Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Man Talks About His Childhood Friend, A Female Bigfoot


From Brenton Sawin's Mysteries To Search

Paul played with a female Sasquatch when he was a kid. The Bigfoot was a juvenile and seemed to take a liking to Paul at 6 years old. The Bigfoot had a brother and the main Sasquatch that played with Paul was a female.

26 comments:

  1. wow biscardi has a stock bgft stock that showed u on the market as a 10 billion dollar value. mysteriously thet said it disappeared faster than a yeti in front of a high res camera.
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/17/the-mystery-of-how-a-company-set-up-to-search-for-bigfoot-hit-a-10-billion-value.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Would someone PLEASE donate money to Brenton? His constant whining and begging is getting tiresome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blame me!!.
      I bet Y'ALL didnt know Brenton has been pandering to,,ME(not you "ME),,,all this time,U broke ass STIFFS.!!
      MR.FAT CHECKBOOK MAN!!

      Delete
    2. Pardon me but why do all your checks bounce MR.FAT CHECKBOOK MAN?

      Delete
  3. The Follies of Joerg Part I

    In June 2015, the bumbling buffoon Joerg made a complete jackass out of himself by confusing the occipital bun with the nuchal crest and then added to his humiliation by further declaring that the occipital bun was an extra bone in the neck!

    http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2015/06/this-looks-so-wrong.html?m=1

    If that wasn't enough, a year later in June 2016 on Andy White's blog, Joerg, in an apparent attempt to show that his stupidity has no limits, AGAIN confused the occipital bun with the nuchal crest! With the patience of Job, Andy explained the difference to the moron, but I'm guessing that this basic concept of human anatomy continues to elude Joerg's feeble mind!

    http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/bigfoot-researchers-still-insist-native-american-skull-is-not-human

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't be a good look then that someone like me, who doesn't know basic human anatomy, should show you a thing or two about nuchal crests here;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-teddy-roosevelt-bigfoot-story.html?m=0

      ... And again here;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/dr-jeffrey-meldrum-removes-myth-out-of.html?m=0

      ... It doesn't appear I have an issue with differentiating the nuchal crest in those comment sections, does it?

      On the occipital bone, I have no issue in admitting my mistakes. I'm human after all. A couple of years ago when I first watched Sykes' analysis of Khwit's skull on TV, I listed them off whilst watching it and accidentally wrote "extra bone in neck" as opposed to "back of the skull". This was at a time when my knowledge of skull morphology wasn't great (this also should have actually been described as "pronounced", but blame Sykes for that). considering I pasted the same list of archaic traits for about two years afterwards, nobody around here including the anon up top knew any different until a polite anon pointed it out for me.

      Joe's error on Andy's blog was just a typo.

      I do realise how low I've stooped responding to that.

      Delete
    2. @5:05 FOR ONCE YOU RETAINED WHAT I LEARNED YOU !SONNY BOY!!

      DR.B SYKES

      Delete
    3. ...Thanks 9:01..That was a good article and comment section..Prof. White shares my confusion over the archaic human\lost indian tribe theory: If the foots share so many skeletal features with us, how does one tell the difference(between unearthed skeletal remains?..

      I also think Joe wants it both ways: The differences in the Humboldt skull and ours are enough to throw it the evidence pile, but he also points to the wide variety in HSS morphology when he argues here for
      accepting that bigfoots have same dna as us

      ...Finally, there is a dichotomy with the picture we've been given since the 50's and the so-called human theory meant to account for the pre-1950's evidence..Joe points to one researchers view based on one encounter: Harvey Prats sketches of bigfoots as UFC fighters...

      My 2 cents...Good morning Joe and anons....EEG

      Delete
    4. ..s\b "...enough to throw it in the evidence pile..."

      Delete
    5. At EEG,YOU HAVE A NEW FAN IN

      "DR,B SYKES".!!
      It's about time this comment section can finaly dicsuss the subject matter without trollish cut&paste behaviour!
      Dr.B Sykes.

      Delete
    6. ...Thanks Dr..After some tension over comments made on this blog, Joe and Prof. White had an interesting, polite discussion...I am not trolling or insulting Joe. I am pointing out what I honestly believe are some issues with his ideas..

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

      Delete
    8. It almost pains me to have to repeat myself to this extent, but here it goes...

      It is easy to differentiate the skeletal remains of that of "Bigfoot" and Native Americans, by the comparative morphology. The innumerable reports and subsequent descriptions ARE in fact data. The collective archaic traits we see in the Humboldt skull are not seen in any known example of Native American skull, and given the fact that people are reporting a description of an archaic human, and the long cultural references to the region to which the skull was found, I think I'm warranted in drawing that conclusion.

      In the following link, you'll notice a discussion about the origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens;
      http://youtu.be/XdP-Wjd1qSY

      ... Here, Chris Stringer explains on the 4mins mark that in the lineage of both Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, we see anatomical and morphological traits in their fossil and genetic data that are linked to their far, far, earlier emergence from Homo Heidelbergensis. These are modern scientists conducting research on the theory that same species hominids can and DID have varying anatomy and morphology, yet were the same species. The reason for me listing the morphological differences that the likes of archaic Homo sapiens (Cro-Mangon) and homo modern Sapien sapiens have, is to highlight that there can be anatomic diversity in the same species, and still share the same DNA. I really can't fathom where there's an alleged contradiction there?

      Lastly... Sasquatch has been described as a "wildman" for 200 years. One of the oldest native names for this creature is Shoonshoonootr, one of the few native words to literally translate as “big foot”. This is a massive historical indicator of how long physical evidence has been acknowledged, and humans are the only primates that have bipedal feet. Also... Harvey Pratt has done way more than just a couple of consistent human-like forensic sketches and was partnered with David Paulides who researched this topic extensively with the cooperation of native Americans. In his research which was very comprehensive, people very much reported more archaic human-like Sasquatch. I don't know what you meant by the "UFC" part of your comment.

      Delete
    9. THE MOST ARCHAIC HOMO SAPIEN'S ARE THE PYGMYS ,GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.9:27

      Dr.B Sykes

      Delete
    10. Ironically, Sykes has loosely theorised that Zana's lineage could be a subspecies of ancient Homo sapiens that emerged out of Africa 100,000 years ago.

      You should probably familiarise yourself with the theories of the people who use as signatures.

      Delete
    11. Always late to the party . . .

      I just want to comment that the exchange between lktomi and Andy White was one of the most interesting exchanges I have read on this blog. I really enjoy seeing two points of view being debated without resorting to insults and actually was learning some things. Too bad it had to be interspersed with comments from others which made absolutely no sense to me.

      I'm hoping Andy will continue this subject on his own blog. It will be interesting reading for sure.

      Delete
    12. According to pygmy mutations in thier mito DNA. Thier race dates back to 180,000,BFP!!

      THE OLDEST FOSSELS OF Cro-Magnon date back no more than
      45-55,000 yrs BFP...
      In future post "Joe F" you
      need to DEFINE Archaic HSS vs
      Archaic HUMAN,,,BIG DIFFERENCE.!!!

      DR.B Sykes

      Delete
    13. African pygmy populations are genetically diverse and extremely divergent from all other human populations, suggesting they have an ancient indigenous lineage. Their uniparental markers represent the second-most ancient divergence right after those typically found in Khoisan peoples. Recent advances in genetics shed some light on the origins of the various pygmy groups. Researchers found "an early divergence of the ancestors of Pygmy hunter–gatherers and farming populations 60,000 years ago, followed by a split of the Pygmies' ancestors into the Western and Eastern Pygmy groups 20,000 years ago.

      The authors of Khoisan studies suggested that the San may have been one of the first populations to differentiate from the most recent common paternal ancestor of all extant humans, the so-called Y-chromosomal Adam by patrilineal descent, estimated to have lived 60,000 to 90,000 years ago. The authors also note that their results should be interpreted as only finding that the Khoisan "preserve ancient lineages", and not that they "stopped evolving" or are an "ancient group", since subsequent changes in their population are in parallel and similar to those of all other human populations.

      Homo sapiens idaltu is the name given to a number of around 160,000-year-old hominid fossils found in 1997 in Herto Bouri, Ethiopia. As "certain cranial traits are outside the range of modern human variation", paleoanthropologists determined that the finds belong to an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens who lived in Pleistocene Africa. According to scientists, "[the fossil findings] predate classic Neanderthals and lack their derived features ... are morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans ... represent the probable immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans ... their anatomy and antiquity constitute strong evidence of modern-human emergence in Africa."

      All courtesy of Wikipedia. Maybe you should start with the basics? And don't you dare condescend me you drunk, I noticed Andy didn't have time for people who peddle paranormal stuff like you.

      Delete
    14. Never, and I mean never ever ,address your superiors with insubordination!!! "U DINGBAT"

      Big Boss (of low iq joe f)Man!!

      Delete
    15. Predate Neanderthal??
      What a troll , and a very dim one at that.

      Big Boss (of low iq joe)Man!

      Delete
    16. It's ok you utter twat... You're learning.

      Delete
  4. This guy is a horrible liar. He was making it up as he went along for the most part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree, he seemed to be making it up as he went along.

      Wish I could lie like that. I can't keep track of lies so I just deal in truth. Its simpler.

      Delete
    2. so VTD!! YOU got a problem with Anecdotal evidence???

      AC collins

      Delete