Sunday, January 8, 2017

Man Encounters Unknown Creature On Property


Walking in a bigfoot wonderland. Or so it seems. Or so it seems on "Woodbooger Farm".

37 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Two in a row!i haven't seen that in a while xx

      Delete
    2. Got lucky. Maybe aren't as many trolls here anymore. It used to get pretty lively. Lol

      Delete
  2. Even though I no longer believe in the possibility of Bigfoot I do like to check in every now and then just for fun and read some of the stories. Some are plainly ridiculous and I pass them up and others I will take a peek to see if there is anything interesting. The headline MAN ENCOUNTERS UNKNOWN CREATURE ON PROPERTY sounded promising so I took a look.

    I'm puzzled by this story and am curious if those who believe found anything at all worthwhile by this video clip. I have no idea where "woodbooger farm" is located and he gives no information about that in this video. He says he previously got a "picture of something" but we are never shown it (by the way he didn't if notice it till the next day so it couldn't have been too spectacular). We are taken through a six minute romp in the woods with nothing of interest so what is the point? Doe anyone here really think this video and others like it has any importance?

    Perhaps I am being unkind and unfair as I noticed this is part 1. I can only hope that the subsequent parts have more to offer or as one poster continually comments:

    Not interested. Done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey mate, just because you were a total failure in your own attempt at bigfoot research, that doesn't give you the right to attack other researchers who are achieving startling success!

      Joe

      Delete
    2. LOL. As I have repeatedly told lktomi, I do not consider my little foray to Carter Farm research but mainly a visit to satisfy my curiosity. I guess it was a failure because I found absolutely nothing to substantiate Janice Carter's story of Bigfoot (because it was all made up by her).

      Attack? By merely asking if anyone else found anything of interest? So tell me "Joe" - what did you gleam from this video that added to your ponderous knowledge of Bigfoot? I would really like to know.

      Delete
    3. Well Joe, by not replying I assume the video was of little vale to you as well. I'm glad that as believer and non-believer we can agree on something. Cheers!

      Delete
    4. 1 Why would he let people know where this location is. This would cause trespassing and someone may get hurt. 2 Perhaps you should go to his channel and read why he is doing this. 3 The title in this site is not his. 4 The picture is out there, if you would stop being ignorant and do a lil research perhaps you may change your opinion, I doubt it since you are a quitter according to your lil romp at the Carter Farm.5 I bet he could care less if you like the video, some folk that cant get out enjoy them. And 6 another thing about the pic. lots of people don't notice them at the time, because they are so allusive. I happen to know the backstory on it and events leading up to it. Perhaps if you was to get out and enjoy mother nature more than a lil romp at Carter farms you may get convinced that boogers are real, I suggest at least three days at the same location that shows signs of recent activity.

      Delete
    5. 1. Wasn't asking for the GPS coordinates but listing the county and state would give everyone some background. 2. I did as you suggested. Apparently he feels they have been around his farm for quite some time, thrown rocks, made wood knocks, he's 40 years old, just got computer this last year etc. 3. Noted, however he does describe that video on YouTube as "This is my experience on my property with an unknown being". 4. It may be out there but I can't find it - got a link? 5. Your probably right but he won't have to worry because I doubt if I will watch any more. 6. Yes, I hear that a lot. I suppose it takes special scrutiny to find something in the video that looks like Bigfoot.

      I watched all 4 parts of his videos and even a few more. Part 2 and 3 are identical by the way. In every single one of them all we get is him describing his experiences and nothing more. He talks of sounds and wood knocks we can't hear (except for his) and lots of scenery. I'm afraid he is going to have to do better than that to convince people as there are already 5 or 6 people who have videos doing the same exact thing.

      By the way that reference to being a quitter at Carter Farm is correct. I quit looking because there was nothing to be found except for Janice's imagination. Lastly he makes references to the Bigfoot Outlaws. That pretty much says it all to me. Perhaps you could enlighten me if you know the backstory and events leading up to it. I'm all ears.

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

      Delete
    7. Checked in this morning lktomi and noticed you responded however cannot read it as it has been whited out. Did you use some profanity in your message? Perhaps you could post again without the offending word/words and I would be happy to respond if needed later today.

      Delete
    8. Curious... Do you think Janice imagined up 200lbs of faeces, roughly human sized although desiccated, indicating that the original size was likely larger? Did Janice imagine a hair has consistency with 12 other samples that are all linked 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 find it far more interesting to look at the psychology of people who have appeared to have not been successful at research and now appear to be inclined to oppose those of us who aren't in denial about the current state of evidence to which wouldn't exist if "Bigfoot" didn't exist. There's of course you, and Haints/Danny... There appears to be a little trait forming. I wonder how many of these trolls are actually full blown failures in their past? Now there's an interesting thought.

      AnonymousFriday, December 30, 2016 at 1:49:00 PM PST
      You n*ggas erased my post. Typical libtards trying to suppress free speech! F*ck Bigfoot evidence!
      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/cloaking-bigfoot-caught-on-camera.html

      Mr Curious, if you're going to encourage trolls to carry on their trolling around here, please be mindful of the sick little cowards you're quoting, people might lump you into the same bracket and nobody wants that. That's unless you're happy for that... You do seem to sometimes enjoy seeing yourself as the "bad guy" around here.

      Delete
    9. Curiously after I posted this last comment I can now see your posting. Don't know how that worked by never-the-less I can now respond directly to your posting.

      I think Fahrenback is wrong. If those "hairs" could be examined by a battery of others skilled in determining those things then I might agree but for now that's just his opinion and nothing ever came from it. As I remember those feces or scat were said to contain dog, bat and human DNA which again proved nothing. I remain convinced there is nothing to Janice's story.

      How am I encouraging the trolls? I pop in ever now and then to read stories and comments and don't comment that often? If you are referencing the "not interested - don't care" quote I just thought it was funny. I do not encourage nor endorse the racial and personal attacks of profanity and name calling I see made here. If you can prove that I do than by all means show me the post I made and I will apologize (I think you will find none). I DO call into question some of the claims made. Lastly I am certainly not bitter just amused that anyone would still put any stock into the Carter Farm story. I myself find the psychology of Bigfoot believers interesting so I guess we are both interested in that subject but from different angles.

      I have to get back to work now. Later.

      Delete
    10. Actually Curious... To elaborate on this, a matching 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. And to just reiterate his credentials, Henner Fahrenbach is 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.) So, it is important to note that this hair sample has consistency with 12 other samples that are all
      linked to their own sightings, physical evidence and general Sasquatch activity. "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)."
      - Henner Fahrenbach
      So it is here, considering we have hair samples that have uniform morphology verified by multiple experts, we can deduce that there's no mistake with the hair sample.

      "Surprisingly, he found dog and bat DNA in the scat, and mentioned human DNA which he said was contamination. Other researchers were also finding human DNA "through contamination" on various bits of BF physical evidence. In "Legend Meets Science" the DNA scientist is disappointed to find human DNA on the BF physical evidence. But was it really contamination? A scientist in Michigan began to independently suspect that the human DNA he was getting from various purported BF hair samples was, in fact, not contamination but from BF. He analyzed a sample of Carter Farm hair which had been verified by Dr.Fahrenbach as meeting his standard for probably BF hair and again got human DNA. So he tried an experiment: he deliberately contaminated dog and cat hair with human DNA and tested it. They tested to be dog and cat hair."
      http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/BigfootDNA_e.htm

      That's why people put stock in the Carter Farm stuff. And I think you know what you're doing by encouraging the blog's loon. You claim to be "interested in the psychology of believers", but that's a roundabout way of suggesting that "believers" are a spectacle... If you were such a "believer" yourself, why wouldn't you just self reflect on your own mindset before you got bitter?

      Come on Curious, you're conversing with someone with a remote level of intelligence.

      Delete
    11. Curious y don't you ask on his channel. He answers comments

      Delete
    12. We have a quote here in the states - perhaps you are familiar with it.

      “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck!”

      "all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair" "human DNA on the BF physical evidence"

      Why can we not assume that the hair and DNA they purport to be from Bigfoot could not possibly be as the facts show, from a present day human? Henner himself writes "I am concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise. Feces do so even less, since the DNA collecting has to be done while they are practically steaming fresh, and it is improbable in the extreme that anybody with fecal DNA expertise would stumble onto fresh Sasquatch droppings".

      Furthermore he writes:

      "After lengthy deliberation, we (W. H. Fahrenbach, J. A. Poe, and P. Fuerst), co-authors of the intended article on the Eastern Washington hair found in August, 1995, have decided to withhold submission of the manuscript of the analysis until more DNA from tissue, preferably with attached hair, is obtained. Our studies have not yielded a sequenced mitochondrial gene fragment to determine the phylogenetic affiliation of the creature. The ambiguous results at the present time can, on the one hand, generate misplaced enthusiasm and be quoted as "proof", or, on the other hand, can be used by the opposite camp to criticize and denigrate the results unfairly."

      Not exactly an open and shut case as he clearly knew. Of course you know about the Sykes study and of the 36 samples that were genetically analyzed ALL came from known animals. To add to the argument it's quite clear that Dr. Fahrenbach is quite a Sasquatch enthusiast and would interpret any results favorably for it's existence. If everything was as cut and dried as you say then Carter Farm would now be currently in the history books as the place where it was proven to exist instead of a obscure footnote on Bigfoot blogs.

      LOL - but what do I know? I'm just a embittered, failed "researcher" who secretly believes they exist but lashes out at believers by encouraging trolls. Isn't that right? ;)

      Delete
    13. To Anon: 11:58:

      I would do so if I found something in the videos worthwhile to ask about.

      Delete
    14. "Dr. Fahrenbach says that BF hair, like some human hair, doesn't yield DNA well. But part of his opinion is based on the fact that his previous attempts to get DNA from BF hair never came up with anything but human DNA, which he and his associates assumed was due to contamination. He was rethinking this the last time I discussed it with him. It is thought that our close relatives, meaning other members of the species Homo, and perhaps other closely related hominids of unknown types, would have nuclear DNA matching the human pattern. Without having knowledge of what differences would be there, and at which point of the genome to look for them, we don't presently know how their DNA would differ from ours. A matching program would most likely just assign it to "human". At least one scientist is examining this DNA for likely sites on the genome which may decisively show differences from our own."
      http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/BigfootDNA_e.htm

      Furthermore... Dr Sykes WAS able to extract DNA from the Walla Walla sample...
      "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 Sykes

      With regards to the hairs being "indistinguishable", there simply had to be "morphological congruence" in them or there would be no point in presenting them as Sasquatch hair samples. Fahrenback believes that human and sasquatch hair have considerable similarities, but there are some phylogenetical differences that makes sasquatch hair unique.

      "Generally, sasquatch hair has the same diameter range as human hair and averages 2 to 3 inches (5 to 8 cm) in length, with the longest collected being 15 inches (38.1 cm). The end is rounded or split, often with embedded dirt. A cut end would indicate human origin. Hair that is exposed for a long time to the elements tends to be degraded by fungi and bacteria, a process readily apparent under the microscope. Such hairs are routinely rejected and none of the photographed hairs shown here suffer from such defects. Sasquatch hair is distinguished by an absence of a medulla, the central cellular canal. At best, a few short regions of a fragmentary medulla of amorphous composition are found near the base of the hair. Some human hairs also lack a medulla, but the current collection of 20 independent samples with congruent morphology effectively rules out substitution of human hair. The cross-sectional shape and color of sasquatch hair is uniform from one end to the other, in keeping with the characteristics of primate hair in general. There are no guard hairs or woolly undercoat and the hair cannot be expected to molt with the seasons. Hence, hair collections are invariably sparse in number. Despite a wide variety of observed hair colors in sasquatch, under the microscope they invariably have fine melanin pigmentation and a reddish cast to the cortex, presumably a function of the pigment phaeomelanin."
      https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6PRhHy2Ob1Q/V7q9Z8IOquI/AAAAAAAADdw/x4krTw2SW48YAYGS0a_DnNe46CKIrsB3ACLcB/s1600/sasquatch%2Bhair.jpg

      ^ photos above. You could quite easily have sourced rhisbon the Internet for yourself.

      Delete
    15. You see Mr Curious, it's approaches such as yours that is a total contradiction and makes your atittude appear all the more rhetorical. You require a scientific consensus on evidence knowing fully well that there are only a few qualified people who have been able to do this... But then deny it as "misidentification" when this consensus is provided. It's not only lowering this proud, science abiding standards you like people to think you stand by... But also using mere faith that qualified people are wrong, without so much as researching the facts about their analysis. This can also be said about your approach that Henner is not trustworthy because he is an enthusiast... You would have to BE an enthusiast to want to analysis the evidence, and is essentially ad hominem to condemn the results of the analysis on this basis. You are not qualified, or educated enough on the immediate matter to expect that to wash. And nope... It's simple, you failed at research and now it's everyone else's psychological problem as a result. That's not being accountable for your shortfalls, and if you weren't being rude to people about their mindset, you'd simply self refect how you once thought and have some satisfaction with that.

      Telling.

      Delete
    16. If these so-called Sasquatch hair's have such validity, than why did he not submit a paper on it? I suspect that he realized that under close scrutiny from peer review it would be revealed that there was other explanations to explain the uniqueness of the so-called Sasquatch hairs other than the suggestion of an unknown entity. Of course he's an enthusiast and you cannot call him unbiased since he whole heartily believes in their existence. He's never going to win over those in the scientific community with such foolish presentations such as this:

      http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/10/everythings-bigfoot-in-texas

      I'll be candid with you. I find those such as yourself fascinating as you try to defend your belief (some would say faith) in something you can't seem to prove despite all these links provided supposedly showing such.

      "Come on Curious, you're conversing with someone with a remote level of intelligence".

      The surely you will agree that most of these videos show here are basically worthless for making a case for the existence of Sasquatch? I would in fact, argue that they are detrimental to the cause. It's like Finding Bigfoot airing season after season with absolutely nothing ever being proven. Of course sooner or later people are going to be cynical and skeptical. It's exactly the same with the videos shown daily here. I do sympathize however with you being placed in an awkward position with Dr. Squatch. I don't even believe that you think he has anything worthwhile but out of politeness or the fact that he is a fellow believer you remain silent. I even see where someone is trying to egg him on about being the best researcher and turn him against you (it's plainly obvious what he's trying to do).

      So you think I'M rude? From what I have seen and read in the comments I don't even think I come close but I do challenge things from time to time. And please - I do not consider myself a "researcher" failed or otherwise, just a fellow who was curious about the story and wanted to see for himself. Calling me a researcher is like calling someone who visits a zoo a zoologist. ;)

      Delete
    17. Mr Curious, I have had this exact exchange with you at least twice before. I in fact took it upon myself to copy & past your query for answers as to why this evidence is not submitted for peer review into Google, and came up with at least two different comment sections where this has been addressed... But I'm happy to refresh what seems like an ever increasingly poor memory. "Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence". 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. And we're back to Not-Finding Bigfoot. The majority of people who believe in the existence of this creature watch Finding Bigfoot, and it's no coincidence that they have their knowledge of the evidence for this subject embodied in that programme. The general public which account for people in all professions including mainstream scientists, have these televised "flag ships" like as the main mainstream output, which would make anyone remotely intelligent cynical.

      I also took the liberty of reading the link you provided, and typically I came across...
      • Listing with cynicism and scoff some of the things he cites as eyewitness testimony in his presentations.
      • Rick Dyer's hoax.
      • Listing with mere cynicism the claims of Sasquatch sounds.
      • Scoffing at the efforts of researchers listing hoaxing costume methods for spotting hoaxers.
      • Insults at people who attend conferences.
      • More cynicism at Meldrum selling plaster casts.
      • Suggesting that researchers are worthy of ridicule from the media.
      • Scoffing at a collective audience opinion that Sasquatch shouldn't be killed.
      • Being cynical as to the honestly of researchers' intentions to keep Sasquatch at bay and always "mythical".
      • And lastly, cynicism at Henner for again reiterating what innumerable hunters have stated, in that a standard hunting rifle won't take down what is being widely reported (size).
      ... Um, was that meant to be a counter argument to the hair examples I provided in references? Was that meant to be an explanation for Henner's research? Hmmm, I'm not sure you should be talking on behalf of what's going to win over the scientific community if that's the case? Cynicism is an attitude or state of mind characterized by a general distrust of others' motives. Unfortunately, attitudes and opinions do not begin to explain away the research of scientists, or what appears to be reliable data. Neither does providing hypothetical peer review scenarios as to these hair samples being shown to be bunk, or maintaining that the scientist presenting this are "unbiased"... it doesn't tick any debunking boxes any time soon.

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

      Delete
    19. Nothing short of a body is going to convince the majority of scientists, even if a peer reviewed study determined the authenticity of a series of morphologically congruent primate hairs. And lastly, and respectfully, since you appear to have such a poor memory I'll say it again. Maintaining something that has scientific backing is not legitimate, without presenting a single equivalent case to dismiss this, merely on the aspect of FAITH... Is as belief based and religious like as you can ever point to. To suggest that thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports are misidentification or hoaxing, is a bigger leap of faith than anything you can scoff at... But to then provide mere ad hominem as a means of explaining away the supporting repeatable physical evidence is quite simply a dogmatic view and pretty audacious. I have no proof of "Bigfoot" (a body), but can reference proof that something with the widely reported anatomy as "Bigfoot" is leaving its physical evidence on the environment of the US. Until mainstream scientists decide the subject is worthy of proper investigation with the adequate resources... I can reference track impressions, hair samples, footage, audio and innumerable cultural and contemporary anecdotes... But none of this glaringly obvious frequency of sources matters of course, because according to you, "I don't have proof".

      I guess everyone else except you is just "unbiased".

      Delete
    20. "... Um, was that meant to be a counter argument to the hair examples I provided in references? Was that meant to be an explanation for Henner's research"?

      ...Um no, this was (allow me to repeat it so you won't overlook it again):

      "If these so-called Sasquatch hair's have such validity, than why did he not submit a paper on it? I suspect that he realized that under close scrutiny from peer review it would be revealed that there was other explanations to explain the uniqueness of the so-called Sasquatch hairs other than the suggestion of an unknown entity".

      You see, submitting those hair samples WITH a paper for peer review would force fellow experts to examine them. Unless you feel there is a grand conspiracy to keep Bigfoot's existence a secret then what could be the harm (except for damage to his reputation)? I think the scientific community was prepared to give a fair hearing to Dr. Sykes study and HE did it the proper way but of course nothing was proven. You continue to say proof from him is forthcoming but I have heard nothing recently that indicates that.

      "Listing with cynicism and scoff some of the things he cites as eyewitness testimony in his presentations".

      ...And rightly so. Some of what Fahrenbach claims is absolutely ridiculous and would put doubt in his rationally by any normal thinking person. I see you dodge the question of the usefulness of the videos shown on this blog. I anticipated as much, such is your mantra . . . believers good - disbelievers bad. You are your own worst enemy when you support nonsense like what is shown here. I think almost everyone else (even fellow believers) don't buy into what Dr. Squatch presents. For the record I'm not trying to trick or trap you by re-posting what you write but stuff like that is NOT helping advance the case for Sasquatch's existence.

      You responded to my comment which is perfectly fine but we are obviously not going to agree on this and probably are wasting each other's time trying to convince the other. I DID feel it was a possibility many years ago but I hold no hope for it's existence currently. The "evidence" you present is just not convincing to me (and apparently not to the scientific community as well). If the day comes it is proven you may bask in glorious validation however based on what has been brought forth so far I feel you will forever be fending off ridicule and skepticism. "I have no proof of Bigfoot" pretty much says it all at this stage but good luck to you in proving it . . . you will need it.

      Delete
    21. Short memory... That's cool...

      If you remember, Mr Curious, this was addressed at least once before. Sykes was also shooting for an anomalous primate's DNA, if you remember? This not only outlines his subjective view of what he expects Sasquatch to be, but also means that any such find would be difficult to present as groundbreaking evidence should such results be on the Homo Sapien spectrum. For example, why aren't you celebrating the DNA breakthrough that such Sasquatch hairs that have morphological congruency are in fact sequencing to be Homo Sapien? Precisely... (that's the feeling of self reflecting for easily attainable answers, for once).

      It's because not only are most pseudosceptics expecting a new great ape's DNA to be yielded, but also most enthusiasts are as well. Furthermore, Sykes has the reputable clout of being able to commence such a study and attain credence. I hadn't heard of Henner Fahrenbach prior to looking into this subject. So... As I will reiterate, "extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence", and no mainstream scientist will accept any hair sample to be presented as evidence of an extant cavemen, nor the DNA of that caveman being Homo Sapien for that matter. It's why we have "contamination" as the widely accepted view of such results.

      Unfortunately, much of what Henner states is based upon many decades of physical evidence;
      "Measurements 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."
      http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbacharticle.htm

      ... D'you know what I find " absolutely ridiculous"? Is someone taking the time to repeatedly post mere cynicism as a means of masking a shortfall of plain laziness. And you'll know when I endorse something, because I'll put it in writing. If I spent my time reassuring pseudosceptics what I don't endorse, I don't think I'd have much time for anything else. What IS interesting is worthy of my time. What the mainstream scientific community recognises or is even aware of for that matter, means little. If there's scientific evidence that not one from that mainstream can explain away, and it is substantiated with consistent scientific means, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority. I think the day that "Bigfoot" is shown to exist, we'd see a mysterious disappearance of "Mr Curious" and a sudden appearance of a gentleman ready to use his real name in enthusiasm, I think. And if I was to bring ONE genuine foot print out of 50 years worth of fakes, then that validates my stance. Based on how many Sasquatch footprints have been sourced, you might wanna think about that. But you keep using those quotation marks like they're somehow substantiating your case against 50 years worth of data, Mr Curious.

      Talk about "needing something", alright.

      Delete
    22. And as I have to sleep... I'll be back later.

      Delete
    23. Finally a few free minutes to address your reply:

      Let me get this clear. Are you saying Bigfoot hair and DNA is not accepted by most scientists because it too closely resembles modern humans (us) and because of that they think it comes from us (modern humans)? Is your position that Bigfoot is a primitive human and that is why the findings reveal human DNA? Correct me as I want to get this straight.

      Concerning Fahrenbach, do you really believe what he says about Bigfoot orgies and covering 90 feet in three steps? I don't ever recall witnesses seeing a Bigfoot gangbang so how in the world would he know this? It's makes everything he says suspect. If you actually believe that - well, I don't know what to say.

      So Mr. "pioneer" I at least took the time out to actually see if there was anything to the Carter Farm story and found nothing to substantiate the claims made. I see people posting their videos here but I have seen nothing that would encourage me to reconsider my skepticism. How sure am I of my position? If we were sitting at a table right now I would lay a bet of $5,000 (American) that it will not be proven in the next 10, 20, 50 years whatever. Furthermore with each passing year I believe the skepticism of the general public grows. It's fascinating to see those out there still searching though - the faith is strong with those. You are confident that Bigfoot does exist - I would be curious if you actually think it will EVER be proven. Are they just too smart for us?

      Delete
    24. No, not enough scientists are even aware of such hair fibres existing, let alone being unaccepting of them for whatever reasons. And not only would it be ridiculously obvious anyway... but I think I have been VERY clear as to the reasons why human DNA from hair samples that have morphological congruency, might not make any significant stirs in the scientific community. For the sake of not repeating myself and going around in circles, you can just read up top again. I really dunno what to think of "Bigfoot orgies" (creased), I can only assume that Henner is trying to apply the same liberal sexual behaviour that recognised great apes are known to express in social groups, such as bonobos. And whilst I'll admit that "Bigfoot" clearing 90 feet in three steps is difficult to swallow, there are in fact some very fascinating clues as to what they can achieve given the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

      "Measurements 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."
      - Henner Fahrenbach
      http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbacharticle.htm

      Kelly Shaw has in the past found prints showing one had leapt a creek of over 15′ in one stride. Coonbo measured one from a subject that would have had to have leaped 20 feet plus from a standing position, and then longer after it took off. Given Fahrenbach's research up top, imagine one running 35, almost 40mph then leaping? We also have eyewitness testimony such as this;
      "I am not sure as to total distance, but I can say what we witnessed leaped entirely across a logging road that was easily 20+ feet, more likely 25 from tree line to tree line. It was airborne all the way into the opposing tree line from its departure. I cannot relate accurately how fast that thing was… It was fast enough to still be a living “blobsquatch” in my memory. Never did get to see anything other than vague size and shape. And that was literally a car length ahead of us or so."
      - Steven J
      https://sasquatchchronicles.com/topic/how-far-can-big-foots-jump/

      I need to sleep, I'll address anything that I haven't addressed in the morning when I check back. Peace.

      Delete
    25. Based on current records set by humans I have no disagreement that if such a creature existed it could accomplish this. So to be clear are you saying that no matter what evidence is presented that nothing short of a body would satisfy most scientists? I myself think had Dr. Sykes' study been more successful that most scientists would have been fascinated and curious to pursue it further. I have heard many skeptics say they would love for Bigfoot to be proven real however they felt the evidence just did not support it (a position I now hold). When I was young I absolutely believed it would be proven but I will tell you what has caused me to doubt it's existence now:

      1. The passage of time. It's hard for me to accept that with all the reports over the years that not one has been found dead, shot or run over except in stories.

      2. The advance of technology. With all the modern equipment now available and with people out looking for them armed with such I just can't fathom how they can avoid detection and escape one clear up close video.

      3. Eyewitness reports. One thing I have learned is people are good at lying (look at our politicians) and to be charitable, can misidentify. I do however feel some honestly believe they have seen Bigfoot and there is the mystery for me. The mind is a complex thing and to some there is no doubt that they are sure of what they saw however in most cases we just have their word. If we are to believe all the sightings then Bigfoot is almost everywhere and in huge numbers.

      When I was a young boy and seen the movie The Abominable Snowman with Peter Cushing (which I still consider one of the best movies made on the subject) I have hoped (WANTED) that such a creature could exist. I still hold on to the possibility of the Orang Pendek being real which I feel is the most probable if such creatures exist. Unfortunately I have grown disillusioned about Bigfoot's existence but perhaps in the vast wilderness of Sumatra . . . . . .

      Delete
    26. Yep! You're correct! If someone as reputable as Sykes would have found a unique DNA signature, then few people would have disasgreed with it and I think finally mainstream science would have put together the same effort they invested in locating the Bili Ape. But let me ask you this, should Sykes' long study on Zana, who was described the exact same way as modern reports of Bigfoot, Yowie, Yeren, Yeti, conclude that her DNA was Ancient Homo Sapien, many, many tens of thousands of years old, would that seal the deal for you as to what's lurking in the wilderness of the US today? Exactly... It's only ever gonna take a body because of the nature of what we're dealing with here. The repercussions and the idealism it that brings regarding an extant hominin require far more than hair, track impressions and even ancient Homo Sapien DNA. Scientists are gonna need something with ***** they can prod and study. Can I just say that should Sykes deliver that comslusion, I'll be celebrating. And I have to disagree about many who are invested in this subject full time. For them to be in so much denial about the frequency of evidence and try anything & everything to censor & misinform, for these people to "love Bigfoot to exist" is nonsense. Impartial people don't take such measures.

      1. For something as large as this we have a level of evidence, and if this creature does exist (and in my opinion it most certainly does), then it would naturally have to have evaded classification for hundreds of years... So what is 50 without a major consorted professional effort? Plenty of missing hunters remember.
      2. If Sasquatch evaded detection and technology so well, then we wouldn't have tack impressions, hair samples, audio recordings, footage, even thermal hits in the height ranges of 7 feet (two subjects in one source), and 8.5 feet tall. To keep denying this frequency of evidence without explaining it away is basic special pleading.
      3. People lie, yes, but people don't risk ridicule and especially professionals who rely on their perceived integrity. This means the many pillars of modern society that have reported Sasquatch, would take a very peculiar course of action by tellimgnkf their experiences. Eyewitnesses make missidentifications regarding key information of an incident, they rarely make missidentifications of the actual incident. For example, multiple witnesses to a giant hairy human stepping out into the road may make missidentifications regarding weight, height, whether it had hair on its face... But not that the giant hairy human stepped out into the road.

      I respect the amount of time you've been into this subject and understand that you may have become disillusioned.

      Delete
    27. Of course we disagree on most points but let me run this by you and tell me what you think. I submit that many of those who advocate that Bigfoot exists are their own worse enemy. Allow me to explain.

      In all the years I have been following this subject I have never once seen a plea for a unified effort - to get all who believe under one banner. I see some Bigfoot advocates fighting with each other more than with skeptics. Everyone always seems to be in their own little sphere and doing their own thing. The show Finding Bigfoot had a perfect platform for doing this. They could have urged people to write their representatives demanding that the government look into this. They could have had more professional scientists on their program explaining what you always link as evidence. They could have put more effort in areas instead of beating on trees and yelling for a few days and moving on. I realize it's an entertainment show but stuff like having a rave with disco lights out in the wilderness of Idaho to attract Bigfoot just makes a mockery of the whole subject. The howls they commonly do is just lunacy to me if your trying to track an elusive creature. What are serious scientists suppose to think when they see stuff like that?

      When you have people such as Matthew Johnson, Dr. Squatch, Melba Ketchum and others who people see associated with Bigfoot it just makes many of the serious and thoughtful researchers look bad. When you have video after video showing nothing of importance like we see here every day it just diminishes interest. If those who search would just post videos when they have something of true importance then perhaps they wouldn't receive the ridicule or disinterest they do. Look at Dr. Squatch's hundreds of videos on YouTube - it doesn't seem to be convincing anyone.

      I remember the excitement and high hopes when Melba Ketchum made her announcement of her DNA study and then watched it crash and burn as professionals tore it apart. Last time I heard her in an interview she didn't come across as a professional and sounded more than a little strange. It would certainly get my attention if Dr. Sykes as well as Dr.Todd Disotell would agree that there is evidence of Bigfoot DNA. I think both would love for Bigfoot to exist but would be impartial and professional with the results and most scientists would trust them (especially after peer review).

      The fact that there are those out there who believe and are hunting Bigfoot does not bother me in the least and I have no malice against them. I am however curious what drives many (such as yourself) when they themselves have never actually seen one. I realize you like many feel the evidence is sufficient to justify your belief. I myself, feel that the evidence is not rock solid and feel there may be more of a psychological mystery to uncover.

      I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. One last thing - the comments being made are really getting crude and idiotic. I enjoy spirited debates and witty back and forth banter as much as the next guy but some of these are the level of elementary grade school. I think there is enough hate in this world without it spilling over into a debate whether a creature exists or not. I've spent enough time on this for now but I will continue to check in to this site every now and then. You may have the last word if you wish. I'm not a believer but do believe this - I sincerely wish all of you who think it exists the best of luck in proving it.

      Delete
    28. I agree with everything you have written.

      With regards to your last but one paragraph, just dip into your own experiences Curious. The idea of an extant hominid without seeing one in the flesh is both adventeous, scary, possible (to most who believe very), and potentially money making for a discovery, and can be substituted with evidence.

      Peace.

      Delete
  3. Ted Nugent - Guitar Lesson With Ted: http://youtu.be/GYGlAnM_8b4

    Wow

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unicorn sightings...about zero,

    Bigfoot sightings...off the scale. Just sayin...

    Hey, little old me found a bigfoot print in a remote area of MN. It didn't take long. I just had to look for something I had never looked for before...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, there aren't three whole databases of reports for "Bigfoot" that transcend native cultures' core belief systems & oral histories that mimic unicorn reports... And you won't find at least one scientist that supports the idea that unicorns exist, not to mention a unique species trait in a biological sample that can be attributed to an unclassified type of horned horse.

      It might never have dawned on an angry nerd that never leaves his desktop, but that's what decent researchers do... They spend significant time in the wilderness and get results.

      Delete