Saturday, August 27, 2016

Enhanced Bigfoot Eyeshine Video From The BFRO


Sure, tell yourself it's just eyeshine. It could be anything, right? It's probably just an owl.


88 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Joe got blown out and had to resort to ad hominem. You cant make it up

      Delete
    2. One day... You might be able to apply that concept properly.

      Delete
    3. The anon up top said bigfoot dont exist. Instead of offering up an actual bigfoot in the same manner as would be used to prove any species existence and hence disprove his statement, you instead insinuate that he has no friends. Ad Hominem.

      Delete
    4. HAHAHAHA JOE JUST GOT FU CKING PWNED

      Delete
    5. "Bigfoot don't exist" is an unsubstantiated subjective statement. There is nothing in that statement that addresses the readily available data/evidence for such a creature, and considering the troll has evidence rubbed in his face daily, it is purely an effort at trying to get some level of interaction in his life, no matter how unhealthy that interaction is. It's the actions of someone who's lonely... Has no self esteem.

      One day you might be able to step up, but nobody will be holding their breath.

      Delete
    6. "Bigfoot don't exist" is a statement declaring the default position. This could apply to anything. Fairies don't exist, nessie don't exist etc. The current position in science is "bigfoot don't exist". Why? Because in order to amend that statement, scientifically verifiable and repeatable evidence is required. This is the accepted standard by which ALL science adheres to.

      Delete
    7. Sorry kid, science is a tool and it's been used to verify forensic evidence for a creature with the widely reported anatomy as what is commonly referred to as Sasquatch. There is not physical evidence for fairies. Given that dermatoglyphics were accumulated in track impressions in 1982, the exact same biological traits surfaced again in September 2000, almost 20 years later;
      "The ridge characteristics (in the Skookum Cast) are consistent with other examples from Sasquatch footprints Meldrum has studied in collaboration with officer Jimmy Chilcutt, a latent fingerprint examiner with the Conroe, Texas, Police Department. The anatomy of the heel, ankle, and Achilles tendon are also distinct and consistent with models of the Sasquatch foot derived by Meldrum after examining hundreds of alleged Sasquatch footprints.
      Hair samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself and examined by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a biomedical research scientist from Beaverton, Ore., were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. However, based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as “Sasquatch.”
      http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.pdf

      Repeatable scientific evidence.

      Delete
    8. Joerg always gets flustered when he is shown to be an idiot and bold faced liar. Nice hair!

      Delete
    9. ...links to bfro

      hahahaha

      Delete
    10. If the BFRO is such a poor source, you'd have no issue finding an expert rebuttal for it then, eh?

      Delete
    11. Expert rebuttal? LOL. I think the rest of the world does a great job of that. They don't even take the topic seriously. Or perhaps the one little fact, that not one bigfoot has been killed, despite many supposedly being shot with high powered rifles. I always find it funny when footers try and explain away, how a mammal the size of bigfoot could take multiple hits from a rifle, often reported as being as least as big as a 30-06. Footers have no clue what such a caliber is capable of doing, what it will go through, and the game it was designed for. These rifles, can and would bring down a 15 ft bigfoot with a shot to the chest, let alone a 7ft creature. These calibers are used to hunt every big game creature on the planet, save elephants, and even elephants have been killed by a 22 short to the ear.

      But what do footers say. They make up things like "bigfoot must have really tough skin and bones that stop the bullet". Its absolutely ridiculous, considering it wouldn't be possible for that to happen and stop a large caliber bullet. They like to say "others carried the body away". Yeah sure, because out of the 100s of reported shooting cases, not one fell dead where it stood (which would have happened) or died within eyesight. In which case the shooter could easily shoot and kill any other creature that appeared. Again, its nonsense, and they are trying to explain there lack of body. And then you have the great excuse of " I saw some hair and blood on the ground but didn't think to take any". Yeahp, makes sense, because out of the 100s of reported shootings, not one person thought to collect samples to prove the magic monkey. Sounds legit huh?

      And then of course you have the reports that claim they shot bigfoot with smaller calibers or shotguns or pistols. Again, these make no sense. A pistol the size of a 357 mag would easily kill a bigfoot, with no problems. Even rounds from bird shot from a shotgun, or a 22 rifle would highly likely kill the creature. These wounds would get infected, leading to a prolonged and strung out death. Resulting in either a found body, or a slow unhealthy bigfoot that cant run and hide from people like it used too.

      Yet again, no bigfoot. There is always a lack of a reasonable explanation, so what do footers do? They simply make up explanations.

      Here is a prime example. One can't account for a lack of a body or any possibility for a bigfoot to hide in. Lets say the sightings are happening in suburbia, with no place for a creature to hide. A footer will see this, and instead of saying its a hoax or paranoia, they will think up something else. Thus, the footer starts to believe in cloaking and portals, which would allow them to hide. Don't think so? Just ask Joerg. Hey Joergy, remember when you claimed that you didn't know anyone on this site who endorsed portals, cloaking, zapping, etc? LOL. What a lie!!! Explain that lie please Joerg.

      In fact, it seems the amount of footers on this site support that theory, or others just as wild, outweight those that dont. In fact, i guarantee you that you believe in some of those theories Joerg. But we know for a fact that Khat Hansen, Dr. Squatch, DS, Mike B, and Leon do. Your so pathetic its amusing Joergy.

      Delete
    12. I don't know what you've chosen to familiarise yourself with, but I've never read an account where someone has claimed that bullets have bounced off a Sasquatch. I've read many a hunter claim that they thought their fire power wouldn't bring one down, that's all. 've read a few researchers claiming that Sasquatch use greenbelts, but nothing that gets reported regularly enough to warrant serious discussion as an alleged behavioural trait. Maybe you should address things like the evidence for such a creature as opposed to putting words in people's mouths? Oh wait... (What was I thinking?)

      Could you look down the scope and shoot something that you both cannot quite identify, and looks so human? One of the main issues for gunmen who have opened up on one of these creatures, is the persistent details that they move too fast. You also have to consider that for these creatures to have evaded so well as they have, they would have to do so in social groups, with this bringing the added possibility of mama and papa coming along to see what the commotion is should one be shot. Plenty of missing hunters, remember.

      I'm not dismissing people's theories about the paranormal side of this subject, I merely prefer to address what can be measured by scientific means. As it stands, the scientific evidence points to infrasound being the only crazy attribute Sasquatch can achieve, that has been shown to exist with available scientific means;
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf
      ... It's not so much the attributes enthusiasts assign, as it is you sensationalising the paranormal because you are too stupid to take what's been addressed by science, and attempt to explain it away with conventional means. In short; you're out of your depth.

      Delete
    13. My Bigfoot could beat the living shit out of a pride of 15 african lions! because you 3:28 dont know jack about infra and ultra sound boyo!!
      NOT TO MENTION WHAT HASE BEEN ADRESSED BY SCIENCE CREEPO!
      + YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR DEPTH!!!
      SCHOOLED!! .cringe!

      Delete
    14. MMC,SHOWING WHO'S "BOSS"!!!^

      Delete
  2. That's funny Matt because there's no where for the owl to be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BLOWN THE FU CK OUT YET AGAIN BY WORTHLESS AMBIGUOUS GARBAGE HAHAHAHA YOU CANT MAKE IT UP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing ambiguous about this;
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg

      Delete
    2. ^posts an ambiguous frame from an ambiguous film

      Delete
    3. Sorry kid, nothing ambiguous about those pictures. Open your eyes.

      Delete
    4. Oh I guess you are right. Its kind of obvious its a bloke in a suit. Sorry.

      Delete
    5. Argh right! Let me guess... Suddenly you can see imaginary zippers now right?

      Got monkey suit??

      Delete
    6. the resolution is insufficient to see a zipper in the same way it is insufficient to see any detail that would suggest real anatomy

      Delete
    7. "Posterior from the shoulder, her scapula can be seen “winging” or becoming more prominent with the right arm swinging forwards, combined with the head turning back, away from the camera. This is a natural occurrence for the body, since the arm is attached to the triangular-shaped scapula, which is stabilized by several muscles. There is no bone-to-bone contact of the scapula/humerus unit with the rest of the body skeleton, with the exception of a small anterior pivot point provided by the clavicle. This allows for the significant mobility exhibited by the shoulder, and the protrusion of the medial border (“winging”) of the scapula. As with the above described triceps changes, this would be very difficult to replicate in a costume, and would not be a physical characteristic commonly known outside of the medical community."
      - O. Allen Guinn, III, M.D., F.A.C.S.

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    8. Is that a quote from the ghost hunting surgeon or the out of work costume maker?

      Delete
    9. 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.

      Regardless of what Munns says, there is no known fur cloth technique in almost a 100 years of costume, from all the very best award winners in SFX, that accounts for what we see in that footage.

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    10. I dont personally no. If you would like one, I would suggest google.

      Delete
    11. You'll get nothing and like it

      Delete
    12. Oh he will get something. My Joerg stick in his face.

      Delete
    13. It appears you'll get the evidence you pray isn't there, and not like it very much at all.

      Delete
    14. ^ I bet you`ll like the hard throbbing 8 incher I`m thrusting in your direction right now,huh?

      Just gimme a call you lil` juicy fruit.

      Delete
  4. "The fact that there isnt a bigfoot in the picture makes it even more likely that it was infact a bigfoot" - Cliff Barackman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
      - Bertrand Russell

      Delete
    2. "Theres a sucker born every minute" - Roger Patterson

      Delete
    3. What if the stupid man thinks he's clever but to stupid to realize he's not clever?

      Delete
    4. You'd be more than qualified to know about that.

      Delete
    5. One thing "you" got rite.. ^

      Ya ain't qualified,,,shuck's!

      Delete
  5. You know bigfoot isnt real right? Or is this a parody site?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think its mostly a kind of role playing thing where a bunch of mates can camp out and have a laugh. Unfortunately there are some people who didnt get the memo and think theres an actual bigfoot out there. The concept that people could be that blinded by delusion takes a while to sink in but its true, they really think there is a species of 9 foot apes living and breeding in america undetected. Fascinating topic.

      Delete
    2. Argh yes! For thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing role players all out to get your money. These role players, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what a non-human primate looked like, have in fact managed to cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too.

      To acknowledge the current state of evidence is to adhere to the idea that consistency in field biology is very likely, given the tried and tested scientific methods applied... It is to open all sorts of locked doors to repressed emotions such as the fear of what's in your backyard. The boogeyman.
      "What is it that causes you to repress thoughts and feelings? According to Freud its intense anxiety, an emotional state akin to fear. There are two phases that lead a person to repression, in the primary repression phase, an infant learns that some aspects of reality are pleasant, and others are unpleasant; that some are controllable, and others not. In order to define the "self", the infant must repress the natural assumption that all things are equal. Primary repression is the process of determining what is self, what is other; what is good, and what is bad. At the end of this phase, the child can now distinguish between desires, fears, self, and others."
      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201507/the-psychology-repression

      ... It's basically why you have so many angry trolls here who are in full denial about the evidence for something that can pop your head off like a soda bottle top.

      Delete
    3. I don't know why joe thinks role playing requires someone dressed in a monkey suit. When you pretend you are seeing a monkey there doesn't need to be an actual monkey there. It is always quite ironic when joe tries to apply psychology theories for people who are not blinded by delusion yet have an interest in those that are.

      "pop your head off like a soda bottle top" ironically that is one of my all time favourite bits of bigfoot fiction

      Delete
    4. If you pretend to be an eight foot hominin, I think that pretty much adheres to the concept of role playing. Studies on track impressions over a 40 year period have 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. Based on the eyewitness reports and the data extrapolated from these studies, the data points to a creature with the average height of 7-8 feet in height... The most profound collaborating physical evidence? The track impressions with dermatoglyphics that are twice the size of that of a normal human, that have the same dermatoglyphics texture and ridge flow pattern as a humans however twice the size; meaning a subject twice as big, twice the strength, three times if they've evolved to their environment like one would naturally expect. A subject of this persuasion could easily pop your head off like a soda bottle top.

      Now, tell me all about your hundreds year old culture hopping conspiracy theory to explain away the evidence. Something about "delusional"?

      Delete
    5. U MEAN "ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE"??

      Delete
    6. If bigfoot are "Hss",then Twice as big = half as fast.

      Dr B Sykes.

      Delete
    7. "The maximal speed that a Sasquatch is capable of attaining has not been reliably tracked, although many casual reports refer to observers driving in a vehicle parallel to a running Sasquatch. Before rejecting unbelievable sounding speeds or step intervals, it is well worth keeping human records in mind. For example, the world record walking speed over 20 km is about 11 mph (18 kph), the top running burst speed about 27 mph (43 kph), the longest single jump near 30’ (9 in), and the longest triple jump—in effect, three running steps—about 60’ (18 in), all this with a physique of decidedly smaller scale than that of a Sasquatch. I would estimate the top running speed of the Sasquatch to be near 35 mph (56 kph), the speed of a galloping horse."
      http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbacharticle.htm

      Delete
  6. Bigfoots purportedly make noises, and a standard part of modern Bigfoot lore is that people might be able to ‘call in’ or even communicate with Bigfoots by making wails, screams, roars or howls, or by hitting trees or rocks to make far-carrying percussive whacks, these sounds resembling the noises that are attributed to the creature. What’s notable is that these vocalisations are phenomenally diverse: the ‘Ohio howls’, ‘Samurai chatter’, the whoops, whistles, growls and howls attributed to this animal well exceed what we’d expect for a single animal species that communicates over long distances, and there’s nothing approaching homogeneity of the sort present across known primate species.

    Indeed, some of the most incredible of these sounds – if you’ve never heard the ‘Sierra sounds’ or ‘Samurai chatter’ recorded by Ron Morehead, well, you’re in for a treat – sound nothing at all like the others that have been reported and recorded, and have only been heard exclusively in one small area. Even allowing for the possibility of regional and local dialects, of ontogenetic, annual or seasonal variation, or of this diversity being linked to a diversity of functional roles (close communication vs long-distance communication, mating calls vs parental vocalisations and so on), the noises and calls are absolutely all over the place and not in the least bit homogenous from one region to the next, as they should be if we’re dealing with an unknown primate species.

    The conclusion must be that the noises have diverse origins, by which I mean that they are mostly sounds made by known animal species, including cattle, coyotes (and their hybrids) and humans. And, yes, I think that many of the more incredible Bigfoot sounds – ‘Sumarai chatter’ and other speech-like utterances among them – were generated by people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry... But Sasquatch vocals are as diverse as any type of human. Diversity in-line with its capabilities which are vast, like you, me, someone from Africa, Japan, Italy and on and on. Try it, you can make loads of noises. You'd also have to know a little about the subject to know that we're not dealing with a gorilla, but a wild human, and the Sierra Sounds have consistency across many, many audio recordings in the US;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/mkdavis-discusses-audio-compilation-of.html?m=0

      What the author of that statement probably needs to address, just like anyone else who thinks they're qualified to pass their opinion without knowing enough about the subject, is the data that's found in the Sierra Sounds. Wouldn't that be something?

      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.
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      Delete
    2. you were doing so well... until you linked to a "sasquatch" website. if you were to link to a scientific journal i might have given it a look

      Delete
    3. I do believe that's ad hominem.

      "Journal Accepts Paper Reading “Get Me Off Your F*****g Mailing List”;
      https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list


      ... That's the level of reliable science that's assured in your journals.

      Delete
    4. If you disdain journals so much, why do you constantly remind everyone that Sykes is supposed to be publishing a paper on Zana's DNA soon?

      Delete
    5. Because you'll have no excuses then.

      Delete
    6. How so? Why is peer review important in the case of Sykes, but not any others?

      Delete
    7. To me, it isn't... But considering it's an essential component of your Scientism, should Sykes publish something positive through it you can't back track and ad hominem.

      Delete
    8. Lol I think its such joke to see iktomi contradict himself at every turn..
      sasquatch are homo sapien sapien in one paragraph.and in the next he is saying that the sierra sounds are outside of
      "HOMO SAPIEN SAPIEN" PARAMETERS!!
      WHAT A PSYCHOTIC MORON WITH A LOW IQ!!!
      HAAAA HAAAA HAAA LOL !
      AC collins

      Delete
    9. IF SASQUATCH WAS A HYPERTRICHOSICT GIANT HOMO SAPIEN SAPIEN WITH ANECDOTAL SUPER POWERS AS STATED BY IKTOMI,THE GENATIC PROFILE WOULD BE RECESSIVE (at all morphalogical discription)AND NOT THAT OF ANY KNOWN "RACE" OF HSS . THERE FOR BIGFOOT WOULD HAVE TO BE A "SUBSPECIES OF THE GENUS HOMO"..
      HOMO NEANDERTHAL IS A SUBSPECIES,,HOMO ERECTUS IS A SUBSPECIES,,HOMO DENISOVAN IS A SUBSPECIES,,ECT,,
      DIFFERENT SPECIES CANNOT PRODUCE VIABLE OFFSPRING ,SO SASQUATCH MUST BE A SUBSPECIES
      OF HOMO!

      BIGFOOT ARE NOT HSS !!
      YES IM DRINKING "MODELO"!!
      AC collins

      Delete
    10. There is no contradiction, merely the author of the study not considering the capabilities of what a wild human, potentially three times the size of us could achieve... For example, why couldn't very, very long vocal chords create infra sound?

      And for your second paragraph... The subspecies of HOMO SAPIEN IDALTU, that lived alongside Homo sapiens;
      http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-ethiopia-addis-ababa-the-national-museum-the-skull-of-homo-sapiens-23212723.html

      http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-homo-sapiens-idaltu-skull-addis-ababa-national-museum-ethiopia-61560540.html

      These fossils differ from early Homo sapiens, such as Cro-Magnon found in Europe and other parts of the world, in that their morphology has features that show resemblances to more primitive African fossils, such as huge and robust skulls, yet a globular shape of the brain-case and the facial features typical of Homo sapiens.

      Actually, DNA can tell us about hair colour, decease, sex, eye colour, Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), body clock, thrill seeking and obesity.
      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/27/genetics.cancer
      ... Height is still an area that research requires research in;
      "Predicting adult body height from genetic data is helpful in several areas such as pediatric endocrinology and forensic investigations. However, despite large international efforts to catalog the genes that influence the stature of humans, knowledge on genetic determinants of adult body height is still incomplete. Now DNA-based prediction of taller-than-average body height is feasible."
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131120103613.htm

      Anyone who boasts they're drunk all the time has probably not been the legal age to drink too long.

      Delete
  7. If Bigfoot is super-rare (as some, though not all, proponents argue that it is), it might follow that its tracks would be rarely encountered and hard to find. That seems reasonable. But the fact is that people who actually track known animal species in a professional or technical capacity are near-universally of the opinion that Bigfoot is not a real animal: (1) they, and their colleagues, don’t find evidence for it themselves, and (2) the evidence they have seen is fraudulent or unconvincing. Note that even some of Bigfoot’s most noted investigators – I’m thinking of the late René Dahinden – never found tracks themselves.

    For a large, ground-dwelling mammal that leaves conspicuous tracks and supposedly occurs continent-wide, Bigfoot is unrealistically cryptic; if it were real, biologists would be at least occasionally finding and reporting its tracks, at at least the same frequency as they do the tracks of such mammals as wolverines, jaguars, pumas and ocelots, all of which are extremely rare and even of controversial status within certain parts of the USA. The fact that Bigfoot tracks are not found by people trained and with the expertise to do so is a red flag. I’m sorry if this sounds elitist; even if it does, that doesn’t stop it from being true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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)

      I wonder if the author of that comment can refer to one consorted professional effort on the part of these people who track known animal species in a professional or technical capacity, to use the readily available evidence to track Sasquatch? The facts remain, that for a subject that has been left to amateur researchers, they have three times the evidence that the Bili Ape had at this stage... And the Bili Ape took a whole year to track. I'd also love to read exactly where the best track impressions that have shown dermals as repeatable forensic evidence have been demonstrated BY EXPERTS, to be fraudulent.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    2. 3 times the evidence? How did you come to that figure? How did you quantify it?

      And the plural of anecdote is not evidence im afraid.

      Delete
    3. Nice call 1:34. Joerg does a terrible job of damage control when his numbers are called out. Primarily because he just makes them up.

      Delete
    4. The Bili Ape had tracks and contemporary anecdotes.

      The hominin commonly known as "Sasquatch" has tracks, species traits in those tracks, hair samples, video evidence, audio evidence and thermal evidence.

      Delete
    5. Pseudosceptics like to maintain that the current state of evidence is reduced to mere anecdotes, because for some reason they clearly need the help in explaining away something that is allegedly so obvious.

      Funny.

      Delete
  8. Anyone who knows anything about Bigfoot knows that there have been several recent claims concerning the discovery of Bigfoot DNA. So far, none have panned out. In the best known study – the one led by Melba Ketchum, published in a paywalled journal created solely to carry the study itself – Bigfoot was reported to be some sort of hybrid between Homo sapiens and an unidentified second species. The results were widely discussed and derided by qualified working geneticists who showed how the genetic results seemed to mix human with that of other mammals, dogs and bears among them. None of the sequences could be taken to support the hybridisation hypothesis integral to the conclusions. And some geneticists are on record as describing the manuscript as “utter nonsense”.
    A popular idea in some sectors of the Bigfoot community is that the value and quality of the Ketchum study was played down by cowardly scientists and journal editors who didn’t have the balls or integrity to see it get fair treatment. Indeed Ketchum herself wrote of witnessing gross bias, and even referred to the “Galileo Effect”. In fact, the Ketchum study – which was submitted to several top-end journals prior to eventual publication – was treated thoroughly and ethically, and found wanting for the reasons mentioned above. An excellent and thorough analysis of the whole episode can be found here.

    Anyway, my primary point here is that DNA that can’t be explained other than by the existence of an unknown distinct primate has not been documented, whereas it would be present all over the place if Bigfoot were real, even if it were an unusual sub-population of Homo sapiens. And those of you thinking that this is a dumb thing to say in view of the absence or rarity of alleged Bigfoot remains should note that the collection and examination of eDNA – that is, residual DNA collected from the environment (yes, from water, ice and sediment) – is now widespread and commonplace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When one requires deflecting from addressing the evidence that is above them, refer to the Ketchum study that enthusiasts themselves exposed as fruitless, and have the audacity to claim it as an example of enthusiast incompetence.

      There is at least one relict hominid residing in wilderness areas today, that is ancient homo sapien... DNA can tell us if it is either modern or ancient, and Sykes is coming.

      Delete
    2. "There is at least one relict hominid residing in wilderness areas today, that is ancient homo sapien..."

      You havent proven that.

      "Sykes is coming"

      Why would that matter if its already proven according to you?

      Delete
    3. Sykes already came and went, multiple times i might add. With each dissappointment, Joerg simply shifts the goal post. Its a never ending saga. Someone will always be on the verge of "finding bigfoot". Just ask Joergy

      Delete
    4. Hair samples that have uniform morphology have repeatedly come back as human once tested over the years. It's gonna take someone with the clout of Sykes to prove that with the Zana study.

      Coast to Coast AM March 19th 2016;
      http://youtu.be/UitNUuJsWPs
      27mins - "You can tell the difference between modern and ancient human within DNA."
      38mins - "I've almost finished studying Zana's DNA."

      ... Keep wishing it away, racist psycho troll.

      Delete
    5. DEFINE "ANCIENT HUMAN"?

      YOU BIZZARE SICK FREAK !

      LOL!!

      Delete
    6. Not that I'm claiming Sasquatch are homo sapien Idaltu... Just that an ancient subspecies of homo sapien is proven with a fossil record.

      Delete
  9. The main takehome from what I’ve said here – and I’m repeating what many other scientists have said before me – is that an awful lot of good evidence would have been documented by now if Bigfoot were real. As interesting and intriguing as all those eyewitness reports are, we are simply not seeing the evidence we should, nor is the evidence we have at all convincing. So... why is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The evidence for Sasquatch does not exist because mainstream scientists who have not studied it, and on the most part aren't even aware of it, say it isn't."
      - Pseudosceptics 101

      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/

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

      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      Delete
    2. 3 links to pro bigfoot blogs

      you cant make it up!

      Delete
    3. Joerg has nothing, so he posts random links. I love it!

      Delete
    4. Ad hominem. The professionals in those studies were/are impartial. You'd know that if you'd actually taken a look, but we all know the evidence isn't what's important to you here. Also... If you're looking for evidence on the existence of the creature commonly known as "Sasquatch", you're kind of gonna find it at websites catering for that subject... You silly rhetorical boy.

      Delete
  10. Its a blood bath in here. Joe on full damage control

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your hallucinations are rampant I see^

      Delete
    2. 1:13... Got any more copy & pastes? I'm bored and it gave me something to do...

      Delete
    3. Joe yet again declaring himself a "winner"

      You cant make it up

      Delete
    4. Joerg, the copy and paste king, is getting desperate. It truly is a blood bath

      Delete
    5. I didn't declare myself a winner... Was that a Freudian slip?

      Seriously now... Got any more??

      Delete
    6. Hey BFRO its an enhanced Pokémon! You finaly found something you are good at, because you cant finding bigfoot. Good job with those Pokemons Wankars!

      Delete
  11. 69 posts and 27 from iktomifala {nice hair}...get a life ffs

    ReplyDelete
  12. Another misidentified owl eyeshine photo, brought to you by the BFRO, the same people who promote the Silver Star Mountain bigfoot photo hoax and the also clearly hoaxed Memorial Day footage, where the audio identifies it as a hoax, which is why the BFRO does not present the video with the audio attached. Can you spell F R A U D, boys and girls?

    ReplyDelete