Friday, July 22, 2016

Woman Talks About Bigfoot Encounters In Illinois


From Bigfoot Eyewitness Radio:

Tonight's guest, Mary Sutherland, is a Sasquatch researcher from Burlington, Illinois. She's the creator of several Sasquatch-based websites and leads organized trips into her research area, on outings she calls "The Haunted Woods Tour." Mary has been researching Sasquatch for over 12 years and has had several encounters with them. On tonight's show, she's going to tell you all about them.

Click here to listen

78 comments:

  1. Joe told me to study sasquatch foot morphology but when i asked him where i can get a sasquatch foot to do as he asked he got really aggressive. Is this normal behaviour?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a start, kid...

      http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

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

      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/91-anatomy-of-the-sasquatch-foot

      ... I forgot I was exchanging with someone who no doubt gets his parents to do his homework for him, I apologise.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for getting back to me.

      Do the NAWAC allow people to come and study the sasquatch foot specimen that they have in their posession?

      Delete
    3. Looks like you're gonna need your parents to read you those articles as well.

      Delete
    4. How come? Were you disingenuous when providing them links? Are you saying they dont have a sasquatch foot to study?

      Im just trying to understand how i can study the foot morphology of a sasquatch if you are not willing to provide information as to where such a specimen can be examined.

      Delete
    5. No one has a sasquatch foot available for study anywhere. Joe thinks you can study sasquatch foot morphology without a specimen because marks made on the ground are thought, by some, to be from a sasquatch.

      But to study an actual sasquatch foot would require an actual sasquatch. Good luck with that.

      Delete
    6. Don't you mean "those links"? And though I'm totally aware of how rhetorical you are being, there is MORE than enough data, consistent data in those links that would account for an ample explanation for your interpreted "variety" in foot shapes. Someone who is a professor in the evolution of bipedalism has invested research in those articles, and there is nothing more profound than species traits found in dermatoglyphics, verified by a whole bunch of forensic experts.

      Just to draw your attention to the relevant fields of study that have been applied here... Evolutionary bipadalism, field biology and forensics. Sasquatch footprints verified in collaboration with tens of scientists who have determined anatomy like heels, ankles, and Achilles' tendons... And are consistent with casts over a period of 50 years (after examining hundreds of alleged Sasquatch footprints), then this is repeatable scientific evidence.

      Did the Bili Ape need a foot specimen before using that evidence to track it?

      (Creased, cringe)

      Delete
    7. He didn't ask how to track one, he asked where he could examine a sasquatch foot.

      Delete
    8. And since there has obviously been no world breaking discovery of a Sasquatch foot, then he's being as rhetorical as you usually are... I do realise how low I've just stooped to respond to that. That does not take away from the consistent data that's found in 50 years worth of impressions. Wildlife biologists conduct much of their research on track impressions, and if you don't like it, "debunk" it.

      Delete
    9. Oh... And if you've got consistent forensic data of a foot that has hundreds of other supporting casts for reference of shape, then that's as good as a specimen, as it rules out any notion of hoaxing.

      Delete
    10. "as good as a specimen"

      LOL. Hoaxing is only ruled out in your head. You cannot hand waive and pretend that hoaxing and mistakes are still not the simplest and best answer.

      Delete
    11. When your hoaxing methods fails to stand up to what actual, qualified experts have to say... Then you lower yourself to standards that fall short of the mark. This is why people like you are far more interested in then attacking the characters of those people, as opposed to actually addressing their work.

      Delete
    12. Since Joe thinks sasquatch are homo sapien sapien all you need to do is study your own foot!! that should suffice, aint that rite Joe?

      the real AC collins

      Delete
    13. What professional, peer reviewed journal can I find their work in, Joe?

      Delete
    14. "Scientists have discovered that about one in thirteen people have flexible ape-like feet. A team studied the feet of 398 visitors to the Boston Museum of Science. The results show differences in foot bone structure similar to those seen in fossils of a member of the human lineage from two million years ago. Jeremy DeSilva from Boston University and a colleague asked the museum visitors to walk barefoot and observed how they walked by using a mechanised carpet that was able to analyse several components of the foot."
      http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/06/bigfoot-trouble-mid-tarsal-break-not-indicative-of-bigfoot-anymore/

      What YOU need is a peer review... What I need is evidence that constitutes reason for the mainstream to finally investigate/track the creatures in question. It is a safety net, rhetorical argument to not only require a peer reviewed journal on the matter, but to expect to be able to peer review something that hasn't even been properly investigated yet. Not that that has any bearing on the quality of current evidence. I wonder if you would have required a peer review on Bili Ape tracks prior to them being tracked to finally film one in the wild?

      Delete
    15. Joe is getting blown the f@ck out by dmaker!!

      YES YES YES!!!

      Delete
    16. Why does dReSsMaKeR keep coming here only to be blown out of the water? His poor little ego must be shattered. It's like a fly to a light bulb. What a train wreck.

      Delete
    17. Why do you show up after each whooping joe takes to cheer him on. Its sadly disturbing. I am sensing a little bit of a gay sense of humor in you. Could you be mike? Or maybe MM suckin it C?

      Delete
    18. No, no, Joe. Dodging the question, as usual. You mentioned "addressing their work". I am simply asking where this work is published in case some scientists wanted to "address it". Right now, scientific results are addressed in peer review. Are you suggesting interested scientists should be responding to articles on crypto sites or forwards in bigfoot books? That is hardly the way to go about it.

      So, where are the results published and awaiting addressing?

      Delete
    19. Hey nut shiner 10:36. The luster is gone. Try more turtle wax and suck harder.

      Delete
    20. Bwa ha ha!! This is hilarious, Iktomi totally blew off the "peer reviewed" comment and made some lame ass excuse. With all the whining he does about counter arguments thats the best he can offer. Looks like the little b*tch boy got served up again.

      Delete
    21. You are correct 11:55, but we all know that Joerg does that all the time. And no MMC at 11:21, the luster isn't gone. Whats gone is Americas patience for black lives matter.

      Delete
    22. No wonder Dressmaker is a racist. It's the only way he can feel "superior".

      Delete
    23. Donald... You can address their work in the articles provided. Shouldn't be too hard considering it's not in a peer reciewed medium, eh? Oh... And by such, you mean the ideas of someone you can lift, yes? Ha ha ha!!

      "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/

      Sorry kids, I didn't seem to read you addressing the articles sourced to you?

      Delete
    24. So, science should be conducted on web blogs?

      LOL. ok...

      Delete
    25. No, it should be used to investigate the matter further...

      Delete
    26. Dmaker is always here, he's a Anon. Joe destroys an Anon, magically Dmaker appears.

      Delete
  2. hey Dmaker - happen to know where I could examine a Bili ape foot ? I mean we do know they exist right ?
    You are so ridiculous


    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, fake Joe, we do know Bili apes exist.

      Delete
    2. so where can I examine a Bili ape foot mr wise guy ?

      Joe

      Delete
    3. I would love to know where we can examine a Bili Ape foot, actually.

      Delete
    4. oh snap !
      Dmaker's brain just turned torus shaped when his own logic is applied .
      Got Bili ape suit Dmaker ?
      Pwned once again !

      Joe

      Delete
    5. I fancy sexy blokes in their birthday suits!

      Joe

      Delete
    6. It is so predictable that Dmaker gets pwned ,can't post a comeback, runs away and goes into his anon mode as fake Joe to attack me.
      So grown up of you mate
      God save the queen !

      Joe

      Delete
    7. If you want to examine a Bili ape foot, then go to Africa and observe one.

      We know they exist. We have "DNA samples recovered from feces also reaffirmed the classification of these apes " (Wiki) Also of note is that "In June 2006, British Science Weekly reported that Cleve Hicks and colleagues from the University of Amsterdam had completed a year-long hunt for these apes during which they were able to observe the creatures a total of 20 full hours." (wiki).

      This is what happens when you are dealing with creatures that actually exist. You can actually observe them and collect verifiable evidence. For some reason, bigfoot research yields no tangible results.

      The wiki article also notes that once the civil war in the area was over, it did not take that long to observe and classify the apes. Picnic grounds in semi rural America are hardly comparable. Why is it that bigfooters come up empty handed every single time? It's almost as if the animal does not exist.

      Delete
    8. One of the cleanest blow outs in bfe history. Wonderful stuff dmaker

      Delete
    9. You actually LIKE the blow out in Dmakers pants? Thats sick.

      Delete
    10. That's Donny's little fluffer @ 11:09. Hard at work again today.

      Delete
    11. Man Dmaker just obliterated Joerg! I love it!! I also love seeing Joergs fluff girl at 11:24.

      Delete
    12. ^Fluff boy is putting in the overtime today. How does Dressmaker reward you? A special tea party in his bedroom?

      Delete
    13. if only bigfoot was contained in such a small area and these same researchers would be willing to go into a hotspot area and look for one maybe in a year they'd find one . We are dealing with a very cleaver animal who is expert at disguising itself in the wild and much smarter than most animals out there so the task will be even greater. if you want a bigfoot foot to examine go to the pacific northwest and you might get lucky but don't expect to observe any the first day or second or even months in

      Joe

      Delete
    14. "This is what happens when you are dealing with creatures that actually exist. You can actually observe them and collect verifiable evidence. For some reason, bigfoot research yields no tangible results."

      ... Donald, can you point to one example where there's been a consorted mainstream effort by primatologists to track a Sasquatch. Bear in mind, it took them a year to track the Bili Ape, and there is three times the evidence at this stage than the Bili Ape had.

      Delete
    15. Blah blah blah..special pleading..blah blah.

      When you say three times the of something, you sound like a child.

      You don't need a consorted effort of primatologists. The mountain gorilla was discovered by an explorer. Besides that, there are plenty of scientific studies going on in alleged bigfoot habitat. They would hardly miss evidence of a 9ft unclassified primate.

      The notion that you need to be looking for bigfoot before you can discover bigfoot is clearly nonsense. Based on the reports, these things bang on doors, peer in windows, leap across roads, stroll calmly across open creek beds, etc.

      The consorted effort is really the most commonly used proponent special pleading.

      Delete
    16. But evidence is being found. You just choose to ignore it, or dismiss it as a global hoax conspiracy.

      Delete
    17. Sorry, Donald... Can you please point out the exact part of my comment where I special pleaded? Are you aware of what that means?

      The very fact that the Bili Ape was discovered, when it was, pretty much makes you bringing up the mountain gorilla very pointless and baffling? The fact is, that people missed a man sized primate in the Bili Ape... The notion that you need to be looking for Bigfoot before you can discover it is clearly supported by the very ape you're talking about? (Oh dear) And for a creature that bangs on doors, peers in windows, leaps across roads, strolls calmly across open creek beds, etc, we have every source of evidence short of a modern type specimen to warrant the same effort the Bili Ape had.

      Actually... A consorted effort is what is expected if we are to follow the example of the Bili Ape.

      Delete
    18. My point with the gorilla is the Beringe was not a primatologist. He was an explorer and he discovered the mountain gorilla.

      You special plead constantly when you go on about how bigfoot can avoid detection due to heightened senses, super speed, strength, etc, etc. You special plead every day when you make up ridiculous excuses as to why no proof of bigfoot can be found.

      It is you that does not understand the meaning of special pleading.

      Delete
    19. This might help you:
      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

      From the above article:
      "Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions"

      Example, bigfoot is too in tune with his environment to be caught by humans. Bigfoot know what cameras are and avoid them.

      And so on and so on.

      It's ok, it's not the firs thing you consistently misunderstand.

      Delete
    20. Donald is the king of special pleading. that's what makes his statements so rich with irony, hahahahahahahaha

      Joe

      Delete
    21. Donald... The innumerable people who saw the Bili Ape in its environment and were ignored, were not primatologists, it's a dud argument.

      It is not special pleading to suggest that "Bigfoot" evades that well, when we have evidence that it exists. The logical conclusion is to assume it must be highly intelligent and highly tuned to its environment. Let's speculate for a minute that Sasquatch have the perfect blend of both animalistic and human attributes to their evasion, then it would be an extremely difficult creature to spot, unless it makes the odd mistake or is partial to bouts of curiosity (both very much being the case). An experiment shows that chimpanzees have startling photographic memories; they easily beat humans. From the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University;
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz7ShiQqLQg

      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 as well as the level of sentience as humans, all this could be why they see sign of human interference and things like trail cams having been erected. Animals like chimps are not without fine motor skills. In fact a study found that a relatively new brain area, developed in humans and other primates, gives us all an advantage in this realm. More gray matter in humans means more motor neurons and having more motor neurons means more muscle control. Our surplus motor neurons allow us to engage smaller portions of our muscles at any given time. We can engage just a few muscle fibers for delicate tasks like threading a needle, and more for tasks that require more force. Since chimps have fewer motor neurons, each neuron triggers a higher number of muscle fibers and using a muscle becomes more of an all-or-nothing proposition. As a result, chimps often end up using more muscle than they need, but they can in theory lift about 16 people over their own head;
      http://youtu.be/w98mem4FVQ0

      ... Imagine what a primate three times the size of a chimp could achieve? If Sasquatch were to have the perfect blend of both human and wild animal attributes... They would have phenomenal strength and stealth abilities to be clear gone before we would even know they were there. All that, and they can also think like humans.

      Details on primates having photographic memories = fact.
      Details on tracking physical sign = fact.
      Reason to invest enthusiasm on the existence of a creature such as this = dermals, hair, audio & footage, fact.
      Warranted to theorise as to how such a creature could therefore evade so successfully in line with the available data = logically scientific.
      Our room to theorize is in fact your biggest obstacle on the flip side, especially when you fail so miserably in showing us that the evidence for such a creature isn't there.

      Delete
    22. special pleading
      noun
      argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.
      "he has produced a piece of special pleading that does not wholly stand up"



      ... That's you to a "T", Don.

      Delete
    23. "Donald... The innumerable people who saw the Bili Ape in its environment and were ignored, were not primatologists, it's a dud argument. "

      That response is nonsensical. You said you need a consorted effort by primatologists t find bigfoot. I am merely pointing out that the mountain gorilla was found by an explorer, not a primatologist. Your response does not address that fact.

      Delete
    24. there is a difference between both the mountain gorilla and the Bili ape compared to bigfoot. Bigfoot is bipedal and the other two aren't so bigfoot is higher up on the evolutionary ladder closer to humans and must more intelligence than the rest of the apes and that is if we are assuming bigfoot to be a human/ape hybrid . From so many eye witness reports they describe it as looking like a gorilla but also having human traits so don't expect it to just sit around eating leaves off trees just waiting for some explorer to come by and spot it. They are the alpha animal living in the wild possessing both strength and smarts to outwit any threat . it would be quite the task for any researchers to find one unless they are willing to put in many times the effort they did in finding the Bili ape


      Joe

      Delete
    25. ^ You sound like a child.

      Bonobos and Bili apes are reported to move bipedally quite often.

      Delete
    26. Well! Tiddly Doo on you then!

      Joe

      Delete
    27. only for a short while , they are not naturally bipedal, bigfoots are
      Yes, human / ape hybrid whereas you my friend are pure neanderthal in your nature. go back to the cave you came out of


      Joe

      Delete
    28. You have no proof that bigfoots even exist, much less be able to make claims as to its preferred locomotion.

      Delete
    29. there's lots of proof out there . so if there is no proof as you state then why do you come on here every day trying to discuss anything because you've already made up your mind that they don't exist .
      That just proves you are nothing more than a troll.
      This isn't the wild west- hit the trail cowboy

      Joe

      Delete
    30. ^Shut up Mike B and quit d*ck riding Iktomi.

      Delete
    31. Nwah... Is dmaker's n*t shiner a little upset? Would you like a tissue?

      Donald, just like the explorer you referenced, the indegenous peoples who reported Bili Apes were not primatologists. Highly relevant.

      Delete
    32. 11:19 seems to be experiencing a Saturday morning hangover. Was it quite the bender last night Donald ?

      Joe

      Delete
    33. I was just going ass to mouth on your mum.

      Delete
  3. When you're an ISF'er you lie, you pretend, you sock puppet. It's what you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell that to Joerg H. and Mike B.

      Delete
  4. Beely apes fuut ats the buttum off hiss leges...duh{mindspeak,mindspeak}...FOOOREEST BRUTHER

    ReplyDelete
  5. PROOF the "Sierra Sounds" can be, and most likely are, HOAXED:

    https://youtu.be/mNbCckQ1EWM?t=1m18s

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was an AMAZING impression... However...

      CONCLUSION REACHED BY DR. KIRLIN AND LASSE HERTEL ON THE SIERRA SOUNDS
      "The results indicate more than one speaker, one or more of which is of larger physical size than an average human adult male. The formant frequencies found were clearly lower than for human data, and their distribution does not indicate that they were a product of human vocalizations and tape speed alteration.

      Although a time-varying speed could possibly produce such formant distributions, an objective hearing and the articulation rate do not support that hypothesis. Statistical analysis was applied to groups of vocal tract estimates from different vocalizations and a significant difference was found between the groups. When compared with human data the results indicated that there could possibly be three speakers, one of which is non-human. The average vocal tract length was found to be 20.2 cm. This is significantly longer than for a normal human male. Extrapolation of average estimators, using human proportions, gives height estimates of between 6’4” and 8’2”. Analysis of the rapid articulations in the beginning of the recording (gob-gob) resulted in human-like vocal tract lengths. Also, the sound /g/ in “gob” suggests a human-like vocal tract (two vocal cavities).
      The pitch periods found cover the broad range of pitch periods for both normal human male and low-pitched human male. However, they are mainly distributed around the data for the low-pitched human male. Pitch and length estimates vary considerably but they are all found to be within the 95 per cent confidence interval for human speech with varying tape speed; however, assuming that there is only one vocalizer, then time-varying tape speed is necessary to produce data over such a wide range. Both typical human whistles and some abnormal types of whistles were found. By using the formants from the abnormal whistles, very short vocal tract lengths were estimated."

      Delete
  6. Merkel or Hitler

    Was has been worse for Europe ?

    MMC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ Not the real me. Man this guy is a creep.

      MMC

      Delete
  7. Hi Iktomi

    Great Information Mate.

    However D*ckMaker will never get it, all the information you share with him will never satisfy his Skepticism.

    Why he and others like him come here when they should be spending internet time with their own kind? Because it becomes painfully obvious that they are aware of the truth about Sasquatch but a simply sent to discredit the believers.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes they are sent to discredit the believers, lol.

      Some of the believers do a fine job by themselves.

      Delete
  8. From the first hint of Bili Apes to specimen collection and description took only a decade, and five of those years were spent idle due to a civil war. So in five years a handful of researchers in the most remote forests of Africa went from stories from the locals to DNA and a formal description.

    Meanwhile thousands of bigfoot researchers have spent more than ten times that duration looking for bigfoot in places within easy driving distance without having to deal with any civil war.

    Bigfoot researchers sure are an ineffective, incompetent lot, aren't they?

    ReplyDelete