Sunday, June 12, 2016

Bigfoot Heard Laughing In Alabama


From Brenton Sawin Mysteries to Search:

Bigfoot in Alabama takes an interest in this farm and Jean Kelly. The Sasquatch was encountered and heard laughing near the farm house and it peeked Jeans interest so she began paying attention. The interview cover Bigfoot in Alabama around this farm and we talk about an encounter with Sasquatch in another state. The Florida encounter Jean had was interesting because the Sasquatch zapped her. People speak of Bigfoot zapping or using infra sound so we are always gathering information when we can on this topic. Hope you like the Bigfoot stories and enjoy the interview with Jean Kelly from Alabama.

158 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Of course relict hominids laugh, haven't you heard the Morehead/Berry recordings? And on that topic, given the fact that we've established that there is some sort of unclassified primate with vocal ranges both above (ultrasound) and below (infrasound) normal human primate abilities residing in the wilderness of the US;
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf
      ... I feel that we cannot rule out the possibility of relict hominids using a highly evolved level of infrasound. This may be used in some way to distract people to their presence or even unconsciously channel oblivious people into various avenues of the wilderness. The agenda here might be either to encourage them away from their family & social groups or even in extreme cases, to use them as more easily attainable prey. This would concur with occasional eye witnesses report that the creatures stalking them were giving off the impression of an apex predator in practice.

      Sometimes called the "human antenna" or "third eye", the pineal gland is a pine cone-shaped, pea-sized gland in the brain made of calcium carbonate, found deep behind the root of the nose and floating in cerebrospinal fluid. It produces melatonin which is the hormone that helps sleep, is stimulated by darkness and is our inner compass/clock that regulates our circadian rhythms and seasonal shifts. It is theorised that magnetite in this gland could be manipulated around infrasound. The pineal gland regulates serotonin which helps us with mood and also releases chemicals that allow us to dream, but also go into paralysis so we don't physically get up during dreams. It helps us to shift hormones for the different phases of dream sleep. A human-primate with exceptionally long vocal chords could be able to do direct infrasound, and as their are well known physical affects on the human body from infrasound, may be using this to their advantage.
      (Ideas on pineal glands credited to Sharon Day)

      Delete
    3. ^ We all know where your "3rd eye" is situated.

      Delete
    4. Is laughing bigfoot related to the laughing policeman ? - Probably,but it`s more a guffaw.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI1nPd7hezM

      Delete
    5. ^ YAWN with a tee he Hee!
      Burp!! Oopsie lol . :-P

      Delete
    6. ...Iktomi, by "The Mooorehead\Berry recordings" do you mean the Sierra Sounds?...EEG

      Delete
    7. Yes, the ones that are so obviously fake that even his hero Krantz dismissed them as ridiculous.

      Delete
    8. I don't think Krantz was remotely qualified to make that call.

      EEG... Yes mate, the Sierra Sounds.

      Delete
    9. ^ What you think matters not as you`re hardly qualified to make judgement on scientific issues...cut `n paste doesn`t make the grade you fool.

      Delete
  2. Ideas on pineal gland credited to someone who just makes stuff up and has serialised a Bigfoot researcher who is seeing how bigfoot responds to pathological littering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could simply address the theories and not the character of the person presenting them.

      Ad hominem.

      Delete
    2. They are ideas with no basis in fact. You employ ad hominems on an hourly basis.

      Delete
    3. ^ That is because Joe has no real argument and needs to divert from the issues by attacking posters...he`s very afraid.

      Delete
    4. Fact - there is an as of yet to be classified primate in the wilderness of the US with vocal ranges both above and below human primate ranges.

      Fact - the pineal gland produces melatonin, a serotonin derived hormone, which affects the modulation of sleep patterns in both seasonal and circadian rhythms.

      Fact - people have theorised for a long that natural infrasound can affect people through weather and natural disasters.

      Fact - you'd never even heard of "ad hominem" until I used it to articulate how insufferably dense you are.

      Fact - claiming that people are lying about these facts and making things up, without so much as presenting a case against such ideas; ad hominem.

      Delete
    5. 5:47... Brrrrrrrrr!! Shivering in my boots!!

      Delete
    6. "Calcification of the pineal gland is shown to be closely related to defective sense of direction. In a tricentre prospective study of 750 patients lateral skull radiographs showed that 394 had calcified pineal glands. Sense of direction was assessed by subjective questioning and objective testing and the results noted on a scale of 0-10 (where 10 equals perfect sense of direction). The average score for the 394 patients with pineal gland calcification was 3.7 (range 0-8), whereas the 356 patients without pineal gland calcification had an average score of 7.6 (range 2-10). This difference was highly significant (p less than 0.01). A smaller parallel study in pigeons showed that pineal calcification also leads to a reduction in homing abilities. The findings suggested that the pineal gland plays an important part in directional sense and that damage to the gland, as indicated by calcification, causes defective sense of direction - perhaps by altering the intrinsic intracranial electromagnetic environment and thus affecting the magnetite response mechanism."
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1419179/

      Delete
    7. You keep using the word "fact". I do not think it means what you think it means. Cringe.

      Delete
    8. SHUT YUR CORK "H" WELSH WUSS! ^
      DIGGIT?

      Delete
    9. :-) ^ Lol
      chaa chaa cherry bomb !

      Delete
    10. Iktomi, you use ad hominems more than anyone. Cringeworthy.

      Delete
    11. Ad hominem.

      AC Collins acting tough behind anon mode, and calling anyone else a wuss is funny.

      Delete
    12. I know you are but what an I?

      Delete
    13. Big Boss Man of lil Joe! HAAA HAA HA .

      Dr B Sykes :-*

      Delete
    14. Joe ,we all know you're good person!

      AC collins

      Delete
  3. It's an easy game Bigfoot advocates play. You simply make up reasons why Sasquatch cannot be caught and proven to exist. They assign attributes that there is no way of disproving unless we have a specimen in hand and smugly proclaim that is why we don't. Yes, we've heard all the reasons for why they have escaped detection over the many years, super strength, super hearing, super stealth, superior sense of smell and eyesight - in fact there seems to be nothing they cannot do. It's absolutely absurd to think that after all these so called sightings in so many locales that one, just ONE hasn't been killed or captured for examination. This game will continue on forever because they will always come up with an excuse and use it claiming that it can't be proven conclusively that they don't exist.

    It's pathetic really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CONCLUSION REACHED BY DR. KIRLIN AND LASSE HERTEL ON THE SIERRA SOUNDS
      The results indicate more than one speaker, one or more of which is of larger physical size than an average human adult male. The formant frequencies found were clearly lower than for human data, and their distribution does not indicate that they were a product of human vocalizations and tape speed alteration. Although a time-varying speed could possibly produce such formant distributions, an objective hearing and the articulation rate do not support that hypothesis. Statistical analysis was applied to groups of vocal tract estimates from different vocalizations and a significant difference was found between the groups. When compared with human data the results indicated that there could possibly be three speakers, one of which is non-human. The average vocal tract length was found to be 20.2 cm. This is significantly longer than for a normal human male. Extrapolation of average estimators, using human proportions, gives height estimates of between 6’4” and 8’2”. Analysis of the rapid articulations in the beginning of the recording (gob-gob) resulted in human-like vocal tract lengths. Also, the sound /g/ in “gob” suggests a human-like vocal tract (two vocal cavities).
      The pitch periods found cover the broad range of pitch periods for both normal human male and low-pitched human male. However, they are mainly distributed around the data for the low-pitched human male. Pitch and length estimates vary considerably but they are all found to be within the 95 per cent confidence interval for human speech with varying tape speed; however, assuming that there is only one vocalizer, then time-varying tape speed is necessary to produce data over such a wide range. Both typical human whistles and some abnormal types of whistles were found. By using the formants from the abnormal whistles, very short vocal tract lengths were estimated. These whistles could either have been produced with some kind of a musical instrument or by the creature using only a part of its vocal tract.
      It is hoped that the remaining uncertainties will not be considered reason for dismissing the recordings. The possibilities for prerecording are many, but there is no clear reason to believe it is likely. If Bigfoot is actually proven to exist, the vocalizations on these tapes may well be of great anthropological value, being a unique observation of Bigfoot in his natural environment.
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      Delete
    2. 6:33... Why does this subject threaten you so much? Why don't you just find something else to do, it clearly does nothing for your self esteem? You never post anything for your time that is obsessively invested accept angry little tantrums; the actions of someone truly pathetic.

      It is simply logical to attribute major stealth and strength capabilities to a primate of the reported size of relict hominids in the US, because there is reliable scientific data that we can draw from;
      "Measurements and estimates on Sasquatch dimensions, collected over the last 40 years in the Western U.S and Canada, were subjected to statistical analysis and extrapolation by scaling laws appropriate to primates and mammals. The study has yielded average population values for foot length and width, scaling factors of foot length to height, values for weight, plantar pressure, walking and running gait, speed, and a tentative growth curve as a function of time for the female of the species. The results suggest a substantial population with traits different from those of other higher primates and humans."
      http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbacharticle.htm
      ... There is no reason to doubt the existence of such a primate, because your heroes fail to explain away the forensic evidence for them, therefore the height and weight ranges reported and documented in the track finds, suggest a primate that is very powerful. Chimps for example often end up using more muscle than they need, but they can in theory lift about 16 people over their own head;
      http://youtu.be/w98mem4FVQ0
      ... Imagine what a primate three times the size of a chimp could achieve? They would have phenomenal strength and stealth abilities to be clear gone before we would even know they were there.

      Don't like it? Deal with it kid, because you just sound like a big cry baby.

      Delete
    3. Wow. Meltdown commencing. Cringe.

      Delete
    4. That feeling you're getting right now? That's the feeling someone gets when they learn something.

      Delete
    5. Yes. We're all learning a new definition of the word "fact".

      Delete
    6. Jotomi@ 6:40 Dr. Kirling Is a known "KOOK"! And has a "rep" to birddog a shitkickin cowboy's wave .Yo!

      AC collins

      Delete
    7. JOTOMI @ 6:55 ..WHAAAAA WHAAA WHAAAA WHAAA..."Sheesh"

      AC collins

      Delete
    8. August 1, 2012 — Lynn Kirlin grew up in Wyoming graduating from UW with BS and MS degrees in 1962 and 1963, respectively. Dr. Kirlin has had an engineering career spanning over 40 years including 33 years as a faculty member, first at the University of Wyoming and then at the University of Victoria. Over that time period, in addition to being an outstanding educator, Dr. Kirlin extensively interacted with the industry. What makes Dr. Kirlin particularly deserving of this award are his advanced technical contributions to a wide range of disciplines including seismic oil exploration, power electronic converters, array processing for sonar and radar applications, communication systems, and hearing-aid testing. He has published over 70 journal articles, 200 consultingcontract reports, 100 conference papers, and holds four patents. Software based on his patents has been used worldwide in seismic oil exploration. Dr.Kirlin was named a Fellow in the IEEE, which is the professional society of Electrical Engineers. In order to become a Fellow, one must have made momentous professional contributions which have made a significant impact on society. Less than one tenth of one percent of the IEEE professional society members become a Fellow. Of all of the Electrical Engineering Department's alums, he is the only to become an IEEE fellow. Throughout his career Dr. Kirlin held professional engineer's licenses both in Wyoming(1982-1988) and in British Columbia (1987-2002).
      http://www.uwyo.edu/ceas/news/2012_jul_to_dec/120801/index.html

      Delete
    9. First of all lktomi I am not a regular visitor to this site and come here occasionally so I am not as you imply here 24/7. It's absurd to believe all the skeptical comments are coming from just a few given the subject matter. Now - and this is important, everyone take note of the dates of this "evidence". We are talking 1972 and the paper presented in 1978. Has this "evidence" been put through scrutiny by a multitude of others in the field? No it has not. Has the technology advanced. Yes it has. When I come here I always see you rehash the same old "evidence" over and over and over. It is always debatable but it's always presented as undisputable proof by you. I'll tell you what is pathetic - having so many looking for it (judging from this site) and coming up with nothing. Either it doesn't exist or these are the dumbest and most inept group of people out there.

      "IMAGINE what a primate three times the size of a chimp could achieve?"

      LOOK - he's doing it again, using as an excuse great strength possessed by an animal we do not even know exists!!!

      Cry baby? Well, if that is the case than pot meet kettle. You can have the last word as I have to go to work now. You understand the concept of work don't you? It's when you accomplish things and don't have time to be on this site every hour of the day.

      Delete
    10. Recording in 1972, published in 1978... All that time and not one source that demonstrates the evidence is to the contrary. Using quotation marks doesn't achieve that I'm afraid. Oh... And for someone who's so allegedly educated in the nature of my comments, you'll never read me present this as proof. It is not, proof is a body. What I will use it as is one of many undesputable evidences that point to the same phenomena; that being an unclassified bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates. But we both know what that means. And sorry cry baby, for 50 years of looking for Sasquatch, enthusiasts have every type of evidence short of a type specimen, accounting for audio, physical, forensic, footage, biological... Even thermal hits in the height range of 8.5 feet. For something that is allegedly so obviously BS, you must be really dense being unable to explain that away, or it's not all that obvious after all.

      You were given this;
      "Measurements and estimates on Sasquatch dimensions, collected over the last 40 years in the Western U.S and Canada, were subjected to statistical analysis and extrapolation by scaling laws appropriate to primates and mammals. The study has yielded average population values for foot length and width, scaling factors of foot length to height, values for weight, plantar pressure, walking and running gait, speed, and a tentative growth curve as a function of time for the female of the species. The results suggest a substantial population with traits different from those of other higher primates and humans."
      http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbachar
      ... That's not excuses, that's consistent data that determines height ranges and therefore strength. The creature leaving those tracks exists, because we have forensic evidence that you, even people who are ten times cleverer than you are too stupid to explain away.

      See ya later cry baby!

      Delete
    11. So Bigfoot is not human then?

      Delete
    12. Welshmen & itsi bitsie
      dicks = Ad hominem reality !


      Thread Killer!

      Delete
    13. But you do claim audio evidence as proof. In this very thread you said:

      "Of course relict hominids laugh, haven't you heard the Morehead/Berry recordings? And on that topic, given the fact that we've established that there is some sort of unclassified primate with vocal ranges both above (ultrasound) and below (infrasound) normal human primate abilities residing in the wilderness of the US; "

      If you establish something with evidence, then you are proving that something.

      You do this constantly. You claim proof in what you perceive to be some sort of clever word play and then say, what I am not claiming proof. Yes, you are. Quite clearly in fact.

      Delete
    14. After re-examining a 100,000-year-old archaic early human skull found 35 years ago in Northern China, researchers found the presence of an inner-ear. As alien as an inner-ear sounds to people today, in regards to accepted human anatomy, there is still little doubt that the specimen that this anatomical feature was recognised in wasn't archaic human.

      We haven't sat down and dissected the vocal chords of a Sasquatch yet, and it is my opinion that they have evolved and can achieve impossible vocal ranges for known human-primates of today.

      Delete
    15. Donald... You're just a little scared as to what the repercussions of that evidence entails.

      Delete
    16. Despite all of iktomi's evidence, Bigfoot remains a fringe topic. Odd.

      Delete
    17. IktoJoe refuses to accept the putative or suggestive nature of all the evidence he pastes. He does not understand the difference between suggesting something and establishing something. Nothing has been established as fact in regards to the existence of bigfoot. Some people believe that certain evidence suggests an unknown primate. But this has never been proven with any of the evidence.

      To establish bigfoot as a fact, the evidence would have to undergo rigorous scientific testing and peer review. The former has happened and the evidence has been found lacking in each case. DNA results have consistently failed to establish anything in regards to the existence of bigfoot. And, to date, not a single bigfoot paper has appeared in a mainstream scientific journal for peer review.

      Despite IkoJos fantasies, nothing has been established.

      Delete
    18. But what about the conspiracies, dmaker? THE CONSPIRACIES!

      Delete
    19. The conspiracies are not worthy of discussion. Without convincing proof of conspiracy, it's just crazy person hot air. Not worth the time to discuss.

      Delete
    20. I think that there's a definite problem with "uncountered debunkings"!

      Delete
    21. IktoJo will peacock about old evidence that has never been debunked or countered. What he insists on ignoring is that, right now, peer review is the arena for examining scientific findings. There is no responsibility for anyone to debunk anything presented by a bigfoot enthusiast unless that evidence is presented in accepted scientific channels. But this never happens. Present bigfoot evidence in the proper arena, and then if it remains unchallenged, you might have something to crow about. The fact that professional scientists have not scrambled to respond to things posted by whackos on fringe blogs is not a victory for people like Joe.

      Delete
    22. "whackos on fringe blogs"

      Sounds like the ISF'ers.

      Delete
    23. IktoJos typical responses?

      Americas attic
      large skulls conspiracy
      Editorial boards
      Pioneering plastic surgeon
      Bigfoot is human
      Got monkey suit?
      Leaping Russian yeti
      etc
      etc

      Delete
    24. No where in his responses will he be able to point to any real science. Nothing presented to any mainstream, peer reviewed journals.

      Instead he will find a source with negative comments about peer review and use that as his excuse why the absence of peer reviewed bigfoot articles is not important.

      Delete
    25. When all of that fails, he will resort to his claiming that he must be making someone angry or getting under their skin.

      Delete
    26. ^
      Stop responding to your own posts get a life you simpleton.

      Delete
    27. You won't get a response soon from Joerg. It appears that he's been posting comments here for about 24 hours straight. His Cheetos stained face must have finally collapsed on his grimy keyboard.

      Delete
    28. Donald, you said peacock - cue the fake Joe to chime in about it
      you ISFers really don't know when to give up do you ?

      Joe

      Delete
    29. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    30. Iktomi's comment is white. I assume that's because he had a full on meltdown. Cringe.

      Delete
    31. It's filled with disgusting foul language -- the comment was thankfully whited out so children are not exposed to such filth.

      Delete
    32. I guess we should abandon all scientific sources unless they endorse the existence of Bigfoot, like this blog for example.

      Delete
    33. Anything that doesn't support Bigfoot is to be viciously attacked, including one of the basic foundations of the modern scientific process. Any part of science that doesn't support Bigfoot should be discarded.

      Delete
    34. Real science;
      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/

      Real science;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      Real science;
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      ... What is established, is there is repeatable, scientific evidence for a bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates. There is no conspiracy. The reasons why the evidence isn't chased up by mainstream scientists are;
      1. If scientists are interested in studying the topic, unless they are already established then they have careers and credibility to look out for. 2. The general public which account for people in all professions including mainstream scientists, have "flag ships" like Finding Bigfoot as the main mainstream output, which would make anyone remotely intelligent cynical.
      3. IMPORTANTLY, hoaxes always get massive publicity.
      4. EXTRA IMPORTANTLY, when people are already suspicious of the credibility of the subject, they'll settle very quickly for an uncountered "debunking" due to the "extraordinary" nature of what's being proposed. However, should these people listen to the actual experts' counter opinions to these shoddy "debunkings", they'll realise very quickly that the evidence is reliable by consistent scientific standards. The problem is the only people who realise this are those willing to put in the time to look at it. A prime example of this is the Crowley stuff with dermals. So many "sceptics" claiming they rest on the high standards of scientific absolutes, yet they are happy to lessen these standards and rest on what someone grossly unqualified puts forth rather than listening to what the actual experts say.

      Your beloved peer review is a flawed process. And whilst you adhere to things being thrown out because they are allegedly manipulated, then so you should throw the peer review process out too. Don't take it from me, take it straight from a Nobel Winner;
      "Leading academic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a "tyranny" that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner who has declared a boycott on the publications. Randy Schekman, a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine this year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would no longer send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science. Schekman said pressure to publish in "luxury" journals encouraged researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make a splash."
      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
      ... And here's a paper on the peer review process;
      "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/
      ... That's your beloved peer review process in pieces. And that's just one source of many. Why would anyone expect real science to come from that process? Take a look at this;
      "Journal Accepts Paper Reading “Get Me Off Your F*****g Mailing List” (link will be in a separate comment below as this is the reason the comment is whited out...

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

      Delete
    36. 12:41... You're the dirty little troll that uses a false moral highground when exposed as an intellectual coward... Did you manage to find an example of paleolithic skull morphology in West African people from the 1800's? I mean... There were loads of these slaves with these features, right?

      12:52... It has nothing to do with "Bigfoot", some of the cleverest people in the scientific community are calling the peer reviewed journal process shoddy. Stop pretending that you speak on behalf of anyone who truly understands the "modern scienific process". If you understood anything remotely scientific, you'd at least have one decent argument as opposed to just bitchin'.

      Delete
    37. Before I go searching for a skull, can you tell me exactly what parts of Khwit's "skull morphology" you think cannot be found in modern humans? Your sources don't specify precise measurements, so what am I supposed to be looking for?

      Delete
    38. You've been given enough information on Khwit's skull, man up and be accountable for your vomit. My word, you're lucky you're too much of a coward to put your name to your comments.

      Delete
    39. I might add that one of your sources considers Khwit's skull to be close to a "Neolithic Vovnigi II." Since you apparently do not know what that means, Neolithic refers to the Stone Age (which began in 10,000 BC -- not archaic) and Vovngi refers to a Ukrainian location -- those are traits that would be expected for a modern homo sapien sapien living in the area. Your own source confirms my argument.

      Delete
    40. So brave to use your name... iktomi, is it?

      Delete
    41. Most of the alleged "archaic features" refer to various parts of the skull that are "significantly larger" in size compared to the mean size of other skulls -- in fact, one source qualifies that statement by admitting that Khwit's skull dimensions "rather were comparable" with other skulls!

      Suffice it to say there are plenty of modern human skulls with dimensions "significantly larger than the mean." Regardless, without exact measurements, I can't really search for anything.

      Delete
    42. You've been provided thread upon thread of comments that outlines Khwit's unique morphology... Hurry up, it's time to deliver on your claims.

      Delete
    43. “But that theory would not explain her extraordinary features, described by reliable eyewitnesses. There is an even more intriguing alternative theory. Having carefully studied the skull of Zana’s son, Khwit, Professor Sykes believes there are some unusual morphological skull features – such as very wide eye sockets, an elevated brow ridge and what appears to be an additional bone at the back of the skull – that could suggest ancient, as opposed to modern, human origins.”

      Delete
    44. Hurry up, before iktomi is forced to copy and paste some more stuff.

      Delete
    45. On the subject of the sagittal suture and the Inca bone:

      "Occasionally, the interparietal region of the skull remains separate throughout life; the space-filling bone may be the interparietal or Inca bone, or a large sutural bone termed the preinterparietal bone. In one study of 500 adult Indian skulls (Singh, et al.) the interparietal bone was present in 8 cases (or an incidence of 1.6%). It was single in 2 cases (0.4%) and multiple in 5 (1%). In one case it was present unilaterally. The preinterparietal bone was present in 4 cases (0.8%). It was single in 2 (0.4%) cases and multiple in 2 cases (0.4%).

      Rarely, the parietal bone is composed of two pieces, one superior to the other, separated by an anteroposterior suture (subsagittal suture) which is almost parallel with the sagittal suture. In these cases the two primary centers of ossification are believed to have failed to fuse. The sagittal suture may be absent."

      http://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Text/ParietalBone.shtml


      Delete
    46. It's pretty hilarious that you reject Sykes' dismissal of the PGF because his expertise is only in genetics, but then you cite him as a reliable source on the subject of skull morphology!

      Anyway, regarding the Khwit skull, how wide are the eye sockets, how elevated is the brow ridge, and what is the extra bone called? You want me to search for skulls, right?

      Delete
    47. At the rear of the Neanderthal skull, for example, is a minor protrusion called the “occipital bun”. The occipital bun was a knot of rounded bone at the back of the Neanderthal skull and may have been an adaptation for the attachment of their massive neck and jaw muscles. Vestiges of the occipital bun were common in early modern European skulls, but are relatively rare among Europeans today.

      Khwit's skull was analysed, naturally his mother had the same, exaggerated features of the following;
      *very wide eye sockets
      *elevated brow ridge
      *extra bone in neck (for bigger neck muscles)
      *bigger all round
      *bigger teeth
      *bigger jaw bone
      ... West African woman from the 1800's don't have these morphological features, if so... Source it, there were loads of these "slaves" remember. We have a a collection of archaic traits that are not found in any modern human, nor in any geographical connection to the skull in question. If the extra bone is an occipital bun, aligning with the other ancient morphology of the skull, then there is no chance of the skull being modern. In the examples listed up top of extra mass in various areas, regardless of there being modern versions of singular instances of these traits, there is still the the fact that this is accompanied by many other archaic features not akin to any example of modern homo sapien skull.

      Delete
    48. Regarding Khwit's two foramina mentale:

      "The mental foramen may be doubled or tripled. The location of the mental foramen has been found as far forward as the first premolar or as far back as the second premolar. In very rare cases a median mental foramen is present, comparable with an arterial canal normally present in certain apes."

      http://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Text/Mandible.shtml

      As you can see, Khwit's jawbone is much less unusual than those of some modern humans who have triple mental foramen!

      Delete
    49. 2:29... It's simple, Sykes didn't find a monkey suit... Igor Burtsev did however find a skull with collective ancient morphological traits not found in modern Homo sapiens.

      Delete
    50. LOOK, THE FUCKING RETARDS ARE HERE ARGUING ----- AGAIN. WHY DONT YOU ASSHOLES GO AND GET A ROOM. YOU ALL ARE PATHETIC!

      Delete
    51. So your argument is that Khwit's skull features were (1) larger on average (with no quantitative measurements for me to compare) and (2) had features that I've just shown are not uncommon among modern humans (in fact, there are humans with much rarer skull traits). And this proves your point how exactly?

      Delete
    52. Add to that, one of your anthropologists admits that Khwit's skull is closest in type to non-archaic Stone Age skulls found not far from where he lived!

      Delete
    53. I think my comment at 2:32 covers that. Scientists have discovered that about one in thirteen people have flexible ape-like feet. Studies have shown differences in foot bone structure similar to those seen in fossils of a member of the human lineage from two million years ago. However, this is a singular anatomical trait in many in what is reported in Sasquatch. You quoted how equally as rare a mental foramen that is comparable with an arterial canal normally present in certain apes are, you didn't show me the same skull from West Africa in the 1800's.

      Chop! Chop!

      Delete
    54. How can I show you a skull when I have no measurements other than "significantly larger"? I can show you plenty of skulls that fit that description -- have you never heard of Shaquille O'Neal?

      Delete
    55. Also... Suggesting that there are more finds of the same paleolithic morphological nature in Neolithic skulls, doesn't by an strength eradicate those traits as paleolithic. If anything it suggests that these traits have been shown in examples far later than what modern anthropology is accepting of. These traits are also found in Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon skulls.

      Delete
    56. 2:53... But there were loads of these slaves, surely looking in online anthropological archives and the skull descriptions would suffice? Come on, I'm even giving you help with your own arguments now!

      Delete
    57. To sum up the situation, you cited studies from Russuan anthropologists who declared Khwit's skull to be "larger than average" and to have a few features that are commonly found among some modern humans -- one of the anthropologists even stated that the skull is close in morphology to a non-archaic skull!

      What you've actually done is virtually proven that Zana was in fact a modern human slave. Thanks for clearing that up!

      Delete
    58. LOL. I love how you say real science and then provide 3 links to bigfoot web sites. Too funny.

      Joe, you wouldn't know repeatable, scientific evidence if it walked and kicked you in your vag.

      Delete
    59. Again, as addressed up top... Suggesting that there are more finds of the same paleolithic morphological nature in Neolithic skulls, doesn't by an strength eradicate those traits as paleolithic. If anything it suggests that these traits have been shown in examples far later than what modern anthropology is accepting of.

      Even if the skull resembles Neolithic fossil finds, it doesn't present examples in modern humans for the past 7,000 years, and certainly doesn't provide you with a west Africa skull with such from the 1800's.

      I'll be waiting on this example...

      Delete
    60. Extra importantly? You need to learn English better, Josephine.

      Delete
    61. Donald... In those links you'll find forensic experts, anthropologists and various other scientists. If it's not up to that standards of how scientific evidence is accepted, then it should be even easier to debunk.

      Delete
    62. Donald, you need a sense of humour... But we know you're a little too angry for that.

      Delete
    63. Again with the debunk. It is not the role of science to debunk claims. Particularly when they are not presented in proper channels or are not falsifiable in the first place. But we all know you struggle with the concept of falsifiability. Maybe one day you will get it.

      Delete
    64. Josephine??? AHHHH HAHAHAHAHA. Joe is getting blown the f#ck out by dmaker as usual!!!!

      I prefer Joergamina!!!

      Delete
    65. So half-literate Iktomi adds "Paleolithic" to a study where the word does not appear and in fact explicitly refers to the skull as Neolithic! I guess when you're defeated, the only choice is to lie about your own sources.

      You could have avoided painting yourself into a corner if you had simply read your own sources in a careful manner, but that is apparently too much to ask of you. In any event, your squirming is quite entertaining!

      Delete
    66. YOU TWO ARE BOTH WAY TO STUPID AND HARD HEADED TO SEE THE POINT OF THE OTHER. AN EXORSIZE IN FUTILITY---------

      DUMMMMMMMBBBBB AAASSSSSEEESSSS

      Delete
    67. No, "debunking" is what gives pseudosceptics like you a little Internet persona, a little self esteem. You can falsify the sources up top via avenues like forensics, primatology and casting artefacts... You've tried this before remember? Humorous that Sasquatch evidence suddenly "isn't falsifiable" only when you fall flat with those methods in explaining it away, only to need a "moderated forum".

      Donald... I have three comment sections on teaching you a thing or two on falsifiability. Remember?

      : p

      Delete
    68. I have to give the anon 3:10 props for the logical argument he makes in regards to Khwit's skull. There is absolutely nothing there to make a compelling argument that his features are that unusual. If you are relying on the handed down stores regarding Zana then I feel you have a pretty weak case.

      Delete
    69. 3:37... Nobody has "added" paleolithic traits to a study that has recognised the skull to be similar to those of Neolithic examples. Those traits are a fact, they exist and are present in recent studies. I've read the source a million times, have referenced it plenty. The simple fact remains that archaic morphology exists in contemporary examples, but not to the collective frequency as we see in those skulls and if they are also found in Neolithic examples, that doesn't provide you with an example 7,000 years later from West Africa... It just shows that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon traits were around in Neolithic peoples who had a far shorter time frame to evolve from such compared to us.

      Chop! Chop! Your burden remains!!

      Delete
    70. 3:44... You most certainly would agree, you're just as butthurt about Sykes as he is, ha ha ha!! Did he find an African skull from the 1800's with wide eye sockets, elevated brow ridge, occipital bone with bigger teeth and a bigger jaw bone? Yes, it's a simple coincidence that an entire community described Zana as a Yeti, of course. Sykes has already suggested her DNA is ancient... Tick, tock...

      Delete
    71. Josephine, the only sasquatch evidence that is falsifiable is DNA. Every time putative sasquatch DNA has been tested, it has failed to support the claim. Every single time.

      That you do not understand falsifiability is not my problem. You are either pretending to not get it, or you really are that dense when it comes to this particular concept.

      Delete
    72. A good rule of thumb for scientific evidence is this: if your claim can be neither proven true or false, then your claim is not likely scientific to begin with. Other than DNA which can be subjected to proper scientific scrutiny, the rest of sasquatch claims and supporting evidence do not meet the requirement of falsifiability.

      Delete
    73. Tick Tock indeed. I will be waiting breathlessly for that OFFICIAL announcement proving what you claim is true.

      Mmmmmm - seems to me I've heard that tick tock right before Sykes announced the DNA results on those "Bigfoot" samples.

      Delete
    74. Well tell me Donald, why is it that you backtrack now after citing Crowley? Surely this is a way of falsifying dermal ridges, right? You remember doing that, right? So by this very method, you have already acknowledged there is a method of testing forensic sign, in that it can be measured by it's anti-thesis; casting artefacts. The claim that species traits found across impressions separated by States and decades can be proven to be either false or true. One may struggle to falsify track impressions alone, but not forensic sign I'm afraid Donald.

      Physical evidence in dermals =
      There are ways of testing this, notably forensics against casting artefacts, you've been asked to provide drawing on this on multiple occasions; you cited Crowley, failed and now this is "not falsifiable". Hmmmm... ???

      Oh... And Sasquatch are human, that's why the DNA keeps coming back as that, remember Donald?

      Delete
    75. I am not backtracking at all. I never said Crowley was a way to falsify tracks. He merely demonstrated that traits perceived to be from a live animal could, also, be artificial in origin. This does not prove that all similar traits found in all tracks are artificial in origin. It merely questions the reliability of such traits.

      Again, you show a failure in understanding what falsifiability means in the scientific process.

      Delete
    76. 4:08... And on that note, Sykes also tested a hair sample linked to a direct sighting that multiple primatologists verified to be of an unknown primate. There are twelve samples all with the same uniform morphology linked to there own sightings and physical evidence surrounding Sasquach. It came back human... Tick, tock...

      Delete
    77. Josephine, a track claimed to be from an unclassified animal is not a falsifiable claim. It cannot be repeated or shown to be true or false as a claim. Therefore, alleged sasquatch tracks are not falsifiable.

      If sasquatch was a real, classified animal with a type specimen, then you would be much closer to being able to use tracks as scientific evidence. But, of course, sasquatch is not classified and there is no type specimen to compare a specimen foot to claimed tracks. Do you see?

      Delete
    78. Joshephine, if would serve you well to stop stating as fact things that you have no way of knowing, such as "Sasquatch are human". You don't know this. Sasquatch are not even proven to exist, so how can you state with certainty what sasquatch is, or is not?

      See? This is what I am talking about with you. You claim things as fact, or established, that simply are not.

      Delete
    79. You need to be more careful in your choice of words if you wish to be taken seriously. Not even Dr.Meldrum would state with absolute certainty that sasquatch is one thing or the other. What scientists like him would say is something like ..Sasquatch, if the exist, are most likely ape, or human, or whatever. This is called an opinion or possibly a theory. But certainly not a fact. Stop stating as fact things that you, or anyone for that matter, simply cannot know.

      Delete
    80. Aaaaaaargh, but you are backtracking Donald, and it did according to you and many other pseudocseptical thinkers. Crowley attempted to demonstrate that the ridge lines from a primate could be artificial in origin. This, if successful would most certainly have proven that all similar alleged unknown primate traits found in all track castings are artificial in origin because no other animal's traits resembled artifices artefacts.

      Delete
    81. Donald, there is nothing in the reported anatomy of Sasquatch, nor in the physical evidence it leaves behind that cannot be attributed to a either modern humans, or humans in our lineage.

      Delete
    82. The advantage for someone like me in using Popper's philosophy is that scientific truths can be falsified when more knowledge and resources are available. Even long accepted theories such as Gravity, Relativity and Evolution are increasingly challenged and adapted. Where falsifiability falls down is that it is extremely strict in its definitions and does not take into account that many sciences are observational and descriptive, even theories like Intelligent Design can be classed as scientific, because they have a falsifiable hypothesis. There are many in modern science who have challenged falsifiable science because according to people like Popper, many branches of applied science, especially social science, are not scientific because they have no potential for falsification. Can you see the inherent problem here? Anthropology and sociology, tried and tested branches of science often use case studies to observe people in their natural environment without actually testing any specific hypotheses or theories. These studies are not falsifiable, but no one with a brain would disagree that they are scientific because they significantly advance human knowledge. This means that the most adhering of sciences must make compromises and assumptions on occasion. The testing of any theory must take into account the equipment and resources available. Falsifiability is not a simple black and white matter because a theory, which is difficult to falsify at the time, may be falsified in the future.

      The proposition that unknown primate traits DO NOT EXIST is clearly falsifiable. If you are attempting to falsify that proposition, you are attempting to prove a positive statement; that unknown primate traits do exist. The level of evidence required to prove the unknown primate traits are a biological reality are the species traits in question, by testing it with long standing fields of biological/forensic science. The proposition that unknown primate traits DO EXIST can therefore be falsified, because if you are attempting to falsify that proposition, you are attempting to prove the antithesis of that claim with the same methods to which support it; and show that these traits are not biological and do not exist.

      Physical evidence in dermals =
      There are ways of testing this, notably forensics against casting artefacts, you've been asked to provide drawing on this; nothing appeared.
      Biological evidence in unknown primate hair = there are ways of testing this, notably primatology and field biology in comparing against known primates' morphology, you've been asked to provide drawing on this; nothing appeared.
      Audio = there are ways of testing this, audiology fields that can show that these sounds are within the range of a normal human, you've been asked to provide drawing on this; nothing appeared.

      The sources in question are not negative and if data exists then it can be scientifically tested, therefore requiring no assumptions on its existence either way. In the possible conclusions; you either have confirmed evidence for an unknown primate, or you don’t… What the positive ramifications mean, is that you don’t have a conclusive means of classifying what that primate is, but you still have the evidence for an unknown primate that has been falsifiably tested.

      Delete
    83. Joe, science is simply about determining the truth of a claim through the testing of provided evidence. If the claim itself cannot be proven true or false through scientific testing, then the claim is not a scientific one and cannot be dealt with using the scientific method. It's pretty simple actually.

      As an easy example, look at the following. A scientist or person claims that water boils at X temp at X altitude. Right away one must determine if the claim is falsifiable before anything further is attempted. In this case, the example is easily falsifiable. Take some water and heat it to the claimed temp and observe if it boils. If it does, and this is repeatable by anyone wishing to attempt, then the claim is proven true. If it does not, then the claim is falsified and invalid.

      You cannot apply this same rigor to things like alleged sasquatch tracks. It simply cannot be done. You can, however, apply the same rigor to DNA. This has not, historically, worked out well for footers.

      Delete
    84. Anyway! I'm off to bed... Laters, gators!

      Delete
    85. Sigh. You still do not get it. If you cannot even grasp some basic tenents of science, then I can't help you anymore with that. I tried to use the most basic example I could think of. I suggest you ponder that example and how it relates to claimed bigfoot evidence.

      Delete
    86. Donald... Your comment at 4:34 is as you can see addressed above it. DNA "has not worked out well", due to your preconceived idea of a creature's classification you don't even find credible. That's probably the worst idea of logic possible.

      Be back tomorrow!!

      Delete
    87. It has nothing to do with my notions, one way or the other. The evidence either supports the claim after testing, or it does not. It's that simple.

      You like to try to worm in things like " well, sasquatch is human". But you don't know this, nor is it a falsifiable claim given the evidence at hand. It is merely you doing some spin doctoring for results that do not support the original claim.

      The scientific method cannot be circumvented by your personal theories or opinions. It is what it is. Alleged sasquatch DNA always tests as common animal or insufficient for proper analysis. That you think this creates some gap for your own pet theories only demonstrates your lack of understand of how science works in favor your obvious psuedoscientific tendencies.

      Delete
    88. Imagine if something like this were to happen: a sasquatch specimen is recovered due to a traffic accident. The specimens DNA is tested and it comes back as something other than "human", as you say it is.

      What happens to your theories then? What happens to the countless times you have tried to spin things your way based on your pet theories? They suddenly become bunk. Yet prior to this event you were sure that sasquatch are human and that is why the DNA results come up the way they do. Do you now possibly begin to perceive the problems when you start introducing personal bias into the scientific method and claim things you cannot possibly know? There is no reason to mitigate DNA results with notions like sasquatch are human because that simply cannot be known. Deal with the known, Joe, and stop banking on the unknown.

      Delete
    89. "due to your preconceived idea of a creature's classification"

      Oh the irony.

      Delete
    90. All that can be known at this point is that DNA testing of alleged sasquatch samples returns results that do not support the original claim. Once you take that further and start speculating on why the results are what they are, you veer far from the scientific method. You can have your theories, but they are not fact. They are simply your theories. Every time you say with certainty that sasquatch are human, you demonstrate your departure from true science.

      Delete
    91. Khwit was half African and half Russian (Caucasisn). As you can see here, all of the traits from his skull that you mentioned (elevated brow ridge, large eye sockets, large teeth, occipital bun) are present in either (and sometimes both) modern Africans or modern Europeans:

      http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap9.html


      Delete
    92. All that can be known at this point is that DNA testing of alleged sasquatch samples returns results that do not support the original claim. Once you take that further and start speculating on why the results are what they are, you veer far from the scientific method. You can have your theories, but they are not fact. They are simply your theories. Every time you say with certainty that sasquatch are human, you demonstrate your departure from true science.

      Delete
    93. In science, Joe, you cannot take negative results and provide excuses for them. What you do, as a true scientist, is go back to the drawing board. You realize that your evidence did not support the claim and you then try to adjust your claim and provide evidence sufficient to support your ammended claim and go from there. That is science. Test, fail, ammend, test, fail, ammend, until you have a claim with supporting evidence that no longer fails under scrutiny.

      What you do not do is claim, fail and then provide excuses for the failure. That is quite clearly pseudoscience. And that is what you are doing.

      Delete
    94. You are the poster child for special pleading. Not a great place to be if you wish to be taken seriously in a conversation dealing with the scientific method.

      Maybe you should run this by your "clever" friends that you have alluded to in the past.

      Delete
    95. What you are doing, Joe, is the equivalent of (in the example I used above) saying well my water is super water and it has a variable boiling temp. While at the same time providing no samples of your "super water" for other scientists to test against.

      That is what footery is all about. Claiming special traits to explain the lack of evidence. You do this all the time with your ridiculous and childish things like "imagine an animal that is a million more times in tune with its environment, or X times stronger than a human, or etc.." You are attempting to explain away the failure of the evidence due to "super water".

      Delete
    96. When you do the things that I mentioned above you introduce a layer of obfuscation into the scientific method when the scientific method is all about transparency. Nothing should be obfuscated by attributing random and subjective qualities. As soon as you do that, you again undermine the scientific method and render it useless to test and verify your claim.

      That you do this while waving the banner of science is laughable to anyone with a notion of how scientific testing actually occurs.

      Delete
    97. The evidence either supports the claim, or doesn't... And it appears that the forensic evidence supports the passage of a creature with the same widely reported anatomy as Sasquatch. Like I said, there is nothing in the anatomy and morphology of Sasquatch, of Patty even, that cannot be attributed to humans both modern and ancient. I've listed this too many times to count, and I can go through it all again if you like? From the position that Patty looks like a primitive human, has the anatomy of a primitive human, with these examples of anatomy being easily referenced in our entire lineage, and then the numerous instances that DNA has come back human... There is room for me to theorise rather comfortably based on the readily available data.

      With regards to unknown pimate hair for example, verified on an instance where a sighting occured by multiple people, at least one of these a government employee (where tracks were accumulated in the same instance), verified by Dr Paul Fuerst of Ohio State University & the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre. The hairs were collected by forest rangers at a sighting where tracks were accumulated too. Dr Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's department of anthropology confirms this. These were later confirmed to also be be case by Dr Fahrenbach;
      "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."
      "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".
      - Dr Bryn Sykes
      So it is here, considering we have hair samples that have uniform morphology verified by multiple experts, as we do with biological dermals verified at the same frequency, that we are at a stage of research that points to a human-primate leaving its sign. Even though we don't prove anything by this, we have reason to be encouraged and are warranted in persuing the research, whilst it is here we can draw on principles like Occam's Razor in a heuristical sense for the broader picture of what's going on. That is not spin doctoring, that's not me moulding the scientific method to suit my mere opinions, that's thinking logical based on the steady flow of research and data that has been tested to be legitimate. It's how research evolves, Donald.

      Delete
    98. What is a matter of opinion, is you thinking that alleged sasquatch DNA always tests as common animal or is insufficient for proper analysis... This is not only hypocritically preconceived and unsubstantiated, but throwing something out because it doesn't fit your expectations of something whose existence you don’t even think is credible, isn't very good logic. It means that nothing you claim can be taken as a substantial argument, because your original premise contradicts your methods of moving the goal posts. If that's how you think science works, you shouldn't be trying to condescend anyone, dear Donald. If Sasquatch is hit by a car and I'm wrong about the DNA, then a Sasquatch has been discovered (cough, cough).

      "All that can be known at this point is that DNA testing of alleged sasquatch samples returns results that do not support the original claim."
      ... That's if the original claim is to expect a "preferred" classification of a creature who's existence you're trying to deny. That's called moving the goal posts, dear Donald. That's audacious and you are narcissistic to think you're somehow better than anyone else to call the shots. You've got so much to explain away before you expect that to sit well and be representative of anything remotely scientific. Every time I claim Sasquatch is human, I am basing that claim on the readily available data that consists of video, audio, forensic and biological evidence.

      4:52... Yet none of those traits are shown as a collective in one example of modern skull. Please learn to read the arguments posted to you the first ten times. You've only gone and wasted a couple of hours of your time.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    99. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    100. I'm not trying to deny the existence of anything, Joe. That is where you let your adversarial bias come into play.

      I am simply saying that I don't think the evidence offered to date supports bigfoot as a real animal and instead more supports the idea that bigfoot is a social construct.

      That is my take on the evidence to date. I'm not actively trying to deny anything. I am simply offering my interpretation of the evidence. You are the one who spins everything as a US vs THEM scenario, not me.

      Delete
    101. "In science, Joe, you cannot take negative results and provide excuses for them."
      ... But where are these examples of negative results, Donald? They are everywhere yet nowhere? Your shortfalls and failure to shift your burden are not my excuses, dear Donald.

      "special pleading
      noun
      argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view."
      ... Where are these aspects Donald? In you moving the goalposts on DNA for a creature you neither can substantiate nor find credible? I'm pretty sure that's special pleading ya know?

      For example, your argument about special traits being applied for lack of evidence is perversely unsubstantiated. In this very comment section you've been presented a published scientific study that shows there's an unclassified primate in Northern California that has vocal ranges both above and below normal human ranges. That's not my excuses, these are your obstacles. Your burden is to test that and present evidence against it should you be critical. We know that early human ancestors and most other mammals' brains are wired with straightforward circuits that pick up information from the surrounding environment through the senses and relays that information to motor neurons so the body can move and respond to the surrounding environments. If Sasquatch exists, and it appears that way based on the physical evidence far cleverer people than you fail to explain away, then it would be scientifically logical that it has evolved attributes to survive and evade so well in that environment.

      Now I've really got to go to bed! But you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be back tomorrow. Kiss, kiss Donald!

      Delete
    102. The evidence offered to date does not, in my opinion, lead me to think that bigfoot is a real animal. As such, I must provisionally conclude that bigfoot is a social construct as I happen to think the lack of hard evidence supports the social construct theory more than it does the real animal theory. That is my opinion and that is my take on the evidence available.

      I am not on some personal quest to deny the existence of anything. I am simply offering my take on the evidence. Perhaps you should do the same and avoid stating as fact things that you cannot possibly know.

      Delete
    103. Your opinion would be valued if you didn't belittle people and tell them they are wrong because the research they've conducted doesn't add up to what is preferred on your part. When that happens, you have a responsibility to demonstrate that the things you claim aren't there are just that.

      Laters (seriously this time, I'm ******).

      Delete
    104. Unlike you, I am actually going to leave this discussion right now. I'm at my cottage and am going to go down to the campfire and read a book for a bit.

      Feel free to post nonsense in the meantime. I know you will.

      Delete
    105. Four of your alleged archaic traits in Khwit simply refer to the size of skull features. Modern human skulls come in all shapes and sizes and those alleged archaic features mean nothing. You can't even give me any size dimensions. Those are not archaic traits.

      Occipital buns are common in Europeans and Africans. Elevated brow ridges are common in Europeans. Both traits would be normal in someone of mixed European and African heritage.

      The plain truth is that you did not even read your sources carefully and jumped to a preferred Bigfoot conclusion. You did not notice that one researcher grouped the skull with non-archaic types and you had no idea what the descriptions even meant.

      I had some free time today and I generously broke it down for you and now you are better informed because of my efforts. Instead of inventing absurd and non-sensical explanations, you should be thanking me.

      You're welcome.

      Delete
    106. (sigh) Your noble efforts to educate are probably in vain Anon 5:55. You and dmaker make compelling arguments but lktomi (Joe) is so ingrained in his belief that he simply will not accept anything to the contrary. I did enjoy reading it and the only thing that would have made it better is if you would have used his own phrase in ending . . .

      No, no, no - the pleasure is all mine.

      Delete
    107. I refuse to read all the crap above. However, I'll contribute this. Joe's Lee's Summit hack apparently got bounced for non payment of his bill's. I'd suggest a smoke outlet store but someone's beat us too it.

      Delete
    108. so Donna is at the cottage eh?
      Be careful Donna, you never know what creatures are stalking you in the woods mate

      Joe

      Delete
    109. 5.55... Four of the traits refer to size of the skull features, but when aligned with archaic morphological features only collectively seen in paleolithic peoples... This is very, very significant. Yes you can keep on claiming that brow ridges and occipital buns are found in modern examples, I could have sourced you far more examples than what you've presented... But those are SINGULAR examples, not COLLECTIVE examples that present a specimen with all aforementioned archaic features in one skull, you digging me? Especially that from West Africa from the 1800's. There were loads of these slaves, remember? Ironic you keep claiming I haven't read my own source, this is probably the fifth time in this comments section that I've had to outline this very fundamental aspect of my point. It's not so much my "Bigfoot conclusion", the data is no coincidence to a person that was described as an entire community as being a primitive human.

      7:43... Still sore about the pioneering plastic surgeon I reference that supports Patty's biological anatomy I see, eh? Good.

      : )

      Delete
    110. A Negroid cranium is long in length, narrow in breadth, and low in height. The sagittal contour is flat and the occipital profile is quite rounded. The flatness of the sagittal contour is due to a post-bregmatic depression, a trait that occurs frequently in the Negroid cranium. The Negroid forehead is described as steep, with some sources describing it as rounded. According to studies in the 70's the Negroid cranium exhibits thicker parieto-occipital areas than Caucasoid crama, but nothing as pronounced as paleolithic occipital buns dimensions across a frequency that would determine them an accepted trait.

      Other features of Negroid skulls are the saggital outline being highly variable, post-bregmatic depression. Nose form is broad. Nasal bone size is medium to small. Nasal profile is straight/concave. Nasal spine is reduced, with the nasal sill being dull or absent. He incisor form is bladed with the facial prognathism extreme, as is the alveolar prognathism. Malar form is reduced and the palatal form parabolic. Orbital form is rounded with the mandible described as gracile and at an oblique gonial angle. Chin projection is reduced with the chin form being median.

      None of the collective archaic features that determine Khwit's skulls unique.

      Delete
    111. Oh... And Erectus Walks Among us is racist material.

      Delete
    112. Only racist because you disagree with it.

      Delete
    113. The text is widely considered racist. It also doesn't support your argument what so ever.

      Delete
  4. And if he had a son..........

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well you gotta love this defacto anonymous forum. I can say exactly what I'm thinking and nobody is tracking me down in real life lol.

    I'm seeing something in videos from Florida, Alabama, Michigan, Oregon and... Australia.

    What I'm seeing is some kind of primitive human-like upright bipedal creature covered in short fur. Generally dark fur but I've seen a few individuals that are white or very light grey. I got a really nice albino head shot the other day from a South Florida video.

    Their faces vary tremendously in appearance but many have light grey facial skin with a heavy sebaceous oil layer resulting in high reflectivity or facial albedo with the face picking up reflected diffuse light and providing sharp specular reflections of incident sunlight. It is the most effective camouflage in the natural world and may look white in direct sunlight and completely black in shadow or reduced diffuse lighting in concealment. Another feature is heavy bony structure reinforcing the orbitals and heavily reinforced brow-ridge and lower jaw. A human looking hooded nose is common.

    Since what I'm seeing in North America closely resembles what I'm seeing in Australia I suppose I will hit you with the most rank kind of internet detective work lol. The last time Australia was attached to anything was the Triassic. Yep, I'm saying they could be 150+ million years old.

    The lack of fire, significant tool fabrication or weaponry (beyond pulling a large tree out of the ground and waving it around threateningly, seen that) supports the assertion of a very old species.

    The government here in the US seems to know about them. At this point I'm starting to agree with them, the public is way too stupid and panicky to be entrusted with any important knowledge. Governments seem to fear modern man more than they do an archaic parallel species. I get that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...Yes, if bigfoots existence becomes known I for would one would start rioting and looting...I can use some new sneakers...lol..

      Delete
    2. ...Seriously, you need to imagine how broad and deep a conspiracy need be: secretaries, rangers, volunteers who help maintain forests and everyone else who works for forests services worldwide would have to be kept out of the loop or prevented from blabbing if they stumbled across anything..it does not seem possible that such a secret would not leak..Welcome aboard, btw...

      EEG

      Delete
    3. At Myakka State Park the only employee who seems to be "briefed-in" is the resident biologist who when you are reporting a sighting doesn't need your description, doesn't need to see your sketch and only wants to know one thing, "where did you see it?".

      They are covered under NDA, all park business is "official business" so its already illegal for them to say one word about operations at the park.

      Delete
    4. ..The penalty for breaking that NDA better be extremely severe because someone in a position to snap a photo of a dead body is in a position to make some serious cash...

      Delete
  6. Iktomi and his sock puppets are awesome. Can't stop Bigfoot?
    Well, Bigfoot has superhuman strength.

    Can't capture Bigfoot?
    Well, Bigfoot has superhuman speed.

    Can't locate Bigfoot in the forest?
    Well, Bigfoot has just blasted you with infrasound to scramble your brain waves and disorient you.

    Can't locate Bigfoot remains or body?
    Well, Bigfoots clearly bury their dead.

    Remember, these creatures have never been proven to exist. This is a fact. And fools like Iktomi spout off like they have all these knowledge about how these creatures think, act, behave, despite the fact that they may not even exist.

    And if you do value science and the scientific method, you have to concede the Bigfoots not existing is one possibility, even if you consider it highly unlikely. To rule out entirely the possibility that they aren't out there is pure unthinking dogmantic intellectual dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based on the physical evidence, the size of track impressions, the weight measured by the depth of these, the stride distance and the fact that we are talking about a primate... It is natural to conclude that relict hominids must have phenomenal strength. There are also inummerable reports as to how strong they are. Strength equates to great speed in primates.

      You were provided a published study up top that concluded upon infrasonic abilities in an unclassified primate in the US... What perverse level of denial do you endure?? The appliance of this is pure speculation.

      Only a couple of years ago, a new species of primitive hominin, homo Naledi was discovered that buried it's dead in caves. These were very primitive hominids that lacked the evolved brain capacity and intelligence of more modern hominids such as Neanderthals that also buried their dead. By this, it is not a stretch to assume that Sasquatch bury their dead. In fact, there is more reason to assume so than otherwise, given the fact that they are quite clearly human and not a dumb animal. Even if we didn't have the hairs that are morphologically consistent with a wild human, if we didn't have the track castings that quite clearly show a large human, then the innumerable reports that basically describe what one would expect from a caveman attest to this. Given the high frequency of science journals that account for such large human remains being found, and the long standing cultures to which state that Sasquatch are another tribe of large humans, one does not require Sherlock Holmes to be able to draw a link from such data. Don't take my word about 7-8 foot skeletons, take it from your beloved PhD Andy White who's literally making a name for himself debunking giant claims lately. "Bigfoot" burying their dead is logical. Because people like you fail every day of your obsessed lives to explain away the evidence, then there is little doubt that they exist. From this premise it is possible to use heuristical principles such as Occam's Razor, and it is therefore logical to theorise as to how they might deal with their dead in-line with accepted hominid behaviour. Do you see how this works? Try it one time... Substantiate one of your claims and from their there is reason to make educated theories.

      There is repeatable scientific evidence for what is being reported, and there is three whole databases of sightings reports to learn behavioural traits from. There is no requirement to doubt this reports as there is forensic evidence that supports. At this rate, it requires a far greater leap of faith to assume that hundreds of years of reports with accompanying physical evidence is the product of hoaxing and misidentification... Than it is to at least entertain the idea that relict hominids reside in wilderness areas.

      I can't even understand your last sentence, and for someone who fails to substantiate what allegedly is so obvious, you shouldn't really be claiming to understand the scienific method. You would have at least explained one of the many evidences away by now if that was the case.

      Delete
    2. ^Dude, are you willing to admit that possibility that bigfoot don't exist? Every reputable name in the field, Meldrum, Sykes, Krantz, etc, even if they believe existence likely, were/are willing to admit that the creatures not existing is a distinct possibility, even if they view it as unlikely.

      Your refusal to acknowledge this possibility is what makes you unscientific.

      Delete
    3. If I was to ignore repeatable scientific evidence for the possibility that it somehow doesn't exist, then I would be unscientific.

      Delete