Tuesday, July 26, 2016

The Face Of A Virginia Sasquatch


This was presented on youtube as the face of a bigfoot in Virginia. Take a look, I'm still not sure what to make of it.

48 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      Delete
    2. hay guys ,wanna try out my klatest fun puzzle?

      just follow the clues ,

      1. dick --> lick

      Joe

      Delete
  2. Got NAWAC sasquatch foot specimen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^
      Hi ISF'er. Why are there so many pathological liars in your tiny little sub culture ?

      Delete
    2. We've got enough morphological data in casts that show that a specimen merely needs tracking.

      Delete
    3. Then why can't footers track one? You talk all the time about how excellent tracks are and how they cannot be fakes. So, why has no footer tracked one and discovered conclusive evidence? You love to compare this to the Bili ape, but that just hurts your case. The Bili ape was tracked and feces was found that yielded conclusive DNA results.

      So, why can a Bili ape researcher use tracks to locate testable evidence that yields positive results, but bigfooters can't find sh i t?

      pun intended

      Delete
    4. Because as was put to your grossly naive take on the Bili Ape matter... It took a year to track that Bili Ape based on that evidence.

      Enthusiast #1 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #2 – “I have forensic evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #3 – “I have video evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #4 – “I have thermal evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #5 – “I have biological evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #6 – “I have audio evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #7 – “I have more physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #8 – “I have even MORE physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #9 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #10 – “I have physical evidence that amounts to repeatable, scientific evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.

      … Pseudosceptic – “If these creatures were real, people would be collecting evidence for them all the time!”

      Iktomi – (Sigh)

      Delete
    5. And let's not go down the route of testable evidence... You've been looking for a fight all day because you're still a little sore about it.

      Delete
    6. A whole year? Wow. How long have footers been looking for bigfoot? More than 40 years.

      Delete
    7. Indegenous hunters had been reporting the Bili Ape for far longer.

      Delete
    8. You sure get touchy when someone asks a simple question.

      Why was it so comparably easy to track a bili ape and gather conclusive DNA evidence via feces, yet not a single footer is able to come up with anything even close for bigfoot? And given a much longer time period as well.

      Delete
    9. Well... I would say tracking the Bili Ape for a year was far from easy. I would say forensic evidence is as close as you can get, bearing in mind the controversy around the DNA of Sasquatch (being human and all). People have only been researching "Bigfoot" for 50 years, and in that time there has not been a single consorted mainstream scientific effort to use the readily available evidence.

      Delete
    10. Iktomi: Here is some "evidence" for Bigfoot that I didn't even read carefully.

      Skeptic: Here are ten reasons why your "evidence" is a crap sandwich.

      Two days later

      Iktomi: Here is the same "evidence" for Bigfoot that I didn't even read carefully.

      Skeptic: I already showed that the "evidence" is a crap sandwich two days ago.

      Iktomi: Show me again or I win the argument!

      Skeptic: [Sigh]

      Delete
    11. Katy Gonder PhD, Biological Anthropologist, had been tracking and studying a group of chimpanzees in the wild for 20 years... In that time she's only actually seen them about 10 times.

      Delete
    12. "Skeptic: Here are ten reasons why your "evidence" is a crap sandwich."

      ... Ok, name one.

      Delete
    13. Oh... And to add to my comment at 3:00, "very fleeting glimpses" at that. A direct quote.

      Delete
    14. I'm knackered... I'll be back in the morning to respond to whatever's left.

      Delete
    15. ^ had a hard day at the keyboard = wanker

      Delete
    16. Gonder may have only had fleeting glimpses, but who cares? The fact remains that bili ape DNA was conclusively recovered from feces. You love to yammer on about the bili ape in comparison to searching for bigfoot. But this just makes you look foolish. The bili ape should be the last comparison you would want to use.

      The tracking of the bili ape lead to testable evidence that yielded DNA results that contributed to the classification of the species. This happened in a fairly short time line, particularly when the civil war ended and access to the field was easier.

      Compare this to bigfoot. You constantly go on about tracks that are found in every state and could not possibly be hoaxed. If the tracks are real, as you adamantly insist, then why can no one (after 50 years) follow these tracks to some biological evidence that could yield DNA that could classify the species, as in the case of the bili ape. I mean, we're not talking about Africa, we're talking about New York, Prince Edward Island, Maine, and other easily accessible places.

      The only reasonable explanation is that bigfoot does not exist and it's all just a game.

      Delete
    17. One of the biggest factors which has caused me to no longer have hope for Bigfoot's existence is the sheer amount of time that has transpired since the stories have been around and of course the PG film. Once the existence of the Bili ape proved feasible then it was indeed a short time before it was proven. This was done in a hostile and difficult environment and definitely harder than it would be here in the continental states. I see new reports of sightings and amateur researchers looking for it in many different states right here every single day. I just find it difficult to believe that with such a high volume of reports we can't get the goods on just ONE and this comes from someone who WANTED to believe it could be true. Every year that went by since the PG film came out my faith diminished more and more till I had to admit to myself it just didn't exist. I will be charitable and agree not all are lying about seeing something but that something is not a Bigfoot. Natural creatures such as bears, pareidolia, jokesters, and even other humans all play a part in mistaking them for Bigfoot. One may argue there is evidence for such a creature - well, from what I have seen so far that evidence needs to get a whole lot better.

      Delete
    18. Joerg suffers yet another beat down from Dmaker. No wonder the poor boob is knackered!

      Delete
    19. ^ dmaker's knob polisher chimes in once again

      Joe

      Delete
    20. I'm the only knob polisher around here and don't you forget it mate !

      Joe

      Delete
    21. Donald... Who's cares? If Gonder is a trained biological anthropologist, working closely with trained primatologists... And has only had ten "fleeting glimpses" of the group of chimps that she's been studying over a 20 year period... Then what can we expect from amateur researchers who have nowhere near the level of expertise, who have yet to mount the same duration of study? Yes, you can claim so many people are in the woods looking over the past few decades... But your standards require scientists with qualifications and credibility, Donald. You require so much from these amateur researchers, yet you forget your rhetorical approaches when it suits you. The Bili Ape is a man sized primate that the indigenous peoples of the Congo, masters of their own environment, reported for decades. **** the civil war, it's an irrelevant fact when as soon as a lengthy tracking expedition was put together, it was discovered. The Bili Ape was widely ignored to exist by western biologists prior to the civil war... Another serious piece of relevant information you special plead about.

      "The tracking of the bili ape lead to testable evidence that yielded DNA results that contributed to the classification of the species."
      ... Fanstastic. What is the point in bringing this up AGAIN, when there is not one single example of an equivalent study for Sasquatch? How do you know that your holy grail of DNA won't show up once the same effort has been invested in say the PNW? A "fairly short timeline" being a whole year, Donald, and it doesn't matter... These apes were reported for DECADES. If Sasquatch were to be finally tracked for the same duration and biologists were to finally attain "credible" footage and DNA, there would be nothing preceding that which couldn't perfectly apply as a comparison to the Bili Ape... With the only difference being that there was far more physical evidence at this stage than the Bili Ape ever had.

      And Donald, how many times have hair samples and such been presented as evidence off the back of amateur researchers attempting to track Sasquatch, and you dismiss this out of hand? Or someone has a "fleeting glimps" that is addressed as lies and hoaxing for he same efforts? You can't keep dismissing this stuff and then demand the evidence be presented. Well, I suppose you can do whatever you like, but you'll have me pointing it out.

      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htm

      What's also remarkable, is that you special plead with the classification of a creature you don't even find credible. The DNA repeatedly tested comes back as human. This is a major stumbling block for a major breakthrough where this human primate is concerned.

      Delete
    22. Hello Mr Curious... I believe that the above comment would respond to yours just as well. However... There are hundreds of years of reports that preceded the PGF. The people who live around Bluff Creek were reporting Sasquatch activity after WW2... And it is a far greater leap to assume that such a frequency of reports are simply down to "bears, pareidolia, jokesters, and humans mistaking them for Bigfoot", when there are things like forensic evidence supporting such a phenomenal frequency of cultural and contemporary acknowledgement.

      "One may argue there is evidence for such a creature - well, from what I have seen so far that evidence needs to get a whole lot better."
      ... Well let's get an actual, professional effort together not a weekend arranged by amateurs filled with BBQ... And we might get somewhere.

      Delete
    23. It doesn't take a scientist to collect feces.

      Delete
    24. It in fact does. On the $10 Million Bigfoot Bounty show, Todd Disotell stated that scar samples are very difficult even for professionals to collect properly, because they have to have the right end of the sample so that there are enough epithelial cells to get a DNA signature from.

      Delete
  3. I know what to make of it. Put it between two slices of bread and feed it to Iktomi as a krap sandwich.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like Haites has a bad case of the Shribes, to go with that sore backside. There's no cream for that.

      Delete
    2. You want to borrow my Grey Poupon, Iktomi? But of course.

      Delete
    3. Keep it for your next **** sandwich you eat, next time you're man enough to attempt the subject matter with me.

      Delete
    4. A crap sandwich would be an upgrade from Iktomi's usual meal.

      Delete
    5. Wow. Apply for work writing for Family Guy... You're hilarious.

      Delete
    6. they couldn't even get a writing gig on Sesame street Iktomi
      A is for ape- got ape suit ?
      B is for bollocks - the skeptics are full of it
      c is for crazy - applies to the Haites/shribes daily report
      D is for demented- the state of thinking a skeptic usually has

      I can go on but I need to pop into my local pub for a pint tonight.
      Talley ho lads !

      Joe

      Delete
    7. Do you even know what bollocks means?

      Delete
    8. ^ yes I do, if you have any doubts go look in the mirror mate

      Joe

      Delete
    9. ^ Knows what "full of shit" means from gazing into the bowl.

      Delete
    10. 3:21- you are absolutely correct and when I do I think about you buttercup

      Joe

      Delete
  4. Blobsquatchery at its finest!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. these 2 videos are of squatches ive caught on video.the 1st one is u see it yet that one i got over a yr ago and i was makeing a video on how to make squatches give there location away when i did i heard the last crunch turned to my rite zoomed in and there was an 8 footer squattin behind a tree at 65 to 80 yrds i got lucky and caught his hole left side of his body.now if u take and zoom in on the still part u see black hair,no its not a bear abear will run when they smell u. ok on the second video was daybefore yesterday i was walkin in the pine thickets and i kept hearing movemint all around me so i started videoin,well i saw black and zoomed in at 58 yrds and caught 3 of them behind some pines 2 black ones and 1 gray one.so that told me these arew the ones i videoed back in the fall when they were less than 10 yrds from me the gtray one i over zoomed on but it was them so theres the story on these 2 videos

      Delete
    2. Freddie you do way to many drugs! You make researchers look stupid by posting this crap and I do mean CRAP! You have nothing in this video! Get out of your moms basement and get a life!

      Delete
    3. let me guess uve never seen a squatch before so u dont know wat to look for besides u sound like a person who sits behind a computor and nag the shit out of people because ur to dam lazy to put boots to the ground and if u knew wat u were lookin at ud see squatches but thats rite uve never seen one plus u need glasses too

      Delete