Friday, October 28, 2016

Bigfoot Sightings Near Sasquatch Canyon


The Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Organization head into basecamp, and along the way relate some stories of bigfoot sightings that have occurred in the area of nearby Sasquatch Canyon.

85 comments:

  1. Bigfooting, what went wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bigfooting is doing just. More and more imagery is coming out. Lots of audio being recorded. Public perception is shifting about as fast as can be expected.

      There will always be dead-enders who refuse to acknowledge existence but they are mostly irrelevant and unimportant.

      Its coming whether you like it or not.

      Delete
    2. Wow! 2:03 just got owned.

      2:03... Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence, and according to psychologists, they know what went wrong in your development.

      Delete
    3. Owned by demonstration of the exact nonsense that defines your invalid position? Yea sure sure

      Delete
    4. Again! Start putting some substance to that drivel, sporto! What you do merely amounts to trolling, with some tears to boot. It's rather incredible you have the audacity to cry about me sourcing other people's studies when you appear to have your own uneducated musings as an arsenal.

      “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.
      - Albert Einstein.

      : )

      Delete
    5. Substance? I dont even know what you want? You have yet to dump a bigfoot body on my doorstep so there just isnt anything to dismiss. Oh and bigfoot is reported over in UK so why arent you out in the woods?

      Delete
    6. You don't know what I want? Ok kiddo, I'll hold your hand through this one more time... You are slow after all... it's only taken you every day of your life to fail in grasping basic logic...

      In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. Your extraordinary claim is that there is nothing to thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports, that have physical evidence to support. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. If you claim that there is no evidence, then you are suggesting the evidence that warrants enthusiasm does not exist, and bear the burden of proof.

      And to suggest that the existence of this creature rides on the idea that a body is needed at this stage of research, especially in the face of the evidence you're in denial about... Is a negative proof fallacy.

      Delete
    7. I love it when joe wheels out his burden of proof copy paste and doesnt understand the irony of it:)

      Delete
    8. I'm at least demonstrating why enthusiasts are warranted to have that stance via the evidence. Maybe you should use the internet for something other than exploring your body... You'd come up with something too and feel a bit better about yourself?

      Delete
    9. If you have evidence for bigfoot why arent you submitting it to journals or discussing it in relevant scientific venues? We both know why.

      Delete
    10. Because not only are journals unscientific and based on faith, but I don't take myself that seriously, and would rather they simply be left alone. It's also the cart before the horse to expect evidence that needs to be tracked to be published in a journal. Actually pick one of them up one time and you'll learn a little about their typical content.

      Delete
    11. It doesnt sound like you are too confident in your monkey man

      Delete
    12. I have no confidence in journals or your capacity to source anything other than drivel. "Monkey men"; not as inflicting.

      Delete
    13. So if a scientist obtained a body you would advise them not to submit their evidence to a journal?

      Delete
    14. "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

      If a body is found, in this day and age it would end up in every journal on the planet. What I'm saying is, you want me to present the current state of evidence in a journal for it to be credible, when the current state of research for an unclassified primate has never done that. The evidence needs to be used to track Sasquatch... Then published once found. If you knew anything about the manner in which journals you laud, you'd know that.

      (Cringe)

      Delete
  2. What's this? Some kind of video by the Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Organization of driving along a dark road? Isn't that Kelly Shaw's group? Isn't he the guy who uses game cameras to get images of Sasquatch? Hasn't anyone told him Sasquatch is too clever and aware to be caught on them?

    Still not interested. Done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats a shame because RMSO clearly maintains a healthy skepticism and is very conservative about interpreting evidence and reporting accounts.

      Do you think you can do better than someone soberly relating a sighting account from a known hotspot while conducting a realtime video survey with steady zooms?

      Delete
    2. Bigfoot doesnt exist (as has always been the case for anyone with a rational mind) but the topic is still fascinating

      Delete
    3. "Bigfoot doesn't exist", yet you have to come here every day of your life to check on its existence. I don't think poker is your forte, is it?

      Delete
    4. If you cant grasp the concept of people being interested in fiction then i really cant help you

      Delete
    5. If you were remotely interested in this subject, however you want to spin it as a subject... You'd have better arguments. And there's psychologists with ample credentials listing off the reason you're somewhere like here.

      Delete
    6. Oh there are plenty of studies on you nutters. Your hero sykes even did one and made a documentery on the follies of mislead footers. It was a bloodbath.

      Delete
    7. He did a documentary... ... ... And then wrote two books about the subject and is on record on radio shows saying he only finished studying Zana's DNA in March of this year. You're not mislead... You're in need of some genuine help.

      Ding! Ding! Meds time!!

      Delete
    8. A documentary and 2 books. Zero bigfoots but a bunch of funny anecdotes on the plight of the misguided footer.

      Delete
    9. Argh... So you DO acknowledge that he wasn't done with Bigfoot Files? How can anyone believe you're anything other than a dense troll looking for a reaction when you contradict yourself so much?

      A documentary & two books and you'd better hope that he doesn't state that Zana's DNA is ancient. It'll prove that relict hominins lived on this planet 150 years ago... Smashing apart the previously accepted time frame by many, many thousands of years. What's 150 years to the present in comparison?

      Delete
    10. Hes done. Zero bigfoots.

      Delete
    11. You'd better hope and pray that's the case. Fortunately for you you're a coward and won't have your name to your shame.

      Delete
    12. Hope? It would be great if he proved bigfoot. Unlike you i am willing to switch my position should the evidence turn up. Unfortunately as it stands, yup, zero bigfoots.

      Delete
    13. If you really were that impartial, you'd have the same approach to the sources of evidence that currently exist. You'd be nowhere to be seen if anything of the sort were to happen, and you'd have to go to ghost blogs or something to try and attain that holy grail of self esteem instead.

      Chop, chop! I'm waiting on something clever from you.

      Delete
    14. To "anonymous" (Kelly Shaw) at 2:40:

      "That's a shame because RMSO clearly maintains a healthy skepticism and is very conservative about interpreting evidence and reporting accounts."

      You believe this? YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS??? Healthy skepticism??? Not in any of your travel videos do I detect any doubt what-so-ever that Bigfoot does not exist. Go ahead, link me one. Conservative about interpreting evidence??? Remember the Idaho drone footage? Conservative about reporting accounts??? You have never heard a Bigfoot story you didn't like and you believe every single one told to you.

      Your a joke.

      Delete
    15. This coming from someone who's not only been shown 50 years worth of studies into physical evidence, even forensic evidence that can't be hoaxed, not to mention footage of the people he clearly hates sourcing their own physical evidence... and everyone else is interpreting evidence?

      Something about a joke?

      Delete
    16. And where has all that physical "evidence" got you? How much closer are you to proving it exists that 49 years ago when the PG film was made?

      Your entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

      Delete
    17. Like I said at the very start of this comment section kiddo! Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence... But that means little of the evidence that stands as repeatable, regardless of how many ideals trolls like you want to slam on the creature's existence.

      Delete
    18. But Joe used to claim that "extraordinary claims shouldn't require extraordinary evidence". Would you like me to post where you have said this many times? So now your changing your tune?

      Delete
    19. He will sing any tune to try and convince others of Bigfoot's existence but this is by far his favorite:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOfagBBxrfs

      Delete
    20. 5:25... You insufferably dense troll. If you had the ability to read properly, you'd know that in highlighting an ideal that isn't mine.

      What a patoot.

      Delete
    21. 5:44... Nobody's trying to convince a denialist troll like you, just use you as the archetypal idiot off the street. You're serving a beautiful purpose.

      Delete
    22. dear troll(aka dmaker) why don't you take a flying leap off your bird cage you trouserless loon !

      Joe

      Delete
    23. ^ fluff of the year
      fluff of the decade
      always fluffy

      Joe

      Delete
  3. I wonder how many bigfoots will be discovered this weekend by the hundreds of thousands of people out in bigfoot habitat. If we go back the last 10000 weekends and extrapolate we get a total of zero bigfoots. Ah well give it another 50 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With hundreds of thousands of walkers, hunters, scientists, campers, hikers, photographers, runners, forest management etc all out in the places where this species has been found to leave physical evidence, there is three database of reports that transition from thousands of years of cultural acknowledgement. If there was no physical evidence to substantiate such a frequency of reports, then your drivel would have some basis in fact... But he problem is there is too much of it.

      "Bigfoot" exists in the physical evidence it leaves behind. Now continue your crying... It doesn't make it go away.

      Delete
    2. Hes got a database guys!!! Whatever will we do!!

      Delete
    3. We all know what you are going to do about it.   Come here everyday and cry about it.

      Delete
    4. Researchers are walking right past them because you cannot be bothered to learn from others what they actually look like.

      They are more diverse in size and appearance than we are. So different that people who have accompanied me insist they are a set of different species that live together.

      I personally believe they are one species that is extremely diverse. The Patty type exists but so do many others with divergent appearance from her and some are quite strange.

      Here is a shot of the very common type of Bigfoot with white skin and jet black hair from Idaho:

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/sn2rte9eexu5xr7/vlcsnap-2323-11-12-21h37m12s685.tiff?dl=0

      Nothing like Patty at all and this type is the most common of all. Here is another white type in a tree in Idaho, a more conventional looking bigfoot is on the ground on the left:

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/s2ymp6x3191kl68/bushwacking_bigfoot.png?dl=0

      If you aren't aware of this type you probably wouldn't see them right next to you. They aren't even the really weird ones.

      Delete
    5. I actually stated that those databases have physical evidence in support... but you'd need the literary maturity of a ten year old to have spotted it. Actually... I'll continue making your look like the archetypal ignorant, and you'll like it.

      Delete
    6. 3:00 i had a good laugh at your post thanks. Nearly as funny as joes

      Delete
    7. Looking at the morris suit is it really that much different to patty?

      Truth is it isnt.

      What footers think of patty being real has a lot to do with the film stock and distance from the camera. That nice grainy textured video. Add that to the morris suit and you wouldn't be far off. Of course roger could have modified the suit in any number of ways too which no one will ever know.

      None of it even matters anyway because a complete lack of any bigfoots is the smoking gun.

      Delete
    8. Very well said 3:05. Finally a voice of reason on this blog.

      Delete
    9. The Morris suit?

      http://bfro.net/news/challenge/images/arms_comparison.jpg

      Oh deary me. I really don't think Roger would have been so detailed in his "costume", shooting in shakey 16MM. I don't think he anticipated the footage being digitalised and stabelised 45 years later and decided to put SFX defying detail to his costume just in case. Detail that could have got him a job in the most well paid of Hollywood SFX as opposed to "swindling about Bigfoot". Logic... Familiarise yourself with it one time. There's also enough detail in the footage to compare the subject's readily noticeable biological tissue with that of elderly people. Pages 9 onwards here;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      (Jeez! Did he really just bring up the Morris suit?)

      Delete
    10. Thanks 3:05. I appreciate the existence of narrow-minded dead-enders occupying the west end of the Bell curve because it makes the disruptive nature of my work so apparent... and so satisfying.

      Years from now, assuming you develop an intellect, I envision your grandchildren sitting on your lap while you tell them you got the bigfoot thing all wrong.

      Delete
    11. Just like all the forefathers of bigfoot who went to the grave with zero bigfoots?

      Delete
    12. LOL, if 3:05 is the voice of reason, humanity is in big trouble.  The "film stock", ya that's it! Haha!  You can argue that Patty isn't real all you want but comparing it to the Morris carpet does nothing but give Patty more legitimacy.

      Delete
    13. Wow! That's a whole load of spiel to end up right where you started with nothing but you're uneducated, unsubstantiated musings?

      Someone with a remote level of intellect would provide at least someone else's half decent argument for something so allegedly obvious and straight forward. Maybe you're a little out of your league?

      Delete
    14. Do you even understand the effects of film stock and lighting? Go read up kid

      Delete
    15. 3:24... You see, the subject isn't remotely important to him, or he'd have something a little better than that. Not even remotely clever pseudosceptics use the Morris suit anymore, that's how embarrassing it is. This troll just wants to draw people into negativity to have some level of control over his own disruptive emotions. A pretty desperate existence for sure.

      Delete
    16. 3:26... You don't even need to go anywhere to read up. Just open the link I provided and see how much of an idiot you are.

      Delete
    17. It doesnt surprise me that joe fails to understand some basic concepts. His point was under different conditions it would look different. Yes we can tell the well lit close up digital video of the morris suit is not like patty. Yes very good well done. But in different light, using film stock, shot at distance, shakey, it will look different. This isnt opinion it is fact. I mean why do directors go to the trouble of spending millions on lighting and specfic film stock in order to create a certain effect if everything looks the same no matter how it is filmed? Honestly joe you just destroyed yourself on this one. I mean youve been taken to the cleaners time and time again but this is an absolute bloodbath.

      Delete
    18. Yeah like non existent things. Or God. Are you saying that bigfoot is a divine/supernatural being? Do you believe this?

      Delete

    19. LOL!!  Seriously, is this guy for real?  Patty was filmed during the day in direct sunlight.  Please explain to us all how Roger's choice of film stock gave Patty muscle definition and a locomotion that still can't be explained or replicated to this day.

      Delete
    20. 3:37's reasoning skills only make himself look like a giant ass. Oh, and same applies to 3:36

      Delete
    21. "Concepts"... Did someone learn a new word over the past 24 hours? This is your best argument against Patty's authenticity;
      http://bfro.net/news/challenge/images/arms_comparison.jpg

      If you honestly believe that different light, film stock, the same distance, and deliberate shakiness, would somehow make that sham look better, then you simply have to be trolling. Do I really need to say anything else? And again... You box yourself into a corner. You see, Hollywood SFX of the time would never shoot specifically gorilla costumes in direct lighting, as it would show up many suit anomolies. Unfortunately for your drivel... Patty is shot in direct sunlight, and that's all we see is biological detail not seen with modern materials to this day.

      Delete
    22. 3:37... The only leaps of faith that are seen around here are your culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit conspirators... allegedly spanning thousands of years.

      Delete
    23. @3:00

      Forget it bud. These folks will treat photo evidence like a giant moose turd dropped in their living room.

      Delete
    24. ^ He's right you know. Those pictures were no better than moose turds.

      Delete
    25. the morris suit was the worst example the skeptics could have produced. they will never recreate the Patterson bigfoot as a suit because it wasn't a suit . Nice try- lame loons abound

      Joe

      Delete
  4. Reasoning skills? You do realize it's been 49 YEARS since that film was taken and you still have no proof of it's existence. Doesn't that put just a little doubt in your mind?

    Of course it doesn't......you WANT to believe and that's all that matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not so much down to reasoning skills as it is the illogical nonsense you spout. In 49 years there has not been one consorted professional long term effort on the part of mainstream scientists to investigate the matter. In that time, the physical evidence has mounted and mounted and more footage accumulated. Sure! If you want to believe that all that is all down to a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit conspirators... All out to get your parents' hard earned money, then cool. But don't cry about it around sane people who are both agenderless to acknowledge the evidence, and remotely intelligent enough to understand it.

      Delete
    2. What about the thousands of footers? Is their effort somehow not worthy?

      Delete
    3. We wouldn't have all that evidence to reference if they weren't... Just think what professionals could accomplish with the time and resources.

      Think about that.

      Delete
    4. Then ask yourself - why? Why with all this evidence and all this footage accumulated and all these reports do mainstream scientists ignore the possibility? Could it be because the evidence is inconclusive and far from being proof positive? Could it be that every image is blurry (and that goes for the PG film as well) and not clear enough for them to take notice? Could it be that some of the reports are just so crazy that there is no basis for them to pursue it?

      It's all of the above and more. It's so simple, bring them some authentic physical evidence and I PROMISE you - they WILL take notice.

      Delete
    5. IktomiFriday, October 28, 2016 at 4:02:00 PM PDT
      Like I said at the very start of this comment section kiddo! Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence... But that means little of the evidence that stands as repeatable, regardless of how many ideals trolls like you want to slam on the creature's existence.

      Would you like me to elaborate some more??

      Delete
    6. ... The reasons why the evidence isn't chased up by mainstream scientists are as follows;
      1. If scientists are interested in studying the topic, unless they are already established then they have careers and credibility to look out for.
      2. The general public which account for people in all professions including mainstream scientists, have "flag ships" like Finding Bigfoot as the main mainstream output, which would make anyone remotely intelligent cynical.
      3. IMPORTANTLY, hoaxes always get massive publicity.
      4. EXTRA IMPORTANT, when people are already suspicious of the credibility of the subject, and have ideals such as "extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence", they'll settle very quickly for an uncountered "debunking" due to the "extraordinary" nature of what's being proposed. However, should these people listen to the actual experts' counter opinions to these shoddy "debunkings", they'll realise very quickly that the evidence is reliable by consistent scientific standards. The problem is the only people who realise this are those willing to put in the time to look at it.

      Delete
    7. Oh God no - it will just be a repeat of the same thing you have said a million times before. Get some authentic physical evidence - game over...end of story...Bigfoot proven.

      Delete
    8. If the ridge characteristics in dermatoglyphics are consistent with other examples from Sasquatch footprints, are verified in collaboration with tens of scientists who have determined anatomy like heels, ankles, and Achilles' tendons... And are consistent with casts over a period of 50 years (after examining hundreds of alleged Sasquatch footprints), then this is repeatable scientific evidence. I think you need to better understand the profound nature of repeatable scientific evidence. At present... You've got a whole lot of denial and a logical fallacy as the fundamental basis of your stance.

      Game over.

      What YOU require is "peer reviewed evidence"... What the majority of enthusiasts require is evidence that constitutes reason for the mainstream to finally investigate & track the creatures in question. THEN, whatever idealistic unscientific system you can adhere to might be applied.

      Delete
    9. What BOTH camps require is not what we are getting. Authentic PHYSICAL evidence will do the trick and satisfy both sides.

      Delete
    10. And what's this? You're suddenly the spokesperson for people who are able to acknowledge the current state of evidence now? Buddy... Tou can't for the life of you source at least someone else's ideas as to why the evidence isn't authentic, I don't think you're qualified to be telling people what they think.

      Delete
    11. Anyways! See you tomorrow! Hope you're not as "forgetful" about the same answers you're rhetorically seeking. Though I'll be more than happy to remind you.

      Peace!!

      Delete
  5. What is this? Some bigfoot site where the same guys argue over and over and over and over and over about bigfoot being real or not? Or some guy posting about how some other guy lives in his mom's basement? I'm not interested. Done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've been "done" more than a few times... But you keep surfacing over, and over, and over, and over...

      Delete
  6. Wow, that is quite a rant, Joe. And once again, Iktomi goes batshite crazy. Or, in his case, Squatchshite crazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haint
      Southern colloquialism
      def., ghost, apparition, lost soul
      "On his way back from Mobile my friend was killed on Bloody 98, and now he's just another restless Haint."
      Chiefly Southern U.S. var of haunt, originally, but the meaning has since morephed to mean more than a ghost. It can also mean a scary b*tch or mean person, usually a woman.
      "I tried to kill her with kindness, but that haint is just full up with meanness."

      ... A "restless, mean b*tch". Perfect.

      Delete
    2. COLLOQUIALISM??
      I remember the day I taught
      M Brookreson that word!
      HAA HAA HAA LOL!!

      BIG DORIS . :-))

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete