This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from
Peace!!!
ReplyDeleteWhy is it a problem for you if there is no bigfoot?
DeleteIf 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?
DeleteThe 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.
"Subjects legitimacy"
DeleteSounds 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.
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.
DeleteName one repeatable consistent scientific method for bigfoot...
DeleteForensics.
DeleteWildlife biology.
Anthropology.
Primatology.
The existing evidence has been explained away. You just have your fingers in your ears.
DeleteWas 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.
Delete4:04... 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.
Delete4:07... 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.
Read the book abominable science. That pretty much covers it.
DeleteYou are making a claim that it is not due to casting artefacts. Anything to support this claim?
DeleteAbominable Science nailed here;
Deletehttp://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.
Lol^
DeleteUsing crypto sites as your sources is pretty weak.
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.
DeleteHaha 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.
DeleteHere's are your beloved journals. Why would anyone expect real science to come from anything like that? Take a look at this;
Delete"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."
Here's a link, Cucktomi:
Deletehttps://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.
"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."
Delete- 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.
"Sasquatch likely bury their dead"
DeleteAnother classic claim from joe.
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.
DeleteYou are not weighing all the "evidence", Cucktomi.
DeleteYou 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.
"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."
DeleteBullshit. 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.
Joe has truelly gone down the rabbit hole. His mind is lost.
DeleteThat's actually the feeling of learning something.
DeleteYou debate bigfoots existence like a younger man, with nothing held back. Admirable, but mistaken.
DeleteShut up and prove me wrong, you pretentious ****.
DeleteLet us not stand on ceremony, Mr Fitzzgerald
DeleteMORE DOGMAN PLEASE ...
Deletefor OUR SAFETY
http://dogmanevidence.blogspot.com
DeleteOUCH! Joe got smacked hard on that exchange!
DeleteJoe got exposed yesterday.
ReplyDeleteWhen 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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletecough something up (or cough up)
Deletephrasal 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"
"Give something reluctantly"
DeleteWhy would you be reluctant to support research in your favoured topic?
If you "give something reluctantly", then you are aware of all factors, and therefore not oblivious of any "scamming".
DeleteAre you like, 16 or something?
Stop digging joe
DeleteThe only "digging" is in regards to you and your backside.
DeleteChris noel ponied up his $100 why havent you?
DeleteGood for him. What I do with my money is none of your business, insufferably creepy tool.
DeleteIktomi has given up pretending he is not joe then
DeleteWho's Joe?
Delete(Sigh)
DeleteI coughed and messed myself badly.
DeleteJoe
< SOOOOWEEE!! ITS ANOTHER SHED SALE>
ReplyDeleteYour 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..
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.
DeleteJoe
Please address me as Cucktomi. Its a combination of Cuckold and Iktomi.
ReplyDeleteCuckold: 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.
Fake Iktomi sounds like Daniel Campbell.
DeleteDr. 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.
DeleteMy resume of him reads a little different.
Deletean eggplant up the bum .No harm done!
DeleteJoe
Cucktomi, If you really believe its going to be "only" 10% why would you hand over 10% of your ancestor's country?
DeleteFake 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.
DeleteWhat a crock !
Joe
Cuck off, Joe.
Delete^ 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.
DeleteWhat a jerk!
If you guys would debate me about bigfoot more often I wouldn't have to make up so many accounts.
DeleteYou 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
and MOAN LIKE WHO'ER at the sight of anything phallic!
DeleteJoe tee hee. :-*
Keep up with the Cuktomi name, it's hilarious.
ReplyDeletekeep up with your ugly manners because that is also very hilarious
DeleteJoe
^ struggling just to keep up.
Delete