Lovely thing you have going on here- warms my heart :)

      Delete
    6. Hey mate, I know that I can make you smile even more!

      Joe

      Delete
    7. ^ dear pretend me- does your nanny know you are using her laptop while she is in the loo ?
      You are in big trouble lad

      Joe

      Delete
    8. Hi chick and Joe

      Nice work Iktomi

      MMC

      Delete
    9. That's right chick. We and the others are super friends alright.

      You are all such nice people. Where else can a guy talk about the big guy and not get laughed at too much

      MMC

      Delete
    10. ^ minge munching commie

      and the fat chick dribbler

      go suck fetid c-ock

      Delete
    11. You read my mind mate!

      Joe

      Delete
    12. ^ here he is on nanny's laptop again. She will be very cross at him

      Joe

      Delete
  4. Fuckface Miley Cyrus what a little nigger dick sucker!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but not TRUMP he da 1 to beat Hillary ...... TRUMP #1

      Delete
  5. Trump and Ben Carson could clean all these p.c. pieces of shit in the u.s out of here!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If trump doesn't pick Carson for VP then he will pick him for surgeon General. Clean up the mess especially with the VA. Criminal what has happened to the vet's. They treat them like cannon fodder.

      MMC

      Delete
    2. I personally want to see Carson for VP. His embassador skills would be second to none. He values life in a world of killers. No doubt the slime establishment will try to force one of their puppets on trump but he is obviously to smart

      MMC

      Delete
    3. ^ minge munching commie

      Delete
  6. F..k them commies and the media!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump will have them commies in them camps FOR THEIR SAFETY : )

      Delete
  7. F..k them commies and the media!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Vote trump if you have a brain f.ck the establishment!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Every time I read comments about bigfoot videos they are from strange angry people arguing and calling names. It's like the bigfoot community are all preschooler's. No wonder no one takes it seriously. Grow up. Js.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Every time I read comments about bigfoot videos they are from strange angry people arguing and calling names. It's like the bigfoot community are all preschooler's. No wonder no one takes it seriously. Grow up. Js.

    ReplyDelete