World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
I like Mark a lot. Not so sure all his photos are of hominoids but he works hard and has a great philosophy.
^ Mr Poling`s "Philosophy" is the best.
Agreed. It makes the times he's enthusiastic about evidence even more credible.
Agreed. Bigfoot is fiction and this is a great contribution to that fiction. Keep up the zero bigfoots kelly shaw!!!
You seem very much preoccupied with convincing someone that it's fiction. Something tells me that it's not as obvious as your prayers would have it.
This dude is too cool for Sasquatch School! Him and his shades while he sits at his kitchen table wagging his finger at the science world because in his Florida baked mind his evidence is "case closed!" On the North American Wood Ape issue. Plus they aren't letting anyone ask questions/disagree on their YouTube chan. That's just not cool if you ask me which nobody did I quess? Used to like this couples stuff but his better than thou attitude really sucks. And did anyone see the Timbo FATsano and super hoaxer Ricky Dyer video with the drone? My GOD do those two known proven Hoaxers belong together! Yet I still can't figure out how they got both of their GIANT Egos to fit on that same post. That's. Must see video if you love having your eyes bleed and your face melt. P.S. I'm not Joe's other account! Say it ain't so Joe?
Zabo is most certainly not Joe.
Nobody is convincing anyone its fiction. Thats obvious. Noone is standing in the fiction section of a library advising that the contents of the book are not real. Its a given. Noone is trying to convince soap opera fans that what they are watching is not real. Its a given. Bigfoots non existence has always been a given (unless mentally ill etc)
Hmmm... Riiiiight. It seems to me that the idea of this subject being real had totally overwhelmed you... It's not healthy. People who are satisfied with themselves that this topic is bunk, don't preoccupy themselves on a crusade. There's a reason why the best primatologists and conservationists are enthusiastic about this topic. Thank god for you, you have a therapy exercise in this blog. I shudder to think how you would cope otherwise.
Ad hominemArgument out of ignoranceArgument out of authorityStrawman argumentYea you blew it
Sorry buddy... I know you're trying to sound clever, but you never presented any evidence in support of your claims for any of the above to apply. Fail.Your actions speak way louder than anything you've ever typed.
You dont get it do you. My position does not require evidence. I am not claiming anything. You are.
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.
Jesus iktomi, are you serious? This is a typical Iktomi conversation:Iktomi: "There are teacups orbiting Neptune."Person:"There are no teacups orbiting Neptune."Iktomi: "Prove it! Where is your evidence that there are no teacups orbiting Neptune!"Person: "You are the one making a claim that something exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. I don't need to provide evidence of non-existence."Iktomi: "But... But... Indigenous legends! Dermal ridges! MINDSPEAK!!!"*breaks down sobbing*
"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
3;46Those times he excites about a real bigfoot are few and far between ... in fact I don`t believe I`ve ever seen him in such a position concerning videos he analyses.
Anything put out by his team tazer buddies is verified real everything else is fake.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I believe in a good butt pounding every night before bed.Joe
of course you do fake Joe. Good luck with that even though you're always alone when it happensJoe
Fake joe/bltch Stuey doing the reach around on himself. SickMMC
sumbitch bigfoots bein heers ... ans tham dawgman critters to boot
"Bigfoot photographer"What next? Fairy photographer? Dragon photographer?
Nobody is seeing dragons, mate.
We have 10s of thousands of years of stories about dragons... just like bigfoot ey;)
Nobody has, or has ever seen dragons mate, sorry.
Nobody has, or has ever seen bigfoot mate, sorry.
That's a pretty big burden to prove, especially when there's physical evidence for supporting such sightings. But you're not remotely here to shift burdens, are you?
Correct. The burden remains firmly with you. Please do lift that burden with a verified bigfoot though
You obviously don't follow... The burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. 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.
Incorrect. You have not yet proven your claim with respect to the standard of evidence required by science. The same standard of evidence that is required to verify any species in the scientific arena. Therefore there is nothing to "disprove". The current inability to prove the existence at the level required by science IS the disproof.
Your version of scienific theory is cringeworthy. To verify a species, one requires a body. A lack of a body, does not equate to a lack of evidence and science has in fact been used to verify repeatable versions of it. There is nothing in scienific theory that states you have to have a conclusive stage of research (body), before evidence is accepted. That's the cart before the horse and flies in the face of every animal ever tracked to discovery. Now, if you actually understood the words you used yourself up top, you wouldn't have contradicted yourself and fallen in the exact logical shortfall you claim others have;"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four;1. True2. False3. Unknown between true or false3. Being unknowable (among the first three).... In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof."And again... If you state that the evidence is "not up to the standards of science" (cringe), then you are critical of the evidence and you therefore bear a burden to substantiate that.(Sigh)
Every other animal has been tracked to discovery because it actually exists.
It required looking to show they existed.
DUH DE DUMB DE DOO , I'M IKTOMI WHO DA HELL ARE U??
Lol at Iktomi: "The burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded."Iktomi, you are clearly confused about who is making the extraordinary claim here.You and your bleever ilk are claiming that there is a 10 foot tall 900 lb Ape-Man walking around the forests of North America. No body or bones have ever been found to this. Sure, we can find Giganto teeth, but bigfoot remains vanish.(No, piles of sh*t are neither proof nor evidence of said giant Ape-man; thanks for playing though).What skeptics are claiming is that is it incredibly UNLIKELY that if a giant 10 foot tall 900 lb Ape-man is walking around the forests of North America, that we would go hundreds of years without ever recovering the body or remains of one.How can you seriously argue that your claim of existence is less extraordinary than the claim of non-existence?
For me to claim that here is an as of yet unclassified 8 foot bipedal primate residing in the wilderness of the US, I have to present evidence in an effort to land at that conclusion. For this, there is physical evidence in tracks (where height can be calculated), forensic evidence in dermals, hair fibres attributed to no known primate that have uniform morphology across samples, audio recordings both below and above normal human capabilities and thermal evidence. Now... Even if you are claiming that it is "incredibly unlikely" that they exist, bears a burden in explaining away the current state of evidence, because it really hasn't gone all that undetected if it leaves all the aforementioned evidences. In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. 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."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
^ I have to say that the overwhelming amount of reports from ordinary people with nothing to gain by telling lies is substantial and weighty hearsay evidence that points to a reality of bigfoot existing - I feel there`s much more to it than merely an animal that eludes humans - there`s such a lot of reports that speak of bigfoot just vanishing into seemingly thin air and there are picture to support this - the vast amount of stories, albeit they are unconfirmed by "normal" science,where bait is taken from under the very cameras set to captures images means there`s possibly a great deal humans don`t understand - the natives tribes-peoples have a wealth of history regards the "dimensional" aspect of bigfoot and while I find this to be extremely hard to believe,it is clear that something occurs which humans cannot comprehend.
Iktomi, don't waste you breath on cement headed skeptics. They will never see the light even if the light was shining on their blind eyesJoe
Having ridiculous arguments with skeptics is his raison d'etre, so if he stops doing it, then there is absolutely no reason for him to be here
Here's the problem with the high volume of reports: it is impossible that every single one is valid. At least some of them are mistaken identity, confusion, wishful thinking, and some are outright lies. BUT even if all those reports were tossed away, there remain some very interesting ones that sound very credible. I think there should be plenty of hard scrutiny given to reports. Simply accepting every one of them as 100% accurate does not take into account simple human behavior. If people who find the subject are tough on the evidence, then what actually holds up is very much worth consideration. It's the small body of really detailed sightings that are thoroughly evaluated by guys like Thomas Steenburg that I find really interesting. The guy is a solid investigator.
Uuummm, lizards have scales like dragons,people see lizards, thus proof of dragons. I'll bet you see hominids walking upright a lot,thus Bigfoot. Look at Jay Zest, he ain't human like you or me but he beds human women,thus Bigfoot, the proof is out there
Mark Zaskey king of blobsquatchery!
U MEAN PAREIDOLIA!!! DUH DE DUMB DE DOO, I'M IKTOMI WHO DA HELL ARE U ??
Figures this crappy blog would promote this jackass.
^ yeah there are a lot of crappy poster people here aren`t there ?
The unknown world, dubbed 'Planet Nine' by some and 'Planet X' by others, is thought to be 10 times more massive than Earth and the furthest planet from the sun - but its exact location is unknown. NIBIRU - They created our race around 300,000 years ago as a hybrid race with native Earth animals and the Nephilim to create a race of “workers” to help mine the minerals from our planet.
Someone should mine the rocks from your head.
but not TRUMP hebe smurt lackin tham votin folks heers be
You are correct Trump is Homo Superior