Thursday, July 14, 2016

Frightening Stories Of Bigfoot Encounters In The Pacific Northwest


From the Fortean Slip:

The Fortean Slip Bedtime Stories 66 Bigfoot is an elusive creature that has been seen by eyewitnesses all over the world. Here are three stories from the Pacific Northwest of the United States.

54 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Its really important to you that bigfoot exists isnt it?

      Delete
    2. ^ if only to forever rub it in your face when science finally proves it exists . it will be my pleasure to never let you forget about it.
      And the fun thing is you can never prove it doesn't exist

      Joe

      Delete
    3. If it does exist then skeptics will be just as happy and will admit they were wrong. But their reason for being wrong was fully justifiable.

      Yes it is fun that it cant be disproven but that doesnt help your case unless you arent bothered about proving it exists. Thats just implicit acknowledgement that you know it doesnt real exist while allowing you to enjoy the hobby.

      Delete
    4. It's as important as the repurcussions of what the current state of evidence entails. But what pseudosceptics like you (you're not a sceptic) like to do, is not only deny there is any scientific evidence with a hundreds year old conspiracy, but also like to discredit people for finding what they set out to look for. If something exists, it leaves physical sign, to which has been collected for the past 50 years. It's rhetorical and a very sincere sign on denial. In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. Your extraordinary claim is there is nothing to the countless cultural and contemporary reports that is supported by forensic evidence. 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 are either too stupid to live up to that burden, or what you're praying for every day of your life really isn't that "obviously bunk".

      Oh... And it appears that the question of this creatures evidence is far more important to the likes you, since you are here bothering cleverer people about what they think every day.

      Delete
    5. Wow what a meltdown where to start?

      Skeptics are not denying that there are reports and footprints. What we are saying is that the evidence falls far short of what is required to establish a species. I think this is where you are going wrong. You argue like a younger man with nothing held back. Admirable, but mistaken.

      Also stating skeptics have a burden is incorrect. The burden is upon the claimnant which in this case is yourself. 9 foot species of apes running around america you say? Sweet lets see the evidence.

      For a skeptic to say your "evidence" is not sufficient to declare a species is not in itself a claim and therefore no burden needs to be met.

      All we ask for is that for you to establish this species it must be met with the same standard of evidence as all other species. Why should bigfoot have a special status where this is not required?

      Please leave the ad hominems aside. It does you no favours.

      Delete
    6. That whoopin' weren't anyone else's "meltdown" son.

      "Skeptics are not denying that there are reports and footprints. What we are saying is that the evidence falls far short of what is required to establish a species."
      ... So if you acknowledge that the evidence is not lacking, then why do you deny that there is something to that evidence? I can't tell whether you're contradicting yourself epically, or are just reclining on a safety net, rhetorical argument. Your efforts at condescending me at this point are a little cringe-worthy. If it's mere species classification that you're hanging on to dismiss what's already established to likely exist via the evidence, then you really need to think before trying to belittle people, especially as they merely are able to fathom what that evidence entails. You need to make up your mind as to what stance you have pal.

      "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

      Now, if you're claiming that the evidence for what is being widely reported exists, then you'll have no issue acknowledging that things like height and weight can be reliably calculated by physical evidence in tracks, to which average height ranges can be attained;
      "Measurements and estimates on Sasquatch dimensions, collected over the last 40 years in the Western U.S and Canada, were subjected to statistical analysis and extrapolation by scaling laws appropriate to primates and mammals. The study has yielded average population values for foot length and width, scaling factors of foot length to height, values for weight, plantar pressure, walking and running gait, speed, and a tentative growth curve as a function of time for the female of the species. The results suggest a substantial population with traits different from those of other higher primates and humans."
      http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbacharticle.htm

      "The height average for the sampled population is 7’ 10", derived from a combination of eye witness estimates and scaling from footprints."
      http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=585

      Now... To acknowledge that there is evidence.... You'll no doubt have no issue with the prospect of 7-8 foot apes running around. If you are critical of that evidence, however, then you assert that there is evidence for disproof, that you have a negative hypothesis and are making a claim, therefore having to bear a burden of proof. And don't pretend you knew anything a or ad hominem until I taught you what it meant. Also... Species traits have been established in dermals that transcend States and almost 20 years.

      Delete
    7. Oh wonderful he is gonna cut and paste unrelated crap for 150+ posts today......again.

      See ya next week.

      Delete
    8. Wow i didnt think it needed spelling out. The footprints and stories are acknowledged but (and heres the important bit you missed) can be attributed to things other than a 9 foot monkey. The bit that is lacking is the evidence that verifies existence, as is the requirement for all species.

      I feel patronising explaining that to you and i apologise but if you cant even understand basic points im afraid i have to lower myself to that level.

      Delete
    9. "... Can be attributed to things other than a 9 foot monkey."

      Excellent!! We appear to be making up our minds finally, not to mention utilising a little clarity!! You are now invited to substantiate that claim, since you are critical of the evidence presented. What exactly can the evidence be attributed to...

      Chop! Chop!!

      Delete
    10. Oh!! And sorry, but your version of science may special plead, but there is nothing in any of the historical scientific breakthroughs you can list that dictates that biological research has to start being acknowledged at conclusion. There is nothing more profound at this stage than forensic evidence.

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

      Delete
    12. the skeptical special pleading has been hot and heavy today . one more sleep and they can drink away their anxiety about bigfoot being proven . oh to sleep and per chance to dream about the skeptics having a sublime meltdown .
      don't fly too close to the sun lads

      Joe

      Delete
    13. Other than a 9 foot monkey?

      It has been demonstrated that alleged dermals can be an artefact of the casting process, or can easily be reproduced by pressing your palm down into the track. This latter method has fooled Krantz in the past.

      The rest of the evidence can also have alternate sources such as deliberate hoaxing, mistaken identity, pareidolia, poor human perception and recall, etc, etc.

      Saying that the case for bigfoot has not met the burden of proof and that the evidence could have potentially other sources does not carry a burden of proof. One of the key things you always miss is that by simply saying the evidence could have alternate sources is not a negative claim. If one acknowledges that bigfoot has not been proven, then the question of existence remains in the air. Ergo, the sources of the alleged evidence must also be in question. That is just simple logic. That we have demonstrated examples of these alternate sources does not prove that every piece of bigfoot evidence is wrong, it just simply provides alternate sources and emphasis the putative nature of alleged bigfoot evidence. In the absence of proof, the possibility that all bigfoot evidence is the result of deliberate forgery or human error is a simple logical conclusion, not a negative claim.

      Delete
    14. Figure 41. Dermal ridge experimental cast. Dr. John Bodley made this cast, which included impressions of his own skin. It was shown to various fingerprint experts, along with one of those from the Blue Mts. All five authorities immediately picked Bodley's cast as showing anatomically incorrect ridge orientations, but could find nothing wrong with the other one.

      - Grover S Krantz, Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence -
      The Anthropologist Speaks Out, 1999, Page 82

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

      Delete
    16. These alleged "other explanations" are always everywhere, but nowhere, Don. Carry on special pleading, it doesn't get around to explaining away the actual evidence. Every little bit of your comment is based in circular logic, considering there is three times the evidence now that the Bili Ape had at this stage. The evidence is not a negative. If data exists, then it is not so easily discarded. It doesn't prove the existence of Sasquatch, purely because of the extraordinary nature of what such a recognition entails.

      Delete
    17. D-Maker said, " In the absence of proof, the possibility that all bigfoot evidence is the result of deliberate forgery or human error is a simple logical conclusion, not a negative claim."

      KING OF STUPIDITY!!

      By your claim, I'm nothing but a Lying hoaxer right?

      KING OF THE IDIOTS!!

      YOU LACK SERIOUS PROOF FOR YOUR CLAIMS.

      I'M HAVING A MELTDOWN OVER D-MAKERES TOTAL STUPIDITY!




      Delete
    18. The alleged evidence for bigfoot does not need to be "explained away". Where do you get such odd notions? The evidence needs to be tested and shown to support the claim. The evidence needs to withstand falsification attempts by other scientists. The results need to be shared and repeatable. That is not "explaining away" the evidence. That is subjecting the evidence to the scientific method.

      No one has presented alleged bigfoot evidence of the sort you frequently mention (i.e. dermals, hair morphology) in any proper scientific venue. Whether you like it or not, peer review right now is the method for having scientific results reviewed and tested by the scientific community. You can dredge up all the quotes you want from ghost chasing plastic surgeons and others, but until they present something in a proper scientific venue, there remains nothing to respond to right now.

      Delete
    19. DOUCHEBAG SAID," The evidence needs to be tested and shown to support the claim. The evidence needs to withstand falsification attempts by other scientists. The results need to be shared and repeatable."

      HELLO...I HAVE 1,800+ VIDEO'S WAITING TO WITHSTAND WHATEVER YOU GOT KING...KING OF STUPIDITY!

      Delete
    20. Dodson photo fake!

      https://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/lessons-from-the-field-and-for-the-field/

      Delete
    21. Dr Squatch has 1800 videos of nothing, who is the duechbag dumbass.

      Delete
    22. DS, in all sincerity, I believe you to either be a troll or someone suffering from mental illness. Either way, I have no intention of engaging you in any discussion.

      Delete
    23. "Explained away", totally meaning testing... And stop being rhetorical. You present a case for testing that evidence and when it does not support your ideas, there is then, "no way of testing said sources".

      "CONCLUSION
      So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

      Delete
    24. Like I said Don, the extraordinary nature of what the evidence entails is the only thing that's keeping this subject back in the scientific mainstream. Not the quality of existing evidence. There are plenty of the best in the field of science who endorse this creature's existence.

      Delete
    25. Oh... And a ghost hunting surgeon who is board certified as a Plastic Surgeon by the American Board of Plastic Surgery. He is also a published author in both medical texts and journals, including articles on breast reduction techniques that he personally designed.

      Delete
    26. OH!!!!! And nothing more repeatable than forensic sign in samples found States apart, decades apart!!!

      Delete
    27. Iktomi, in your mind is it possible for an expert to sincerely look at the "quality evidence" and not be impressed?

      Delete
    28. If that were to happen, cool!! But when the experts with positive conclusions do nothing but mount...
      "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
    29. D-maker you wont engage in proving my evidence real or fake....what a coward!

      You make false claims about me, and when I ask you to prove them, you turn away....what a COWARD!

      You know your futile attempt to prove me wrong will backfire, and you're afraid....COWARD

      Delete
    30. I wouldn't be boasting too loudly about the Mill Creek tracks:

      "Freeman came to prominence within the Bigfoot community in 1982, when he allegedly saw a Sasquatch in the Mill Creek Watershed not far from Walla Walla, Washington. Casts were made of footprints near his sighting, and when examined, they revealed tiny dermal ridges and valleys in some parts of the imprint. Later revelations about Freeman and the tracks provided overwhelming evidence that the impressions were hoaxed. Longtime Bigfoot hunter Rene Dahinden called Freeman’s Mill Creek tracks “100 percent fakes, absolutely fakes.” Freeman later produced more than one set of Sasquatch hairs that turned out to be artificial fibers.6

      Both Freeman’s Wrinkle Foot and the Georgia imprint came after the Mill Creek tracks, when dermal ridges became a major issue. Even Chilcutt recognized the possibility of faking dermal ridges (at least those looking like those of a human fingerprint), for in his television interview, he dismisses as worthless a track (looking suspiciously like one of the Mill Creek tracks), saying the “casting had been enhanced manually with a human fingerprint.”

      http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence

      Delete
    31. I'm going to be a thorn in your side until you do engage...COWARD

      Delete
    32. Chulcutt is very adamant about the prints that he has verified, and though they are from different locations, they still have the same texture and ridge flow pattern, like a humans however twice the size. Chilcutt stated as plain as day that even Crowley (who's far more enthusiastic than what psuedosceptics would prefer) has stated that even he feels that Walla Walla casts are genuine (25mins in the link below). "He's made me think of being more careful", is all that Chilcutt states, I'm not sure of any source where Chilcutt states that the casting process can accidentally accurately make what are considered convincing biological dermals. On the 36mins, Chilcutt explains that the faked dermals that Crowley sent him was covered in 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. The delta ridges on prints change directions over 45 degrees; they converge and deviate. This is a major indicator that the dermals are biological and as Chulcutt states, these do not appear on any of the artefacts.
      http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/03/

      Dahinden, bless him, was pretty ruthless over the course of his entire life towards a lot of supposed Bigfoot evidence. But he doesn't come close to the amount of forensic experts who have endorsed the the tracks found in 1982.

      Delete
    33. DS, you have a lot of videos with claims that they contain these cryptid animals. It always going to be a matter of "seeing" them or not. That will prove nothing. Are you gathering any physical evidence?

      Delete
    34. People can see what I film...Hey if the IDIOT COWARD can't see one in my vids, great, which one, lets talk about it!

      Physical evidence like hair samples? Yeah, gave them to the other IDIOT, Dr Phony Meldrum, who STOLE THEM FROM ME!

      Delete
    35. Regardless of who ever analyzes your physical evidence, it's needed. Simply saying that you filmed something (and let's be honest, not everyone agrees)won't cut it.

      Delete
    36. I disagree.

      It's what i claim until proven otherwise.

      Can't prove it isn't...why do you think D-maker punked out!

      Delete
    37. ^ Funniest man in Bigfoot !

      Delete


  2. With Search Engine Optimization weapon your PR can be of most value as it has all to do with quality and relevant content for the benefit of your audience and you. For a lot SEO might also sound like a technical skill but it isn’t. It is a must have tool in a PR or Marketing kit. Unfortunately the most underutilized strategy in this communications or media industry. If your fortunes are great then you might land up with a public relations firm that gives enough emphasis on the SEO techniques and strategy.


    PR Firms in Gurgaon, PR Agency in Gurgaon, SEO Company in Gurgaon, Digital Marketing Agency in India


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I want my SEO done by someone who wipes their ass with their hand.

      Delete
    2. Hand-wipers Lives Matter!

      Delete
    3. I think the assumption was that all people in that part of the world have to be "hand wipers". Dr. Squatch yucked it up.

      Of course he is a Chiropractor, a Bible thumper, a gun-toter and claims monsters live in the bushes were he lives. Its not like people couldn't make assumptions about him.

      Delete
    4. Assumptions like i made something of my life, and I'm intelligent, and my claims of filming Bigfoot are Legit?

      Correct assumptions

      Delete
    5. That may be a correct assumption, but you know as well as I do those are controversial subjects.

      Do you believe all people in India are hand wipers and backward (although I get spam isn't cool)?

      Delete
    6. I know all about Indians I used to dig Hadji from Jonny Quest and his little dog Bandit.

      Delete
    7. I read somewhere that every keyboard in India has a small amount of poop on it.

      Delete