Wednesday, April 6, 2016

John Kirk Discusses Using CSI Techniques In Bigfoot Research


John Kirk's presentation at the Sasquatch Research Conference from 2005. Good stuff.


27 comments:

  1. Patterson is my favorite Hoax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a shame you can't substantiate what is allegedly so "obvious". Still... Blogs like this provide you an outlet to pray about it every day, I guess.

      Good for you.

      Delete
  2. I love eating terds. Any bigfoots yet?

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get outta here! You can't be Joe because there wasn't a tiddly doo at the end!

      The Real Fake Joe

      Oh, and tiddly doo

      Delete
  3. I'd like to discuss using CSI techniques in researching John Kirk's underpants !

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  4. From over a decade ago, and still no real proof of bigfoot.

    So much for using CSI techniques.

    Or maybe bigfoot "researchers" didn't listen. They are still forgetting to put fresh batteries in their trail cameras or even aim them properly after all. Hardly CSI worthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look, chap, bigfoot have only been on this continent for 1000s of years. Mountain lions weren't discovered until 2003. The first clear photograph of a bear was 2009. Deer hadn't even been documented until the mid 1970s. Bigfoot are much bigger than all those animals so its easier for them to hide. Realistically, I'd say we should be able to get a real photo of one by 2144 and we'll be able to actually capture one by the year 3000.

      Delete
    2. But hey, at least a dozen times a day, some bird brain posts a link to a crap article written in 1982 which contains out of date and debunked methods. That certainly proves bigfoot!

      Delete
    3. 8:52 must be a scientist.

      Delete
    4. Hey, you listen to me 8:56. I'm a bigfooter and I believe in him so deeply. I KNOW he exists and, when we find him, people like you are going to look really stuped.

      Delete
    5. Old newspaper reports of giant skeletons.....that no one seems to be able to find. There's your proof!

      Schooled!

      Delete
    6. All I can say to your overwhelming evidence is "Tiddly Doo !

      Delete
    7. I consider myself a scientist in the field of collecting sperm samples from men. Tiddly doo !

      Joe

      Delete
    8. The strange interest and possibility that a creature such as Bigfoot exists has brought us all here tonight.

      Otherwise you all would be doing something else...

      Everyone of you has a story to tell why you came to Bigfoot Evidence.

      Give !

      Delete
    9. I'm a lonely pathetic loser with herpees. That's why I'm here.

      Tiddly doo I eat poo

      Joe

      Delete
    10. Like all bigfooters, I'm here because I'm a loser who is too stupid and lazy to have any success in a legitimate field, so I come here and pretend to be an expert regarding an absurd subject that normal people think is a complete joke.

      Delete
    11. 9:38 We may be stupid like you say but when bigfoot is found it is you who will look like the moran.

      Schooled.

      Delete
    12. Nope. 9:34 & 9:38 are not losers or lazy ! In fact you are very clever and quick witted. You're here because of something mysterious that you can't explain and it intrest you.

      Don't be bashful, tell your story...

      Delete
    13. Yes, 9:54, people go to zombie, vampire and bigfoot sites for entertainment. Some people take things too far by dressing goth, wearing zombie costumes, or reporting that they saw a monster, but its all entertainment. No one on here really believes vampires, zombies, or bigfoot is real, its all in fun.

      Delete
    14. 10:03 you seem to be a very intelligent person who compares zombies and vampires to Bigfoot.

      Not buying it.

      You're not on a zombie or vampire site for one reason. ...The reason is that Bigfoot is a real possibility. A lot more credible than the others...

      Give!

      Delete
    15. But I do go to zombie sites. I dressed like a zombie on a zombie walk in Texas. Google zombie walks, there are organizers, websites, conventions, books, movies, how-to costume make-up sites, stories in the news about people turning into zombies(not really) using bath salts I read. I spend time looking up zombie stuff as well a vampire movies, website reviews of Christopher Lee movies. I spend time on vampire, bigfoot and zombie related sites. People just go overboard with bigfoot and get angry when you say its fake. No other group is like that. T don't know anyone that thinks Night of the Living Dead is real or goth people are really vampires.

      Delete
    16. R lindsey say's sticking a stalk of celery in ones arce and having a goose nibble it to the hilt proves intellectual superiority!


      Delete
    17. And here's that study from 1982... Just for you;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      ... There is nothing, not one reason or method devised that can account for the forensic sign in that paper. Crying, stamping around and getting angry about it doesn't get you closer to achieving that. For 50 years of people looking at this subject, they have every source of evidence required I justify further research, just short of a modern type specimen, all without the consorted help of mainstream science. What's more... Is science bureaus from the anthropological elite are not "newspaper articles". They pretty much are the most reliable source you can get for the documentation of large human skeletal remains. Oh, and you've also got stuff like this of course;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/1933-article-about-discovery-of-giant.html?m=0

      ... Let me know if you want those bureaus, it's ok... You're learning!

      Delete
  5. 9:06 Good point. Not only old newspaper reports of skeletons that no one can seem to find but all kinds reports of bigfoot....who no one seems to find.

    Not being able to find either skeletons or bigfoot is our best evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here we go!
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/1933-article-about-discovery-of-giant.html?m=0

      Also...
      "You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation)."
      - Andy White PhD

      ... Like I said, let me know if you want those Smithsonian Bureaus.

      Delete