Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Daytime Investigation Into Thick Bigfoot Area


A small group investigates in SE Oklahoma, a hotspot for bigfoot activity, and find a peculiar looking den next to a creek. One of the best bigfoot quotes I've ever heard is said on this video.


163 comments:

  1. I bent over to pick up a dime , the next thing I knew , I woke up with a sore Arse ? yet i am thrilled ! If I Am wrong, I never want to be Right!!!

    MMC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, now that is funny stuff 2:42, You know what else? It doesn't make look like a giant weirdo with attention issues. You being you has to be exhausting.

      Delete
    2. vegas for those that didn't know, is the same guy who used to post as Ruff

      Delete
    3. Strangely the "best" bigfoot quote I`ve heard is the truest quote ...

      it is " Bigfoot isn`t real".

      Delete
    4. 9:08... You use quotation marks wrongly, and unfortunately that quote doesn't attend to the evidence to the contrary.

      Delete
    5. tham sumbitch BIGFOOTS bein onry fer shure sume folks sayin tham BIGFOOTs bein reel shure is

      Delete
  2. I have a hard time believing that there are bigfoot in Oklahoma.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're lucky, I have an impossible time believing they exist.

      Delete
    2. I have an impossible time believing a skeptic like you would spend so much time here if he didn't secretly believe they did.

      Delete
    3. He's just a little worried his parents will find him on a Bigfoot blog, so he has to post all these "sceptical" comments to prevent being teased. Also... If he can get enthusiasts here to answer his concerns about their existence at the same time, it's win, win, win!

      Delete
    4. Looks like Joe made a new queer account. But Those were the days, man. What a cast of characters. Remember those bleevers who were SO. DAMN. SURE. that Ketchum's paper was going to prove bigfoot was real once and for all? All we needed to do was wait? And then after a year+ of dangling that paper in front of us all, Ketchum self-published it under some domain name she purchased herself and geneticists around the world were laughing at us?

      It was absurd. It was a soap opera. But it was OUR soap opera. Why can't we get fun hoaxes like that anymore? At least the DNA thing was believable. It seems some footers are so desperate for attention that they've totally nuked the fridge: it's no longer DNA samples and wood knocking, now we have people talking about mindspeak and portals into other dimensions.

      Delete
    5. 8:10

      His parents don`t want him growing up with his head full of lies and untruths...that`s being a proper parent...shame you were denied that part of growing up.

      Delete
    6. Bigfoot role-playing is nothing but a hobby where you have all this "evidence" but nothing ever comes of it, all these "forces" are against you, and everyone "fears" the knowledge you possess.

      Delete
    7. Ketchum... 8:45's favourite. I think he might have a poster on his wall of Melba or something. It's a little weird how he keeps bringing her up out of context when he needs a little self esteem pick-me-up. Nobody took Melba apart more than enthusiasts, Dr Sykes stated this himself and said that he was very pleased that the majority saw her bad science from the outset. You value Sykes' opinion so much, right?

      But troll above is reading from the ISF hymn book, another is "role-playing" and the use of quotation marks like it's somehow weapon... These people think that they can simply post these futile little mantras from the ISF hymn book and be excused in explaining the one thing they clearly don't have the intelligence to counter; the god damn scientific evidence. That's why Melba is name dropped so often, and the embarrassing approach that enthusiasts must be pretending is used... There isn't much else going for them. That's why they're here every day of their lives, satisfaction and self esteem are not in abundance in these people's lives.

      Either that... Or they're too scared to admit that they believe in "Bigfoot". Poor fellas.

      Delete
    8. FFS! Kipunji monkey – First spotted in 2003 in Tanzania, the Kipunji monkey -- one of Africa's rarest primates -- was once believed to be a myth. Tim Davenport of The Wildlife Conservation Society in Tanzania was the scientist behind the find.FFS!

      Delete
    9. That's funny Joe, a couple of years ago you weren't exactly "taking Melba apart":

      "You can tell a lot about the truth these days by the manner in which forward thinking and regime challenging ideas are reacted against.

      If there was absolutely nothing to her work, then why would Nature send her work to peer review? If there was absolutely nothing to her work, then why would the Journal of Advanced Zoological Exploration in Zoology accept the paper, passing it in peer review (only to back out of publication on the day the paper was to go live)? If there was nothing to her work, then why would GenBank refuse to allow the team to upload their sequences, sending emails requiring signed consent forms from the individuals the samples came from (i.e. Sasquatch), prior to acceptance of the sequences, among other excuses, why not refuse it outright? If there was nothing to her work, then why have there been death threats leveled at scientists in the study, not to mention a pipe bomb that was detonated at a venue where Dr. Ketchum was scheduled to speak at?

      Why all these occurrences for nothing but a woo topic for the gullible?

      Yeah, that's right... Wake up."

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2014/03/dr-melba-ketchum-states-i-didnt-believe.html

      Delete
    10. How dare you show Joe's tail turning, lying, and hypocracy for what it is Mr. Anonymous. You filthy troll you! Yes indeed, Joe said that and many other statements supporting Ketchum. Just like he did Sykes. First it was Sykes findings would prove bigfoot, then when that failed, then his next paper would prove it. When that failed, then the next paper would prove it. And now, the hope lies in Zana, which will come back as a normal black human.

      But that will not matter to Joe. He will move on to something else, and try and hide the fact that he ever supported it to begin with. If the Patterson suit turned up today, Joe would claim that it was a good suit, but there were always some flaws that bothered him. After his whole life of beating the patterson drum, he wouldnt mention the footage ever again, and would focus on something else. Probably dermals. He would act like it never happened. lol. Joe talks of trolls being sick in the head, but its obvious to everyone that pays attention who the one with the psychologic problems is.

      Delete
    11. Argh but like good scepticism, it self corrects. In that time I've learned a lot more about her study, have listened to what Sykes had to say about her work and am more dubious than positive about her work now. I still find the fact that multiple labs blind tested her work and allegedly had the same findings interesting, and believe that a second round of testing will put the whole thing to bed (which is what I'm lead to believe is happening). Forget about me like it's personal (which we know it is because you're so butt sore), the facts are that 99% of enthusiasts, regardless of what was anticipated, took her work apart once it was self published and Nature appeared to accept her work and then retracted before publishing.

      Delete
    12. 10:38... Coast to Coast AM March 19th 2016;
      http://youtu.be/UitNUuJsWPs
      27mins - "You can tell the difference between modern and ancient human within DNA."
      38mins - "almost finished studying Zana's DNA."

      Oh... And got monkey suit?

      Delete
    13. There you go again, quoting things you don't understand.

      Delete
    14. So what you're saying PJ is that you were one of 1% of the stupid and gullible footers who accepted Melba's findings without question. Thanks for the admission!

      Delete
    15. 10:58... What type of special loon are you that you can't understand what that quote implies?

      11:08... The Danny Campbell wannabe... I think a second round of testing would put that to bed nicely.

      Delete
    16. Joe, have you not learned your lesson from your many brutal beatings. Remember Ketchum study is coming? Remember Sykes is coming? Now the only thing you have is "Zanas study is almost finished". What kind of a moron would use that statement as any sort of hope or evidence. Yes, i am sure the study is almost done, yet you have NO clue what that study will conclude, yet you are hyping it up. Now us sensible people know that it will say that zana was a black woman. And you are starting to realize that. But i have to ask, what will you say and do when the study concludeds just that, that she was a black woman? How will you turn that into bigfoot? And how will you dismiss everything? Will you start saying, "Sykes is still optimistic" and tout that as proof? You seemingly never get tired of getting egg in your face Joe. Remember the bionic bigfoot? lol. You don't seem to mind humiliation, in fact, it seems you enjoy it.

      The Knower

      Delete
    17. 10:38... Coast to Coast AM March 19th 2016;
      http://youtu.be/UitNUuJsWPs
      27mins - "You can tell the difference between modern and ancient human within DNA."
      38mins - "almost finished studying Zana's DNA."

      Tee, hee!! Oh... And here is your Bionic Man argument ripped apart. Be a brave boy and read it, eh?
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/have-you-seen-this-funny-meme-about.html?m=0

      Delete
    18. How in the world can you take an article where you got so obliterated, that even the superfriends were crying for you. And use that as any proof? Your psychopathy is showing Joe.

      And what type of moron continues to use a quote about Sykes that proves nothing, but is just a random blanket statement. No hope given, no opticism given, just a simple blanket statement.

      Seek help Joe. You don't seem to understand when you have been so utterly destroyed that any normal human would walk away with there head between there legs. The bionic bigfoot arguement by you, was epic. The whole world was laughing at you. This is a good example of why footers will NEVER get any respect. Because of folks like you Joe Joe.

      The Knower

      Delete
    19. Again... It's obviously burning...

      http://youtu.be/UitNUuJsWPs
      38mins - "almost finished studying Zana's DNA."

      ... For a "knower", you don't know much kid.

      : p

      Delete
    20. ^ ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! I like it.

      Delete
    21. 11:32... I guess you didn't open the link to where the Bionic Bigfoot stuff was put to bed, what a coward.

      : )

      Delete
    22. A closet homo/redneck whos moma was a drunk and hes daddy molested him. And an absolute stocker jackass. And he has turned into an anona coward.

      Delete
    23. ...Melba was before Joe's time..Maybe he supported her on another site, I do not know..I do know Joe came here after the Ketchum debacle, so if he supported her it was not here..

      Delete
    24. You're right, when Joe arrived here, the Melba debacle had occurred about six months earlier and it was plain to anyone with half a brain cell that the whole thing was a total disaster. But after he arrived, Joe regularly supported Melba and continued to do so until his hero Sykes dismissed her as a fraud.

      Delete
  3. Vote for me, get rid of them! Trump pledges to do a 'great service to his country' after Lena Dunham, Rosie O'Donnell and Whoopie Goldberg vow to flee for Canada if he gets elected .....
    PLEASE, PLEASE make it SO

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. to late - TRUMP da 1 to get the JOB DONE....

      Delete
  4. It's funny how the ISF mouth breathers don't realize that the poster over there named "EXFooter" is Alaskabushpilot...lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ISF is like a cult. Your skepticism is judged by who questions who. If this Bushpilot character claims to have flown on the space shuttle next week and you don't question it, you're considered a good skeptic. If you question his claim in the least bit you're considered a bad skeptic or a nuisance. They don't want anyone to upset the herd.

      Delete
    2. True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

      Questions everything and takes nothing on faith, even from cherished established institutions.
      Asks questions to try to understand new things and are open to learning about them.
      Applies critical examination and inquiry to all sides, including their own.
      Withholds judgment and does not jump to rash conclusions.
      Seeks the truth and considers it the highest aim.
      Thinks in terms of possibilities rather than in preserving fixed views.
      Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides.
      Acknowledges valid convincing evidence rather than ignoring or denying it.
      Possess solid sharp common sense and reason.
      Are able to adapt their paradigms to new evidence and update their hypothesis to fit the data.
      When all conventional explanations for a phenomenon are ruled out, are able to accept paranormal ones.
      Accepts that there are mysteries and revels in trying to understand them.
      Views science as a tool and methodology, not as a religion or authority to be obeyed. Understands the difference between the scientific process and the scientific establishment.
      Acknowledges that the scientific establishment is subject to politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression, as all human based institutions are - and therefore must be critically examined and scrutinized, rather than taken on faith, especially in the light of contrary evidence to their claims.
      Will admit they are wrong when the evidence calls for it.

      Delete
    3. PseudoSkeptics / Closed-Minded Skeptics

      Does not question anything from established non-religious institutions, but takes whatever they say on faith and demands that others do the same.
      Does not ask questions to try to understand new things, but judges them by whether they fit into orthodoxy.
      Applies "critical thinking" only to that which opposes orthodoxy or materialism, but never to the status quo itself.
      Immediately judges as false and debunks anything that contradicts their paradigm.
      Are not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending their views.
      Cannot think in terms of possibilities, but sees their paradigms as fixed and constant.
      Are willing to lie and deceive to discredit their opponents.
      Automatically dismisses and denies all data that contradicts materialism and orthodoxy.
      Are judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about.
      Scoffs and ridicules what they oppose instead of using objective analysis and examination.
      When faced with evidence or facts they can't refute, uses semantics, word games and denial to try to obfuscate the issue.
      Unable to adapt their paradigms to new evidence, and denies data which doesn't fit into them.
      When all conventional explanations for an unexplainable phenomenon are ruled out, are still not able to accept paranormal ones.
      Dislikes mystery and uncertainty, and insist that all unknown phenomena must have a mundane explanation.
      Views the scientific establishment as a religion and authority to be taken on faith and never questioned or challenged. Does not understand the difference between the scientific process/methodology and the scientific establishment institution.
      Assumes that the scientific establishment is objective and unbiased, and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression for no other reason than blind faith in authority.
      Will never admit that they are wrong no matter what, regardless of evidence.
      http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php

      Delete
    4. ^^ Epic meltdown in progress.

      Delete
    5. ^
      Hi ISF'er. Why are there so many pathological liars in your tiny little sub culture ?

      Delete
    6. Let me guess:

      You're just on the verge of a new bigfoot science discovery!

      No one has found a hoaxed bigfoot costume so bigfoot is real real.

      The "forces" against you "fear" all your "evidence".

      Bigfoot Role Player cuts and pastes.




      Delete
    7. Wikipedia's original entry on pathological skepticism (before pseudoskeptics took it down) listed these defining traits of pseudoskeptics:

      "The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are:

      Resorting to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory).
      The assumption of facts (such as, stating theories determine phenomena).
      The obfuscation of facts.
      The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.
      Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.
      Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and run on majority rule.
      Maintaining a stance of hostility and intolerance.
      Instituting hurdles against new theories by "moving the goalposts".
      Ignoring intellectual suppression of unorthodox theories.
      Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter."
      http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php

      11:01... Not that you're clever enough to be guilty of any of the above, the place you get your best mantras are most certainly guilty of the above.

      Delete
    8. You're too unable to have an original thought to be guilty of the above.

      Delete
    9. Let me guess:

      1. You're just on the verge of a new bigfoot science discovery!

      2. No one has found a hoaxed bigfoot costume so bigfoot is real.

      3. The "forces" against you "fear" all your "evidence".

      4. The Bigfoot Role Player cuts and pastes.

      Delete
    10. It's odd how Bigfoot is the only fringe topic where it's "skeptics" are more bizarre and obsessed than it's "believers".

      Delete
    11. 1. We're in need of a consorted effort from a mainstream scientific source.
      2. You must test science, and testing the premise that a subject has organic muscle mass and tissue in a footage source is achieved how?
      3. Nobody is claiming "forces are fearing evidence", sorry... You must be confused.
      4. The blog resident village idiot seems a little lost outside of his usual prayers today.

      11:34... You are spot on sir.

      Delete
    12. It's also odd how someone can misuse "its" in the same sentence that he used "it's" correctly.

      Delete
    13. 11:56 Your right about that! To funny!

      Delete
    14. What's not odd, but is in fact typical... Is how someone who runs out of angles resorts to pointing out typos.

      Delete
    15. You mean like you did above when you pointed out that someone used quotation marks "wrongly"?

      Delete
    16. "Wrongly used" would have been better I guess, not sure how that makes Bigfoot go away though.

      Delete
    17. According to your own statement, it demonstrates that you've "run out of angles."

      Delete
    18. Sorry... If you didn't realise, I'm not the one deflecting to grammatical errors.

      Delete
    19. ^
      Hi ISF'er. Why are there so many pathological liars in your tiny little sub culture ?

      Delete
    20. That is hilarious. Joe, the pathological plagiarizer, decides to scold someone on the proper use of quotations. So much irony.

      Delete
    21. "dmaker" with capitals... I wonder why??????

      : p

      Delete
    22. The caps in my name? That was done solely to prevent you from using it as some lame excuse about my grammar or writing style. Everyone here, but you, knows that an username is just that, it can be anything. But you, lacking any real substance grammar or writing style wise, chose to focus on something completely ridiculous. And here you are, still harping on something that could not be more insignificant.

      Well done, hero.

      Delete
    23. Iktomi is a genius in his own mind.

      Delete
    24. What are you going to do, Joe, when Sykes confirms that Zana was nothing more than plain old homo sapiens sapiens (HSS)?

      Delete
    25. Move the goalposts and deflect is my guess.

      Delete
    26. He will act like he never supported sykes at all dmaker. Just like he always does, and he will beat someone else's drum. Nice job blowing joe the f#ck out above.

      Delete
    27. I'll tell you what Joe will do. He will do what he always does when he falls flat on his face. He will pretend that the results somehow support his claim. Or, in this case, when the results will in no way possible support his claim, he will fall back on something like "Well, Sykes is enthusiastic about the subject material" or something of that sort. Totally disregarding the fact that Sykes has recently made a point of saying that he is not a "bigfoot enthusiast'.

      Where does that leave intrepid Joe? I am sure he will insist that Sykes is only saying that due to peer pressure or some other nonsense. Nevermind the fact that Sykes had no qualms about testing alleged bigfoot DNA and appearing in a documentary where he demonstrates that alleged bigfoot DNA is, so far, simply known animals. Somehow, all of that will not matter, and Sykes will emerge a champion of footery regardless of anything that Sykes might scientifically demonstrate.

      Joe is not about facts. He is about spin control. Nothing can threaten his sad little world here on this insignificant blog. He will twist and turn and contort any result to appear to support whatever his current position might be. The rest of us will laugh as usual and Joe will continue blind to the fact of what an idiot he really is.

      Delete
    28. If Joe was truly the interested student of footery that he likes to portray himself as, he would be involved in more than just this, admittedly, niche blog on the subject. But he is not. He limits himself to this place only. He has no knowledge of threads at the BFF or ISF. Places where more ongoing or even serious discussion of the subject matter takes place. He is regularly, and hilariously, confounded by copied comments from ISF or BFF. He will counter argue a copied comment from BFF or ISF completely oblivious to the origin of the comment.

      This blog is certainly not the place on the Internet to discuss bigfoot. But it is where Joe has decided to try to establish a little fiefdom. He is completely unaware of subject matter discussion that take place at more serious venues. Because for Joe, it's not about bigfoot, it's about looking like an important person on a pathetically small blog.

      It's pretty sad, really.

      Delete
    29. So you finally decided to spell your name with capitals because I teased you? Nwah, sorry Don... I meant nothing by it man.

      I think it all rests on whether Sykes claims that Zana is an ancient subspecies, or a normal modern human. I think Sykes has already been clear as to what he would expect from a "Bigfoot", because in recent interviews he's alluded hypothetically having its own species classification. Interestingly, he's already theorised that Zana is an ancient human, which is exactly what a lot of people maintain Zana, Yeti, Sasquatch, Yeren, Yowie are. Given the skull morphology of Khwit and eyewitness reports of Zana that Sykes endorses, this will be a slam dunk for people like me who have always maintained that there are ancient hairy humans running around... Whether Sykes states that Zana was a "Yeti" or not.

      It's all on the ancient DNA.

      Delete
    30. ^Comment of the year dmaker. You should save it and post it when Sykes is done. Joe will do exactly what you said, just like he always does. His psychological problems run DEEP. I imagine after Sykes lets Joe down, he probably will turn to Matt Johnson and start supporting portals and alternate dimensions. Its only a matter of time before he jumps on that bandwagon. Its a footers last grasp at hope. Good work making a fool out of Joe as usual dmaker. And what will Joe respond with? "Why all caps dmaker". In his mind saying that is the biggest slam anyone can make. Another of his pscyhological problems for all to see.

      Delete
    31. Wow Donald... You seem to be a little agitated tonight? As was said to you before, for someone who's best methods are ad hominem, you can't really question Sykes if he's not an enthusiast, right?

      Tick, tock...

      : p

      Delete
    32. Ew! It's always horrible watching a grown man with his tongue up someone's ***!

      Delete
    33. Joe, here is a prediction for you that you can take to the bank: nothing about Sykes analysis of Zana will, in any way, support a relict hominid hypothesis. I can't be more clear than that. Now, what will you do when that inevitable hammer falls?

      Delete
    34. You are already shifting the goal post again Joe, in preparation of Sykes putting you too bed. His findidngs will be that Zana was a normal human being that was black. He will be surprised to see a black in that area, but that will be the extent of it. And that will make you look like a racist. Remember when you thought bigfoot was a race of giant primate. AHHHHHH HAHAHHAHA. Now its a species of ancient human. And how do you know what "ancient" DNA is Joe. Please define that since you seem enamored with it. My guess is that you have zero clue what DNA actually is even made of, let alone what "ancient DNA" is. I look forward to Sykes pounding your hopes into the ground. Just imagine the beating you wil get here once the findings are released. My guess is that you will take a few days off because you are so ashamed, and then come back with someone new to back. Probably portals, as that is your last grasp at hope.

      Delete
    35. LOL, of course Joe has to break out the " you seem agitated" nonsense.

      Also, why has Iktomi been responding to comments directed at Joe?

      Delete
    36. Agreed Joe, watching MMC giving you a good licking every day is quite disturbing. But hey, he has got your back.

      Delete
    37. Next commnet will be "whos Joe". Joe doesnt realize how bad that hurts any credibility he has ever had relating to him not posting under 12 different accounts. Pretty soon dmaker, he will bust out the "meltdowns below" comment, or something of the like. I actually like when he makes statements like this dmaker because it gives the blog a good laugh, as its such a desperate attempt to get attention from the trolls he supposedly hates.

      Delete
    38. Joe, I don't question Sykes. I await his publication of his study in proper scientific journals.

      Please, where is the ad hom that you just mentioned? Where did I ad hom Sykes, exactly? All I said was the he is not a footer, a distinction that Sykes made, not I.

      Delete
    39. You are probably correct, 3:02, we will surely be presented with one, or all, of the following:

      Who's Joe

      Meldtown below

      Schooled..

      Or any other comments that any sixth grader would likely produce.

      Delete
    40. Not only did sykes make that distinction, he also said he thinks the patterson footage is fake. A dude in a suit no less. AHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    41. Who's Joe? Donald... If Sykes states that a hairy ancient subspecies of human was living on the planet 150 years ago, it smashed apart the accepted timeline of when we shared the planet with hominids, by many tens of thousands of years. What's 150 when we're still getting reports and even forensic evidence to this day? No Don, you seem a little agitated, are you ok?

      3:01... The village idiot (Don's best mate and **** shiner). I have never, ever claimed Sasquatch are anything but human. If you're so sure otherwise, post a comment, you're very, very welcome to try that now. Sykes has already put the African slave nonsense to bed. Very simply, there is no African from West Africa that has skull morphology that matches her son's skull. This totally quashes any claims that she was a slave. Like Sykes has stated... You can tell the difference between ancient and modern human DNA... Tick, tock...

      Delete
    42. Would you care to make a new bet Joe, about what sykes will be finding? One that you will honor?

      Delete
    43. And sykes is never going to say that a "hairy" species of human was walking around. He has never said anything of the like. You simply are adding the term "hairy" so that your argument doen't seem retarded.
      well Joe your argument is retarded.

      Delete
    44. Joetomi does lose credibility with each "Who's Joe" comment, but the problem is that credibility on this blog is not a potent currency.

      Joe can post as multiple known Joe personalities and no one really cares. Joe can backslide on bets and no one really cares. Joe can plagiarize and no one really cares. Joe can bully other posters and no one really cares. The thing is, there are like maybe 20 (that is being generous) regular posters here and most of them are bat shit crazy footers. They don't care what Joe does as long as he keeps up the facade of bigfoot belief. The rare, and few, posters who give a crap about credibility don't matter here. So, Joe can do basically whatever he wants and only lose credibility with the minority of readers/posters. And that is EXACTLY how he wants it. This is his life, this tiny fiefdom in the obscure corners of the Internet. This is what makes him happy. Observed credibility has nothing at all to do with it.

      Delete
    45. Come on Donald, let's keep up on a literary sense, I didn't say that you've been using ad hominem against Sykes, but it's a regular used technique used by you and your folk and when he states that Zana is ancient human, you can't use his credentials as an "enthusiast" to say he's biased, can you?

      3:08... Considering you celebrate his self admitted unqualified opinion on the PGF, why don't you do the same when he tells you that Zana is not a slave, what he's qualified in? It's a little weird, don't you think?

      Creepy fake laugher below...

      Delete
    46. The only person talking about slavery, is you Joe. You racist. Not all black people at that time were slaves Joe, you do realize that dont you? Now what about that bet. Lets make one on his findings. You game?

      Delete
    47. Wow... Don-Donz is taking the capitals thing a little personally me thinks!

      Tee, hee!

      Delete
    48. 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).
      - Loren Coleman

      Delete
    49. Its responses like that Joe that make viewers believe that you are homosexual. what kind of adult man says phrases like "tee hee", and "Don Donz". these are terms you would see a gay or tranny use.

      Delete
    50. Sorry children... The bet was that Sykes was done after Bigfoot Files... Look how that turned out for you?

      Where's Danny I wonder??

      Delete
    51. So that cut and paste is from Loren Coleman Joe, not sykes, lol. Again, no one is talking about slavery but you. Get your quotes right. Loren coleman doesnt have anything to do with this discussion. Not only that, but Coleman is just repeating testimony of what Zana supposedly looked like. There is no proof of this at all. Just heresay and old stories.

      Delete
    52. Im not talking about your and Daniels bet Joe. I am talking about a new bet. You game Joe? or are you too scared of being humiliated AGAIN. Cmon Joe, lets make a bet. Or do you not have the guts

      Delete
    53. And you are bold face lying about your and daniles bet yet again. The bet was that sykes original paper would prove that bigfoot existed. Every single person saw it here on this site. It has been posted umpteen times, and each time it makes you look like more of a welcher. But i think you like it that way. I think you like throwing it in the trolls face that you are a liar. I think you like bringing it up, because when you lost the bet, you went back on your word. You like throwing that in the trolls face and saying "hey im still here, and im never going to leave. Yes i lost the bet, but im still here". Your psychosis is showing.

      Delete
    54. I'll make a bet with you,Joe, right now.

      Sykes, if he ever publishes results on the study of Zanas DNA in a scientific journal, will in no way whatsoever support the hypothesis of extant relict hominids? How's that for clear? You want to take that bet?

      To be clear, the results must be in a accepted scientific journal. I don't give a fig about what Sykes muses about in his books. It must be a peer reviewed, mainstream, scientific journal.

      What say you? If I am wrong and Sykes publishes a ground breaking paper proving that relict hominids are wandering this earth in the here and now, I will leave this blog and never return.

      Delete
    55. I won't even bother to stipulate that you have to leave, because we all know you would just return under some new persona anyway.

      Delete
    56. Danny flailing around here like a wild lunatic. Foaming at the mouth and playing with himself as usual. Look away people just look the other way.

      Delete
    57. I am with you dmaker. I will leave the blog with you as well. Cmon Joe, this should be a no brainer for such a smart man like yourself.

      Delete
    58. Really Joe (3:28). Switcing to anon mode already. Why not bring Anton out? And if you lose the bet Joe, you leave this blog forever under your lktomi account, and any other of your many accounts. Including anonymous posts.

      Delete
    59. To be clear, the results must be in a accepted scientific journal. I don't give a fig about what Sykes muses about in his books. It must be a peer reviewed, mainstream, scientific journal.

      Delete
    60. What say you? If I am wrong and Sykes publishes a ground breaking paper proving that relict hominids are wandering this earth in the here and now, I will leave this blog and never return.

      Delete
    61. Joe is squirming. Too scared to dare respond with an "i accept". Instead he will talk about you getting upset dmaker. And telling you that you are melting down. joe will never make another bet. He knows how horrid the last one made him look.

      Delete
    62. Ha ha ha ha ha!! Look how much of a tiddle you two are in! Ha ha ha!! That's Loren Coleman's review of Sykes' book. Sykes is opposed to any idea that Zana was a slave, and the proof of Zana's description is her son's skull and its morphology;

      "Anthropologist M.A.Kolodieva compared the skull of Khwit with the male skulls from Abkhazia in the collection of the Moscow State University Institute of Anthropology and found that Khwit's skull was significantly different. Indicating it as the Tkhina skull, she writes:

      The Tkhina skull exhibits an original combination of modem and ancient features ... The facial section of the skull is significantly larger in comparison with the mean Abkhaz type ... All the measurements and indices of the superciliary cranial contour are greater not only than those of the mean Abkhaz series, but also than those of maximum size of some fossil skulls studied (or rather were comparable with the latter). The Tkhina skull approaches closest the Neolithic Vovnigi II skulls of the fossil series...
      On her part, anthropologist M.M.Gerasimova came to following conclusions:
      The skull discloses a great deal of peculiarity, a certain disharmony disequilibrium in its features, very large dimensions of the facial skeleton, increased development of the contour of the skull, specificity of the non-metric features (the two foramina mentale in the lower jaw, the intrusive bones in the sagittal suture, and the Inca bone). The skull merits further extended study.
      So the bottom line of the Zana case today is this: we have nothing but the words of witnesses to describe Zana's peculiar nature, but the hard and specific evidence of her son's skull goes a long way in making the testimony of witnesses more solid and trustworthy."

      Donald... You're getting your knikers in a twist... Nobody is claiming that Sykes will claim Yeti's are roaming around Russia to this day, only that there is DNA evidence that they were 150 years ago. But even you're clever enough to know what that means, right?

      Delete
    63. Why should anyone give two fuchs about Colemans review of a book? Can't you provide your own feedback on the book? Or have you not read it?

      Delete
    64. Oh my... You're letting your emotions get the better of you Donald, take ten minutes out and have a cup of coffee. Nobody is stupid enough to take a bet with someone who regularly posts under anon.

      Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    65. Sometime dmaker sounds so much like dan. Begging for a showdown, a bet just like dan. Nasty arrogant and rude just like dan too.

      Delete
    66. And right on cue Joetomi comes back with the you must agitated nonsense.

      I'm not agitated at all, Joetomi. Accept the bet, or don't. Up to you.

      And I have never posted as anon, ever. I am tired of this accusation. Either prove it, or STFU.

      Delete
    67. Why should anyone care? Because it's factual to what's in the book and a credible opinion that you can't worm out of, such as if I was to post my review of what's in the book.

      Sorry it's at the expense of your self esteem, Don.

      Delete
    68. Donald sounds so much like Danny. It's incredible sometimes.

      Delete
    69. IktoJoe will pretend that he "knows" that dmaker has posted as anon, but like everything else, he will have zero proof.

      Delete
    70. 3:40 is personality # 3^

      Delete
    71. Why should Colemans review be thought of as credible? What makes it credible?

      Where is YOUR review? Or would you rather just lean on the comments of others because you lack the intellectual acumen to construct a worthy review, or you have yet to actually read it?

      Delete
    72. And let me guess... You and Don have proof that I'm all these alleged posters as well, right? Everyone here knows Don posts anonymously, I've even had him loosely admit it to me in an exchange around here that I've been meaning to source when I can be bothered.

      What's for sure, is there's two people with sore fingers tonight! Chill guys, you'll spoil your evening.

      Delete
    73. Joe probably has not even read the book. He trades on the thoughts of others because he fails miserably when trying to present his own thoughts. This is due to Joe either not having read the source material, or having sub par literary skills with which to express his thoughts properly. I lean towards to the latter.

      Delete
    74. Totally worded like dan.^

      Delete
    75. By all means Joe, please source a conversation where I admit loosely to posting as anon. Please, by all means, do so. Please be bothered, or STFU about it.

      Delete
    76. No, no, no Don... I'm "not credible" remember? What good would my review do? Coleman is a respectable guy and explained things beautifully with it being published on Meldrum's online journal, why wouldn't I use it?

      Delete
    77. Donald... Are you sure you're not Danny Campbell? You're talking like him an awful lot you know...

      Delete
    78. Joe is getting blown the f#ck out !!!! I mean dag on!!

      Delete
    79. Posters like 3:45 make me laugh.I see posts like that all the time. I don't post here regularly, but I usually stop by once a day to see how much of an idiot Joetomi is making of himself that day. Part of the fun for me is to see so many people target some post or other as me. They are always 100% wrong, but it's pretty funny. When I post here, I post as me. No one else. Same goes for BFF, same goes for ISF.

      To watch morons do a ^^ dmaker, makes me laugh. You could not be more wrong.

      Delete
    80. Don's nut shiner... Concerning Sykes' Zana research, I've never claimed that he would claim that Yeti's are living to this day, because Zana was alive 150 years ago, and like all geneticists they're only as good as he samples they've been provided. However... We all know what that means if thousands of years have been quashed as to when relict hominids have shared the planet with us. Humiliation? I'm sorry... Have any you made any substantial points, or have I missed something?

      Who's Joe?

      Delete
    81. Joe, why would you not post your own review here? It makes no sense. You wish to be seen as an authority on the subject matter, but refrain from doing anything other than copy and pasting other peoples thoughts. That makes no sense. Why are you content to post the thoughts of others, when you are such an informed authority on the subject matter?

      Please, I am sure all of us would love to be entertained by your original thoughts on Sykes book. You constantly trade on the review of others, why not treat us to YOUR thoughts? Or do you have none?

      Delete
    82. 3:50 does seem to display extraordinary nut shining skills not exhibited by most persons. I do believe they call those idiot savants.

      Delete
    83. We're waiting...

      Oh,and are you taking my bet, or no? Too scared? Not sure what to say if it isn't spoon fed by Coleman?

      Delete
    84. But by what you just said, then you are admitting bigfoot doesnt exist. Because by what you just said, then anything from 150 yrs ago onward is total BS. So the patty film and all bigfoot reports going back 150yrs are all fakes. Remember you are claiming that bigfoot doesnt exist now, but did 150 yrs ago. That is what you are supporting with sykes. You cant have it both ways joe. Either they are still living (against what you claim sykes is for), or that they are not around now but were 150yrs ago. You cant even keep track of the goal posts you are moving them around so often.

      Delete
    85. You seem agitated Joe,having trouble isolating an original thought?

      Delete
    86. 3:54... a great example of joe posting anonymously.

      Delete
    87. Joe is getting blown the f#ck out, i mean he is really getting blown the f#ck out!!!!

      The complaint is in, the complaint is in. I mean a big complaint is in!!!!

      And Joe will never accept the bet. He has no backbone.

      Delete
    88. I wish to be an authority? Really? Didn't you just contradict that sentiment by then stating I copy and paste other people's opinions? The reason I reference so much is because people like you think that their mere opinion on a blog comment section is gospel. Whatever is said on a blog is "the truth", no matter how unimpartial it is. Referencing my ideas puts that to bed. I'm not guilty of the same... It shows that I'm not talking ****. Hasn't one of your most recent tantrums been about citations on my part? Come on Don, keep up.

      Delete
    89. 3:57... Please actually read my comment as opposed to just reading those that get you excited. If you actually read my comments, you'll know that I've said that for thousands of years of accepted cohabitation with hominids being smashed, what's 150 years when we have consistent reports and physical evidence. Please, get an adult to at least read you comments before you release those sausage fingers on to the keyboard.

      Don... Why would I take a bet with someone who uses anon mode?? Wouldn't you want me around to gloat if Sykes says Zana was a modern African human?

      Delete
    90. Oh dear... A bet? When will any of you learn?! Ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    91. So you say that the reason you reference is because people think what they write on this site is gospel? That makes literally no sense whatsoever Joe. I mean you are just copy and pasting others opinions, so how does that help prove any point. As loren coleman or sykes opinion isn't gospel, so why quote them? You make no sense at all Joe. You reference things because you are a troll who has psychologic problems, and are obsessive compulsive about copy and pasting.

      Delete
    92. Please prove where don has posted anonymously Joe. Oddly enough, we can prove where you posted anonymously. Remember, you went "guerilla joe" posting anonymously a few years ago. You made it no secret. You told everyone you were going to post anonyously, and that we would "know it was the real you" when you posted anonymously. So you have admitted to posting anonymously, but dmaker never has. So hypocracy much? If anyone, its you who we know posts anonymously, i mean you admitted it.

      So have some guts and stand behind your convictions Joe. Either that or shut up and leave the blog.

      Delete
    93. 4:09... Coleman and Sykes are experts. Expert opinion is what makes the world go around. Someone with psychological problems would deny Sykes' opinion on Zana being a slave after quote upon quote.

      Don's nut shiner... Who's Joe? "Please leave this blog!" Ha ha ha ha!! Tell us all how special Donald is to you? Didn't you once claim that what he said was, "almost spiritual"? Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    94. Who said to please leave this blog Joe? It seems you are making up things. Please show above where i said that, or anyone else. You just lost 5 more credibility points with the "whos joe" line Joe. You dont' seem to understand how stupid that makes you look. Your psychopathy is showing.

      So you are saying expert opinion is gospel? Is that what you are now claiming Joe. Because i can find a whole lot that shows that that isnt correct. So your whole argument again, makes zero sense.

      Delete
    95. Coleman runs a crypto blog. How does that make him an expert in anything DNA related?

      Delete
    96. What say you? If I am wrong and Sykes publishes a ground breaking paper proving that relict hominids are wandering this earth in the here and now, I will leave this blog and never return.

      Delete
    97. Take the bet or not Joe? Of course he will not dmaker. He is a proven liar and welcher.

      He is not an expert in DNA dmaker. Joe stated above that he references material because people like you and me post are opinions and say they are gospel. Which by itself makes no sense in relation to why Joe copies and pastes. But then he states that coleman and sykes are established and well known, so there opinion apparently IS gospel. So how does that make sense Joe? These guys are wrong all the time. Scientists get proven wrong probably more times than they do right. So there opinion is far from gospel, so why imply that it is. Sykes is no expert about bigfoot, just like coleman is no expert about dna. They are just opinions, and in this case, opinions about a mythical creature.

      Delete
    98. Now easy there dmaker, Joe doesnt agree with that. He does agree that sykes will say they were here 150 yrs ago though. Maybe if you include the 150 yr part in the bet he will take it. And also include some random nonsense about slavery, as joe seems hung up on it. No one mentioned slavery at all, yet Joe keeps bringing it up like we were arguing for it. Apparently joe cant distinguish blacks from slaves. They dont always go together Joe.

      Delete
    99. I guess this means that Dmaker won't be traveling to Wales to hang out with Joe after all.

      Delete
    100. "Either shut up or leave this blog." How many times have you uttered that sentiment? Here's a doozy for you; make me kid. I'm gonna be here to upset you for so much longer yet. Out of the two of us, only one has actual psychologists studying their behaviour and placing it on the psychopathy spectrum.

      Dear Donald... Coleman is an expert in all things Cryptozoological. He could pick the bones out of everything Sykes had to write about the history of this subject, and nobody doubts that he's qualified to do that. Sykes himself referred to him as the very best in this subject, and whatever your stance on the legitimacy of it, an expert none the less.

      And AGAIN... Your baiting is so much similar to Danny it's incredible. I've never ever claimed that as far as Zana and the Yeti stuff is concerned, that Sykes has the evidence to show that Yeti's are walking the earth today. What's more... Is why would I take a bet with someone who posts anonymously? Hopefully you'll actually read this comment this time, you're letting your emotions get the better of you. I don't want you to leave if Sykes ends up supporting my ideas. I want you around.

      : )

      Delete
    101. 4:33... You make a mockery of people who suffer real racism, typical coward. You know well that the accusations of racism for anyone supporting the Zana-Yeti theory revolve around her allegedly being a slave from Africa. You know it well because it got shoved down your throat after Bigfoot Files.

      Delete
    102. The complaint is in!!! I mean a BIG complaint is in!!!!

      Delete
    103. I suspect the nut shiner needs a magnifying glass.

      Delete
    104. I aksed you to show me above where i stated "please leave this blog". Whats that? you cant? Yep, another lie you have told. I told you to accept the bet or get off this blog. I dont exchange a pleasantry with you Joe. Not now, not ever.

      Now once more, show where dmaker posted anonymously. Oh you cant? Big shock there. Whats more, if you asked any 12 people on this site randomly who have been tuning in for about a year who they thought posted anonymously on this site and under different accounts, and gave the option of dmaker and you. I would bet the farm that probably 10 would say you, if not the whole 12. Even the superfriends know you post as numerous other people, but they dont care to make anything of it, because you are towing the party line.

      Now, dont deflect, show us where dmaker has been shown to post anonymously. Where as, we have your own words, that you posted anonymously a few years ago, aka "guerilla joe". So once more, please show us dmaker posting anonymously. If you cant then you are just speculating.

      Accept the bet or not? Its obvious that if you don't you don't really have faith in sykes.

      Coleman is no expert on DNA whatsoever. Show us anywhere that says otherwise concerning DNA. Assuming bigfoot exists, then coleman knows probably more about accounts conerning them than most anyone else, which is what sykes says. But coleman himself only is an "expert" in the sense that he knows more stories and more oral history than most anyone else. So in terms of being an expert on bifoot STORIES, then yes, coleman is probaby an expert. An expert on dna, lol. I think not. Show me where he has ever claimed to be, or where he has even expressed any knowledge of the genome.

      Delete
    105. 4:48, another great example of "guerilla joe". AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    106. 4:48 Try to come up with something new you simpleton.

      Delete
    107. What qualifies Coleman as an expert?

      Delete
    108. I am still awaiting your proof that I have ever posted anon. You claim to have it, you claim this all the time, and I normally just let it go, but this time I want proof.

      So, where is your proof, Joketomi?

      Also, do you accept my bet?

      Waiting...

      Delete
    109. If you think you can hide under new threads, not so. I will see you there tomorrow.

      Delete
    110. I think Joe claimed that Coleman is an expert in the field of cryptozoology, which is about the same thing as stating that a tarot card reader is an expert at scamming people.

      Delete
    111. Wow, I couldn't get through nut shiner's comment 4:52, I skim-read to about the point where he said "Coleman's not an expert on DNA", I'll refer him to my comment at 4:39 for the sake of not repeating myself. Don, that goes for you as well.

      What I'm willing to repeat myself about, is this... And AGAIN... Your baiting is so much similar to Danny it's incredible. I've never ever claimed that as far as Zana and the Yeti stuff is concerned, that Sykes has the evidence to show that Yeti's are walking the earth today. What's more... Is why would I take a bet with someone who posts anonymously? Hopefully you'll actually read this comment this time, you're letting your emotions get the better of you. I don't want you to leave if Sykes ends up supporting my ideas. I want you around.

      I'll source your anon slip up in time, I'm busy giving you and your nut shiner a meltdown here for the time being.

      Delete
    112. I think Joe is just trolling at this point. He has no argument and is repeating lies and blatant contradictions. He is ignoring all our questions and just spouting deflection. I think its time to dip out dmaker, as we cant expect normal behavior out of a psychotic

      Delete
    113. Again, why should Coleman be considered an expert on anything?

      Delete
    114. Yeah, you will post my alleged anon slip up in time. Good luck with that.

      Delete