Thursday, December 1, 2016

Now This Is How You Bigfoot Hunt


If it were only this easy.

27 comments:

  1. This one claimed for SUPERS and the good people!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just curious - do you consider "good people" as only those who believe in Bigfoot?

      Delete
    2. I'm just curious- why do you care how I define good people?

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the straight-forward answer :)

      I'm just interested if you think that those who do not share you belief are less good than those who do. It's not a trick question. If you don't wish to answer than just a straight forward "I don't wish to answer" will suffice.

      Delete
    4. Fair enough. I think I have my answer.

      Delete
    5. You know Curious, you can feel free to grab your own post and type anything you would like.

      Delete
    6. Thanks for your generous sentiment. I'll keep it in mind.

      Delete
    7. Curious... With all due respect, you're not clever enough, nor do you know enough about the subject to condescend people. You need to understand basic psychology, before seemingly trying to portray as if you hold an interest in how enthusiasts think... And there is way more fascinating traits to a pseudosceptic than there is anyone honest enough with themselves to acknowledge the current state of evidence. All this is especially perpetuated, considering that you once tried your hand at research.

      As time goes on, I read more and more goading from you. This is steering well way from the once respectful approach that you had.

      Delete
    8. Its over Joergy Poo. You and your few friends on this site take are finished. Your understanding of basic pscyhology Joergy Poo is to post a troll link that you found on the internet. Pot meet kettle Joergy Poo

      Delete
    9. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

      Finished? Don't you have to post urine comments because your best arguments were destroyed with basic ten year old's logic?

      Wow... Just wow.

      Delete
    10. Goading lktomi? By asking a simple question? Instead of playing coy she could have simply said "No Curious, I define "good" people as those who do not write trash and profanities in a comment section of a blog." That would have ended it right there and earned my respect. But it's the usual thing inferred here - believers good and infallible and non-believers bad and wrong. Black and white. Night and day. No in between. I would find any believer much more credible if they were more skeptical of some of the more outrageous reports about Bigfoot and come out and say so. In fact these type of reports have and do damage to any credibility that the field may have. Indeed I do criticize some of the stuff written here but this field needs to answer hard questions because the things I question are softballs compared to what will be asked by serious inquiries from the scientific community. If this labels me as a "bad" person than so be it.

      LOL - you must have a low definition of "research" if you consider my little trip to Carter farm as such. As I have stated before it was merely to satisfy my curiosity and after talking to the local people it quickly became apparent there was nothing more to the story than what was being perpetrated by a few people. If that qualifies me as a researcher than I have to roll my eyes when I see the term "Bigfoot researcher".

      Whether it's considered goading or not, you can expect more questions by me. If people continue to put forth these stories with no proof then I and others have every right to question them (with all due respect - LOL).

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

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

      Delete
    13. It wasn't a simple question, it was an attempt at initiating confrontation. "Earned your respect"?! Sorry, who do you think you are and why does anyone need to earn your respect?

      Wow...

      People who post child rape comments and drivel about urine aren't good people. And none of these people are sceptics. You don't know half of what enthusiasts think around here and what they find dubious, because they're too busy defending their enthusiasm against people like you. Nobody owes you anything... Nobody needs to answer any of your questions. YOU need to address the many points put your way for once... Not posting the same ad hominem, like somehow, the previous 50 exchanges haven't happened. NONE of your cherished scientific community have EVER demonstrated how this subject can't stand, or EVER presented any question that can't be addressed by pointing at examples of evidence that would stand in any other field of biology.

      It's funny... So many people "owe you answers", it's a shame you can't take the responsibly for your own critical stance for the evidence, eh?

      research
      rɪˈsəːtʃ,ˈriːsəːtʃ/
      noun
      1.
      the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
      "the group carries out research in geochemistry"
      synonyms: investigation, experimentation, testing, exploration, analysis, fact-finding, examination, scrutiny, scrutinization, probing

      Just thought I'd help you out a bit with that, and with this; http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/BigfootDNA_e.htm

      Delete
    14. Iktomi just schooled all the trolls on here in regal fashion !
      Oh man, this is making me crease
      so Bloody marvelous today !

      Joe

      Delete
    15. (sigh) I'm afraid the only thing we will agree on is that people who post child rape comments and the other unpleasant things are not of good character. I'm not one of them.

      Really? By asking a simple question was initiating a confrontation? Wow - I guess you are thin-skinned. Did I post anything derogatory about her personally? Of course I didn't. It's quite clear to me now that because I don't believe I am the enemy in the eyes of those who believe. So be it. I have nothing against those who think Bigfoot exists personally but I do question what they present as proof. This can be done without insults.

      You know everything you posted I can throw right back at you. It has been presented over and over and over why your "evidence" does not stand up to scrutiny - you simply won't accept it. What do you have lktomi besides stories of people and dated evidence from decades ago? If these things are sighted so often there should be tons of new evidence coming in every day and yet all you have to fall back on is the same old things you always link to over and over. How has proving Bigfoot advanced? Where is the "proof" from Dr. Sykes that we have been waiting years for? Why is it with all this "evidence" does some of your experts not present a paper detailing such? I suppose your right - no one owes me any answers. But you and other advocates will have to owe answers to the world if you ever want to prove your case.

      Finally did you actually read what you posted about DNA from Carter Farm? "Suspect" is not proof. Why could this not be DNA be from a normal modern day human? If you are going to champion Carter Farm as evidence than you WILL lose all credibility from me (not that you will worry about it) but it will make anything you say suspect in my eyes. Yeah - I already know the answer to that one . . . . remember, I'm the enemy.

      Delete
    16. Curious... Not one person thinks that you post things like that, but the point of me bringing that up was to clarify what Chick meant (if that's ok Chick?). I'm sure you are aware who she was referring to as well, which is why it's obvious you were trying to lower the tone. I think you're trying to manufacture a situation where not only are you labelled the "bad guy", something I think you'd enjoy, but to imply that you're important enough to be labelled so is rather self-serving and cringey. And yes, you tried starting a confrontation.

      I don't think anyone presents evidence as proof. But prooof that there's evidence for something commonly known as "Bigfoot".

      Please... Please... Please by all means, post me one example of a rebuttal to the evidence I reference that stands up to counter scrutiny. You see, because you THINK you practice scepticism, you think you are somehow better than enthusiasts in substantiating your drivel. You think that you don't have to abide to the rules of adult debate, let alone scientific theory. This narcissism is founded in mere faith that your twice is correct, and is in fact Scientism; religious-like idealism that in fact flies in the face of the scientific method. I have NEVER read you put the evidence I reference to bed.

      If the evidence I post is decades old, but remains unchallenged, however old it is, then that's your problem not mine. It merely suggests that it's lasted the test of time, and the special pleading of innumerable lazy pseudosceptics. If there is forensic evidence from 20-30 years ago, then it merely shows that there is a steady flow of solid evidence over a duration from which amateur research began, generally encompassing the last 60 years. There is nothing in scientific theory that states that scientific evidence lessens the more it's substantiated over time. That is embarrassing logic.

      Enthusiast #1 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #2 – “I have forensic evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #3 – “I have video evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #4 – “I have thermal evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #5 – “I have biological evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #6 – “I have audio evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #7 – “I have more physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #8 – “I have even MORE physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #9 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #10 – “I have physical evidence that amounts to repeatable, scientific evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      … Pseudosceptic – “If these creatures were real, people would be collecting evidence for them all the time!”
      Iktomi – (Sigh)

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

      Delete
    18. Coast to Coast AM March 19th 2016;
      "You can tell the difference between modern and ancient human within DNA."
      "I've almost finished studying Zana's DNA."
      - Dr Bryan Sykes

      With regards to the physical evidence... The extraordinary nature of what this 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.

      "There was about 200lbs of the stuff, roughly human sized although somewhat desiccated (original size was likely larger). It was naturally deposited and showed no signs of having been transported there or in any way fabricated."
      http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/BigfootDNA_e.htm

      Are you sure you read it? Human DNA will always be an obstacle for a creature that is largely expected to have another great ape's DNA. But I keep reading "proof" in the face of evidence being presented, like a safety net argument. No proof of "Bigfoot" meaning a body, but proof that something with the widely reported anatomy as "Bigfoot" is leaving its physical evidence on the environment of the US. Put that with the hair samples, footage, audio and innumerable cultural and contemporary anecdotes, and enthusiasts are warranted to use a scientific principle called Occam's Razor.

      Delete
    19. @10:31 Sykes is SELLING BOOKS FOOL! Did you know(im shure u dont) that for $100 you can find out EVERYTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT in question
      Eye colour,disease acceptably's, nearest kin, hight & weight parameters,how many mutations..(race & racial age) of the subject..ect..

      All this from a quick mito blast! All you do is recycle the SAME STUPID CRAP from a coast 2 coast radio show from a (not so world beating) guy trying to sell his BOOK!!!
      Why is Sykes playing this game
      Instead of going to the mainstream media??
      BECAUSE HE AINT GOT JACK!!
      Paabo svante, sykes is Not!
      You CHUMP!! Haaa haaa haaa lol

      AC collins

      Delete
    20. Actually, F-AC, you drunk joke... DNA can tell us about hair colour, decease, sex, eye colour, Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), body clock, thrill seeking and obesity.
      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/27/genetics.cancer
      ... Height is still an area that research requires research in;
      "Predicting adult body height from genetic data is helpful in several areas such as pediatric endocrinology and forensic investigations. However, despite large international efforts to catalog the genes that influence the stature of humans, knowledge on genetic determinants of adult body height is still incomplete. Now DNA-based prediction of taller-than-average body height is feasible."
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131120103613.htm

      Just because information is not forthcoming, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And if the person who invested mitochondrial DNA testing is testing something, you'd think that all this is forthcoming at some point. You've been told this at least twice before, but because you're a ******* loon that thinks people don't read comment sections, you think you're convincing at least someone otherwise. He's THE most pioneering geneticist in the work... and it's his credibility on the line. He's not gonna throw that away for a ******* book. Oh, and if you knew anything of how science works, he's gonna make sure such a profound discovery is substantiated by evidence and data, and is on record saying that he won't say anything else until it's published in the proper channels.

      Loon... Go back to bum-cleaning everyone around here. I'm gonna remind a few people of your trolling comments.

      : )

      Delete
  2. What is this? Some blog about some creature called bigfoot and some comments about good people and psychology and urine...none of which make any sense? More liberal propaganda from the lame stream media. I'm not interested. Done.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Iktomi, "condescend" is an intransitive verb. As a result, it is incorrect to use it with a direct object. In the future, please don't use words you do not understand. TIA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. 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 of a woman". Are you sure you knew what the word "Haint" meant before you used it? I think you meant to substantiate your ideas, but your try-hard typo hunting, only to source something that not one person on the planet would have issue with, makes your inferiority complex about that a little too obvious. I dunno... Maybe you're a little bitter at failing as a researcher too?

      Delete