Friday, November 25, 2016

Bigfoot: Super Powers or Super Powerful?


Youtuber Bob Gymlan discusses his current project, and relates a story of a bigfoot encounter from a not so typical witness.

22 comments:

  1. Bob Gymlan = thought provoking brilliance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IT'S ABOUT TIME MY "LESSONS"
      ARE FINALLY SINKING INTO THAT THICK EMPTY SPACE BETWEEN YOUR EARS SON!
      IT'S OK ! YOUR LEARNING!!

      AC(right on)collins. :-))

      Delete
  2. I see the third and most likely possibly was left out: Just a myth.

    Until someone produces a body, that's all bigfoot will ever be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Myths don't leave physical evidence. Man, you've got a short memory.

      Delete
    2. Yea,but psychic manifestations
      have left physical evidence for thousands of years, you ridiculously stupid idiot!

      "warning" low iq alert @11:28!
      lol.
      uno who ..

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry, I struggle to understand what you're blithering about.

      Delete
    4. "warning" low cheetos alert @ 12:07
      xbox on the fritz and the repairman is busy shagging his next door neighbor . alas , what a cruel, cruel world we live in
      yes 12:07, there is a thousand + years of interaction stories between bigfoot and the first nation peoples . Sorry they didn't have an ipad to write it all down or take selfies with them but in the court system first hand accounts are a form of evidence. You don't have to be bloody Perry Mason to understand
      that !
      Hip, hip hooray !

      Joe

      Delete
    5. 11:04- we don't see your body but i will certainly support the fact you exist by the same logic. Now run along and play your call of duty like a good little lad and maybe you'll be rewarded with a piece of chocolate
      candy is dandy

      Joe

      Delete
    6. 7:55, if finding my body would make someone rich and famous because it would be the scientific find of the century, I would have been found a long LONG time ago.

      Delete
    7. ^ your body is preserved by all the cheetos and mountain dew you've consumed over the years of epic xbox marathons .
      You should be in a museum mate !

      Carry on

      Joe

      Delete
    8. Maybe I should be. But guess what's not in a museum...

      Delete
    9. If there was one lengthy, consorted mainstream scientific effort to use the physical evidence that is in abundance, a body might have been found a long time ago. And don't act like you've ever been to a museum, troll.

      Delete
    10. some people have speculated that they bury their dead. if that's the case we really wouldn't find any bodies in the wild . it would make sense that a creature that is highly evolved can have human like qualities and emotions

      Joe

      Delete
    11. If there were any legitimate physical evidence for bigfoot, science would be all over it. Nobody wants bigfoot to be real more than anthropologists. Do you have any concept of what a boon that would be for us? We're talking research grants galore! Prospecting for fossils has its charms, but it would be nothing compared to the tremendous opportunity of observing a living relic hominin in the wild.

      We don't have time to waste on fairy tales and fantasy, though.

      After what, five decades? Six decades? All bigfoot researches have been able to produce is more of the same old worthless stories, blurry photographs of stumps, dubious plaster paperweights, and laughable hoaxes.

      Not good enough bigfooters. Not nearly good enough.

      How about instead of sitting back and insisting that your worthless collection of speculation and garbage is "evidence" you go out and get some real evidence for a change? No blurry photographs. No silly stories. No plaster paperweights. No rubber suits in freezers.

      Get out there and get us a body. Or a head. Or a hand. Or a foot.

      Even a single tooth would be enough if the discovery context was adequately documented.

      All I need is a single bigfoot tooth. From a single tooth I could not only prove, for real this time, that bigfoot exists, but also learn untold information about it's diet and behavior. Find me a bigfoot tooth, and I can tell you where to look for living specimens. And submit for funding to go observe them.

      Just one tooth is all I'm asking for.

      Why can't bigfoot researchers produce even a single tooth?

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

      Delete
    13. There are ways of testing physical evidence in dermatoglyphics, notably by forensics against casting artefacts. 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. There are ways of testing biological evidence in the many hair samples found at locations of alleged Sasquatch activity, notably primatology and field biology in comparing against known primates' uniform morphology. If repeated samples are all morphologically congruent (ruling out hoaxing), and are definitively indistinguishable from classified human and non-human primates but uniquely uniform... Then again you have repeatable scientific evidence. Science is simply the process of using repeatable methods to acquire and understand verifiable facts and testable hypotheses. Even though you don’t have a means of classifying what that primate is, the objective outcome is you still have the anatomical impression of an unclassified bipedal primate that has not only been falsifiably tested to your standards, but requires the same level of further investigation as the Bili Ape had. However, AND WHAT'S VERY IMPORTANT HERE, is the extraordinary nature of what this evidence entails is in fact what's holding back the requirement of subsequent mainstream investigative measures. It means that until extraordinary evidence surfaces (a body), the subject isn't going to draw the attention of a majority of mainstream scientists who would only THEN be in a position to become aware of the many evidences that preceded it. Without this, few will see beyond the hoaxing and pop culture. It's a very detrimental circle that can be simplified as the requirement of extraordinary evidence without the extraordinary effort it would require to source it. The cart before the horse.

      Other reasons as to why the evidence isn't chased up by mainstream scientists are;
      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.

      ... But as has been put into perspective, no special pleading about the current state of evidence makes the aforementioned go away. No pleading that it's reduced to stories and blurry photographs makes it so. And you've been given a skull;
      https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/

      Delete
    14. Sorry Ikky. Not good enough.

      As far as science is concerned, it's all hoaxes. And the burden is on you to prove it isn't.

      And you cannot do that. You cannot prove that any of your so-called evidence "cannot be hoaxed". All you can demonstrate is that you, yourself, do not know how it was hoaxed.

      You cannot prove the existence of bigfoot without an actual specimen.

      So go get one.

      Delete
    15. Science is not a freethinking entirety that chooses, favours or prejudices. It's a tool that's been used to verify repeatable scientific evidence, and if "science has determined it's all hoaxes", then here in lies your burden to show just how. Thousands of years of hoaxes would require a culture hopping society of hoaxers, and here in lies your requirement of extraordinary evidence to substantiate an extraordinary idea.

      If you actually take the time to read my comment up top, you'll notice that I have not only done my job, which is to provide evidence to support my ideas, but I have also demonstrated just how the evidence is reference cannot be hoaxed, due the scientific requirement of repeatable evidence. The ball is now in your court to show how my ideas are bunk.

      With repeatable evidence, and still no consorted professional effort to use it, then I don't owe you anything. And you clearly are out of your depth. Stick to bi*ching Haints, your idea of scientific theory is really rather embarrassing. Using a conspiracy theory to try and refute repeatable scientific evidence would get a laugh from any impartial scientist.

      Delete
    16. Science doesn't need to determine the so-called evidence is all hoaxes.

      Without proof to the contrary, that's the base state. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim that there is an unknown hominin still lurking about in North America.

      It is not for science to prove your dubious "evidence" is all hoaxed. It's on you to prove that it isn't.

      And you cannot do that.

      All you can do is prove that you do not know how it was hoaxed. And when you try to argue by authority, all you prove is the "authority" you try to cite also does not know how it was hoaxed.

      You need an actual specimen. Nothing less will suffice.

      Go get one.

      And who is Haints? You keep accusing everyone who tells you you need a real standard of evidence of being Haints, but you have never say who Haints is.

      Delete
    17. Science doesn't need to determine hoaxes, it tests evidence. That's happened, and repeatable scientific evidence stands up to that test.

      "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
      - Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

      Take some responsibility for your claims, dear boy. It's what adults do. And for the claim that an unknown hominin is running around America, there's forensic evidence of something with the exact same widely reported anatomy. Quotation marks don't get around to doing that, neither does rhetorically stating the obvious about a body, because there is nothing in scientific theory that states that repeatable, physical evidence can't stand because it hasn't been investigated further. That's embarrassing. And how do I know that dermals can't be hoaxed? Well for a start... To hoax convincing biological dermals that are primate in origin but different enough to have species traits across samples, one would have to have a knowledge of all human primate and non-human primate dermals (that not many people on the planet do), and then have less than a lottery win's chance of faking the exact same biological idea, place these impressions in the middle of nowhere and somehow predict to the exact yard out of miles and miles of wilderness that they'll be found, and THEN fool multiple forensic experts. Also...

      "Figure 41. Dermal ridge experimental cast. Dr. John Bodley made this cast, which included impressions of his own skin. It was shown to various fingerprint experts, along with one of those from the Blue Mts. All five authorities immediately picked Bodley's cast as showing anatomically incorrect ridge orientations, but could find nothing wrong with the other one."
      Krantz, Grover S. Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence-The Anthropologist Speaks Out.
      Canada, Hancock House Publishers Ltd, 1999, Page 82.

      You see how his works? That's all I keep reading is you struggling to be honest. Your point of view cannot be supported, and it's somehow my shortcoming because "I don't know how it was hoaxed"? Come on son, you're with adults now... And as for substantiating your ideas, it looks like you "cannot do that".

      Delete
    18. I can guarantee you that there will not be anything to counter the evidence I've referenced in your next comment... Just circular reasoning that it's all a hoax, because it's a hoax...

      Laughable.

      Delete