Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Bigfoot Team Continues To Search For Explanation Of What They Experienced


From the youtube channel of the Trail To Bigfoot team:

We continue on. You will hear background vocals along the creek area and in palmettos, see sign and Chris goes after it. Pay attention in the creek areas. UPDATE: I checked Mark's recorder again on 21:51 it sounds like Mark is saying "Go around all that", There was a lot of noise hitting the recorder's duel mic's. This is noted as a possible vocal in the video but I am more confident now that it was Mark's voice. I have to go with the recorder that was closest to Mark. -Chris

48 comments:

  1. 50 years, 0 (zero) bigfoots

    The numbers dont lie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bigfoot is a psychological phenomenon, not a physical one.

      Delete
    2. In 50 years, amateur researchers have three times the amount of evidence than the Bili Ape had at this stage of research. Unfortunately, if "Bigfoot" was merely a psychological phenomenon, that wouldn't be the case.

      Delete
    3. All your evidence falls within the range of having a potential psychological explanation.

      Delete
    4. Three times?

      Where did you pull that number from?

      Lol

      Delete
    5. He simply makes stuff up to support his opinions, he's intellectually dishonest and best ignored.

      Delete
    6. I'm also a refugee from Bigfoot Evidence. I've been temporarily bullied out of there for a little while until they cool off a bit. They really don't understand me so I'll be the bigger person and hide out here a few days.

      It's just me,
      Ricky:)

      Delete
    7. Hey mates, my arse is like the Tardis -- it's bigger on the inside !

      Joe

      Delete
    8. Tee Hee Hee Hee !!! Sausage dogs !

      Hello again new friend Puss in Boots. Weenie dog jokes always make my laugh OUT LOUD !!! :)

      It's just me,
      Ricky:)

      Delete
    9. 6:58... Unfortunately, the "potentiality" for a psychological explanation does not equate to a scientific one. Nothing quite trumps the psychology behind someone who spends his entire time around a topic, only having the argument of "potential psychology" for that time spent.

      7:47... The evidence at this stage accounts for forensic, video and audio evidence, not to mention thermal evidence also. To suggest three times the evidence was being modest.

      Delete
    10. Yes it's me, Ricky. All this attention is making my head swell. My motto is be kind to others and they will love me in return. This place is really growing on ME ! :)

      It's just me,
      Ricky:)

      Delete
    11. Iktomi, you are wasting your time with these cement heads. They will never understand logic and reasoning especially tossers like dmaker and haints who only come on here to bug you.
      keep up the good work !

      Joe

      Delete
    12. By the way Iktomi, would you fancy a shag with me ?

      Joe

      Delete
    13. If only those stupid biologists and archaeologists weren't so dumb, they would see what is so clear to folks like Iktomi: that all those "thermal images", blurry photos, and questionable audio point to one thing and one thing only: the definite existence of an elusive 9 foot tall ape-man.

      Iktomi, you clearly keep a ton of links handy on the desktop of whatever Cheetos-stained basement you dwell in, why not put them all together and send an email to Harvard, the Smithsonian, or MIT?

      Do you have faith in your evidence? If so, it should get a fair shake from those most qualified to evaluate it. Of course, by putting it out there in this way you run the risk of hearing that the ideas may be "nonsense" and "not worth responding to" - I know you have you have personal experience with this already ; )

      But seriously, you seem dead set on the evidence is brilliant and comprehensive. You know all about America's attic and where the missing skeletons went, why not put this together and send it off to some world renowned anthropologists and archaeologists?

      Or you can remain silent and barrage people with your Bigfoot blog post links and pretend that it's in any way comparable to scientific proof, but whatever you want. We all have our hobbies. I love beer and cigar, you love Bigfoot forums, online arguments, and Cuckoldry. But maybe it might be worth your time to collect your legion of hyperlinks and send all this awesome evidence you have to someone impartial to evaluate it.

      Delete
    14. 11:57... Nargh, I'm just happy giving intellectual throwbacks like yourself the occasional five paragraph meltdown. Out of all that hate speech, I didn't see one word that presents a case against the evidence... No doubt above you.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    15. IktoJoe does not want impartial analysis. He only wants to post things from pro-bigfoot sources, even when they are woefully outdated.

      Any impartial analysis of alleged bigfoot evidence will always come up with "possibly" in the best case, or somethinglike the evidence does not wholly support the conclusion.

      No impartial analysis is going to give IktoJoe what he so desperately craves: confirmation of his magic monkey human theory.

      The evidence simply does not prove the case, therefore no respectable, unbiased source is ever going to confirm anything given the current evidence available.

      Delete
    16. For something so blatantly unimpartial, so one sided, so outdated, so "possibly" at best.. You'll have no issue getting around to debunking it, Donald? Surely you can source at least one case from the millions of impartial scientists out there, right?

      Nobody is claiming to have proof, Donald, just the evidence for something that has the same anatomy as what's being widely reported in "Sasquatch". Don't like it? Man up... Cause that's all anyone ever reads from you these days is "boo-sodding-hoo".

      Delete
    17. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/some-of-the-things-i-have-gotten-wrong/

      Delete
    18. From the above:

      "My current take on sasquatch – enunciated in several Tet Zoo ver 3 articles as well as in print (Naish 2012, Conway et al. 2013) – is that it’s a sociological phenomenon, not a zoological one. Evidence that sasquatch might be real has not been put forward"

      And let's not forget Dr.White calling your theories nonsense and unworthy of a reply.

      Delete
    19. Also, you seem to be confused as to the role of science. It is not to debunk crackpot theories. Science tests evidence. It does not debunk. Provide truly testable evidence, and not nonsense theories unworthy of replies, and science has, and will, test it.

      So far, the only truly testable evidence for sasquatch, DNA, has been tested and failed to support the claim.

      Delete
    20. Any footprint, and alleged traits found within, are not examples of truly testable evidence.

      Something like DNA, or a body part, is truly testable. It can stand up to scrutiny, even given dubious provenance. A tissue sample, when DNA tested, firmly answers any questions as to the origin of sample. A footprint does not provide for the same level of sampling. Hair morphology is not an exact science and cannot be used for conclusive species identification, either. Footers need to provide something more. Now, they either cannot because the animal does not exist, or they are the most strikingly inept group of researchers on the planet.

      Delete
    21. Donald 3:54 & 3:56... Yes but where is the evidence for disproof in that source you've cited? 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 can name drop a million scientists who claim there is nothing to the phenomenon, what good is it if the evidence isn't shown to be bunk?

      Donald 4:00...
      Forensic evidence in dermals =
      There are ways of testing this, notably forensics against casting artefacts, you've been asked to provide drawing on this. You tried but nothing stands up to expert scrutiny of such ideas.
      Biological evidence in uniform 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 has ever 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 has ever appeared.

      Species traits found in track impressions that are separated by decades and States is repeatable scientific evidence. Nothing more profound as scientific evidence. Throwing something out, like repeated examples of human DNA from samples linked to direct sightings, tracks, etc, because it doesn’t fit your expectations of something who's 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.

      The plain and simple truth is, Donald, that your theory group, the MILLIONS of scientists who claim there is nothing to this subject, are either too stupid to debunk what according to them is so painfully obvious... Or your situation really isn't as obvious as our prefer it to be. Which one is it?

      The answer is in the way you have to keep coming back to fix that disatisfaction.

      Be back tomorrow.

      : p

      Delete
    22. ^ you didn't cite your source once again. Thats plagarism!

      Delete
    23. You said cite at least one source. I did that. Then you switch to "You can name drop a million scientists who claim there is nothing to the phenomenon, what good is it if the evidence isn't shown to be bunk?"

      You continue to display zero understanding of how science works. You fixate on "debunking". Science does not debunk. It tests evidence. That evidence must be amenable to scientific testing. It must be repeatable and testable. You provide examples of alleged evidence that is not repeatable or testable and declare victory.

      That you think something fits the definition of testable evidence does not make it so, no matter how hard you try.

      Come back with examples of truly testable evidence that has supported the existence of bigfoot, and then we can talk.

      In the meantime, please continue to display your lack of understanding and insist upon debunking. All you do is clearly illustrate why Dr.White correctly labelled your theories as nonsense not worthy of a reply.


      Delete
    24. Dmaker blew Joerg the f#ck out!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    25. The funny thing, that you fail to recognize, is that you sink your own ship when you ( correctly, I might add ) admit that your evidence does not constitute proof. If your evidence does not prove the claim, as you also agree, then it is suggestive or putative. As I have said all along.

      Plenty of people, including scientists, can examine evidence and propose a theory as to the source. But that is not proof. The evidence must capable of proving the claim. And the evidence that you provide is not capable of proving the claim. It can support the claim, for those that agree with the proponents interpretation of the evidence, but it cannot ever prove the claim. You cannot prove a new species of 9ft monkeys in North America on the strength of impressions in the ground alone. You need more. It's that simple.

      Since we obviously agree that your evidence is not proof, as you are so fond of stating that no one is claiming proof, then what are we really arguing about?

      Delete
    26. Did he really refer to something as "unimpartial"?

      Delete
    27. Yes, he did. Joe is not so good at the English. You get used to it after awhile. It's funny because he attempts to appear smarter than he is, but then proceeds to display a 4th grade understanding of language.

      Delete
    28. Joe is a hero in his own mind. I guess that keeps him happy. No doubt, he will revisit this thread next time he is back "on patrol".

      What a sad, little man.

      Delete
    29. Joe strikes me as a combination of Dwight Schrute and Bear Brown from Alaska bush people.

      Delete
    30. Or perhaps a bit of Gareth Keenan thrown in for the UK folks.

      Delete
    31. Look at Chaka from land of the lost, furry,ugly, no genitalia to speak of, always looked kind of blurry too, oh and he had Osterman's pads.Check and mate my friend

      Delete
    32. ...You guys are getting a kick out of Prof. White's smackdown of your sparring partner..But I'm sure you see White was just annoyed that Joe was talking about him on this blog..White did in fact respond to him after he said that his ideas were not worthy of said responses...I would bet a scientist that interacts with the public regrets a harsh condemnation that discourages the very engagements he is trying to foster....

      EEG

      Delete
    33. Maybe, or Maybe White is nervous that Joe blew his cover and White just wants all the glory when he goes public, what say you White?

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

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

      Delete
    36. I asked for you to cite a source that addressed the evidence. You presented the same tiring quote from someone who claims to have changed his mind on evidence, without so much as posing one reason why the evidence is no longer worthy of consideration. A ten year old would be able to fathom what I mean when I then stated that a million experts doing that is irrelevant when the evidence in question is not shown as to WHY it is no longer worthy of consideration.

      You claim that the evidence I quote is not testable, yet have presented a method of testing that evidence time and time again which shows that it can be. It falls flat and then you use circular logic that it is "alleged evidence" and maintain that it is not repeatable. This is your logic, this is how your science works. It's embarrassing. As I stated, dermals have been tested against accepted primate traits. These are consistent with other primates, can be classified as such yet posses enough unique data to be identifiable across samples. These have been found in impressions that have not only been sourced in the middle of nowhere, but are separated by States and decades, eradicating any possibility that they could be hoaxes. Now, the test this further, one must eradicate the prospect of being casting artefacts, and these "artefacts" though looking like dermals under the untrained eye do not imitate biological traits;
      "Krantz (1983: 71-72) writes: "Thus far, every specialist who has examined these casts [Mill Creek] agrees that their detailed anatomy has all the characteristics and appearance of being derived from an imprint of primate skin. These include thirty police fingerprint workers, ... six physical anthropologists ... four pathologists and two zoologists."
      ... If you have forensic evidence that is consistent over such scientific obstacles, it is repeatable. You have not provided one example of how this falls short of such testing and therefore are not warranted in labelling it "alleged". Ty harder, you are not special.

      "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

      The evidence does not present proof merely because of the extraordinary nature of what's being proposed. I'm stooping to your version of science when I state that, but only because I enjoy you blubbering about the repercussions of what evidence of this nature means. What the evidence proves is there is forensic sign for a creature with the same anatomy as what's being widely reported in "Sasquatch". That's the premise being presented. Multiple scientists coming to a consensus on that is not so different than what you abide by in peer review, is it not? Debunkers like you who enjoy trying to relegate the topic to sightings reports, purely because you need some help (wow) and need to claim there is no evidence. What I'm arguing for is that's far from the reality of the situation. And if there's evidence, then you and me both know that there are heuristic principles that can be applied as an explanation for what that evidence entails.

      And come on Donald, you forgot to use capitals in your own name.

      Delete
  2. Swamp monkey always on the move!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. ISF Mouth Breathers ! We pretend not to believe !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm certain it is a case of mocking the stupid, not some fantasy about them being part of the herd.

      Delete
    2. Yes, yes, the people who come here daily, who read every story, who don't believe in the subject are the smart ones. Makes total sense.

      Delete
    3. Read? Everything is freaking videos now, not even entertaining, this one just stinks,surely you agree?

      Delete
    4. ...Hey Rumfer..Too many videos, too little worthwhile content...The worst of them are videos about unsubstantiated anecdotes..We know people report seeing bigfoots..Thanks... At this point, unless the witness is willing to submit to a taped grilling so qualified people can make a call on
      truthfullness, save it...

      EEG

      Delete