World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
Oh yeah, believe!
If i were to invent an imaginery creature these are the attributes i would give it to explain why there is no evidence of it:RareHas super speedHas super hearingAbility to evade humans at all timesAbility to evade trail camerasBuries its deadLives in climates that arent ideal for preserving bonesBuries its scatHas the same DNA as human so DNA tests look like contaminated human
That just read like your scar list. It's ok... It's nice to see you're finally learning something for your obsession.
Oh... And you forgot to mention that it leaves an abundance of physical sign.
Lol joe just got blown out. Very good 3:57
This comment has been removed by the author.
In all fairness, he could write pretty much any drivel, and you'll claim various people are BTFO. Rare = the sightings reports and the manner in which it evades would mean this is logical. Has super speed = again, the sightings reports attest to this, with the leaping Russian yeti being documented footage of such.Has super hearing = not known. Ability to evade humans at all times = not really, we wouldn't have the inummerable sources of evidence otherwise. Ability to evade trail cameras = both animals and humans leave sign of their passage in addition to tracks. These include chewed or bruised vegetation, droppings, scratches in tree bark, hairs snagged on branches or in bark, rubbings on trees, gnawed bones, feathers, opened nuts, dens, burrows, and nests. You may also find well-worn trails and runways through the grass that many animals use regularly. These signs may not be obvious at first, but with practice, you will see them. If Sasquatch somehow had Photographic memories (like recognised primates) as well as the level of sentience of humans, all this could be why they see sign of human interference and things like trail cams having been erected. Buries its dead = there is 150 years of tall human remains with prehistoric features docmunented by archeologists in the US. We also know that very primate hominids such as homo Naledi buried their dead. Lives in climates that arent ideal for preserving bones = this is actually just another fact that can't remotely hurt the subject's legitimacy. For millions of years of chimps and gorillas living in Africa, we only have a handful of teeth for a fossil trail. Buries its scat = if something survived by evasion, they're not gonna leave a steamer where hunters can track it. Has the same DNA as human so DNA tests look like contaminated human = Sykes is coming!!
If I was a psuedosceptic, I would project the many points that are in fact my biggest obstacles & have provided me with much frustration, and use circular logic for my intellectual short falls.
LOLJoe is now defending the existence of a creature THAT I JUST MADE UP!!!!HahahahahahaYou simply cant write it!!! Wow!!!!!This is just incredible.It seems no creature can evade the super detective skills of joe fitsgerald!!!!Wonderful just wonderful!
Like I said... That just read like your scar list. I'm really not sure if you believe that BFE has a whole new bunch of new visitors every day, or the people who do regularly frequent this blog suddenly forget all the comments sections and listed topics that you've become butthurt about...
Joerg just got blown the f#ck out!!!!!AHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry joe i will be with you in a sec just trying to catch my breath cant stop laughing at your howler above
Goes to show there must be something to the Bigfoot phenomenon when so many disinformation trolls like your self come to post your crap on a Bigfoot Evidence Blog.You are proof to it's reality with all your negative posts.
The way you have a mental list of all the points you've had a meltdown over... Something tells me you're not laughing at that desktop, kid.
Ιnspector Dreyfus's Blood Pressure: http://youtu.be/o0B33NS9zlEI envision Joe's troll like thisMMC
^ Fully paid up tosser.
Hey 4.40 you had a moment of clarity that Iktomi was expanding on and you blew it by making you self look like the Dork you are, go back to hand puppets and Pizza Troll.Oh ... Hi Iktomi how's things mate?
Care for some Joerg juice?
Ha!! Hey bro!! I'm well, hope you are too!!
Yep pretty good, look's like some one left the gate open at the Zoo huh?
How about some proof of the actual monkey?
How's about proof of physical evidence for something with the same widely reported anatomy as Sasquatch?
Around and round we go, when Iktomi posts evidence and as you trolls go you just twist the truth so where's the Chimp suite? After all the Skeptic should be the one that proves that Bigfoot doesn't exist not the other way round (if your making the claim it doesn't exist).
Quite correct. But you must understand that for one or two of these psycho-nerds, the subject matter isn't important anymore (they'd have better arguments otherwise). Their best initial claims were obliterated when they first came by this blog... Now it's about attacking people because their self esteem is in tatters. They simply don't have then intelligence to counter the evidence. Some of them even rehash arguments that got blown out of the water around here years ago. It's all about the reaction. It's all about injecting their own emotional turmoil into other people by luring them into negativity. It's a way for them to feel some kind of control or power over their own disruptive emotions, at other people's expense.
I thought that comment was spot on, Vegas.
I'm willing to bet a paycheck, the people who comment so hatefully on this site, they most likely live very dysfunctional lives. There is a very good chance their survival in the world is dependent on another person in their family. What I believe we are seeing a lashing out from frustration in their personal lives. Iktomi is a target because unlike most people (parents) they run into in their everyday lives, he's telling them they are wrong. Their famlies have been enabling this behavior. They allow them to lay around the apartment (most likely apartment) all day, doing nothing, allowing them to sink deeper and deeper into their depressions. These are the people who blame others for their situation, for they have never made a mistake. Yet all they do is make mistake after mistake.They truly are the trolls of society.
Thanks Iktomi. I had to make some corrections to it. Keep up the good work, I wish I had the time to tear some trolls to pieces with you today. I'll email you soon. I've been in the field a good bit, I have a few things to report.
Any actual bigfoots to report?
Plenty found... None "in a zoo".
Seems like Dmaker always needs a day to recover? I wonder if they make extra-strength Vagisil?
Vegas, you described that scenario in such amazing detail that it makes me think it's a description of your own life!
Rare......SERIOUS LOLHas super speed........YOU HAVE NO IDEAHas super hearing........HUH...YEP!Ability to evade humans at all times...YEP THEY HAVE THAT ABILITY!Ability to evade trail cameras....THEY SEE YOU PUTTING IT UP..NO MAGIC POWERS TO EVADE CAMERA'S.Buries its dead.....CORRECTLives in climates that arent ideal for preserving bones.......WHAT??Buries its scat.....100% NOT TRUE!Has the same DNA as human so DNA tests look like contaminated human....UNSUBSTANTIATED
I was asking vegas if he had an actual bigfoots to report. That is not an unreasonable thing to ask a bigfoot researcher. Your instantaneous butting in looks like desperate damage control where you are acknowledging that of course he hasnt found an actual bigfoot and it also shows your acknowledgment that no actual bigfoots will ever be found.
You talking to me??? Because i have as many as you need!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bx3AMAGHVohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q2lkcqNFV4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSQr8WV1CgAneed more, i can do this all day!
7:15 Troll... Plenty found, none "in a zoo".
Got as much Dogman evidence as you need too!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR68XuNBEhs
at your own lack of research!
Have to go Mate keep up the great work, looking forward to the day when you can middle finger the middle earth folk and it will happen. ;)
You have a lovely day sir!!
I agree with Vegas and Anon 5:44 keep serving it up Iktomi. They must love it, that's why they keep coming back for more! LolHave a super day my friend!
Hey Khat!! : )
You are busy I see!
It doesn't matter that Khatt was caught lying many times and that there appears to be 2 different women who go by her name and claim to be her. If you say anything about her, i will find you and beat your face.DEEBS
^ never been kissed.
Hahaha someone invented an imaginery creature and joe tried to defend its existence!! Definately bookmarkimg this one! Hahahahaha
See if you can spot something... AnonymousTuesday, February 17, 2015 at 7:59:00 AM PSTSomething ate the food you left out, which you didn't put a camera on, and you assume sasquatch. So you're one of them huh?I'd take an honest paperboy over a disbarred lawyer any day.Daniel CampbellThursday, February 26, 2015 at 1:38:00 PM PSTI'm actually very happy! If you crackheads could read more than 4 words then you'd see what is listed between drunken disbarred attorney and old folks with dementia.Bigfoot is rotting your brains and your senses of humor.Daniel CampbellThursday, February 26, 2015 at 3:16:00 AM PSTAt least you started to admit you're just as big of a POS as everyone else around here. This place is full of whacknuts. Bruce Jenners from England, Farmer's Only cattle, drunk disbarred attorneys, exhibitionists, old folks with dementia, a homosexual fantasist from Wales with a complex is all we need to complete this dog and pony show.Daniel CampbellThursday, March 5, 2015 at 2:46:00 AM PSTHmm...a public Bigfoot figure that travels the country and made the headlines for Bigfoot... Or bosom buddies with a disgraced and disbarred state attorney with a golden jaw, golden locks, and perhaps the golden ticket. Seems like you both needed something to rely on, eh, piktomi?... And then just yesterday... AnonymousWednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:23:00 AM PDTHere's another possibility that I humbly submit for your consideation:(1) The "voluminous evidence" consists of crap and Bigfoot doesn't exist; and(2) Scientists (see Andy White, PhD Anthropology) have looked at the evidence and see it for the crap that it is.(3) People who have failed in life (such as disbarred lawyers and half-literate Welshmen) gravitate to fringe topics like Bigfoot, because they are too stupid and/or lazy to accomplish anything meaningful in a legitimate field.
Whoever that is really tore you a new one Joerg. No wonder you're so butt hurt about him! Ha Ha Ha!
That's one of your heroes having to go anon because he lost a bet, remember?
The only bet lost was the one where you said sykes would prove bigfoot in his channel 4 documentary.Bet: Sykes would prove bigfoot in his channel 4 documentaryResult: Sykes did not prove bigfoot in his channel 4 documentaryBet status: Joe lost
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Did you ever go fishing and reel in a t*rd? The bet was that Sykes would deliver something positive by the end of his studies. You maintained that after the Bigfoot Files, even though he highlighted ancient skull morphology in Khwit's skull, that he was done. You were not only as too stupid to notice that, but lost the bet and have had a sore bum ever since. Would you like a tissue?
I love ya Icky, but imho Sykes isn't EVER going to do anything positive in the Bigfoot community.
Daniel CampbellTuesday, July 1, 2014 at 9:54:00 AM PDTMy stance has always been Sykes doesn't provide roundly accepted conclusive evidence of Sasquatch, as termed in modern culture (standard 9ft 1000lb hair covered man beast), specifically North America but I'll scope it to worldwide. This result must be a living creature, not some 10,000 year old finger bone showing hominid.I will even play to Joe's whim, since you want me around as a heavy bag if you win, PJ, how about you provide your terms for me. The stakes on you are still the same but you chose my destiny or ban date.However, I maintain that if both our speculations are wrong, we BOTH have all commenting ties severed with BFE.(unverified)Tuesday, July 1, 2014 at 10:14:00 AM PDTI tell you what, I'm confident enough he's got something, I'm in...If Sykes has something remotely attributed to a Bigfoot/hominid, then Danny's gone.If he has nothing, I'm gone. Daniel CampbellTuesday, July 1, 2014 at 10:27:00 AM PDTWell rattle my bones and call me Michael J, Looky here!It must be a living, modern creature/recent sample...not some 10,000 year old finger bone from an Asian cave resulting in hominid. It must be scientifically linked to sample with proper provenance (to be expected of a peer reviewed work)(unverified)Tuesday, July 1, 2014 at 10:42:00 AM PDTNope Danny! Baring in mind one of the main studies is revolving around human hybrids with links to abductions spanning a number of generations. A DNA sequence that can be attributed to a Sasquatch from any scenario analysed, that has a direct link to a legend, story of Sasquatch will do it. Stop moving the goal posts, you sound scared.(unverified)Tuesday, July 1, 2014 at 10:57:00 AM PDTDo we have a bet Dan?Daniel CampbellTuesday, July 1, 2014 at 11:14:00 AM PDTThe positive result must have proper provenance to the claim, and conclusively prove a living unknown hominid (outside of a type specimen) I'm in if that's what you term. No backing out.(unverified)Tuesday, July 1, 2014 at 11:19:00 AM PDTIf a Sasquatch from a few generations ago get's his DNA sequenced, then that accounts for the same subject that is being reported today. No point complicating things, there's either DNA there or not.Daniel CampbellTuesday, July 1, 2014 at 11:29:00 AM PDTSure, whatever, bet accepted..provided if we're BOTH wrong, we're BOTH GONE. Mark it down Matt, Shawn.http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/dr-haskell-harts-full-breakdown-of.html?m=0
You'll notice not one little mention of Bigfoot Files in Joe and Danny's bet, chump.
Again and try to follow this time.3 very straight forward statementsBet: Sykes would prove bigfoot in his channel 4 documentaryResult: Sykes did not prove bigfoot in his channel 4 documentaryBet status: Joe lost
The bet's in black and white above, troll... Ha ha ha ha ha!!
Joe absolutely lost that bet. Why Iktomi cares, who claims he is not Joe, is beyond me. But I can't figure out why Iktomi 100% responds when to me when I address him as Joe.Weird.
The bet's in black & white above, troll... Who's Joe?
I would like to extend that bet.If sykes does not prove bigfoot via published peer review paper in the next year joe leaves for good.
But Sykes has nothing, so you lose.
Joe will never take that bet, 8:29. He knows he would lose. But even if he did, he would just come back as some other account like he did when he lost the original bet.
Sorry Don, Sykes is already on record saying that Zana's ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago and lived for many generations in the remote Caucasus region. That's clearly an indication of where he's going with this. And that's rich Don, considering I've busted you as anon a handful of times. 8:29... Would you like a tissue? Ha ha ha!!
Whats that got to do with bigfoot?Is patty a 100% subsaharan modern human?Do you even know what DNA is?
It's because Zana was described as a "Bigfoot" by a whole community 150 years before any pop culture on the subject. Because every single hair sample has come back as human. Bigfoot is ancient homo Sapien.
Joerg won't tell you that there are no contemporaneous accounts and that the testimony from a " whole community" was taken no earlier than the 1950's -- more than 50 years after the alleged events and from the faded and distorted memories of old peasants.
"Joerg" can actually add that the accounts come directory from someone who's a direct descendant from that community. Don't like it? Run find me an African skull from the same period with those features... I'll time you... Ready??!!
Professor Bryan Sykes of the University of Oxford believes that a towering woman named Zana, had a strain of West African DNA that belonged to a subspecies of modern humans. Her resemblance has been described as that of a wild beast, and "'the most frightening feature of which was her expression which was pure animal", one Russian zoologist wrote in 1996 according to a report in the Times.The man who organised various eyewitness accounts of Zana wrote: "Her athletic power was enormous. "She would outrun a horse and swim across the Moskva river, even when it rose in violent high tide.'" Some have argued that she was a runaway Ottoman slave, but Professor Sykes says her "unparalleled DNA" refutes that theory.http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russian-apewoman-could-have-been-yeti-according-dna-tests-1494981
Joerg also won't tell you that the area in Abkhazia where Zana was captured was a major hub for slave trading in the Ottoman Empire and that there was a large population of former African slaves living in the region until Stalin's time.
"From remembered descriptions given to Mashkovtsev and Porshnev, her face was terrifying; broad, with high cheekbones, flat nose, turned out nostrils, muzzle-like jaws, wide mouth with large teeth, low forehead, and eyes of a reddish tinge."http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/zana2.htmAgain troll! Don't like it? Run find me an African skull from the same period with those features... I'll time you... Ready... Steady... !!!!
Sykes has admitted in interviews that he has found no genetic evidence that yet points conclusively to a pre-modern origin for Zana.It's important to note that, as Colavito has written:"As late as 1989, a survey found that only 16% of (white) Soviet schoolchildren in the cosmopolitan capital of Moscow agreed that Black people were fully human. You can imagine what ignorant backwoods people of the 1850s must have thought."http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/is-a-remnant-group-of-pre-modern-humans-living-in-abkhazia-one-geneticist-thinks-soCongratulations Joerg on advancing a racist theory that assumes Africans are sub-humans. You must be so proud!
Posted above... IktomiThursday, July 28, 2016 at 9:18:00 AM PDTProfessor Bryan Sykes of the University of Oxford believes that a towering woman named Zana, had a strain of West African DNA that belonged to a subspecies of modern humans. Her resemblance has been described as that of a wild beast, and "'the most frightening feature of which was her expression which was pure animal", one Russian zoologist wrote in 1996 according to a report in the Times.The man who organised various eyewitness accounts of Zana wrote: "Her athletic power was enormous. "She would outrun a horse and swim across the Moskva river, even when it rose in violent high tide.'" Some have argued that she was a runaway Ottoman slave, but Professor Sykes says her "unparalleled DNA" refutes that theory.http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russian-apewoman-could-have-been-yeti-according-dna-tests-1494981Again troll! Don't like it? Run and see if Colavito can find me an African skull from the same period with those features... I'll time you... Ready... Steady... READY... GOOOOO!!!!!!
dmaker gets pwned once again today. hope that vagisil works wonders for ya Donald, you'll need it today boyoJoe
A Negroid cranium is long in length, narrow in breadth, and low in height. The sagittal contour is flat and the occipital profile is quite rounded. The flatness of the sagittal contour is due to a post-bregmatic depression, a trait that occurs frequently in the Negroid cranium. The Negroid forehead is described as steep, with some sources describing it as rounded. According to studies in the 70's the Negroid cranium exhibits thicker parieto-occipital areas than Caucasoid crama, but nothing as pronounced as paleolithic occipital buns dimensions across a frequency that would determine them an accepted trait. Other features of Negroid skulls are the saggital outline being highly variable, post-bregmatic depression. Nose form is broad. Nasal bone size is medium to small. Nasal profile is straight/concave. Nasal spine is reduced, with the nasal sill being dull or absent. The incisor form is bladed with the facial prognathism extreme, as is the alveolar prognathism. Malar form is reduced and the palatal form parabolic. Orbital form is rounded with the mandible described as gracile and at an oblique gonial angle. Chin projection is reduced with the chin form being median. At the rear of a Neanderthal skull, for example, is a minor protrusion called the “occipital bun”. Though seen in very rare examples of anatomically modern humans, it is mostly seen in paleolithic peoples. The occipital bun was a knot of rounded bone at the back of the Neanderthal skull and may have been an adaptation for the attachment of their massive neck and jaw muscles. Vestiges of the occipital bun were common in early modern European skulls, but are relatively rare among Europeans today. Khwit's skull was analysed, naturally his mother had the same, exaggerated features of the following;*very wide eye sockets*elevated brow ridge*pronounced occipital bone *bigger all round*bigger teeth*bigger jaw bone... West African woman from the 1800's don't have these morphological features, if so... Source it, there were loads of these "slaves" remember. We have a collection of archaic traits that are not found in any modern human, nor in any geographical connection to the skull in question. Along with a pronounced occipital bun, aligning with the other ancient morphology of the skull, then there is no chance of the skull being from modern lineage. In the examples listed up top of extra mass in various areas, regardless of there being modern versions of singular instances of these traits, there is still the the fact that this is accompanied by many other archaic features not akin to any example of modern homo sapien skull.
But that's ok... You've got a Colavito link, ha ha ha ha!!!
I'll leave the racist comparisons of skulls to you and Dr. Mengele -- chop chop!
And I guess you didn't read the material closely enough (yet again) to know that Neanderthal DNA was specifically ruled out for Khwit.
Again... You lose chump! : p
Sorry kid... Nobody's claiming Khwit's genetic lineage is of Neanderthal, only that he shares a morphological trait found in paleolithic peoples (Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal). No, no... The pleasure's all mine!
My pleasure for correcting you again on a subject (that you spend 24 hours a day obsessing about), but about which you continuously make stupid errors. So I'm glad that I can save you from any future embarrassment!
You just went on a long screed about how Khwit was so much like a Neanderthal when your hero Sykes already established conclusively that Khwit was NOT a Neandethal. I'll just let you blather on so you can make my points for me! Ha! Ha! Ha!
So, all you have are anecdotes and "could haves"
The reply button wouldn't work?? Hmmm??? AGAIN!! Sorry kid... Nobody's claiming Khwit's genetic lineage is that of Neanderthal, only that he shares a morphological trait found in paleolithic peoples (both shared by Cro-Magnon AND Neanderthal). If you're going to hold a adult exchange, please learn to read the comments of others. The point of me using Neanderthal was to articulate how prehistoric that trait is, it is also found in ancient Homo sapiens. No Don... I have a skull with morphology outside of any modern human to support anecdotes. Try and keep up!
Oh I get it, you compared Khwit's skull to something that it has been definitively established not to be and that proves . . . . Bigfoot!!!!!Keep trying to wipe the egg off your face. It's extremely entertaining. To avoid such humiliation in the future, you might want to make the effort to read your sources a bit more carefully.No, no, the pleasure's all mine. =~)
AND AGAIN!! Nobody's claiming Khwit's genetic lineage is that of Neanderthal, only that he shares a morphological trait found in paleolithic peoples (both shared by Cro-Magnon AND Neanderthal). If you're going to hold a adult exchange, please learn to read the comments of others. The point of me using Neanderthal was to articulate how prehistoric that trait is, it is also found in ancient Homo sapiens.
You were told yesterday, when you're all out of avenues for substantiating your strawman vomit, your efforts at working a contradiction are really rather pathetic. Seeing you deflect from substantiating yourself, to something that has been explained three times, pretty much proves how out of your depth you are. Ain't nothing but a troll. : )
Hey, I have a good idea -- why don't you find some Neanderthal skulls and compare them to Khwit's to further make the argument that Khwit was something that he's already been proven not to be? Ha! Ha! Ha! You have given me a good laugh today!
Um... I kind of just did that... To establish his traits are not modern and are neither found in West African people in the 1800's?(Cringe)Would you like me to now explain the morphological similarities between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon? It wouldn't be the first time I've taught you something?
Anything... But find a god damn African skull with Khwit's features, eh?
Yes, please explain the similarities between Khwit and something that he's been proven not to be! I'm laughing so hard that I can barely type now!
Khwit has not been proven to be Neanderthal, nobody is claiming that he's Neanderthal. There are however morphological Neanderthal traits that are seen in ancient Homo sapiens, and Khwit has them. This is the fourth time this has been posted... I have no issue publishing it another ten times to make you look even more rhetorical, and even more stupid...You're not laughing, you're clinging desperately to something that has been blown out of he water 17 comments ago.
What happened was that you merrily proceeded to blather about Khwit's supposed Neanderthal skull traits, not knowing that it was established that he was NOT a Neanderthal because you were too stupid and lazy to actually read the sources on a subject that you claim to be passionate about. And you've spent the last 17 comments trying to explain your boneheaded mistake with a tortured and nonsensical explanation.And I might have to stop now because I'm about to fall on the floor in roaring laughter!
"At the rear of a Neanderthal skull, for example, is a minor protrusion called the “occipital bun”. Though seen in very rare examples of anatomically modern humans, it is mostly seen in paleolithic peoples. The occipital bun was a knot of rounded bone at the back of the Neanderthal skull and may have been an adaptation for the attachment of their massive neck and jaw muscles. Vestiges of the occipital bun were common in early modern European skulls, but are relatively rare among Europeans today."Does someone want to try and explain how desperately easy that comment is to fathom?
What's as certain as this knuckle head's rhetorical nonsense, I've got his FULL attention, he's responding frantically like a true angry troll.
Go on... Post it again... I've got all night to show how beat you are.
Pretty easy yes. (1) Joerg cites Neanderthal skull features; (2) Khwit was proven not to be Neanderthal years ago; (3) Someone points this fact out to Joerg; (4) Humiliated, but with a fragile ego that can never admit a mistake, Joerg invents a ridiculous explanation as to why he cited Neandethal skull features.I think that pretty well summarizes the situation!
Ha ha ha ha!! I know when I'm being trolled. You must be quite agitated to continually ignore comments like that. Not even "dmaker" would stoop to being that rhetorical, that's a new record!Don't let it ruin your day! (Creased)
Oh... And I'll continue to wait for you to source that "African slave" skull... Just like that "Native American" Humboldt skull. ; )
Oh by the way, I noticed that you haven't been mentioning anything about that weird Smithsonian giant skeleton conspiracy lately. At least ever since the day a few months ago when I systematically destroyed the entire stupid idea and you surrendered and changed the subject to the Adena skeleton. You should be able to find the discussion easily in your compendium of old treads.
"In the monuments of antiquity found throughout North America, in camp and village sites, graves, mounds, ruins, and scattered works of art, the origin and development of art in savage and barbaric life may be satisfactorily studied. Incidentally, too, hints of customs may be discovered, but outside of this, the discoveries made have often been illegitimately used, especially for the purpose of connecting the tribes of North America with peoples or so-called races of antiquity in other portions of the world. A brief review of some conclusions that must be accepted in the present status of the science will exhibit the futility of these attempts."- J W Powellhttp://www.scienceviews.com/lostcivilizations/powelldoctrine.htmlThe discovery of human antiquity was a major achievement of science in the middle of the 19th century, and the foundation of scientific paleoanthropology. The antiquity of man, human antiquity, or in simpler language the age of the human race, are names given to the series of scientific debates it involved, which with modifications continue in the 21st century. These debates have clarified and given scientific evidence, from a number of disciplines, towards solving the basic question of dating the first human being. A key date was the 1859 re-evaluation of archaeological evidence that had been published 12 years earlier by Boucher de Perthes. It was then widely accepted, as validating the suggestion that man was much older than previously been believed, for example than the 6,000 years implied by some traditional chronologies. In 1863 T. H. Huxley argued that man was an evolved species; and in 1864 Alfred Russel Wallace combined natural selection with the issue of antiquity. The arguments from science for what was then called the "great antiquity of man" became convincing to most scientists, over the following decade. The separate debate on the antiquity of man had in effect merged into the larger one on evolution, being simply a chronological aspect. One of the cornerstones of the Smithsonian Institute was the theory of evolution/natural selection, and that in those days in a nutshell said we keep getting bigger and smarter over time. This means that you can't be having 7-10 foot giant skeletons being found everywhere over the US in ellaborate mound systems and argue the case.So you see, it's not a conspiracy if you have written confirmation from the anthropological authority of the day that remains that don't fit the paradigm will not be endorsed. Would you now like me to proceed to post you the actual Bureaus by the Smithsonian? It might be news to you, but the Smithsonian is sometimes referred to as "the nation's attic" for its holdings of 138 million items, the Institution's Washington, D.C., nucleus of nineteen museums, nine research centres, and zoo, many of them historical or architectural landmarks, is the largest such complex in the world. Additional facilities are located in Arizona, Maryland, New York City, Virginia, Panama and elsewhere, and 168 other museums are Smithsonian affiliates... After many of the bones may have been handed back over to Native Anericans in the Repatriation Act.. They could be anywhere.
You have this warped way of declaring little victories without ever substantiating a single thing you claim. It's the mindset of someone who's intellectually backward. Nobody knows what you're talking about, and if you're referencing the time when I showed you photographs of a 7 foot Adena skeleton from the 50's to support 150 years of science journals that documented the same... Then I actually feel sorry for you.
Just like Pavlov's dog.
We had a discussion of the Smithsonian conspiracy and when you had no answers to my trenchant insights, you suddenly changed the subject to Adena and essentially gave up on the Smithsonisn. It's not important enough to me to find the thread -- especially since you have them all indexed!
Your answers are above (there is no conspiracy), and I showed you a photograph from the 50's of a 7 foot Adena Skeleton that supported 150 years of cases that preceded it. Here it is;https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/time-traveler-spotted-at-iron-mike.html?showComment=1463653071570#c1365607542163164432... Why anyone would want to draw attention to that comment section is beyond me. Crazy boy...
Christ on a bike... I stoop low.
Yep, just like I remembered -- you totally surrendered on the Smithsonisn conspiracy and changed the subject. You might look into it further and discover that the guy you copy and paste from has given up on it as well!
Surrendered? (wow... Just wow) Ok, would you like to paste an extract from that link provided, and show me exactly where that occurred. You are possibly THE densest person I've ever met, if you think substatiating 150 years of Adena skeletons with an example from the 50's, photos and all, is merely "changing the subject"...(Wow)
Who's given up on it? **** me, you have to be trolling. No one can be this full of ****.
"You have this warped way of declaring little victories without ever substantiating a single thing you claim"LOL, pot meet kettle.
Don... Your shortcomings aren't anyone else's problems.
On the Giants. In the same new release I have been referring to about the little fairy of "Watchers 10" by L.A. Marzulli, THEY GO INTO THE SUBJECT AND REPORT ON THE 9 FT SKELETONS THAT WERE DUG UP ON CATALINA ISLAND!!!!!!!!!Yes there have been giant skeletons found all over this land ------------- were are they at you idiot -------- if the Smithsonian doesn't, who does???Science, in one form or another, is lying through their teeth ---You have got to ask yourself why??????They weren't worried about deforestation in the 1930's..No, there is a whole other reason, Science will do anything to disprove God and the bible. The Bible tells us they exist and what they were. Verification of them (giants) is verification of Gods word..Simple fact! People in the science community were pushing Darwinism at that time, the battle raged even into the court system. ALL, ,understand---ALL, of the specimens that were used to "force" the idea of darwiwnism into our education textbooks were proven "FRAUDS!"You scientard sceptics love to rattle on about the HOAXERS---Well, all of your basis of evolution, came from several hoaxers, ha ha ha ha ha h a ha haWhat say you D-MAKER?And I don't want to hear one fucking crying excuse about the above not being absolute FACT!Science has "no" monkey man bones ---- none!They cannot show evidence in an evolutionary chain based on DNA, AND the people like Leaky and others faked their shit, ha ha ha ha ha ha..Using Science as a high standard in the Paranormal is hypocritical..Science is supposed to SEEK the unknown and shine the light of inquisitive-ness on the subject to bring it into the real of human knowledge and understanding. A fundamental goal of science-------Dmaker, dan, polling, others don't seem to want us to investigate this stuff, WHY?WHY DON, DAN, HAINTS, POLLING, DO YOU NOT WANT OTHERS TO INVESTIGATE THIS SUBJECT - ---TOTALLY?your BRAINWASHED IS WHY!
Also, we who seek to understand,----Are not trying to put you in a box, were trying to let you out of one!So who is ignorant?
From Several months back,, I told you about the gooey sticky red flflesh being retrieved from Dino bones ----- it's a fact!there is "NO" way dinos are millions of years extinct --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the folks just called them dragons, Idiots!
Hey Iktomi and TK! A new Paulides book is out today entitled, Missing 411: Hunters. All of the cases are new and not published in his previous books.
Lol @ joe copy pasting comments from his original "joe fitsgerald" account which the username is now (unverified). And then just below hes asking "whos joe" despite that massive blunder and the fact he replies to all comments aimed at joe. You cant make it up!!!!!
let him have his fun. The poor boy is obsessed with a certain someone on this site. I would recommend psychoanalysis that probably goes back to childhood traumas for 8:36 . Either that or maybe find a girlfriend that is not a blow up or plastic dollJoe
Oh and tiddly doo !
Who forgot how to use the reply button?