Monday, May 9, 2016

Bigfoot Hunter Reviews Audio Of Tree Destruction


Bigfooter Robert Dodson reviews his audio recordings from the previous night, where something large was destroying what sounded like massive amounts of trees and limbs. There were some other unusual sounds on the audio as well that has Dodson asking "what the heck is going on?"


83 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Believe in magic apes

      The truth is out there

      Delete
    2. Just think... All day, every day of your life devoted to convincing someone, anyone that "Bigfoot don't exist", and how closer are you to making that a fact?

      (Pause for thought)

      Delete
    3. That can never be a fact because you cant prove a negative. Thought you would have at least learnt that by now.

      Delete
    4. And in the naked light i saw,
      10,000 Joergies. Maybe more.
      Joergies talking without speaking.
      Joergies hearing without listening.
      Joergies writing, songs, that voices never shared. No one dared.

      Disturbed the sound.....of a Joerging!

      Delete
    5. 3:43... If data exists, then it is not a negative. In this case the data consists of the evidence for a creature with the same anatomy that's being widely reported.

      You have a burden to attend to! Chop, chop!!

      Delete
    6. Its not my burden Joe. And just like Bendernagel says in this clip, people never learn.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KreaXzTEtL0

      Delete
    7. As has been posted at you every day for the last few months, if you are critical of the evidence then you have a burden to shift. It's "not your burden" because you are too cowardly to face up to that burden.

      "Burden of proof" used by psuedosceptics is a way out of testing evidence presented, which in science must be. It's a way out of testing something that inevitably has no counter argument or an exchange that does not conclude to a preferenced idea. This is in fact evidence of denial and limited argument (intelligence). This merely allows pseudosceptics who proclaim this argument to specify what they would accept as evidence and ultimately proof. Arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown, and a way to move the goal posts endlessly.

      However... The reality is... If you are critical of the evidence, you bear a burden. Chop, chop!!

      Delete
    8. did you even open the link above Joe? It explains everything

      Delete
    9. ^ highly deluded and high on a Monday morn
      the subject matter is clearly nothing you have ever seen in person

      Joe

      Delete
    10. I absolutely love it when joe starts talking about burden of proof without knowing that very argument is what blows him out the water. Brilliant :)

      Delete
    11. By the way, would any of you blokes fancy watching a video of my arse destruction ?

      Joe

      Delete
    12. Let's not pretend you have the brain power to either understand or live up to the burden of proof.

      Delete
    13. Your name Iktomi, the spider trickster, tells that you are a fake and fraud. You selected it because it describes you. You don't believe in bigfoot yourself but are here to argue.

      Delete
    14. whars ol Marine Wild Bill frum da AIMS teem he expirt traxer ans hunter fer tham critters fer yeers

      Delete
    15. Where has this alleged bigfoot evidence been properly presented so that it can be properly addressed, Joe?
      Not in any respected, mainstream scientific journals. So where, exactly, do you expect anyone to address this burden you mistakenly transfer? On obscure bigfoot blogs? Where exactly do you expect any scientist who doubts the conclusions or authenticity of some alleged bigfoot evidence to present his thoughts?

      No one has published a single paper presenting alleged scientific evidence for bigfoot to the scientific community. Not a single one. (RHI does not count) Therefore there currently remains nothing at all to refute. There cannot be until, or if, someone finally gets around to publishing a paper outlining the scientific case for bigfoot. Odd that this has not happened yet given Joe's long list of scientific pioneers and leaders of their fields who support bigfoot. Why has not a single one of these pioneers even attempted to publish a bigfoot paper in an accepted, mainstream, scientific journal?

      Delete
    16. I am sure conspiracy theory responses will be forthcoming.

      Delete
    17. Sorry Donald, but if the evidence isn't published... So not up to the standard... Then it really should be even EASIER to explain away. Correct? Science doesn't exist only when it's published in a journal.

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

      http://www.iflscience.com/technology/journal-accepts-paper-reading-get-me-your-fucking-mailing-list

      Here is a paper Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Royal Society of Medicine Press
      Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals by Richard Smith;
      "Conclusion
      So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

      Donald... Surely such a flawed process can't be relied upon by someone who needs such total scientific absolutes, such as yourself? Someone who's always abiding by the standard. And I didn't even start to post the examples where your beloved peer review process has been used to lie to the scientific community. By your standards, this should be thrown out now, right?

      Delete
    18. You did not answer my question, Joe.

      Where you expect to see rebuttal responses to alleged bigfoot evidence?

      Delete
    19. Why not here!! You obviously hold stock in such venues considering you have devoted 7000 posts to convincing people of it!

      Delete
    20. Megyn Kelly FINALLY confronts Donald Trump about feud asking if it was all a stunt in preview of exclusive interview - and says she does not know if Republican party will back him ... WHAT THE !!!

      Delete
    21. Here? LOL! You expect any scientist out there is going to go out of his/her way to argue with you on a blog like this! LOL!!

      That was a good one, Joe.

      Now answer the question seriously: if not peer review, then where should someone look to respond to alleged bigfoot evidence?

      Since you are so anti-peer review, when it suits you, then you must have some alternative in mind?

      Delete
    22. Well you championed Crowley before contradicting yourself about having no method of falsifiability, once his methods didn't stand up to expert analysis... Did you require a peer reviewed platform for that?

      I expect idiots to come here and argue with me... Donald.

      Delete
    23. There was no contradiction. There is no true falsifiability with alleged bigfoot tracks. The truth of them cannot be scientifically proven. No contradiction in that statement, only truth. Methods can be demonstrated that produce traits artificially that some believe to be biological. But this does not prove the origin of the track, or even the specific trait.

      But you are still not answering the question: if not peer review, then where should bigfoot evidence be scientifically presented and responded to by qualified peers?

      You say a burden is going unfulfilled. Where would you expect one to fulfill this burden, exactly. And, more precisely, to what exactly do you expect one to respond? Blog articles? We have no published bigfoot science to even respond to.

      Delete
    24. No Donald... Again, you fall short of your own standards of scienific absolutes. Methods can be demonstrated that produce traits artificially that to an untrained eye, look biological. For someone who's so dependant on expert opinion, you contradict yourself by falling upon something outside of those standards, if an enthusiast did that, you'd be all over it. What proves the origin of the track, is the fact that these are biological once failing to demonstrate that they are artificial, that they are consistent with primate skin, and that they are repeatable across multiple samples over time and across geographical divide. By claiming that their are methods of demonstrating that traits are artificial, you are presenting a means of showing the origin of said evidence, and therefore a contradiction.

      And I answered your question. Crowley didn't need a peer reciewed platform, and neither did you when you championed him and contradicted yourself. And for 7000 posts, you certainly know where to try and shift this burden.

      Delete
    25. Boy, are you dense sometimes. No,Joe, I am not presenting a means of showing the origin of a footprint. I am presenting a process that has, in the past, created features that some have thought to be biological, but were in fact artificial. In the case of the casting artefact, this does not prove that the track was hoaxed, it merely questions one of the features of the track that some claim to be a biological trait. Do you understand that? I am saying, and always have said, tracks are not falsifiable. Certain features of them can be debated about biological in nature, or artificial, but it still does not prove the origin of the track itself. Nothing can do that.

      I don't really expect you to understand, but it would be fantastic were you to actually demonstrate a logical thought and some true understanding of what it is you talk about daily.

      So,since you refuse to answer my question properly, then one must go with your glib response. You truly think scientific evidence should be presented and debated on open Internet forums?

      Delete
    26. Dense? Come on Donald you're lowering the tone, you'll no doubt get touchy if someone would suggest you're getting emotional again. And no Donald, there is nothing to debate when consulting the actual experts. There is nothing in the artificial anomolies that have fooled any expert that I have ever listed, and I've listed quite a few. By testing these traits against artificial anomolies, they have been determined to be biological. And again... To test these against classified primate skin, and by having these examples in multiple samples, it can be established that there is a unclassified bipedal primate leaving it's forensic sign. That is the origin of the impression.

      Donald, you are the king of circular reasoning, it is impossible for you to grasp what I am perfectly happy to post a million times to you. And do I think that scientific evidence should be debated on Internet forums? Again... You certainly think so with 7000 attesting to this. Allow me to try and get through to you with a question... By god, answering you conventionally hasn't worked so we'll try this... Where did Crowley present his findings against forensic evidence, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE in dermals?

      Delete
    27. Joe, I am talking about professional science. Not amateur Internet crap. Real scientists, presenting real evidence to be reviewed by their peers.

      Where do you suggest that should happen?

      Delete
    28. Anywhere that a fringe topic allows itself to be debated, Donald.

      Delete
    29. Such as here, Joe? A completely non refereed cesspool like this would be a fine avenue for scientific presentation and debate?

      You need serious help, Joe.

      Delete
    30. Anywhere but a peer reviewed journal, you mean, right? Because you know all about those since you cherry picked a couple of articles, right?

      Delete
    31. Donald... I would be far more preoccupied with looking at your glaring contradictions, as opposed to putting words in my mouth. Your queries were addressed.

      Delete
    32. haha, Donald once again leaves with his tail between his legs after being schooled by Iktomi !
      it is such a destruction it's hard to watch

      Joe

      Delete
    33. And I often think about Dmaker and what's between his legs !

      Joe

      Delete
    34. ^ pervert fake Joe who has nothing between his legs

      Joe

      Delete
    35. What most of you dips don't get is, when Joto'mi responds to anybody as a negative, all he's doing is projecting his persona. In more simple terms he is merely talking to himself in a mirrior,Everything joto'mi whines about is a SELF DISCRIPTION!! it's so pitiful yet funny.... AND AS USUAL,, JOTOMI ..

      IS TO DENSE "TO GET IT"!!
      AC collins.:-))

      Delete
    36. ^ does AC stand for absolute crap ?
      because it would fit perfectly

      joe

      Delete
    37. I see Joe is hugging Iktomi's nuts again. Schooled?, funny...

      Delete
    38. ^ Hi dressmaker !

      Joe

      Delete
    39. UNO JOE, It's Cool Bro , just too bad you'll always be JUNIOR VARSITY!!
      guffaw,guffaw, an a hickory dickery dock!

      AC c

      Delete
    40. ^ go back to eating you crunchy oatmeal you rip snorting fella
      goofaw, goofaw

      Joe

      Delete
    41. Blahaaa haa haa ha, It's cool Son ^

      "YOU'LL GET YOUR CHANCE"!!

      AC collins

      Delete
  2. Zero bigfoots over the weekend then? Good job all those weekend footers playing woodsmen and monsters. Theres always next weekend right;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They appear to have played their way into your daily priorities. People "playing games" have never caused so much disatisfaction in some, it seems.

      Delete
    2. So what was your contribution to finding the magic ape then?

      Delete
    3. Making sure crazy little disinformationists like you look stupid. It might make one person reading this think twice about the evidence, think twice about its existence and go get some more evidence.

      Delete
    4. So no actual apes then? Gotcha

      Delete
    5. 6:30... Plenty of apes, even an as of at classified bipedal ape that leaves it's physical everywhere.

      Delete
    6. That sentence makes absolutely no sense -- please try again in English.

      Delete
    7. "Leaves it's physical everywhere"?

      Delete
    8. I'm multitasking kid... And not eating pizza at the desktop like in your understanding.

      Delete
    9. I see that you still haven't mastered the difference between "it's" and "its."

      Delete
    10. I see you still haven't grasped how my typos don't make "Bigfoot" go away. If I was that butthurt and without an argument... Maybe I'd remember your grammatical errors too.

      Delete
    11. Pardon me for offering you some friendly assistance!

      Delete
    12. Iktomi, you are truly embarrassing. You throw around terms that you clearly do not understand.

      When discussing the existence of some object, especially something as mysterious as Bigfoot, the burden of proof lies with "believers." Those who believe that there is a giant ape-man wondering around America are the ones who must prove this claim. It is not the burden of skeptics to prove non-existence. This is philosophy 101.

      Dismiss me as a skeptic all you want, but this is a view ascribed to by serious bigfoot researchers, not the inbred wackadoodles who frequent this site ranting about mindspeak and habituation sites.

      Here's Grover Krantz:

      "At this point the burden of proof is still on the believers. Until a specimen is produced the skeptics will continue to hold the field. It is possible to prove something exists by producing it. The reverse is not possible--one does not prove a nonexistence with positive evidence. The failure to produce a specimen continues to be strong evidence against the Sasquatch."

      Source: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/believers.htm

      I'm sure you know, Krantz was considered one of the leading intellects in bigfoot research. Did he believe a creature was out there? Of course. Did his beliefs blind him to the fact that the burden of proof is on believers to prove that they are out there? No way.

      That is the difference between a real scientist (like Krantz) and someone like Iktomi, who pretends to understand logic and the scientific method.

      Some basic philosophy for our good friend Ikotmi:

      "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

      The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence."

      Source:

      http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

      Iktomi, screeching about native myths and dermal ridges is fine as a reason for you to choose that you believe the bigfoot phenomenon deserves further inquiry. But this absolutely does not change the face that the assertion of

      "A species of giant ape-men has existed for thousands of years in north america,"

      requires the one claiming this statement as fact to prove it.

      Delete
    13. 9:21 not even attempting to hide the butt hurt. Major diatribe meltdown.

      Delete
    14. "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

      ... I love Krantz... But he was looking for a bipedal gorilla. Your extraordinary claim is that there is nothing to thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports, that have physical evidence to support. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

      Chop! Chop!!

      Delete
    15. ...."I love Krantz"... blah blah blah . Come on Joe please----------

      GO BACK TO CUT & PASTE.

      Delete
    16. but not TRUMP he's a WINNER

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. I'm sure it will pick up again when you leave.

      Delete
  4. if you have a hard time believing them just stay the f*** away

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm hoping for a different kind of "hard time" mate !

      Joe

      Delete
    2. ^ Fake Joe suffers from premature exaggeration

      Joe

      Delete
    3. Mountain Monsters AIMS team say - hunt or be hunted ....

      Delete
  5. Wow. This place has become an ISF footer satellite forum. Goes to show how demented and obsessed they really are. All of them sock on the BFF as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Skeptics are demented. I wish they would leave and stay on their own stupid forum.

      We have a great opportunity to pool our collective knowledge to learn more about Bigfoot's mindspeak and ability to manipulate interdimensional space-time, but it's hard to have these conversations when the comments sections get overtaken by skeptics trying to shut down/shout down the dialogue. It's worse than getting zapped by Bigfoot's infrasound!

      Delete
    2. Yes

      But most of the skeptics here are interested in BF also. They may be doubters but their input also acts as filter for the truth

      They are needed. Except Stuart

      MMC

      Delete
    3. Between the ISF clowns who have invaded the forum and the terrible comments, this place is really going down hill.

      Why aren't we discussing the numerous individuals who have experience first-hand (ie eye witness testimony) Sasqui using their minds to manipulate objects and communicate with individuals? I've seen a squatch stare down a deer and the deer looked like it dropped dead. I know it was one of those pulse zaps they can do. We need to examine all aspects of this relict hominid.

      Delete
    4. ^so easy to name call. Why are you on this forum if you don't want to discuss bigfoot? If you don't believe, aren't there a million other things you could be doing that are better uses of your time?

      You must have a sad life to spend it here trolling bigfoot researchers and enthusiasts if you don't have any interest in these creatures.

      Go back to your moms basement and let the adults talk.

      Delete
    5. Because they haven't the slightest idea how to counter the scientific evidence for relict hominids, you spend your days religiously pretending to be multiple posters, sensationalising the paranormal side of this topic, in a roundabout way of attacking enthusiastic people's credibility. It's pretty much pseudosceptical cowardice at its purest.

      Grow a brain cell.

      Delete
    6. More ad hominem. You sure know how to win an argument...

      You get really bent out of shape over this topic. You seem to love touting "evidence" that fits into your own narrow worldview, but you are incredibly dismissive of any evidence you don't like.

      Look, there are reams upon reams of reports and evidence of bigfoot using some type of rudimentary telepathic communication, vanishing into thin air, and stunning people with some type of zapping effect.

      To use your own argument: in the face of all this evidence, the burden is on you to show that Bigfoots don't mindspeak or can't use interdimensional portals. Researchers have gone on the record as personally witnessing these phenomena, but you never address these pieces of evidence because they are problematic for your desire to put Bigfoots happy inside some box.

      I ask you: are all the countless individuals who have had these experiences lying? Can you prove that Bigfoots don't have these abilities? If not, maybe a little more humility is needed on your end.

      Remember: we don't have a specimen of a bigfoot yet. We know nothing about what they are capable of.

      Delete
    7. The burden is not mine, I don't categorically disagree that anything of the sort can be achieved. What I am merely alluding to is your lack of intelligence to counter what is far more easily addressable; the physical evidence.

      "Remember: we don't have a specimen of a bigfoot yet. We know nothing about what they are capable of."

      ... We have physical evidence to show that something of the reported anatomy exists though. I would be more preoccupied with that, you busy idiot.

      Delete
    8. And still with the name calling. Very sad that you feel you must resort to juvenile insults.

      Yes, there is evidence that points to the possibility of an undiscovered ape species in North America. A very unlikely possibility, but it is there.

      There is also evidence in favor of the vast mind powers and interdimensional manipulation of Sasquatch: the mindspeak, native legends that give sasquatches "paranormal" abilities, etc. we have eye witness testimony to back up these claims, yet you seem very unwilling to contemplate that.

      Evidence for Bigfoot's existence exists, therefore bigfoot exists. Evidence for mind powers and space travel powers for Sasquatch exist, ergo squatch must have these powers. Some of us are interested in discussing all aspects of Sasquatch not just what you and your MiB approved minions that Sasquatch must be.

      Delete
    9. I have no issue at all in calling you names, but please don't expect anyone to believe your meltdowns are actual honest comments. Apart from vocal abilities both above and below the capabilities of normal humans (infrasound and ultrasound, published via Wyoming University), there is no evidence at all for Sasquatch being able to achieve space travel & such. There is no method of measuring eyewitness testimony.

      There IS however evidence to support the actual creature being existent. Like I said... You are a busy idiot. If you want to sensationalise the subject, address the evidence that you've claimed is a joke for so long. But we both know how that's gone for you, don't we?

      Delete
  6. Who would win a fight between bigfoot and Bruce Lee? xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. or Mountain Monsters AIMS team vs Rough team : )

      Delete