Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Blowing Up Sasquatch With Todd Neiss


From Sasquatch Chronicles:

To watch the live unedited video interview visit ,Bigfoot witness-turned-researcher, Todd M. Neiss has been an active investigator for more than 20 years.Born and raised in the Pacific Northwest, he grew up hearing of these legendary creatures, alternately known as Bigfoot or Sasquatch, but gave it little credibility beyond that of Native American lore or a good old-fashioned campfire tale designed to frighten young campers. All of that changed for Todd in the spring of 1993. As a Sergeant in the Army's 1249th Combat Engineer Battalion, he came face to face with, not one but, three of the elusive beasts in the temperate rain forest of Oregon's Coast Range while conducting high-explosives training. His sighting was independently corroborated by three fellow soldiers who also witnessed the creatures. We will also include an interview with an aggressive sasquatch a man had in Colorado. This encounter borders just short of an attack

37 comments:

  1. Maybe Todd Neiss would fancy "blowing up" a certain orifice in my body ?

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you know i would joe !
      contact me lover !

      Delete
  2. I constantly read about how there is such a voluminous amount of physical and eyewitness evidence for bigfoot -- that makes me think that securing a specimen would not be difficult. Then I'm told that bigfoot is an extremely elusive creature that is adapted to avoid being detected. But it is detected constantly and there is voluminous evidence! This paradox makes no sense to me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL!

      Yeah you haul your ass out there in the bush and find BF then go ahead and dart one and try to drag it off. Let us know how that works out for you.

      "secure a specimen" lol

      Delete
    2. Yes, it comes down to Bigfoot being a part time ninja and part time loud mouth. Talk about special pleading.

      Delete
    3. Footers are generally full time idiots.

      Delete
    4. The sightings reports are precisely in line with what one would expect from a largely nocturnal creature tat buries it's dead and evades in social groups. It also has 70% of wilderness in the US to evade in. Like all intelligent creatures, it is subsceptible to curiosity and mistakes. Twisting the fact to your favour that if something exists, it leaves physical evidence... Is seriously audacious. For such alleged contradictions, it should be even easier to explain away the evidence.

      Plenty of missing hunters remember.

      Delete
    5. LOTS OF EMPTY SPACE BETWEEN EARS ^

      Remember!! FOLKS JUST ONE SENTANCE!!!!Sooo easy! :-))

      Dr.B Sykes

      Delete
  3. The answer is that bigfoot is stupid and and he leaves footprints all over the place, he screams, yells, and bangs sticks against trees (sometimes directly into microphones), and he allows himself to be seen by thousands of various hicks and yokels.

    At the same time, bigfoot possesses some kind of brilliant intelligence and skillfully evades capture and goes to great lengths to hide dead bodies. He's basically a super ninja and, even if he was standing a foot away from you, you wouldn't know he was there (except for his exceptionally foul odor).

    I hope I cleared things up for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually every word you wrote is true.

      1) Discipline in Concealment

      2) Hyper-agility

      3) Facial skin albedo or reflectivity

      No amount of snark can hide your ignorance and arrogance. You don't know shit, that is clear.

      Delete
    2. 9:52, do you usually show so much butt hurt when your beliefs are shown to be bunk?

      Delete
    3. I don't think I've ever heard a report of a Sasquatch just banging away on trees and screaming to give their location away? And when it happens, it's usually with the witnesses running the other direction. Typical as civilisation naturally encroaches on remote areas, and animals like white tail deer are soaring.
      Bigfoot tree-knocking? Typical, in communicate so as to evade properly. Bigfoot cracking large branches and small trees? Typical as an intimidation technique so as to evade properly.
      Bigfoot screaming and calling? Typical as an intimidation technique so as to evade properly.

      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.

      Delete
    4. He's literally making a name for himself? What's his new name going to be?

      Delete
    5. So we can find plenty of evidence for burials of extinct species that lived 100,000 years ago, but zero remains or burials of an extant species? Now that makes sense!

      Delete
    6. https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/

      Let me know if you need anymore help.

      Delete
    7. If you had bothered to read the article, you'd know that the authors grouped the skull with several others found in North America and Asia from the Neolithic period (no older than 10,000 BC -- not archaic). There is nothing to suggest that the skull is significantly different than many other skulls from the period and modern skulls still commonly show all of those features.

      In fact, the authors themselves mention that the skull is similar to some found in Texas from "the historic period"! That's the period we are in now in case you didn't know!

      But anyway, assuming your crazy conclusion were true and it was a bigfoot skull, you ignored my question as to why remains can so easily be found from "bigfoot" that lived thousands of years ago, but none can be found from extant species. I'll assume from your non-answer that you concede the point.

      Delete
    8. Don't even waste your time 7:11. As Andy White said to Joe, "Frankly your ideas sound like a bunch of nonsense to me, and not really worth responding to."

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

      Delete
    10. So you've changed the subject to Khwit and given up on the Lovelock skull? Wonderful! More progress!

      Delete
    11. Khwit was brought up, not the Lovelock skull. Stay on topic old boy.

      Delete
    12. You have to be one of the biggest idiots I've ever seen around here, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    13. You cited the Lovelock skull article and I tore apart your stupid interpretation of it. You've been citing that article for three years and you never read it carefully enough to know that the skull was classified with skulls found in the past few 100 years in Texas!

      Added to that, you didn't even know what study I was addressing! Ha ha! Hint hint, it was the one you referenced in the previous comment!

      Faced with that embarrassment, you bring up Khwit! Lovely!

      Delete
    14. Oh dear... Allow me to explain something to you...

      An Unusual Human Skull From Near Lovelock, Nevada" by Erik K. Reed - Photographic work from the paper one by Dennis Van Gerven;

      "The skull is categorized as "New World Material," a general archaic type referred to by Georg Neumann's term "Otamid variety." It resembled early period central California material from the lower Sacramento Valley (Neumann 1957) and from Tranquility in the San Joaquin Valley (Angel, 1966). It also resembles the the Ophir cranium from Virginia City, Nevada (Reichlen and Heizer 1966) - even having the strange os inca."

      You see, the study merely states that the skull resembles similar finds found at the time in the US;

      "As it turns out, Otamids are defined as long and low headed with elongate distal limbs (ie. they were hunters like Late Pleistocene Europeans), are present right into the eastern Archaic and Middle Woodlands periods and are described simply as plesiomorphic (meaning primitive ancestral or primitive character) relative to 'derived' Americoids, resembling similar populations in Europe and Siberia and lacking Mongoloid features in their cranium and face (Note from Sharon Day; So, these slope-headed ones were found in Europe and Siberia and interestingly those are regions where light hair was found in the population correlating with reports of red-haired and blond-haired giants)."

      Glad I could clear that up. The fact these skulls were found in other places across America, again, does nothing but support my argument.

      Oops!!

      Delete
    15. https://thedavisreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/original-skull-from-humboldt-sink.jpg

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qXcRUWD1NVc/S4_nagDRvzI/AAAAAAAABhE/FumSBJu8WpM/s1600-h/Bigfoot-Sketch-III.jpg

      Delete
    16. Nice job addressing the correct report this time. It only took you three tries!

      Delete
    17. "There is nothing to suggest that the skull is significantly different than many other skulls from the period and modern skulls still commonly show all of those features."

      ... And wait for it... The paper is called...

      "An Unusual Human Skull From Near Lovelock, Nevada" by Erik K. Reed."

      ... Creased. What a daft try-hard.

      : )

      Delete
    18. Many if you didn't use the same circular logic and misinformation techniques, I'd be able to differentiate better.

      Delete
    19. I simply read the article and made the effort to understand what it meant. On the other hand, you just noticed the title and stopped. It's okay, you're learning!

      Delete
    20. I don't think you know what the **** you're talking about, do you??

      Delete
  4. "Bigfoot is a psychological phenomenon, not a physical one."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That statement doesn't demonstrate how this topic is a psychological phenomenon, not a physical one... Words are wonderful, it's scientific data that makes the world go around. You'd think a group of people so obsessed with this topic would have better data, eh?

      Delete
    2. Then why don't you get your scientific data peer reviewed, mate.

      Delete
    3. "Words are wonderful". Clearly you think so, iktomi. You cut and paste so many of them.

      Delete
    4. Sykes will achieve that. Tick, tock.

      Delete
  5. Just secure a specimen lol. Dart that bad boy in the butt and drag him off to the van.

    That is pretty much the funniest thing I've seen on this site.

    ReplyDelete