Thursday, July 7, 2016

Strange Screams Heard In The Middle Of The Night


When you're out there researching, remember, not everything that goes bump in the nght is a sasquatch!


27 comments:

  1. I have come to believe bigfoot is just a fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why does that fantasy haunt your days enough to post here everyday?

      Delete
    2. Because his fantasy is to control everyone in thinking it's a fantasy. Unfortunately, the Internet provides a platform for these people to act this way.

      Delete
    3. The psychopathic personality is a particularly antisocial and predatory one, with a major characteristic being a high need for control.

      Delete
    4. A bit of irony there.

      When someone even hints at bigfoot likely not existing, no matter how civil and reasonable, joe has a complete meltdown, throws his toys out the pram and writes a tirade of drivel full of copy pastes that he literally saves on his computer.

      If that isnt the definition of psychopathic personality with a high need for control i dont know what is.

      Delete


    5. Actually you're a better example someone who requires control. Why bother with determining someone's paradigm in the first place?

      Delete
    6. 2:26... If you communicated your ideas in a civil manner, that would be all well & done, but your obvious narcissistic tendencies (aligned with your troll diagnosis) means that you're "above" your own ideals it seems. This is a blog for the topic of "Bigfoot". If you have an opinion, someone else will have theirs... You are here remember. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. The only thing I appear to control, is your persistent quest for self esteem. Sorry that isn't working out for you.

      Delete
  2. "to which I would add no DNA, and no definitive photographs in spite of literally millions of trail cams, cellphones, point and shoot cameras and "GoPros". Meanwhile, there are so many footprint hoaxers that that the only "Bigfoot professor" hardly bothers to examine reported "bigfoot" trackways. Instead, he follows the rubber chicken circuit of bigfoot "conventions", collecting big speaker fees from the dedicated believers, while citing badly done "studies" and decades-old casts of a variety of sizes, shapes and numbers of toes, many obtained by shady characters, while avoiding real research on the subject. The "canon" of historical bigfoot stories includes obvious tall tales told by old men, tabloid journalism and and misused tribal folklore. "Researchers" "investigate" 'reports" of what "witnesses" say, but never do psychological, substance, or perceptual testing, or background checks, on "witnesses." Those who claim these "encounters' are simply deemed "credible" by some imaginary and exceedingly loose standard known only to bigfoot believers. Profiteers take credulous folk on weekend "snipe hunts", where the powers of suggestion, sleep deprivation, Stockholm syndrome, normal woodsy phenomena, and a pinch of fakery are sufficient to convince the "marks."


    "Evidence", to the average believer, can include not only these "encounters" but almost any noise, broken tree limb, or animal or human just out of identification range. Out of their melange of "data" (none ever confirmed as "bigfoot" related) they construct, incredibly, pie in the sky theories of life expectancy, size, diet, migration, hunting strategies, communication, language, shelter, range, populations, and other physical, demographic and anthropological characteristics. It's just pseudoscience piled on top of superstition, ignorance, and exploitation. Literally hundreds of poorly written books have been published, recounting story after poorly documented story, and ranging into the realms of paranormal, romance, and even erotica. Meanwhile, reasonable publications attempting bring sanity to the subject and to explain the bigfoot phenomenon are "shouted down" by down-rating of these books at Amazon."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear. Stand back folks... little bit of a meltdown going on.

      Delete
    2. In your previous remark, "I have come to BELIEVE"

      THE DEFINITION OF A RELIGION,-------- A BELIEFE SYSTEM HA HA HA.



      I witnessed a bigfoot and had a few other non-visual responses not made by any other critter.

      And you? so-----------

      You preach on a subject while having no knowledge of said subject!

      Your really not very bright. Or at least not as clever ---- as you think you are. Kinda reminds me of Phil "the lip" Polling, ha ha ha.

      Delete
    3. You didn't witness a bigfoot.

      Delete
    4. ^ ...said from a keyboard behind a monitor screen.

      Delete
    5. "to which I would add no DNA, and no definitive photographs in spite of literally millions of trail cams, cellphones, point and shoot cameras and "GoPros"."
      Actually, Sasquatch DNA is ancient homo Sapien, whilst their are examples of photographs ranging from those taken many decades ago, to that of the best modern technology;
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg
      http://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/the-brown-footage/

      "... while citing badly done "studies" and decades-old casts of a variety of sizes, shapes and numbers of toes, many obtained by shady characters, while avoiding real research on the subject."
      Then why is it that for such shoddy studies, not one of the celebrated "wiser" mainstream in their many, many thousands can deliver a substantial case against their authenticity? No, it's far easier to attack the characters of these people who are well within their rights to make money from their hard work, just like any other scientist and PhD who is obligated to contribute to scientific knowledge.

      "The "canon" of historical bigfoot stories includes obvious tall tales told by old men, tabloid journalism and and misused tribal folklore."
      It's unfortunate for the author that for such a frequency of cultural and contemporary anecdotes, that there is a frequency of physical evidence that dwarfs that of the Bili Ape at this stage of research. The people who account for such "tall tales", are people who would and have gained nothing from their reports and who have quite literally risked ridicule and in some cases, risked throwing away their professions and careers for loss of credibility & integrity.

      ""Researchers" "investigate" 'reports" of what "witnesses" say, but never do psychological, substance, or perceptual testing, or background checks, on "witnesses.""
      That would be an awful lot of people to put through psychological testing. From what I can already gather from the author's understanding of the topic, he's as naive as his take on the current state of evidence. But knowing enough about the topic isn't important to these people. I wonder what psychological explanation accounts for instances where multiple people have seen the same thing at the same time?

      "Those who claim these "encounters' are simply deemed "credible" by some imaginary and exceedingly loose standard known only to bigfoot believers."
      Um, no... What makes at least some frequency of reports credible, is the evidence that accounts for footage, audio, forensic and biological sources. All of which accumulated by scientific standards that are dismissed in the most contradictory and rhetorical of fashions with not so much as a remote scientific equivalent. The audacity of referring to standards is incredible.

      Delete
    6. "Evidence", to the average believer, can include not only these "encounters" but almost any noise, broken tree limb, or animal or human just out of identification range."
      Actually, enthusiasts have a far greater source of audio evidence to reference, concluded to be from a very large, currently unclassified primate that has vocal ranges both above and below that of normal human primates;
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      Delete
    7. "Out of their melange of "data" (none ever confirmed as "bigfoot" related) they construct, incredibly, pie in the sky theories of life expectancy, size, diet, migration, hunting strategies, communication, language, shelter, range, populations, and other physical, demographic and anthropological characteristics."
      Take it away Dr Fahrenbach!

      "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.

      Several corollaries accrue from increased weight in this primate. First of all, large size alone provides the quickest access to dominance over other species in the environment, of which the most formidable competitor orig­inally must have been the brown bear, though diurnal in habits. The Sas­quatch, in contrast, is compellingly nocturnal (see Appendix 1). Most adap­tive for the Sasquatch is the increased resistance to cold, since the radiative body surface increases with the square of the linear dimensions, whereas the heat-generating mass increases at roughly the third power. The climate of much of its range, to which the records of this article pertain, is wet and maritime, decidedly unpleasant to humans for much of the year unless suit­ably equipped, though not frigid, while the inland areas experience much more severe winters.
      Increased size also implies high mobility and a correspondingly large home range. A rare, individually identifiable Sasquatch was reported over a span of 8 years in several locales in Washington and Oregon, the most distant sites having a linear separation of more than 150 miles (240 kin). If we take this distance as a lifetime radius of activity, we get an area (πr2) of more than 70,0002 miles (180,0002 km) of mainly forested terrain. This value encompasses a substantial portion of, for example, Washington State, and cannot be considered indicative of any particular home range. Also, it emphasizes the difficulty of any contemplated scheme of organized field study of the species other than to concentrate on regions of recent sightings.
      Secondly, according to Kiciber’s Law (McMahon and Bonner 1973), which states that the basal metabolic rate scales as the 3/4 power of mass, a massive animal needs less energy input per gram of body weight than a small one does. This means that a Sasquatch can get by with a relatively smaller amount of food than a smaller animal. Nonetheless, if we use the calculated weight (W) of a Sasquatch at the population average (299 kg) and apply the scaling formula (Kleiber 1961), a basal caloric consumption of about 5,000 calories per day is found. With exercise and inclement weather, this value may double or triple. Hence, a diet that is minimally omnivorous, if not slanted toward carnivory for the sake of calories—especially during the winter—is required to fulfill that demand. Bipedal gait, seemingly as efficient as a quadrupedal gait (Rose 1984), can be viewed as an adaptation to becoming an endurance hunter in the very demanding terrain inhabited by the Sasquatch."
      http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbacharticle.htm

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

      Delete
    9. For such "pseudoscience", I would expect at least one scientist out of the tens of thousands to be able to address the actual evidence. But that's not what's important to the pseudocseptic;
      http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php

      Pseudoscepticism is a fundamental, quasi-religion.

      Delete
    10. > ^ ...said from a keyboard behind a monitor screen.

      Just like every other comment here.

      What's your point?

      You still didn't see bigfoot.

      Delete
    11. Yeah, keep telling yourself that "psychology researcher". You're the biggest ignorant, scared little joke around here, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    12. 3:42 > That's where you are incorrect. You assume. Bottom line is you were not there.

      Delete
    13. No body = No proof = No bigfoot encounter = Just more lies.

      You didn't see bigfoot.

      If you say you did then you are either mistaken or a liar. Which is it?

      Delete
    14. "No body = No Bigfoot encounter" LOL really?

      Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

      Delete
    15. No body = No proof = Negative proof fallacy

      Cultural anecdotes = skulls = tracks = footage = dermals = hair = audio = thermal = eyewitness account = Occam's Razor.

      You are an angry cyber Nazi. Go away.

      Delete
  3. The official investigation revealed that the "strange noises" were due to a camper inadvertently using 30 grit sand paper instead of toilet paper during a late night outhouse trip.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Omg! Thank you Iktomi for having the patience of a saint to keep schooling these idiots that keep coming here day after day repeating the same drivel over and over

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello SR1! Just to let you know, I think someone made up a fake SR1 gmail account and asked for my personal details. That's why I was asking you to check your gmail. There are some sick people out there, be careful.

      Delete