World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
No more trollish nonsense! Shut up you tards. You haven't realized you were the ones that lost before the contest began?
Damn straight. Eh, I though this was meant to be the dogman hour??
^ Knows all about doggie positions
It sounds like another bigfoot BS story.
Can I ask, what constitutes a genuine "Bigfoot story"?
A genuine bigfoot story would involve an actual specimen being provided to science.
That's a negative proof fallacy mate... A logical fallacy. Even more silly when considering there is reliable physical evidence to support at least some frequency of sightings reports, that span hundreds of years.
Have you considered the possibilty that the evidence is not so reliable?
I considered it, researched it (more than you), and it stands up.
I'm pleading for some one to show me I'm wrong.
Maybe you should try to show how you're wrong.
Come on Curious, you usually make more sense than that.
Ad Hom. The whole basis of science is that one tries to disprove one's own conclusions.
I'm sorry... Are you aware of what ad hominem means? I was stating I couldn't understand your comment. If you mean falsifiably, yes... All the evidence I reference is falsifiable.
And you don't have to copy and paste anything from Karl Popper.
Saying plainly that something doesn't make sense with no explanation is a personal insult with no justification. Ad hom, perhaps you should look it up.
If it's falsifiable, why don't you try to falsify it?
6:00... Something saying that you don't understand a comment, means you simply don't understand said comment. Curious... I know that you read my comments here, and I know that you know I've falsified the evidence I've referenced loads of times. Are you trying to be rhetorical?
You didn't simply state that you didn't understand the comment in a respectful manner. Instead, you snidely declared that I "usually make more sense than that." That was ad hom.
I've only seen you attempt to argue in favor of the evidence that you support.
"You usually make more sense than that" = translated = "I didn't understand that". ad hominemad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/adverb & adjective1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."an ad hominem response"2. relating to or associated with a particular person."the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
Curious... Google "Iktomi Bigfoot Evidence Falsifiability".
The statement was directed against me personally as someone who did not make sense and did not address why I did not make sense in the comment. Classic ad hom.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here ya go Iktomi! I got one kissing the cheek of another!!! Look close!SKEPTIC DESTRUCTION!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2DvZGwY0wE
Why is part of bigfoot's face green like the leaves around him?
For the record all previous comments made by "curious" were not me. I don't necessarily disagree with the statements made by this new curious however I am only responsible for the one's I have personally made. I understand it's a common practice here to use someone else's designated name to make comments but just wanted to mention this. Truth is, I just pop in every now and then to read the comments and move on with sometimes leaving a comment or two. I think it's known by now that I no longer believe Bigfoot exists but I really could care less if others do. My interest now is directed to the personalities involved and what drives them. One thing I know is that this "forever war" between believers and skeptics will continue indefinitely with advocates never being able to prove it exists and skeptics never being able to prove to those who do believe that it doesn't. The debate will just go on and on with no end in sight.It is entertaining however to read the comments and I fully admit it's a guilty pleasure of mine when I can find the time.
Hey Curious, Iktomi already deleted the comment, but he mentioned that you blamed Bigfoot enthusiasts for your failure as a researcher. What was he talking about?
Green because they are like Chameleon's, they replicate what they touch.
Thanks for clarifying Doc.
To Anon 7:25 - frankly I'm not sure and perhaps lktomi could best answer that himself. The only "research" and I say that lightly, is going down to Tennessee and looking onto the Carter Farm fiasco (look it up if you are not familiar with it). From what I found I came to the conclusion that the whole story behind it originated in the mind of one Janice Carter and there was nothing to back up her claims.I am NOT a researcher. It is simple curiosity and entertainment value that keeps me interested in the goings on in the Bigfoot community these days.
The next time you encounter a troll online, remember:1. These trolls are some truly difficult people.2. It is your suffering that brings them pleasure, so the best thing you can do is ignore them. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists
You can't ignore the trolls Joerg. As demonstrated by this thread, we'll always be here to make you look like a blithering moron!
Like this Dr Squatch? xxhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmcA9LIIXWw
Won't be online til later...let you know!
Was that a bigfoot or a baboons ass
THAT WAS A BIGFOOT, THE BABOON ASS IS RIGHT HERE AT 3:05^^^^
ALL MY EVIDENCE IS REAL, REAL SQUIRREL
Hey footers! Where's the specimen?Oh that's right, all you have is the same "evidence" that has been around for ages.
Here's a skull;https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/... And sorry, there is nothing in scienific theory that states that scientific evidence loses credibility the longer it's around. That's child minded stuff.
Didn't Andy White already take that apart?
Don't respond to this troll Iktomi. Remember:The next time you encounter a troll online, remember:1. These trolls are some truly difficult people.2. It is your suffering that brings them pleasure, so the best thing you can do is ignore them. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadistsMMC
MMC, as long as he stays on the subject matter... I'm happy to Blitz him. I hurt him with this stuff far more than what he can hurt me with trolling remember...8:26... Did Andy find an equivalent example of a Native Skull?
Just be careful brother. After all, you have no way of knowing that I am really MMC. If in doubt:The next time you encounter a troll online, remember:1. These trolls are some truly difficult people.2. It is your suffering that brings them pleasure, so the best thing you can do is ignore them. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadistsMMC
Assuming that it is a Bigfoot skull, why did the Bigfoot people leave it to to be discovered so easily, especially since the site had already been excavated two years prior and the "Bigfoot skull" was not found at that time? I thought Bigfoot did everything possible to avoid being discovered? Wouldn't Bigfoot have gone back and removed the skull after the first excavation?
It's in fact 100% speculation what Sasquatch do to maintain alleged burial sites, and the skull was found in the Humboldt sinc flats. The paper quite clearly states that the site was "partially excavated" in 1965.
It's not speculation that modern Bigfoot specimens or remains have not been found and that Bigfoot, if it exists, must necessarily do something to conceal its remains from discovery. Something that Bigfoot did not do to conceal the old "Bigfoot skull" at Lovelock, even after the site had already been excavated only two years previous to the skull's discovery. I guess Bigfoot wasn't too concerned about being discovered?
No... It's 100% speculation as to what "Bigfoot" does to maintain its alleged burial sites. That's unless you want to maintain the behaviour of a creature whose existence you don't even find credible, which is seriously ilogical? There could be factors such as tribal members dying out completely so as to not maintain such burial sites, whilst Sasquatch are closely associated with forested wilderness areas... To which would entail a far more difficult area to source such burial sites. Other than the woodland burial mounds that have yielded 7-8 skeletal remains, I'm not sure of many archeological groups who have conducted such excavations in forested wilderness areas, are you?
If you'd read my previous comments, you'd have noticed that I was assuming for sake of argument that bigfoot exists and I attempted to find some logical explanation for its apparent contradictory burial practices. You appear to acknowledge that they're illogical, so there is nothing left to discuss.
No... I think you're trying to work a contradiction that isn't there. If I was to assume various Sasquatch behaviours, there would be plenty pointing fingers. I've been clear in my comment as to what I find illogical.
LOL. A skull? What has science done with this skull? Why haven't scientists looked at it and declared that, yes, sasquatches do exist?
There is no valid evidence...that is still the case,I`m sorry to say...but there you go.
That skull was studied in 1967, and the whereabouts of it to this day is not known The anthropologists studying it didn't have "Bigfoot" on the mind, they were given a hominin skull to study and did so accordingly. To this day even enthusiasts have a hard time acknowledging that Sasquatch are prehistoric humans.12:46... Prove it. You've been given studies such as those on dermals, and you've never once come close to providing an equivalent scientific opinion that shows that it is bunk. You should apologise for not living up to what you preach every day of your life, not for your circular logic.
the skull in question is that of indian male,nothing outside of normal. iktomi is TROLLING YOU.I suggest you all ignore him.
Cool... If that's the case, find a comparative Native American skull. These skulls are everywhere, yet nowhere. Do yourself a favour & actually read the paper. Paleolithic morphology, it's in black and white.
Yes... Just like you baited with the ad hominem nonsense, it must really "burn" to be labelled a psychopath. ; )
^^^I'm sorry Sandy but the only legitimate lunatic here is you
A lunatic that's referencing a hominin skull, found right where native peoples have claimed for thousands of years that cannibalistic hairy tribes had resided.
They are cannibalistic hairy tribes that can turn green like chameleons?
You'd have to ask DS about the chameleons stuff.
On that note, however... A fascinating hair sample that could go some way to supporting DS's theories;https://youtu.be/_zT8uKwY-R8
I wasn't aware MK was an expert in hair analysis.
He's not... And neither do you have to be to see the mix of hair colours in that clump.
Might an expert know the reasons why the hairs appear different colors?
Probably... Why don't you email MK and ask him to get them vetted?
... But in the mean time, you could just consult your own comment sense to know there's no animal on the planet (to the best of my knowledge) that has hair colour that diverse.
That hair sample was fetched from dumpster behined a hair salon.If not prove it!
Could you remind me exactly what combination of features you think it is that identifies a skull as that of a "Bigfoot" rather than a Native American?
Open the link... You were given the paper, fake Andy.
Shit Troll ,6:50 you are so redundantly useless and boreing,,you've been arse holed on this subject at least 50×S...YOU JOTO'MI ARE PURE DEFINITION OF PSYCHO TROLL!Dan Campbell,smoked your ass to the point you had to change your name to Fool(ikomi)idiot in at least 30 1st nations language's, is completley appropriate,THANKS DAN!! U ARE THE MAN!,,,LOL,
Shut AC.You stinking drunk!^
Good Day Iktomi and MMC! Just as an FYI the Sasquatch do avoidance procedures in general but, if this were a lone Sasquatch he would not have had any immediate clan to bury him per their rituals. Now that being said, not all Sasquatch share the same burial rituals. I have first hand experience within my own Sas clan as I retain bones and skulls from two that were "gifted" to me 1 year and 3rd year after their passing. They ate each different as humans are different. Keep up the good work Iktomi!
I'll shoot you an email to pick your brains. Hope you are well Khat!
... Is someone who spends there entire existence around a topic they find disagreeable. Indeed.
Khat, let me make sure I get this straight. Are you saying you have right now in your possession, skulls from two deceased Sasquatch?
and apparently has her own Sasquatch clan
In Iktomi's mind questioning extraordinary claims makes one a "troll".
If Bigfoot is human, then Khat is committing multiple felonies by not turning over human remains to the authorities.
It's about now Curious that your world is crashing down.It's a deep river your about to attempt to cross. The Psychology of the Elite world is Way MORE about what someone wants you to believe.. The best lies of Science (and psychology) Always show up in the "Explanation" not the tests of a practical matter.If I find hair and bones, I will let science test them ------------------ I will not let them tell me "where they came from" Because they don't know!!!!!There still looking for a real set of monkey man bones!!!!!Understand that Half the stuff you see on a sy-fy movie DID NOT COME from somebodies imagination. It came from somebodies reality. And the government FEEDS it to you to get your brain ready to except "their" TRUTH.there ARE OTHERS THAT know THE real TRUTH. a LOT of the Woo Crowd is even deceived.Oh they have the Super-natural part right, but what they truly are, and are cable of, ---- that person is rare.You should listen to Khat.This River your about to cross my Friend--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Khat has a paddle, a canoe, and a map!If you want to go exploring --- She is the guide you want to roll with.She is the guide, that rescues lost guides ------ understand?We were put here, and so were other things!!!!!
Khat will guide you either to prison or a lunatic asylum.
YOU CANNOT SEE THE SPIRITUAL FORREST, BUT FOR THE SELF PRAISING TREES OF THE "SCIENTIFIC" MAN!PSYCHOLOGY HAS DELIVERED US A GENERATION OF CRYBABIES AND "PUSSIES"(EASTWOOD, HA HA)BECAUSE YOU PSYCHOLOGISTS WANTED TO MAKE SURE NOBODIES FEELINGS ARE HURT ------SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE!YOU TOLD US TAKE AWAY GOD ----- MANKIND WILL DEVLOPE ITS OWN MORAL SINCE ------- NOW LOOK AT THE COUNTRY OF CRYBABIES, CORRUPT CORPORATIONS, AND CROOKED POLOTICIANS, AND SOCIALIST EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, WHO PISS DOWN OUR BACKS AND TELL US IT'S RAINING!GET OVER YOURSELVES, SO CALLED INTULECTUALY ILLIT -------------------------------------------------- YOU DO NOT KNOW BETTER!
Kat likes them big bones, she likes Johnson and he's insane, nobody likes me, nobody
She has a twelve pound ancient ax head that she got out of her very own ancient tomb near death valley.So put a twelve pound ax head on a handle and swing it......oh don't forget to make the ax handle correspondingly large, lets say 5 feet..Now attempt to swing it!You can't', you won't!!!Apply a little logic here, how BIG would you have to be ???Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haWhen you have your own tomb with glypths ............In the mean time, you should listen to Khat!
Invisible evidence fool, where is this giant axe? Only I have true bigfoot evidence, looks like squirrels but so what
I'm indeed eager to listen to what Khat has to say TK. I would like to know if she has skulls from two deceased Sasquatch in her possession.It's a simple question.
Good Evening TK and my other friends here. Sorry to get back here so late, but it is Sunday and I had services and a Church Dinner to attend. Curious, why is it that now all of the sudden you are interested in knowing what I have BF related in my possession? Are you going to crank out the old "EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM" argument? What I have in my care is none of your business. And I have absolutely ZERO interest in divulging any information to you or any other troll here on this blogsite. My responses are for my friends and colleagues. I have shown my evidence to the proper authorities and scholars. As well as the elders of the tribe. Needless to say, they are now safely locked away from prying eyes and there will be no repeat of the attack that occurred in 2008. People such as yourself demand answers, but unfortunately when they are given them they tend to shut down mentally and cannot fathom the truth. That is why you are here on a site harassing others that believe. No, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else for that matter. As I have said many times. If you are observant you would have noticed one of the BF artifacts that I wear around my You would have read the comments from the primatologist who studied my photos of my Sasquatch's faces and realized that they retain the archaic nasal flaps that allow them to swim underwater. But unfortunately, you were too busy attacking and harassing to notice.
What a crock of sh*t. Perhaps you should seek to speak directly to your friends and not in a public forum if you don't want your claims challenged. My guess is that you sell claims to buyers who are eager to accept them without asking questions.
If you have rare archaeological evidence (consisting of Bigfoot and therefore human remains) in your possession, then it is EVERYONE'S business. If I wasn't so sure that you are some demented old dingbat making up stupid sh*t because your life is so empty, I would contact the proper authorities so that you could be criminally prosecuted.
Once again the statement above is not from this curious poster (yes - I know it's getting confusing). Now Khat for the record I have never attacked you and don't believe I have harassed anyone on this site. I simply asked a question. Because of your immediate defensive reaction I have to conclude you cannot back up your statement. If you do not want your statements challenged than perhaps you should take Anon 7:00's advice. I cannot vouch for the other "curious" above but you do not have to worry about any more questions from me - you obviously have nothing to offer but your "stories".
Uh-oh...now you've done it. The wraith of Deebs will be upon you all!
I saw it, no charge to me!It's about your heart and seeking the truth. The Authorities -------- They're in on dummy, you tell them, you never will see it!To some of us, your intentions shine right past words. I told you dopes the other day, she has already paid a painful price for what she knows, gifts of knowledge, and in helping others.I know there is two different people here "Curious" and it's ok to skeptical. You have to understand that a couple of the TARDS here are extremely nasty and the ten or twelve good people left have to sift through the trash.Khat doesn't know 100% about this thing!Khat does know 100% more thsn the next closist ----------Good things come to those that wait!
U MESS WITH KAT U MESS ME & Deebs,meaning to the perp??two dudes,,one in front an one in back,,Staring at each otherwith perp in the middle,,,The one up front say'S to the whimp in back (Deebs)!!"HOW BOUGHT THEM LAKERS"???HAAA HAAA HAA LOL!
One more thing Curious, in time you will see -----The troll here is probably more than just a troll. He is most likely a government shill put here to SHIT ON EVERYTHING to discourage good people from even studying the subject.You need to trust that what I'm telling you is true. Stick your toe in the water, good water!!I have a question for you Curious, you obviously are skeptical and I'm going to assum you are also skeptical about God?If that's true? Ask yourself--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do I just fail to believe in God? -------or --------Do I want God to not exist!If the second is true, research yourself and find out why you feel that way.If there is a God, he put you here! I say he put you here to learn.If you simply do not believe, I have a simple challenge for all of you. And if there is no GOD, this wont matter at all, so you should have absolutely ZERO FEAR of doing what I'm about to tell you ----- The world is getting ugly out there.So ------ Ask God, the God of abaraham, moses, and king David ----------------------------------- (to SOME of you, you need to specify) Ask him to reveal himself to you! Ask him to open your eyes and to reveal himself, his mysteries, and his heart!!!!Pray to him and sincerely ask that he reveal himself to you. It is the one prayer God say's ----- I will answer.And he will. For some it might be as immediate slap into reality others will began to see, what they had never seen before. He will answer. When you get WIRED into God, he's going to began to show you things!It is extremely important in these times in this world, Don't be scarred of the one the created you ---- it's time to get to know him!So I dare ya. If it's not real, nothing will happen anyway right?try it, see what he has for YOU to see!
Tk?? nobody is disputing your beliefs,,dude, my disagreement is with Joe F and not you!!you are nothing more than collateral damage!---so as you said a few days ago,SHUT YER YAP AN BOW OUT!! that said noone say'n you're wrong!ONE LAST TIME ,,SASQUATCH "ARENOT" YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS,HSS,!AC collins
Yah, but your a punk and loudmouth, and I don't care if Iktomi says there winged purple elephants ----- He is contributing------------------------------------------ You don't!Fifty good people don't hang here ANYMORE because your a dick!And your a lying, traitor backstabbing dick!Only your a girl, so you blow out.You started shit with everybody. You are off your rocker. You need to get punched in the face and learn some respect.In everything I wrote above, I never mentioned you. Shoot your mouth off in front of me and I'll drop you where you stand----------- YOU DIG DUMBASS!GO FIND A NEW PLACE TO SPEW YOUR HATE.
Here's what I know,------------------------------ anybody that gets a thrill, energy , pleasure satisfaction out of causing others discomfort, fear, anxiety, aggravation----- for no other reason or constructive purpose ----- is driven by evil.Plain and simple! Ever heard of a psychic vampire. So you can say what you like. But we all know your twisted inside. Good chance you have one or more addictions. Alcohol is likely. You twist in your own head trying to get satisfaction and verification out of life. You try and make friends, but you cant. You cant really get your head wrapped around why. Your as un-fulfilled as they come. You need to deal with it. We're all happy and we don't succumb!Get with somebody in your area and get some prayer. Your demonically afflicted at minimum.Physically, try get some magnesium supplements and possibly lithium.Your chemically off or hang'in with dark side. No other point in what you have spent 5 years here doing!I rebuke you demon! In Jesus name.
Look troll asskisser .its so pitiful to see a Truly sick person (such as you) project your issues on to others ...so piss off an bow out ....then again , it ain't about you!! AC collins
Well just read what you said troll k. Hey do you want to call AC Collins a punk to his Face!! I can make it happen .and on UTUBE?? ANY TIME TK ?? Email ??
Cricket's for the GUTTLESS!!figured as much!!!Haaaa haaaa haaaha LolAC (TK'S A PUNK)collins
Get a hold of Shawn or RO, HES BEEN TO MY HOUSE, COME ON BY. I've CALLED YOU A PUNK TO YOUR FACE A MILLION TIMES.yOU ON THE OTHER HAND HAVE BEEN PERV TO WOMAN --- YOUR A DEMAON AFFLICTED PERVE AND A SCUMBBAG.Shawn ---- this asswipe calls, hook him up with ro, give him directions to my place. You ain't going to have time to film the ass-whoopin. But I'll film you pickin up your teeth. Because if you leave any piece of your trash self on my property, I'll beat your ass some more for littering.Hook this pussy up Shawn--- you have my permission!
Better yet, your the dodge perve, tell me who you are where your at.I want you to think McCreggor vs. Aldo!A.C. "WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT HAPPENED , WHAT HAPPENED, WHERE ARE MY TEETH, WHAT HAPPEND?"HE KNOCKED YOUR STUPID ASS OUT, THATS WHAT HAPPENED!But I'm going to take your two front teeth, so every time you look in the mirror, it will remind you to shut your mouth!you're WALKING AROUND WITH A CAIN ANYWAY YOU IDIOT. I'LL TAKE YOURE BAD KNEE OUT FIRST SO YOU CAN'T RUN AWAY ----- THEN THE ASS-WHOOPIN WILL PROGREES. I HOPE FOR YOUR SAKE I GET THOSE TWO FRONT TEETH ON THE FIRST HIT, CAUSE I DON'T THINK I'LL HIT YOU WHEN YOUR SLEEPING, BUT WHEN YOU WAKE UP, I'LL GET THOSE FRONT TEETH WITH A PAIR OF PLIARS. IT WILL BE EASIER ON YOU IF I KNOCK EM OUT, BUT EITHER WAY.When you get to town, swing by the Police station and ask them what happened to the last two.Detective showed up at my house showing me pics of a dude in a hospital gown asking me what I hit him with. I explained the situation ------ Justified.Your going to sign a piece of paper --- It's called AGREED mutual combat, and it will keep me out of trouble while your healing! So I don't know abot where you live, but you sign that paper or take a swing and your face will look different for the remainder of your time on the planet.I told a whole group of pussy ass-holes who were threating him that I had his back and would show up. I didn't know who or how many ------ Ask Justin if I do what I say. And your just one idiot.You can ask Shawn or RO THE SAME, They where there.you are atotalscumbag.I won't loose two seconds of sleep over cracking your head!
motherfucker. i will FUCK U UP BITCH , IT WILL BE MY PLEASURE BEATING YOUR PUNK ASS EMAIL ? U FAT NAME DROPPING SLOB??AC collins.
U know TK ,after your Thesis of psychotic hate ,its obvious you're a sick fucking godless nutcase,, please,motherfucker please,give me your email bitch,,, Then I will give you my ph #Lol. After what you wrote !!
I told you exactly how to get to me, you don't need my e-mail, contact Shawn, Then COME AND GET YOU SOME!FOR YOUR ABUSIVE TREATMENT OF WOMAN ----- god won't mind!That why your wife left ya?
They touch squirrels a lot that's why all my evidence looks like squirrel closeups
I like fake DS way better!!
Squirrel touching is a misdemeanor in 11 states.
Nope - real Andy. I'm asking you to simply list the cranial features that you think, in combination, make the Humboldt skull a Bigfoot and not a Native American. Maybe then I can help you. Paleolithic is an archaeological period, not a kind of skull.
I guess the features are that it's bigger than average and has some other traits, like a brow ridge, a nuchal crest, and an Inca bone, that are not all that unusual in modern human skulls.But the only way Joerg will ever shut up about it is if you dig up all of the human graveyards of the world, desecrate millions of human remains, and find a human skull with the EXACT features and measurements of the Lovelock skull.I proposed that Joerg volunteer his own skull for such a study as I suspect that it exhibits many archaic characteristics, but he declined for unexplained reasons.
Are you the real Andy White? If so, can you please help with this Iktomi nonsense? He seems to believe desperately that there are giant skulls and skeletons that are Bigfoots (but would come up simply as human or inconclusive if DNA were analyzed) becaus Bigfoots are just prehistoric Proto-Native Americans. I know the real Andy White has already slapped down many of his most bizarre claims on his blog, but it would be great if an actual trained anthropologist and scientist would come to this forum and evaluate the "evidence" that the die hard believers think scientists are too stupid to understand or fairly evaluate.
Dear Andy White PHD, never mind the self professed "KING TROLL"that is iktomi (idiot,fool,in 30 different 1st nation cultures)as he in nothing more than a wanna beeamerican,who's whole cut&pasteknowledge base comes from google wikipedia!JUST PITY THE FOOL & AND JUST IGNORE THE PSYCHO!!HAAA HAAA HAA LOL!!----"BABY FOOD"--LOL!
Hey A.C., Don't you think Phil polling has Bigfoot Lips?I mean black folk look at him and say what the hell?Oh and Andy, A.C. Above here^^^, he has a PHD in shit fur brains.
Haa haa haa lol!!~~^LOOSER! NOUGH SAID!
Fake Andy... If you've take the time to actually read the anthropologists take on the Humboldt skull..."Unusual features of the Humboldt Sink cranium, aside from the prominent brow ridge and glabellar development and the notably strong nuchal crest, are the low retreating forehead with post-orbital construction, and the true os inca, divided occipital, or interparietal bone, accompanied by by generally high sutural complexity with several Wormian bones in the lambdoid suture."To elaborate on this, the anthropologists studying the skull in 1967 drew upon many other unusual features, as well as the nuchel crest, that according to them is not found in anatomically modern humans. The brain case lacks frontal lobe capacity and the manner in which the skull narrows behind the eye sockets and sloped forehead are examples of these. Also, you'll notice that the anthropologists states that; “... Eastern Asiatic subdivision of the general Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens.” ... That's profound. You'll notice that the ideas posed about the unusual features of the skull have been consistent with the things that anthropologists DO know about palaeolithic specimens (the evidence). All these traits are what we expect to see in paleolithic peoples. If you don't like it... Find a comparative skull in a modern Native American skull, fake Andy.7:52, I'll be waiting for you here to source a modern skull with those collective traits. You've been crying about it for so long, anyone would think you'd try and actually do something about it by now. 8:44... Sasquatch are human, deal with it cry baby.
And 7:52... Nobody has invented paleolithic morphological traits to the Humboldt skull they are facts. The simple fact remains that some singular elements of that archaic morphology do indeed exist in contemporary examples, but not to the highly pronounced and collective frequency as we see in the Humboldt skull.Simples.
Actually 8:44... To elaborate on this, one hair sample was verified after an instance where multiple government employees were witness to a Sasquatch and where subsequent tracks were accumulated. These hairs were later verified to be that of a currently unclassified primate by Dr Paul Fuerst of Ohio State University & the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre. Dr Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's department of anthropology confirms this. Sykes has very recently studied this hair and... "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".- Dr Bryn SykesIt is important to note that this hair sample has consistency with 12 other samples that are alllinked to their own sightings, physical evidence and general Sasquatch activity. These have been studied at length by Dr Henner Fahrenbach, a retired zoologist who has worked for thirty years as Chairman of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the Oregon Regional Primate Center in Beaverton in Oregon. He has published numerous papers in a variety of journals in the fields of histology and neurobiology, in addition to several analyses of sasquatch biology. "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."So it is here, considering we have hair samples that have uniform morphology verified by multiple experts, as we do with biological dermatoglyphics verified at the same frequency, that we are at a stage of research that points to a human leaving it's sign. Sasquatch is ancient human, as DNA tested by Zana's lineage and as Dr Bryan Sykes will no doubt confirm in due course.
Look Joe .I have defeated you on every point that you have argued,, even to dicredit ALL ANECDOTAL bigfoot physical Performance ,,,runs 50mph,ect. due to the fact that HSS has 46based pairs(for fine motor control ) sasquatch must have 48 base pairs to match witness discriptions of size ,speed ,Strength ect..in other words sasquatch are not yer next door neighbors... AC collins
damn I need a laptop!AC
Early human ancestors and most other mammals' brains are wired with straightforward circuits that pick up information from the surrounding environment through the senses and relays that information to motor neurons so the body can move and respond to the surrounding environments. Do you actually have a witness account of a Sasquatch running 50mph? You have never defeated anything other than two foot longs in one day. You invent "facts" to fit your trolling and attempt to agitate people, you are a hateful little drunk that nobody likes, who's ideas have even less chance of substatiating than what the readily available data offers... If one simply gets to know the subject matter a little better. Analysing the available data and the reports merely puts this into context. For example, a significant percentage of the reports point to a creature 7-8 feet in height... The collaborating physical evidence? The track impressions 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 run to what the ACTUAL reports suggest.You're like a bad smell. Go away you weirdo.
SASQUATCH: SIZE, SCALING, AND STATISTICS WOLF H. FAHRENBACH Beaverton, Oregon, U.S.A.Hennerf@bfro.netMeasurements and estimates on Sasquatch dimensions, collected over the last 40 years in the Western U.S and Canada, were subjected to statistical analysis and extrapolation by scaling laws appropriate to primates and mammals. The study has 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. The results suggest a substantial population with traits different from those of other higher primates and humans.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
A.C. ---- So what is your theory?Seriously, I want to know.I may have missed it, but All I've ever seen is you pissing on somebody else's theory.So lets have, what do you think they are???
@5:49.thank you for asking ..#1 I do not think that bigfoot are Homo sapien sapien , you know 5:49.I have always wondered why the praracus skulls were not studied more since they are a physical item that are truly not human .they are extraordinary in the fact that thier skull morphology is non homo anything,,and my beliefs have evolved over the past 5yrs of being here. at first I thought they might a neanderthal erectus sapien hybrid..however if that was the case ,we would have caught one along time ago (not thinking conspiricy theorys)Im starting to think somthing along the line of skinwalker ranch paranormal..by the way thnx for asking 5:49,you are a true gentelmanAC collins
I'm the real Andy White. I'm not sure how to prove it to you other than by writing another blog post about the morphology of the Humboldt skull. I'll probably get around to doing that eventually. I just wanted some clarification on exactly what combination of features you think is so special as to exclude the skull from being Native American (and therefore, I guess, Bigfoot?). Here is the passage you quoted:"Unusual features of the Humboldt Sink cranium, aside from the prominent brow ridge and glabellar development and the notably strong nuchal crest, are the low retreating forehead with post-orbital construction, and the true os inca, divided occipital, or interparietal bone, accompanied by by generally high sutural complexity with several Wormian bones in the lambdoid suture."So these, according to you, are the features of a Bigfoot skull: 1) brow ridge2) strong nuchal chrest3) low forehead4) post-orbital constriction5) os incaIs that it? That's how you are diagnosing the skull as that of a Bigfoot rather than a Native American? I just want to make sure I have that correct.And you're saying there is not one single example of a Native American skull that has this combination of features, right? That's a falsifiable hypothesis. If I can find one, you'll admit that the Humboldt skull is a Native American and not Bigfoot, right?
My word. The Paracas skulls have not been reliably tested, in fact, there is not a shred of evidence that they've been tested at all (gullible twit), and this is your version of "facts"? And even though I am more than open to the idea of the Sasquatch possessing preternatural abilities, you have a ******* cheek questioning consistently compiled data based on physical and genetic evidence, by reputable scientists, for something that can't be measured by science and requires mere faith. Thanks for clearing that up.
Sure Andy!! I'd love to see you find a modern Native American a skull with the following...1. robust jaw2. prominent brow ridge3. glabellar development4. strong nuchal crest5. low retreating forehead with post-orbital construction6. os inca7. divided occipital or interparietal bone8. high sutural complexity with several Wormian bones... And no lessening that list please. And I'm not claiming that's a "Bigfoot" skull based on that morphology alone. There are plenty of oral histories that the natives to that area have held close for hundreds of years, if not longer. https://thedavisreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/original-skull-from-humboldt-sink.jpghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qXcRUWD1NVc/S4_nagDRvzI/AAAAAAAABhE/FumSBJu8WpM/s1600-h/Bigfoot-Sketch-III.jpg
Except that 6 and 7 are actually describing the same thing, of course.And what do you mean by "glabellar development"?And what do you think is the significance of Wormian bones?And what do you mean by "modern Native American"?
hey andy is it not true that all homo ss have 10 plates in there heads? if that is the case then what is up with the paracus skulls have 5 platesi mean the frontal and the pariratel plates have only one suture.as opposed to a Y suture as in hss, sorry for the grammer but im a little burnt
7:50 isnt BROCK LESNER 80% YAQUI??
Re: lower number of sutures. I wouldn't be surprised if the "lack" of sutures on some of the elongated skulls couldn't be explained as a side-effect of head binding. Cranial sutures fuse and are obliterated (meaning you can't see them anymore) relatively late in humans (compared to other primates and other animals), and it may have something to do with brain growth. If the shape of the skull is constrained artificially (i.e., with head binding) it seems logical to me that that might affect the timing of suture fusion/obliteration. I don't know if anyone's written about it specifically -- it's not my area of expertise. This recent post by Carl Feagans may be useful: http://ahotcupofjoe.net/2016/07/more-elongated-skull-drama/
Here's a link to a page in a book that discusses early obliteration of the sagittal suture associated with head binding: https://books.google.com/books?id=iy-5BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=head+binding+suture+obliteration&source=bl&ots=BKuRi6NhAn&sig=Lcx_zYooJ8LUNAC_mCenZQrL7hg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiti_vi48POAhXCNSYKHbzmAF8Q6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&q=head%20binding%20suture%20obliteration&f=false
Yes, it is acknowledged that 6 and 7 are the same, but relevant all the same. Glabellar as in the smooth part of the forehead above and between the eyebrows. See the photo here;https://thedavisreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/original-skull-from-humboldt-sink-from-above.jpgBy modern Native American, I mean anything post Neolithic era.
I don't for one second believe the elongated skulls in Peru are from head binding, I think there's to much data in them to be able to rule that out. I just don't subscribe to any of the alleged DNA results that have occurred.
What exactly is it that "rules out" head binding as an explanation for elongated skulls?"Neolithic" is not a term that is commonly used in North American archaeology. Do you have a date in mind before which a Native American is not "modern"?
I can head JR over the roar of the crowd in this thread as Andy White smacks down Iktomi,"OH MY GAWD STOP THE FIGHT, THAT MAN HAS A FAMILY!"Iktomi is a shut in troll from the UK, who has never once set foot in any US forest, but somehow thinks he can out argue a trained anthropological scientist based on the "hidden truths" he has discovered on Bigfoot enthusiast blogs from his basement.Please, Iktomi, continue to respond to Andy's comments. This is hilarious. Why don't you ask Andy about all the missing giant skeletons that would *PROVE* Bigfoots exist... Except the Smithsonian accidentally lost all the giant skeletons. Lol just lol you ignoramus.
Andy, I'm not about to search the Internet for the details I've read about what rules out head binding in the Paracus skulls, I'll get around to it again. You also know damn well that I meant the time period of 10,000 BC. Modern simply means modern... You've used the term often enough to describe that skull.
9:41... I'm very sorry, but I've never claimed to have endorsed any "hidden truths". But whilst you're here, why don't you ask Andy where these skeletal remains have gone? He does after all acknowledge that 7.5 foot tall skeletons have been excavated in woodland mounds in the US. Isn't that right, Andy?
^dude you've done no research. How about a tenured Stanford historian's take on Lovelock:According to Paiute oral history, the Si-Te-Cah or Sai'i are a legendary tribe of red-haired cannibalistic giants. Mummified remains fitting the Paiute description were discovered by guano miners in Lovelock Cave in 1911. Adrienne Mayor writes about the Si-Te-Cah in her book, Legends of the First Americans. She suggests that the 'giant' interpretation of the skeletons from Lovelock Cave and other dry caves in Nevada was started by entrepreneurs setting up tourist displays and that the skeletons themselves were of normal size. However, about a hundred miles north of Lovelock there are plentiful fossils of mammoths and cave bears, and their large limb bones could easily be thought to be those of giants by an untrained observer.
Shaq,that's all I'm going to say, Zaskey would present Shaq as evidence, not me, just squirrel closeups all the time. I don't do heroin
And another thing to counter the obvious baiting (that means you're being trolled as well Andy). I don't for one second think I know more than a PhD, what I'm merely maintaining are the traits that anthropologists have already attributed to that skull. The paper's already written... The skull most closely resembles that of Eastern Asiatic subdivision of the general Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens. Don't shoot the messenger.
I would in fact expect a tenured Stanford historian to know about the remains that were found at Sunset Cave close to Lovelock Nevada, that were said to be over seven feet tall, with some of these being shipped off to the Smithsonian Institute by L.L. Loud, an archaeologist with the University of California. Apparently. these notes are still on digital file at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology, listed under reference number 544, "An Anthropological Expedition of 1913".
Just checking the comments over lunch and I must say I am actually finding this exchange between lktomi and Andy White most interesting. I will openly admit I am a big fan of Andy's blog and respect his knowledge and opinions. Never-the-less I encourage lktomi to take his best shot and lets see what comes of it. I'm sure we can all actually learn something from this.
Professionals have reported the excavation of a few individuals in the 7-7.5' range, yes. I'm still not sure what connection you're making to Bigfoot with those.You're "not about to search the internet for details"? When I search for information on elongated skulls, what I see is a bunch of nonsense claims about "too large in volume" (with no supporting data), "too few bones" (probably explained by suture obliteration), and "not human DNA" (a result of contamination of samples by people who don't know what they're doing)."Neolithic" is a term for a technological period used in the Old World, usually associated with farming. The "Neolithic" doesn't start in the New World at 10,000 BC. In some places such as in parts of the Great Basin), human societies remained hunter-gatherers until European contact. I'm asking what you mean by "modern." All Native Americans are anatomically modern humans. There is no good evidence that humans colonized the New World as anything other than anatomically modern humans.
Learn from my extensive database of squirrel closeups, that's a learning experience
Andy... If people were accustomed to seeing 7-8 foot tall human skeletons in museums today, then they wouldn't have such a dogmatic approach to wild versions residing in deep wilderness areas today. It would also totally alter the academic approach to a number of fringe topics. What's more, is native cultures such as the Cherokee have oral histories of sharing burial mounds with what can be described as tall hairy tribes. But that's not what's important here, even though I've explained multiple times to this troll about the repatriation process and the miles and miles of storage the Smithsonian has, I have been criticised for providing much more than what you have for the whereabouts of these skeletons, and told that my views aren't credible as a result. I wonder if the troll would be so critical of you if you can't tell us where they are? Again, my obligation it to this immediate topic. I in fact scoff at much that's on the Internet about the Paracus skulls. Maybe you can even help me with a bit on that in future, but for another time.Andy, I think you're trying to be a little derogatory by condescending me about the Neolithic era. I think you know damn straight that I meant the time period associated with that era as opposed to applying it to American populations. However, as you may well be aware, the earliest radiocarbon dates documenting human presence in either North or South America that are widely accepted are only on the order of 12,000-13,000 years ago (about 14,000 calendar years ago). Again Andy, what would "modern" mean to you? You've used it enough to describe that skull. You claim that there is no good evidence for anything other than anatomically modern humans colonising the Americas, yet the very source of this exchange is in regard to a skull with paleolithic traits.
Joe,I'm not trying to be derogatory. As in your comments on my blog, I find that you sometimes conflate terms in a way that makes it difficult to understand exactly what you're saying.Yes, humans have been in the New World since at least 14,000 RCYBP. Applying the time period of the Neolithic in the Old World to populations in the New World is confusing. I think what you really mean is "Holocene" (i.e. post-Ice Age) as opposed to "Pleistocene". The Pleistocene-Holocene boundary is around 10,000 RCYBP. In the New World, all populations at that time were still hunter-gatherers. There is no evidence for the domestication of plants/animals in the New World until at least a couple of thousand years into the Holocene.The Paleolithic period in the Old World starts with the earliest stone tools (now known from about 3.3 MYA) and extends into late glacial times in Europe and other places. Upper Paleolithic peoples were anatomically modern humans. Their skeletons are often more robust than those of agricultural populations, but (in evolutionary terms), they are "modern." A Paleolithic skull would be a skull that dates to the Paleolithic, not necessarily a skull with a certain set of features. Again, Paleolithic is a technological period (and an incredibly long one), not a stage of human anatomical evolution.
And to answer the "what does modern mean to you" question:When "modern" is used to describe a skull, it is usually used in contrast to "archaic" (though that term itself is now somewhat archaic and isn't used much anymore). Neanderthals would be an example an "archaic" Homo sapiens. The Upper Paleolithic people of Europe, with their robust facial/cranial features (most if not all of which can be attributed to their hunter-gatherer adaptations) are "modern" Homo sapiens, just like we are with our processed food and couch potato adaptations.
I can't disagree with much of except to note that during the upper Palaeolithic, Neanderthals were starting to phase out of existence, and this is very fundamental to the morphology of that skull. Also... With regards to early Homo sapiens being "anatomically modern", there are many notable anatomical differences between them and us today. As you would agree, homo sapiens at that time had very robust bodies but also had short, slender trunks and long limbs. As you are well aware, more stocky builds gradually evolved when populations spread to cooler regions, as an adaptation that helped the body retain heat. We today have an average brain size of about 1350 cubic centimetres which makes-up 2.2% of our body weight, but early Homo sapiens, had slightly larger brains at nearly 1500 cubic centimetres. Our skulls have a short base and a high braincase, unlike other species of Homo, the skull is broadest at the top. The fuller braincase also results in almost no post-orbital constriction or narrowing behind the eye sockets. Back of the skull is rounded and indicates a reduction in neck muscles. The face is reasonably small with a projecting nose bonebrow ridge is limited and the forehead is tall. The orbits (eye sockets) are square rather than round. The jaws are short which result in an almost vertical face usually no gap (retromolar space) between the last molar teeth and the jaw bone jaws are lightly built and have a protruding bony chin for added strength. A shortened jaw has affected the arrangement of the teeth within the jaw. They are now arranged in a parabolic shape in which the side rows of teeth splay outwards rather than remain parallel as in our earliest long jawed ancestors. The limb bones are thinner and less robust than earlier humans which indicate a reduction in muscle size. The legs are relatively long compared with the arms. Also... The pelvis is narrower from side-to-side and has a deeper bowl-shape from front-to-back than our forefathers.
Andy, my thoughts exactly... And that skull shows archaic morphology.
Have to go... I'll be back later. Peace.
Andy ------ The head binding theory is idiotic ----------They have an x-ray of an elongated skull sitting on an un-born child in a mummy!Head binding will not change plate count, never has.Huge cranial volume difference.Modified human, middle eastern Human female contributor, unknown father.Skull/atlass conection point in a different position, and a larger opening.Different in every way!Neph!
There IS ONE PARRACUSS THAT MAY BE A BIGFOOT AS YOU PERCIEEVEFrom whats been shown in vids. It's the one that is huge, less elongated, and still has the redish brown hair all over it. The rest would have looked far more human. We don't see anything that looks like a bigfoot in the Glyphs from those areas where found ----- we see people with long heads.But they are ALL neph.But the rest of them, no. There was a lot of strange shit walking around at that time.The "historical" Data is drawn all over the rocks, ha ha ha
when YOU HOLD ONE OF THOSE OLD SKULLS, YOU ARE HOLDING THE DEAD EMBODMENT OF A DEMON. THOSE THINGS WERE UN-REDEMABLE IN GODS SITE.tHESE ARE THE ONES THAT GOD SAID WIPE THEM OUT COMPLETELY, ------------ MEN, WOMAN, CHILDREN, EVERYTHING -------- AND WE DON'T SEE THEM!!!!!!!!We do see bigfoot ----- huh?The Israelites whoop-in ass is what caused them to migrate out of the middle east.Remember when Melba told you that the female contributor of her bigfoot DNA was middle eastern in origin!!!!!!!!!!!!!Less theoretical science and more study of History----------------------------------------------------- Old Data, ha ha ha
All these things came from the "Crescent of life" area in the middle east, because that's were Humanity re-launched after the flood.Heard the story of the 12 foot Giant killed in Afghanistan?????
You fairy tail reading fool, squirrels don't come from Egypt
Correction, those elongated where down there before Moses, before the flood. The red haired giants seen down in south America and here in the U.S. after are what ran from the Israelites. A much washed down version of the original, and a second attempt.I think that what came before the flood, and after is different based on a change in DNA. I think that missing pair of DNA is why Neph before the flood were so much bigger than the ones that came after.Often we see a COUNT problem when it comes to Giants/neph. Teeth , fingers, toes and overall size is off. A distortion and a corruption. I think God leveled the playing field on them, and reduced our lifespan in the same process!Just a theory!Count is often off on the Bigfoot too, definitely related in origin.
What a stupid theory from an obvious lunatic, are you drinking and doing heroin with Zaskey? Holy crap people this stuff is making my squirrel pictures look damn nearight competent,thank noodle head for making me look sane, praise Allah
Oh and Andy, There are also Significant differences in the EAR canal.THESE SKULLS ARE NOT STRAIT HUMAN, THEY ARE DIFFERNT IN WAY TO MANY SEGMENTS TO BE A SIMPLE RELIC OFFSHOOT OR SELF-MODIFIED.THE EVEDENCE IS COMPLETELY VISIBLE AND UN-DENIABLE ------------------------------------------------- IT IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT!Asking people to except that is the equivelant of Hillary------------------------------------------------- I told the truth, ha ha haHey Andy, while I got you around, Maybe you can take a crack. What do you make of your supreme "evolutionist" leader (Dawkins idiot) admitting----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have know idea what set off the spark of life, perhaps it was a being from a planet far, far away.....blah blah blah.Panspermiah, ha ha ha ha ha haBro, science needs to quit acting like they know what went on with mankind, cause they DON'T.NO REAL MONKEY MAN BONES ALLFAKED!!!ALL BEEN EXPOSED!OOOEY, GOOEY DRAGON FLESH----- OUT OF MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD DINO BONES, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAyOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING.Chinese DINO RECIPIES BY THE HUNDREDS, EM, EM GOOD!
I was looking forward to reading the continuing conversation between Andy White and lktomi concerning the Humboldt skull but it seemed to go a little off-track and now has devolved to this. Oh well - it started out so promising.I am pleasantly surprised to see Andy White posting here . . . this place could use a little of his expertise.
I don't know how much longer Andy White will bother posting here when moronic footers flood with comments with nonsense about Bigfoots being Nephilim with biblical mind-powers.Iktomi, you seem to have an incredible amount of faith in your evidence. Have you ever considered writing up all the sources that you readily cite into some kind of survey paper? If you wrote it up and submitted to a journal, laying out all the evidence and where it is available in such a direct format, it would be an enormous benefit to science, no? I'm sure anthropology journals would be fascinated by all this irrefutable evidence that has just totally escaped their notice for decades. It would really be of benefit to researchers.Of course, this would completely fail to do anything if the evidence you present is all bunk...
Sorry sporto, I'm just a guy posting on a blog, and I would really rather relict hominins be left alone. There are reasons as to why I post the evidence for relict hominins, and that's because people are either;1. Widely ignorant of the evidence. 2. Widely lie about the evidence. If the evidence exists, then people who are enthusiastic are warranted to be just that. "There is a prominent view in epistemology (the study of knowledge) that “belief” and “evidence” go hand-in-hand. They say that evidence provides the support for belief, and that without evidence, there is no good reason to have a belief. In philosophy, this perspective is called “evidentialism”; the view that a belief is only rational if it is well-supported by evidence."
Blah blah blah Nephilim demons blah blah blah . . . Assertions based on the Bible are interesting for what they say about the fascination with giants, Nephilim, etc., but they get pretty boring pretty quickly when they're not attached to any actual physical evidence. Double boring points for using ALL CAPS.I strongly disagree with Joe about the interpretation of the Humboldt skull, but at least the discussion is about an actual thing that exists. I'll be happy to discuss whether a skull belongs to a horse or unicorn, but we actually have to have a skull to look at to make that happen.
Hello again. Andy.It appears what you strongly disagree with me about, is what you would expect to see from a "Bigfoot" skull. Just checking, but are you aware that a lot of reports describe exactly what we would expect from a paleolithic homo Sapien, and not a gorilla? I've already posted it a couple of times, but below is a forensic sketch by one of the very best (if not THE best) forensic artist in the US; http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qXcRUWD1NVc/S4_nagDRvzI/AAAAAAAABhE/FumSBJu8WpM/s1600-h/Bigfoot-Sketch-III.jpg... The majority of his work on this was consistent to this exact description.
Joe,Again, I think you are saying "Paleolithic" when you really mean "Archaic." The Humboldt skull is that of an anatomically modern human. It is robust, but it is a human skull that has features that are found in many other anatomically modern human skulls (including living individuals -- I used Brock Lesnar as an example). It is a large and robust skull that probably belonged to a large and robust male human. Why in the world the skull of a large human has to be "Bigfoot" I have no idea.Do a Google Image search for "Nikolai Valuev." Is that guy also a "bigfoot" or a "Paleolithic" human?
As far as the terminology, I'm not trying to be nit-picky or pedantic. Words mean different things, though, and "Paleolithic" and "Archaic" are not inter-changeable. It's honestly difficult for me to know what you're getting it if you conflate those two terms.No, a photographic comparison isn't the end of the argument. But it does show that, when aligned consistently, the Humboldt skull corresponds nicely to the head shape of someone who we can be quite sure isn't a Bigfoot (or Archaic human). Is that link you posted a sketch supposedly based on the Humboldt skull?
Andy, I stand corrected with regards to using "paleolithic" to describe a certain skulls archaic morphology, but I think a PhD would excuse that considering this is a very readily noticeable mistake by any one of a million sources on the Internet that describe such skulls. As I have stated before, using a mere photographic comparison of someone like Lesner as a model for that skull can never be accurate. Even forensic facial reconstruction by a mix of artistry, forensic science, anthropology, osteology and anatomy, it is still easily the most subjective as well as one of the most controversial techniques in the field of forensic anthropology. Someone as qualified as yourself would no doubt know this. Aside from Valuev's apparent brow ridge, I'm sure that if we were to strip back his flesh and muscles and analyse his skull, he wouldn't have the collective traits that the skull in question has. The simple fact remains that some singular elements of that archaic morphology do indeed exist in contemporary examples, but not to the highly pronounced and collective frequency as we see in the Humboldt skull.
Sorry Andy, I had to repost the comment as there were too many grammatical errors. The skull might indeed correspond nicely in the sense that a robust model might fit well via 2D with what is essentially the skull of a very robust human. No, the forensic sketch is of what an eyewitness saw.
Anyway Andy! It's here that I must thank you for a vey stimulating discussion, and bid you farewell. Every time we chat I learn something new. Also, there are two trolls around here who bait me into this immediate topic on what seems like nearly every single comment section... Please know that I am not being disrespectful to you when addressing these trolls, but merely standing by my opinion, however disagreeable someone as educated as yourself may find that opinion. No doubt we'll speak soon and take care!!
Gotta admire Iktomi - the kid's got spunk. Andy White keeps smacking down each of Iktomi's bigfoot blog links with COLD HARD SCIENTIFIC RIGOR, but Iktomi, who has combed every through each and every one of the internet's most bizarre cryptid blogs, just keeps coming back for more.Your conspiracy theories about skulls has been PWND by Nikolai Valuev, Iktomi. Oh, I forgot, until someone definitely proves that Nikolai Valuev is NOT bigfoot, why, that Russian fighter MUST BE BIGFOOT!
Sorry Sporto, the data I'm using was written by anthropologists, not anyone concerned with cryptoblogs. But you would have actually have to of checked the sources you're blithering about for once to know that. Also, I don't subsribe to conspiracy theories, you might however want to ask a PhD who sits on the other side of the fence as to where the same skeletons he's aware of have disappeared to. What amuses me about folk like you, is that you will condemn one "conspiracy" for your own... In that apparently a couple of generations of archeologists were somehow peddling a biblical myth for the their gain. "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
I SEE NONE OF YOU CONTERED MY POSITION--------AT ALL.I GUESS I WIN! NEPH!
Yes TK you win. You indeed have the most unintelligent, babbling, idiotic posts of anyone here and that's saying a lot. Congratulations!
You know what's really binding, squirrel pictures presented as Bigfoot evidence, ALL MY EVIDENCE IS REAL, REAL SQUIRREL