Tuesday, June 7, 2016

How To Avoid Being Attacked By Bigfoot


In this episode we discuss the things you might look for and avoid to keep yourself safe if you happen to find yourself smack dab in the middle of bigfoot territory. Of course Bear and Coonbo lead us off in several different directions and stories along the way.

60 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Why is it a problem for you if there is no bigfoot?

      Delete
    2. If I had a "problem" with "Bigfoot" not existing... I would be over at blogs that endorsed such an idea, that seemingly threatened my way of thinking. D'you catch my drift?

      The reality of your situation is that this subject threatens you, hence you are here. If what people thought didn't concern you, and the repercussions of what this subject's legitimacy means didn't scare you, you would be a satisfied person going about their day unconcerned what us "stupid people" held interests in.

      Delete
    3. "Subjects legitimacy"

      Sounds good... until you watch a dr johnson video where a cloaked bigfoot named zorth mindspoke and told him that the clan is aware of patty and that patty let herself be filmed for a reason which he is yet to disclose.

      Or until merchant mentions bigfoots are actually tree people bioengineered by aliens.

      Seems legit.

      I dont really know what you are trying to do here but you have not convinced a single person of bigfoots existence.

      Delete
    4. Bigfoot's existence is not determined by what people sensationally claim, there is no way of measuring the paranormal. Bigfoot's existence is determined by what we can measure with reliable, consistent scientific methods. You appear to draw upon the sensational because you struggle with what you are able to test with science. Not that anyone is giving you enough credit to be intellectually capable of using those scientific methods. Ironically, the one thing you claim is hurting the topic is your safety net after you fail to explain away what should be very easy; the existing physical evidence. You use this as it is impossible to test scientifically. Portals and "mind-zapping" are irrelevant when the existence of the creature you are crying about exists in the forensic evidence that proceeds it.

      Delete
    5. Name one repeatable consistent scientific method for bigfoot...

      Delete
    6. Forensics.

      Wildlife biology.

      Anthropology.

      Primatology.

      Delete
    7. The existing evidence has been explained away. You just have your fingers in your ears.

      Delete
    8. Was looking for something a bit more specific where a scientific method can consistently detect the same thing over and over and tell us something that is more than just a guess.

      Delete
    9. 4:04... Source it then. Stop preaching the same mantra over, and over, and over... Give me something. Be accountable for your claims. Post a link, anything. Should be easy considering how sure you are of yourself.

      4:07... Ok, forensics and primatology has been used to verify species traits in dermals left in the actual impressions (not due to casting artefacts), that have been found in different casts, across geographical divides in States, as far apart as 20 years... This is repeatable, scientific evidence. Nothing more profound and nothing that's stands up more to the requirements of scientific method.

      Delete
    10. Read the book abominable science. That pretty much covers it.

      Delete
    11. You are making a claim that it is not due to casting artefacts. Anything to support this claim?

      Delete
    12. Abominable Science nailed here;
      http://www.cryptozoonews.com/absm-sci/
      ... That book is almost as misinformed as you.

      4:25... Um, yes, this was provided up top. The dermals are found to be in the actual impressions pre-casting process. Half way down this page;
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/32050-dermal-ridges-or-casting-artifact/

      ... Dermals in the actual impression. And half way down here;
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36334-suit-possibly-key-to-final-hoax-proof/page-5

      .. A comparison of casting artifacts and actual dermals. Artificial desiccation has it's own uniform style that does not match Sasquatch traits.

      Delete
    13. Lol^

      Using crypto sites as your sources is pretty weak.

      Delete
    14. Not when the original arguments put forward could be refuted by a ten year old's knowledge of anthropology. It seems the original source cited didn't go a miss in you.

      Delete
    15. Haha and here i was hoping for an unbiased source or peer reviewed paper. I guess garbage science shouldnt be held to the same standards as real science.

      Delete
    16. Here's are your beloved journals. Why would anyone expect real science to come from anything like that? Take a look at this;
      "Journal Accepts Paper Reading “Get Me Off Your F*****g Mailing List”;
      http://www.iflscience.com/technology/journal-accepts-paper-reading-get-me-your-fucking-mailing-list


      ... Now, considering the studies I reference aren't peer reviewed to your preference of what solid science is, surely you'll find it even easier to source a decent argument against such "shoddy science"?

      "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."

      Delete
    17. Here's a link, Cucktomi:

      https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/gory-details/finally-some-solid-science-bigfoot

      Best bet: the so-called "evidence" for Bigfoot may point to a possibly undiscovered species of bear, which would be cool. But so far nothing that substantiates the claims of enormous proto-human ape men running around all over North America without ever leaving any bodies behind.

      Delete
    18. "Headlines such as "DNA Debunks Bigfoot Myth" and "Genetic Testing Shows That Bigfoot Is Not Real" are completely false and misleading. The only thing the DNA tests proved were that none of the hair samples used came from an unknown primate such as a bigfoot or a yeti. Does that mean they do not exist? If the study had been about dogs living in the wild, but none of the test results matched a domesticated canine, would that mean no dogs live in the wild? It simply means the test samples did not come from the sources they were believed to have possibly come from."
      - Matt Knapp

      Sorry, a DNA study that has no bearing on the existence of Sasquatch (especially when the geneticist of that study is about to publish a paper on Yeti's in the late 1800's), doesn't get around to explaining away species traits found in impressions that detail a yet to be classified bipedal primate.

      As was put to you yesterday at least twice, Sasquatch likely bury their dead and have 70% of the US as wildnerness to achieve that efficiently.

      Delete
    19. "Sasquatch likely bury their dead"

      Another classic claim from joe.

      Delete
    20. As was put to you yesterday... 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
    21. You are not weighing all the "evidence", Cucktomi.

      You think that all the self-reported sightings, blurry photographs (I know, I know, you have 20 hyperlinks to stills of the PG Film, you don't have to copy/paste again), and "hair samples" are evidence for bigfoot.

      What I'm saying is, the fact that every major study, undergone transparently, conducted by trained professionals, always comes up either (1) known animal, (2) inconclusive. Despite all the sighting and whatnot you love to parrot, no reputable study has ever returned "Unknown non-human primate" as a result of DNA/forensic testing. What I'm telling you is that this is also scientific evidence, in that every time one of these studies is conducted, nothing close to "proof" let along "strong evidence" is ever found. Not in the same ball park at all. Not even in the same zip code.

      Now, does this mean that there are no bigfoots? No. Can they exist? Possibly. But does all the testing that continues to come up with null findings strongly disfavor that hypothesis? You bet.

      Delete
    22. "What I'm saying is, the fact that every major study, undergone transparently, conducted by trained professionals, always comes up either (1) known animal, (2) inconclusive."

      Bullshit. For example, Unknown pimate hair, verified on an instance where a sighting occured by multiple government employees (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 an unknown 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.

      And here's that study from Krantz again;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
      ... And again;
      "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."

      Not even all of this is proof that Sasquatch exists... What it proves is there is an unclassified bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates leaving its sign on the environment of the US. Don't like it? Shift that burden.

      Delete
    23. Joe has truelly gone down the rabbit hole. His mind is lost.

      Delete
    24. That's actually the feeling of learning something.

      Delete
    25. You debate bigfoots existence like a younger man, with nothing held back. Admirable, but mistaken.

      Delete
    26. Shut up and prove me wrong, you pretentious ****.

      Delete
    27. Let us not stand on ceremony, Mr Fitzzgerald

      Delete
    28. MORE DOGMAN PLEASE ...
      for OUR SAFETY

      Delete
    29. OUCH! Joe got smacked hard on that exchange!

      Delete
  2. Joe got exposed yesterday.

    When asked if he donated to utah sasquatch he said he did not "cough up" the money.

    The phrase "cough up" is almost exlusively used when talking about payment for a scam.

    By using the term "cough up" joe has implicitly shown via freudian slip that he knows utah sasquatch (and the wider bigfoot community) is a scam.

    Blown the fu ck out.

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

      Delete
    2. cough something up (or cough up)
      phrasal verb of cough
      1.
      informal
      give something reluctantly, especially money or information that is due or required.
      "the company coughed up $40 m. in settlement of the legal claims"
      synonyms: pay, pay up, pay out; More
      come up with, hand over, part with, defray the cost of;
      foot the bill, settle up;
      informalfork out, shell out, dish out, lay out, come across with;
      informalstump up;
      informalmake with, ante up, pony up
      "the tenants refused to cough up the rent"

      Delete
    3. "Give something reluctantly"

      Why would you be reluctant to support research in your favoured topic?

      Delete
    4. If you "give something reluctantly", then you are aware of all factors, and therefore not oblivious of any "scamming".

      Are you like, 16 or something?

      Delete
    5. The only "digging" is in regards to you and your backside.

      Delete
    6. Chris noel ponied up his $100 why havent you?

      Delete
    7. Good for him. What I do with my money is none of your business, insufferably creepy tool.

      Delete
    8. Iktomi has given up pretending he is not joe then

      Delete
    9. I coughed and messed myself badly.

      Joe

      Delete
  3. < SOOOOWEEE!! ITS ANOTHER SHED SALE>

    Your options are limitless! Whether you need a pool cabana, studio office with a bathroom, toy garage, "man cave", tack room for the horses, dog house/kennel or even just a place to park the lawn mower......

    Fasano Florida sheds

    ALL SHEDS.. ALL THE TIME..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have any with hidden closets ? I`d consider buying one myself if I could hide myself and be able to peep out at passers-by.

      Joe

      Delete
  4. Please address me as Cucktomi. Its a combination of Cuckold and Iktomi.

    Cuckold: The husband of an adulteress, often regarded as an object of derision.

    Iktomi: A spider-trickster spirit in Lakota mythology.

    I'm a tricky cuckold debating bigfoot into existence on a fake-animal blog while my country is handed over to Islamists and I cower in fear of being called a racist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fake Iktomi sounds like Daniel Campbell.

      Delete
    2. Dr. Daniel Campbell graduated with honors from the University of Michigan in 1993, and received his PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley in 1998. Following a postdoctoral fellowship at Stanford University, Dr. Campbell joined the faculty of the Benaroya Research Institute as an Assistant Member in 2003. He is also an Affiliate Assistant Professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

      Delete
    3. My resume of him reads a little different.

      Delete
    4. an eggplant up the bum .No harm done!

      Joe

      Delete
    5. Cucktomi, If you really believe its going to be "only" 10% why would you hand over 10% of your ancestor's country?

      Delete
    6. Fake Joe and fake Iktomi are probably the same person. A very miserable ISF wanker who is holding a grudge for getting schooled on here in the past no doubt. This lunatic will carry this to his grave and if there is any justice in this world he will be buried by a family of bigfoots.
      What a crock !

      Joe

      Delete
    7. ^ You could well be right as both Joe and Iktomi among other accounts are also the same person.A very miserable footer wanker who is holding a grudge for getting constantly schooled on here both now and in the past no doubt.This Joetomi lunatic will carry this inner turmoil and bile to his grave and if there is any justice in this world he will be buried by his family, laughing at the absurdity of his bitterly wasted life.

      What a jerk!

      Delete
    8. If you guys would debate me about bigfoot more often I wouldn't have to make up so many accounts.

      You blokes know you can call me Cucktomi, right?

      I flip when a fellow sends me flowers
      I drool over dresses made of lace
      I talk on the telephone for hours
      with a pound and a half of cream upon my face

      Delete
    9. and MOAN LIKE WHO'ER at the sight of anything phallic!

      Joe tee hee. :-*

      Delete
  5. Keep up with the Cuktomi name, it's hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. keep up with your ugly manners because that is also very hilarious

      Joe

      Delete
    2. ^ struggling just to keep up.

      Delete