Saturday, August 20, 2016

Goat Hunter Finds Bigfoot Den


From the youtube channel of Trace Unknown

1986/87, Kitwancool Mountain, Doug Campbell goes hunting for mountain goat. He comes across a curious den and encounters a grizzly up high on a ridge, rolling rocks down on him. Thinking back, he now believes it may have been a Bigfoot.

55 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Reading your reasons to not consider the evidence = fiction.

      Delete
  2. TROLLS ARE STINKING WANKERS!

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's fun listening to Bigfoot stories...much better than fairytales.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fairytales sure don't make grown men like you all Panicin' Skywalker.

      Delete
    2. And pee'n his pants too. Sometimes its even a code brown in troll town.

      Delete
    3. Mmmmm - what fairytale was it that had the big ole bad Bigfoot popping off heads like a soda bottle cap???

      Oh yeah - that was the one by Joerg!

      Delete
    4. The available data and the reports are not fiction, and merely puts the strength abilities of Sasquatch into perspective. For example, 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 rip your scrawny little head from its shoulders.

      That ain't fiction son.

      Delete
    5. Well......you knew that was coming.

      Delete
    6. ^Just like your diaper knows whats coming!

      Delete
    7. Ha ha ha!! You're a slow learner, 7:49. For these reasons, I'm happy to drum it into you until you look like even more of a rhetorical, brainless troll.

      Delete
    8. Oh what ever will I do now that I've been humiliated in front of all two of your followers. Yes, now that it has been documented and substantiated that Bigfoot has super streng.......oh wait.

      Delete
    9. I hope your diaper has super streng... oh wait.

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

      Delete
    11. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

      The documented evidence for a creature that has the exact same anatomy that is widely reported in innumerable Sasquatch sightings has been substantiated by the forensic details in track impressions.

      Delete
    12. "What's streng"?

      Man, you ARE dense.

      Isn't it past your bedtime? Go dream of Bigfoot...just like you do every night.

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

      Delete
    14. Man... Someone who's dense would spell "strength" that way and then have the audacity to suggest it's anyone else's bedtime.

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

      Delete
    16. Words like "documented" and "substantiated" are highly relevant to this topic. People like Stuey, the village idiot up top read these words from pseudosceptics and think they're buzz words for legislate debate. The reality is it's merely evidence that people like him don't understand the meaning of these basic words, and really isn't able to think for himself.

      Delete
    17. There are more believers than that 8.14. Hi Iktomi how you going mate... yet again the trolls are out?

      They wont be happy until on of them get's peeled like a Banana by a Sasquatch by the looks of it.

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

      Delete
    19. Hey, how ya doing buddy?! In the mean time, they can continue to get their minds peeled around here by the enthusiasts.

      Delete
    20. Yep good mate.

      Here is a good Yowie hunter clip that has just come out, it is pretty intense, also this area is very well known as a Yowie hotspot.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-5zBSKzhpU

      Delete
    21. I've been meaning to listen to this... I get Yowie Hunters notifications so I don't miss a trick! Ha ha!! Thanks for the link though... I'll listen to it now.

      Delete
    22. Here is a classic case of Joerg acting stupid or actually being stupid (most likely the latter) in not knowing that when you don't finish a word and add ... it shows you were caught mid-sentence in a realization that the sentence is not true. In this case not true as in there is NO documented or substantiated evidence of a Bigfoot having super strength capable of popping off human heads like a soda bottle cap let alone proof of it's very existence! None, zero, nada. Only in the fairytale stories we read here daily is there any talk of that. But Joerg wants to believe so badly that he will readily accept any story that supports this.

      The only mystery to me is when does this freak sleep? He seems to be on here 24/7.

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

      Delete
    24. document
      verb
      past tense: documented; past participle: documented
      ˈdɒkjʊmɛnt/
      record (something) in written, photographic, or other form.

      Applied to this subject (for the second time in 24hours);
      Analysing the available data and the reports merely puts this into context. For example, 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 rip your scrawny head from its shoulders.

      substantiate
      səbˈstanʃɪeɪt/
      verb
      past tense: substantiated; past participle: substantiated
      provide evidence to support or prove the truth of.

      Applied to this subject;
      "Krantz (1983: 71-72) writes: "Thus far, every specialist who has examined these casts [Mill Creek] agrees that their detailed anatomy has all the characteristics and appearance of being derived from an imprint of primate skin. These include thirty police fingerprint workers, ... six physical anthropologists ... four pathologists and two zoologists."
      ... And further substantiated with the repeatable scientific evidence;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.pdf

      "in not knowing that when you don't finish a word and add ... it shows you were caught mid-sentence in a realization that the sentence is not true."
      ... When you've stopped butchering the English language, hurry up with the 3rd Follie, you're wasting valuable laughing time.

      Delete
    25. So the short answer is "no, I have no proof of what I say".

      Tell you what Joerg - how about providing a documented case where the authorities attributed a decapitation to a Sasquatch? I'd like to read that in a bona fide newspaper.

      Let the laughing time begin!

      Delete
    26. Sorry... You didn't ask for proof.

      Moving the Goalpost
      When criteria are met that falsify the arguer's position, the arguer changes the criteria and claims that his/her position is still valid. eg. "OK, so you don't find any association between the mercury preservative in vaccines, but what about the aluminum?" Also occurs when the arguer covertly changes the stasis point of an argument.
      https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine//logical-fallacies#TOC-Moving-the-Goalpost

      So not only do you not understand that very basic understanding of those words you use, but you're also moving the goal posts once schooled. I don't have proof for Sasquatch, what I have is proof of a creature with the same widely reported anatomy leaving its physical sign on the environment. You are however welcome to suggest what other currently unclassified bipedal primate besides "Bigfoot" would be leaving that.

      If the size of this creature has been determined my reliable scientific data, then its strength in line with the reports would indicate something that can take that scrawny little head of yours of its shoulders.

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

      Delete
    28. Ah - so the short answer is no. Got it.

      Delete
    29. Plenty of people missing their heads in the wilderness... Go take a looksy on the Internet.

      Delete
  4. It's just so odd that Bigfoot is still a fringe topic. There's so much high quality evidence. So odd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really not so surprising given that most enthusiasts aren't even aware of the current state of scientific evidence... And that this is typical of somethings that's labelled... (Cough, cough)... "Fringe"?

      (Cringe)

      What's more fascinating... Is how it's odd how Bigfoot is the only fringe topic where its "skeptics" are more demented and obsessed than its "believers".

      Delete
    2. Isn't the best evidence being posted here and other enthusiast's sites? If that's the best there is, I guess we know why it's still a fringe topic.

      Delete
    3. That is subjective in accordance with what you are able to understand. If the evidence is really that bunk, then why worry? It's fringe after all...

      Delete
    4. Not worried in the slightest. Just find it odd.

      Delete
    5. Actions speak far louder than words... Never more so in your case.

      Delete
  5. Anecdotal evidence is fiction, you moron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Witness testimony is a common form of evidence in law, and law has mechanisms to test witness evidence for reliability or credibility. Legal processes for the taking and assessment of evidence are formalized. Some witness testimony may be described as anecdotal evidence, such as individual stories of harassment as part of a class action lawsuit. However, witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence. Where a court lacks suitable means to test and assess testimony of a particular witness, such as the absence of forms of corroboration or substantiation, it may afford that testimony limited or no "weight" when making a decision on the facts.

      In certain situations, scientific evidence presented in court must also meet the legal requirements for evidence. For instance, in the United States, expert testimony of witnesses must meet the Daubert standard. This ruling holds that before evidence is presented to witnesses by experts, the methodology must be "generally accepted" among scientists. In some situations, anecdotal evidence may meet this threshold (such as certain case reports which corroborate or refute other evidence).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

      Delete
    2. You do realize, 8:27, that your entire cut and paste undermines your position, kiddo. Cringe.

      Delete
    3. The anecdotal evidence for bigfoot is not generally accepted among scientists, much less the methodology.

      Only you, Joe, could post something that actually goes against the point you are trying to make.

      Delete
    4. "However, witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence."
      ... I think that couldn't possibly be applied to this topic better.

      Sorry, Donald... I know you like circular logic and rhetorical nonsense, but amongst the scientists who endorse this creature are some of the very best in their respected fields. What mainstream scientists recognise or are even aware of means little. If there's scientific evidence that not one from that mainstream can explain away, and it is substantiated with consistent scientific means, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority.

      Delete
    5. What does do the rules of court room testimony have to do with biology? Nothing at all.

      Delete
    6. Because they can be substantiated with science to be factual, and you'd have no issue with that whatsoever. Also... Social sciences rely on case studies and long term observational research.

      Delete
    7. Iktomi, your evidence falls way short of any reasonable threshold. You saying so doesn't make it so. Let's ask the world, not just cut and paste a few cherry picked opinions. Hmm.... looks like bigfoot is still fringe.

      Delete
    8. Name one bigfoot anecdote that was substantiated by science to be factual.

      Delete
    9. Agreed... Me saying so doesn't make it so... The actual data does, and there is nothing more scientifically valid than repeatable evidence;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.pdf

      Here's your logic;
      "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. Also the evidence does not exist because Sasquatch doesn't exist (circular reasoning)."

      Great logic son. What mainstream science recognises or is even aware of means little. If there's scientific evidence that not one from that mainstream can explain away, and it is substantiated with consistent scientific means, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority.


      ... Hey Don, I just did.

      Delete
    10. So, which bigfoot anecdote has been proven by science to be factual? That is your claim. Now prove it.

      Delete
    11. LOL. So, on the one hand you say that science has proven a bigfoot anecdote to be factual. Then on the other hand, you say what mainstream science recognizes or is aware of means little. So, which is it?

      You're not having a good day, are you? Happy to be of service.

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

      Delete
    13. There is no one anecdote as such, more like a frequency of cultural and contemporary anecdotes, based on the repeatable physical evidence.

      It's more of a matter of what science as a method has demonstrated, as opposed to what ignorant & restricted mainstreamed scientists are aware of. Try and keep up Donald!

      Delete