Friday, June 3, 2016

Strange Vocals Heard In Northern California


The RMSO investigates Northern California, where for two nights in a row, strange sounds were heard around camp that provoked immediate investigations.


31 comments:

  1. It's odd how Bigfoot is the only fringe topic where its "skeptics" are more demented and obsessed than its "believers".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I enjoy musing to myself about the beautiful sun and how it sustains all of the wonderful and diverse life on planet Earth. Let's all take a moment to honor our amazing sun!

      Joe

      Delete
    2. It's okay. They're essentially right. Bigfoot is not a species. They're right to call us on it. Nothing wrong with being skeptical. We have to provide the evidence and anything short of a body at this point is not acceptable.

      Delete
    3. ^
      Hi Dressmaker. Still fantasizing that you're Iktomi ?

      Delete
    4. 24hrs later . I still find it hard to Sit!

      Joe

      Delete
    5. Did you notice that Robert Morgan has a CD collection ? When I first read about it, I thought that CD stood for "crossdresser" and I became quite excited !

      Joe

      Delete
    6. Iktomi isn`t capable of showing "evidence" that matters...he has shown us hoaxes and scam stories but can`t produce the goods...just what his wife said before she left him long long ago.

      Delete
    7. Hey there mates. Also, when I first noticed the title of the previous thread, I thought that it read "Bigfoot Caught Tree Humping" ! That would have been at least one thing I have in common with Bigfoot !

      Joe

      Delete
    8. Hi all my super friends

      Here's some screams I know you'll love


      nazareth - Changin' Times - Hair of the Dog: http://youtu.be/zyY0vnbj94k

      MMC

      Delete
    9. Fake Joe at 12:58.If your CD comment was aimed at me your barking up the wrong tree honey xx

      Delete
    10. Or....let's dedicate whiskey drinking woman and miss misery to that loveable triple thick chick chick...And please don't Judas me to vegassholethedog

      Delete
    11. ^^ O look there

      The troll has Google brains

      And chick is hot

      MMC

      Delete
    12. Hello lemon nerd. I'll post you three links below, and I'd like for you to show me where you've demonstrated they are "hoaxes and scam stories", eh? Time to enter the world of an adult where you are responsible for your claims, otherwise you simply come across like an angry, bitter little woman hater that's never been kissed.
      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/

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

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

      Fake Iktomi... In the second link up top, you will find a paper with a list of forensic experts that attest to forensic evidence of an as of yet unclassified bipedal primate. Jimmy Chilcutt, has identified species traits across track impressions that exceed States and decades, which is basically impossible to hoax. So whilst we don't have a specimen yet to classify, what we have is forensic sign of a bipedal primate that has species traits across samples... This is repeatable scientific evidence. This is twice the amount of evidence that the Bili Ape had at this stage. And please don't claim to be "sceptical". To be sceptical is to refrain from passing judgement and to question your own ideas, and nobody stealing avatars because they are too stupid to come up with a sound argument has ever been considered clever enough to be placed in that bracket.

      Delete
    13. "In light of the foregoing, we feel that the 'pores' observed on the dermal ridges of the casts of Sasquatch footprints are probably artifacts of the casting process and are not replications of primate sweat pores."

      Freeland, D., and W. Rowe. 1989. Alleged pore structure in Sasquatch (Bigfoot) footprints. Skeptical Inquirer 13(3), Spring: 273-276.

      Delete
    14. In many places in the specimens considered here one can see small indentations, or pores, located along the ridges. These are typically spaced about 0.5 mm apart, and are centered on the ridges. They vary in size from barely visible, less than 0.1 mm, up to a diameter of 0.2 mm. The ridges visibly widen around each of these pores. This is most clearly seen at the base of digit I of the "full left" track (Fig. 10). The margins of these pores curve gradually inward to the centers — there is not a sharp edge. Several forensic specialists who have examined this material agree that these are sweat pores. The sweat pores are generally lined up regularly on adjacent dermal ridges, as opposed to having alternating or random positions. In other words, the pores also occur along lines drawn perpendicular to the ridges. This pattern is not regular, but it is a strong tendency — just as in human dermatoglyphics (see Figs. 10, 11, and 12).

      Fig. 12 — Enlargement of a patch of dermal ridges from the sole of "full left."The possibility that air bubbles might have mimicked sweat pores was suggested by physical anthropologist Tim White, at the University of California, Berkeley, who otherwise thought the casts appeared to represent legitimate footprints. To settle this point, I made impressions of false ridges (with a fine comb) in similar soil, and cast them in plaster. I compared the results with the actual casts, and found that there are, in fact, occasional air bubbles from casting. These bubbles, however, are sharp-edged, and are not as small as the apparent sweat pores. They are rather few, and not regularly spaced or lined up. In some cases, they also bulge out the ridges around them, but only slightly, and with a much thinner wall between the hole and the ridge edge than with the presumed pores (Fig. 13).

      One fingerprint expert (with the Vancouver, B.C. Police Department) pointed out that sweat pores often have irregular edges, while these pores sometimes appear quite circular. This discrepancy results from the method of observation. Inked fingerprints used by law enforcement agencies record the very outermost edges of the pores, and these are usually not quite circular. Photographs of many of these cast pores show only shadows, thrown deeper into the holes, where active sweat pores are in fact perfectly rounded. Others, with more oblique illumination, show the typical irregularities of outline.

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

      Delete
    15. So you think this person is wrong, huh?

      "Professor Walter F. Rowe is a Professor of Forensic Sciences at The George Washington University, where he has been a member of the faculty of the Department of Forensic Sciences for more than 30 years. Professor Rowe has a B.S. in chemistry from Emory University and a Master's and Ph.D. in chemistry from Harvard University. He served two years in the U.S. Army crime laboratory system as a forensic drug chemist and a forensic serologist. During his military service Rowe was also a credentialed criminal investigator and participated in processing crime scenes (including the scene of the Fort Bragg murders, for which Dr. Jeffrey McDonald is now serving multiple life prison terms). He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and a former member of the editorial board of the Journal of Forensic Sciences. Professor Rowe is also a member of ASTM Committee E30, which sets standards (including educational standards) for a variety of forensic science disciplines. He is also a member of the American Society of Trace Evidence Examiners. He has been a consultant forensic scientist to law-enforcement agencies, prosecutor's offices and defense attorneys; Professor Rowe has worked closely with Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project. He has contributed chapters to monographs and textbooks in forensic science, including one of the two main textbooks used for undergraduate instruction in the field of forensic science. Professor Rowe is a member of the Council of Forensic Educators and is a past president of that organization."

      https://forensicsciences.columbian.gwu.edu/walter-f-rowe

      Delete
    16. Um... Yes... Because in frequency for a counter analysis...

      Tatyana Gladkova,
      Dermatoglyphics expert at the USSR Institute of Anthropology. Saw photographs of casts, including enlargements of key areas. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.) I see dermal ridges of the arch type distally directed. I see sweat pores. If it's a fake, it's a brilliant fake, on the level of counterfitting, and by someone well versed in dermatoglyphics.
      Anthropologists Mikhail Urisson and Vladimir Volkov-Dubrovin (Deputy Director of the Institute) agreed with the above opinion.

      Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological
      Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Saw several photographs and brief description of circumstances of discovery. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.) Regarding photographs of skin imprints sent over by G. Krantz. I fully
      agree with his opinion on these footprints, as well as the opinion of Benny Kling. The structure of the dermal ridges is very much like that of man. The sweat glands have large openings because the ridges are much bigger than in man. It was great luck that the footprints were left in the soil that revealed fine details of the imprints. As for the patterns of ridges, some irregularity in ridge lines in separate places in the photos may be connected with the peculiarity of the material in which the imprints were made (unevenness of soil, various inclusions, such as small pebbles, pine needles, etc.). Another
      possibility is scars and skin injuries. Incidentally, even in ideally made human imprints there can be such irregularities. There is even a whole branch of dermatoglyphics studying genetic irregularities in ridge lines, i.e. medical and
      genetic dermatoglyphics. In the imprints shown by the available photographs, I cannot detect anything unusual, except digit I, left foot, which shows, apparently, a pattern of the arch type (in man the whorl type is more frequently found).

      Delete
    17. Douglas M. Monsoor, Supervisor, Criminalistics Unit, Department of Public Safety, Lakewood, Colorado. Certified Latent Print Examiner, and fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom. Was sent detailed photographs in late 1982, examined original casts in December 1982, and again in June, 1983, for two hours on each occasion. I see the presence of ridge structure in these track casts which, in my examination, appears consistent with that type of ridge structure you would find in a human. Under magnification, they evidence all the minute characteristics similar to human dermal ridges. The sizes, distributions, and orientations of the ridge patterns are consistent with those
      found on a human foot. Of the ridge structure visible in the impressions, I believe it was produced concurrent with the creation of the overall impressions, and not added later. If hoaxing were involved, I can conceive of no way in which it could have been done. They appear to be casts of original impressions of a primate foot — of a creature different from any of which I am aware.

      Robert D. Olsen, Sr., Criminalist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation,Topeka, Kansas. Certified Latent Print Examiner, Fellow of the American Academy
      of Forensic Sciences, Fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom, Member of International Association for Identification, etc. Was sent detailed photographs in late 1982, and Silastic lifts in early 1983. Examined original casts and two-color lifts in June, 1983, for several hours. Based on everything I see, there is nothing in these tracks that is inconsistent with the impressions of an actual living primate foot. Ridges and pores are consistent with real primate skin. I'm convinced that this represents real friction skin and shows no inconsistencies in structure or orientation. If they are faked, the individual would have to know an extraordinary amount about fingerprinting. I could not have done it. A faker would have to be an accomplished artist as well as an expert on dermatoglyphics. He would also need a knowledge of gross anatomy of feet. The amount of time needed to do all this work is beyond the realm of believability.

      Edward Palma, Fingerprint examiner for the Laramie County Sheriff's Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Had latex lifts from the footprints in late 1982 — inked these and traced print pattern extensively. Had cast copies to examine at leisure. Saw original casts for several hours in early 1983 — made Duplicast impressions of critical parts, and took photographs for further study. My professional opinion of the three casts is that they represent footprints of a living higher primate of an unknown species. The over-all configuration of the foot is roughly human, but it is too wide — a human foot would not be over five and one half inches [wide] for this length, and thus these impressions could not be human. The actual width is represented and supported by ridge pattern. My study of the tracks concentrated more on the sole than on the more conspicuous details of the toes. I traced the ridge pattern over the entire breadth of the forefoot, finding triradius landmarks appropriate in their respective positions with intervening ridges flowing in proper directions. It could not have been patched together from smaller parts that were copied from skin of a known primate. The detailed morphology of the ridge and furrow structures and patterns are especially convincing to me. In all details, they conform perfectly in design and size to real friction skin. The sweat pores are clear and are lined-up and spaced just as expectable, and can be
      distinguished from occasional air bubbles in the casts. I began this investigation with the goal of showing how these prints were, or might have been, faked. All evidence now tells me that any faking would be impossible.

      Delete
    18. Benny Kling, Instructor, Law Enforcement Academy, Douglas, Wyoming. Had latex lifts from the footprints in late 1982, and cast copies
      shortly thereafter. Saw original casts for several hours on two occasions in early 1983. These track casts show all the characteristics of real friction skin derived from a higher primate footprint. The ridge details, in all respects, duplicate that found in human feet. Parts of the pattern on right and left feet are near-mirror images; some displacia is indicated in the areas where it could be expected; smoothing by wear shows on the weight-bearing areas. In addition, the footprints indicate that an unusual proportion on the body weight fell on the front of the foot, and the arches are evidently flat. This kind of print could not have been made by a human foot, nor that of any known animal. It
      could not have been manufactured by any hoaxer; the design is too dermatoglyphically correct, and the engraving job would be beyond the capabilities of the best forger. Descriptions of the supposed Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, are consistent with the traits found in these footprints.

      Delete
    19. Oh... And for someone so qualified as Rowe, his opinion got smashed with a basic experiment from an anthropologist.

      Delete
    20. Chick, LOL, relax, I'm married.

      MMC

      Delete
    21. Any way!! I'm off to bed... I'll be back here in the morning...

      Peace!!

      Delete
    22. Nothing you've posted mentions anything about testing for artifacts -- Rowe did tests that were not conducted previously and found a simple solution. And since you apparently were too lazy to check, Rowe conducted his study in 1989 -- seven years after the discredited study you're citing. So did someone from 1982 travel in a time machine and "smash" his opinion?

      Delete
    23. BTW, I realize that whatever I copy and paste is not going to magically make Bigfoot exist. I just enjoy debating with people.

      Delete
    24. I missed the part where Krantz discussed the possibility of desiccation ridges. Oh yeah, the phenomenon had not been discovered in 1982 and his entire analysis has therefore been discredited.

      Delete
    25. My comment at 2:47...

      "Fig. 12 — Enlargement of a patch of dermal ridges from the sole of "full left."The possibility that air bubbles might have mimicked sweat pores was suggested by physical anthropologist Tim White, at the University of California, Berkeley, who otherwise thought the casts appeared to represent legitimate footprints. To settle this point, I made impressions of false ridges (with a fine comb) in similar soil, and cast them in plaster. I compared the results with the actual casts, and found that there are, in fact, occasional air bubbles from casting. These bubbles, however, are sharp-edged, and are not as small as the apparent sweat pores. They are rather few, and not regularly spaced or lined up. In some cases, they also bulge out the ridges around them, but only slightly, and with a much thinner wall between the hole and the ridge edge than with the presumed pores (Fig. 13)."

      The one critical point that you posted from Rowe, tested and debunked. Learn to actually read the comments of other people, it's pretty much essential if you're going to grow up one day and mix it with adults. It's not even Rowe's original thought... If you bothered to read the extract up top you'd know that physical anthropologist Tim White argued the case seven years previously, to which was the reason Grover Krantz attempted the experiment that nailed it.

      Forget time machines, if your logic of discrediting is citing an argument that was seven years previously was debunked, basically exposing the source for not even reading the study properly... You need to go back to school kid.

      Delete
    26. 8:55...

      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 one school of alleged Sasquatch traits, whilst the only way to mimic dermals is under laboratory methods... Which the average anyone attempting to hoax wouldn't be aware of or have access to.

      On the 36mins mark in the link before, Jimmy Chilcutt explains that the faked dermals that desiccation coveres casts with artificial ridge artefacts from the pouring process. The three casts in question that Chilcutt examined, they didn't have this... This is because when you are walking barefoot on the forest floor, the foot comes in contact with both fallen leaves and the soil in making an impression. Therefore, these artefacts would be present in consistency right across the different soil areas of the foot fall and they're not.
      http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/03/

      ... No, no... He pleasure's all mine.

      Delete
  2. Hello Funsters!
    Full idiot primate mode: ENGAGED
    Bigfoot likes Jack Daniels original recipe Tennessee Honey. And so do I. We're going to a titty bar later. Thank God for Uber. If I get any more points they'll shoot me on sight.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ban fake Joe from this forum and you'll see Haints and/or Dmaker also vanish

    Joe

    ReplyDelete