World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
"Therefore Agassiz says, when a new doctrine is proposed, it goes through three stages. First, people say it is not true; then, that it is against religion; and in the third stage, that it was long known."- German Embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer (1792–1876)That religion is Scientism, and their disciples; pseudoscepics.
G'day Itkomi, how are you?Dazz from Oz
I'm ok thank you, how are you?
From what I can gather from the typical average approach to the PGF, and based on my own perceptions & naivety on the footage years ago, I can extrapolate four key areas that make people cynical of the footage; 1. People think that because Patty walks like a human it can't be a "Bigfoot", because they expect the stereotypical "hunched over, limping caveman"... When in fact she moves precisely how one would expect from another type of bipedal human. 2. People think that because she looks like a gorilla it therefore must be an obvious gorilla costume as it somehow does not fit their expectations. However, if these people were to familiarise themselves with the innumerable witness reports, Patty fits what we would expect from a widely reported "bipedal gorilla".3. Pre-stabilisation; people weren't seeing enough detail and the two previous points applied even more so to the detriment of their opinions. 4. Post-stabilisation; people forget that Roger Patterson wouldn't have been so detailed in his "costume" by shooting in shakey 16MM. There's no way he would have anticipated the footage being stabilised 45 years later and decided to put SFX defying detail to his costume just in case. Unbelievable detail that equates to lots of hard work that would have been wasted for all these years, and that could have got him a job in the most well paid of Hollywood SFX as opposed to "swindling about Bigfoot".
^ There is no definitive statement on the validity of exactly what is shown in the PGF. There is opinion only. Yours is just one of many. Opinions are like assholes - everybody got one. Pull your nose outta your ass.
Actually, Stuey... The PGF has been presented as a piece of evidence for the existence of "Bigfoot", by Jeff Medrum (anthropologist & authority on evolutionary bipedalism) John Bindenagle (PhD wildlife biologist & former advisor to the UN), Ian Remond (OBE FZS FLS tropical field biologist and conservationist), and O Allen Guinn (MD FACS Aurora Plastic Surgery).And when you've stopped quoting other people, maybe you can think for yourself and come up with a logical counter argument... Maybe even a magic monkey suit?
"I was born without balls"-Joe Fitsgerald
How's about you show you've got a pair and use Joe's email, the same one you've published a load of times, and confront him like somewhat of man? : )
"the intellectual anus brain is my greatest novel"-Joe Fitsgerald
"There is no definitive statement on the validity of exactly what is shown in the PGF." What Meldrum has presented is simply an opinion...there are as many people stating the exact opposite of what Meldrum has stated and with as much validity...are you stupid ?I think we all pretty much "no" the answer to that...that would be a fact rather than opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Actually... It's Meldrum's EXPERT opinion, dear boy, and it's opinions like that which makes the scientific world go around. And not just his opinion at that, if you care to read my comment properly. You'll notice that the list I published accounts for every scientific area required to present the notion of a very real primate, with very real biological tissue in that footage. Let's see your list, Stuey? Considering you're so accustomed to the facts, and all.
...Hi Ikto, hope all is well..Presented to whom? The producers of Monsterquest? The attendees of a bigfoot conference? The men you mentioned are professors and to my knowledge have never given a talk at a seminar...I expected that Munns and Meldrum would have given a talk at the weekly seminar at Meldrums department but nada...Dont know why they didnt, but my guess is that they do not think their evidence is strong enough to overcome the negative reaction to what they think is the true history of the footage: Roger filmed it earlier,and then consulted with his business savoy relative as the best means to sensationalize the discovery and maximize profits...Peace, EEG
This is why you are my favorite footer EEG. You have the ability to take off your Bigfoot colored glasses and view the evidence critically. Too bad others don't follow your example.
EEG... "Presented" as in announced or endorsed it. I have said it a million times, what good would writing a paper be on footage or even track impressions when mainstream science is only ever gonna accept a body? Meldrum knows this, most of the subject's proponents know it. The timeline is a mess... But the subject in the footage isn't. And if I had just filmed something like that, I'd be looking to maximise my profit from it as well. Roger had ample reason to ensure his family's future was secure, remember.
...Thanks Barret...You may be right Ikto, but I'd bet if there was, for example, an advance in methods so that one can show the subject was 7 ft 6 inches, Meldrum would take a run at his colleagues...More generally, though its hard to say what form it would take, there must be some kind of evidence short of proof that might get the mainstream interested in cryptozoology...
Agreed. However... Have you seen the McClarin comparison that MK Davis has on his channel. The subject in that footage is close to 7 feet tall.
..yes, that was cool but I am imaginingmathematical certainty...If it was to proven the subject was even 7 feet the probability the film is a hoax would beat most equal to the percentage of people that tall(and that is small indeed)...
Got a relatively clear one:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bglib_Qvo9c
Say what? That's not even remotely clear? Unless you can see it's face, how can you even say that's a Bigfoot?Here's a clear face shot.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My-94EM_iag
"Sorry. It's a guy in a fur suit."-Stan WinstonThe late Hollywood special effects/costume expert on the Patterson film.
Stan Winston does not have any of the level of understanding of biological tissue like this person; "In conclusion, after a thorough review of the copy of the Patterson-Gimlin film provided to me, it is my professional opinion that it represents a live hominid and not a human in a costume. As noted above, there are multiple details of areas on the filmed individual’s body that correspond to those found in a human. Also as stated above, the replication of some of these anatomic landmarks would be difficult or impossible to accomplish in a costume. Additionally, it would take a detailed knowledge of human anatomy to even be aware of some of these anatomical features, let alone possess the technical skills to incorporate them into a convincing costume. That information is only known to a very select percentage of the population, of which I happen to belong.While it may be difficult for one to accept that in our modern age there can be a large, undiscovered hominid living in our forests, the facts have to be faced. In the words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous character, Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”-O. Allen Guinn, III, M.D., F.A.C.S. Aurora Plastic SurgeryLee’s Summit, MO... I mean, sure he has fame and is brilliant at his job, but wouldn't a statement like that from someone who wants to be the best in his professional be pretty typical? Apart from offering absolute no explanation as to how it's a costume, in truth, he has nothing on the expert eye of people who have cut up and remodelled human flesh before. "If one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business."- Stan Winston You see... This also just digs a bigger hole, because if someone like Stan can state that the costume could cost a couple of $100, then why couldn't a BBC budget manage it? Why couldn't Blevins who spent almost a decade manage it?? For someone with as big a rep, he didn't think that one out too thoroughly did he? Well if I someone who had knocked up a monkey suit to best 47 year's worth of advances, I'd hand him a job!!
Lol joe really doesnt like anyone bad mouthing the cornerstone of his religion huh?
Come on now Stuey! Since 2012 you've struggled, even with lies and misinformation to explain away the PGF. That's gotta smart for such an obsession, eh Stuey?
Let's see Stuey explain away his obsession with Iktomi. Come out of the closet Stuey MMC
>>Lol joe really doesnt like anyone bad mouthing the cornerstone of his religion huh?He can't stand it. There is another like him around named DWA. F-ing crazy. I am convinced people like this pray to bigfoot before bed. It is fascinating to watch a religion being created.
There certainly are a lot of similarities between belief in Bigfoot and religion.
Hey Stuey, just ask yourself who got reeled in today? The root of all your trolling is the PGF. It's your Since early 2012, you've hounded this place trolling with insults and repeatedly bringing up the PGF even when the immediate articles had nothing to do with it. You read a couple of special pleading JREF posts that the Bigfoot legend began with the PGF, which is a lie, and that there is no other evidence to substantiate this legend, which is another lie... And you thought that if you used all the most readily accessible misinformation about the PGF, you'd debunk the subject and can rest being assured that you've done something with your existence. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence. How this is relevant to my situation, is that there is reason to invest enthusiasm in the subject based on the accumulated data that accounts for the experiences of tens of thousands of people, spanning different cultures, that is supported by means of physical and even biological evidences that can't be scientifically shown to be bunk. Religions include revelation, faith and sacredness, and how this is relevant to your situation is that you have nothing but dataless opinion void of any scientific factual basis, with a requirement to be devoted in expressing your sentiment at every opportunity. The religion of people far cleverer than you who can't explain away this subject, is Scientism. And their disciples; pseudoscepics just like you.
There are at least 2 anons here so not sure who you are calling "stuey" or even why for that matter. 7:40 that DWA is a fascinating character truelly of his rocker7:45 yes I agree, strikingly similar. Belief without evidence is exactly what it amounts to.
The constant reference to "stuey" reminds me of a scene from Spartacus."I am stuey." "No - I am stuey" (followed by a chorus of a hundred more I am stuey's.)Funny stuff.
There's one anon, Stuey, and he's getting angrier by the hour... Hence the Sykes racism quotes that weren't referenced. where's "dmaker" to consistently call out such awful behaviour? "There is a prominent view in epistemology (the study of knowledge) that “belief” and “evidence” go hand-in-hand. They say that evidence provides the support for belief, and that without evidence, there is no good reason to have a belief. In philosophy, this perspective is called “evidentialism”; the view that a belief is only rational if it is well-supported by evidence."
>>There are at least 2 anons here so not sure who you are calling "stuey" or even why for that matter. I can never figure that one out either. I think it is supposed to be a catch-all,derogatory thing....but if no one knows what you are talking about it has no punch. I was only 7:40 so at least 3 of us. And I sure am not named stuey.
"Dissociative identity disorder (DID), previously known as multiple personality disorder (MPD), is a mental disorder characterized by at least two distinct and relatively enduring identities or dissociated personality states that alternately show in a person's behavior, accompanied by memory impairment for important information not explained by ordinary forgetfulness. These symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, seizures, other medical conditions, nor by imaginative play in children. Diagnosis is often difficult as there is considerable comorbidity with other mental disorders. Malingering should be considered if there is possible financial or forensic gain, as well as factitious disorder if help-seeking behavior is prominent."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorderDidn't you try and give yourself the name "Dazz" in an effort for people to give you a preferred name? Seek help, Stuey.
So we have 3 anons here, dazz from aus and Curious so thats at least 5 skeptics. Good stuff
Just you Stuey.
>>so thats at least 5 skeptics. Good stuffProbably. But at times joe has confused me with being two separate people in the same thread. This has happened a few times. He usually will delete his post when he catches his mistake. It is almost like he does not understand how a forum/board works. One of the reasons I suspect drug abuse/self medication joe.
AnonymousMonday, January 23, 2017 at 11:31:00 AM PST>>I exposed the blog's troll for making vile child rape threats towards a female poster.Um that was me idiot. I never saw you "expose" me. I am still waiting on the FBI. You still have no idea who I am. Oh and F * C K YOU AND YOUR KIDS CHICK.https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/finding-bigfoot-team-finds-something.htmlAre we to honestly believe a sadistic pervert like you?
"There is no credible evidence of Bigfoot which is why the idea is rejected by science." - Sharon Hill MSc
Special PleadingnounArgument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.Science isn't a freethinking entity that chooses what's credible, it's a tool that's been applied to studying physical evidence for what is commonly known as "Bigfoot" for the past 50 years.
Now thats irony folks
Who you talking to Stuey? Do you think you have an audience or something?
He's got more than you think.
Five years and nothing to show for it. Oh dear.
Damn the irony. I mean damn
Five long years... : (
Almost 50 years since the PG film and no proof to show for it.Oh dear.
50 years and no consorted mainstream scientific effort to chase up 50 years worth of physical evidence, more like.
Why would there need to be a consorted effort and what is your definition of one? There are many scientists in the field studying other things that never stumble upon bigfoots. There are many people looking for bigfoots that never stumble on bigfoots. There are vast wildlife surveys, forestry management, hunters, tourists, aerial thermal surveys that never stumble on bigfoots. What exactly would this "scientific effort" do that would make them trump all of the above?
So now it's mainstream science's fault? Nice try at defection but it doesn't wash. Why should they pay attention when one of their very own (Sykes) effort's produced no evidence of Bigfoot in the USA? THAT was an excellent chance to get them interested and it failed.
There needs to be a consorted effort because we're talking about primates, dear boy. It took a year to track down and film the Bili Ape for example, and there are no scientists able to quit their day jobs with the recourses needed. 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. You special plead like a loon... Something I've come to expect from pseudosceptics. It is and it isn't mainstream science's fault. If scientists are interested in studying the topic, unless they are already established then they have careers and credibility to look out for. 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. Hoaxes always get massive publicity, and when people are already suspicious of the credibility of the subject, 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. The only known researchers that I can find who submitted samples to Sykes for testing were Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja and Derek Randles. The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples. 30 samples isn't ileven evougj for every State, and never even a remote reflection of the many thousands of years these creatures have been acknowledged in North America, not to mention the physical evidence that's been accumulated over the past 50.
Closure desperation, dear boy.
"I pray to bigfoot every night"-Joe Fitsgerald
"I think it’s probably safe to say that the London Footprints are the most significant footprint find in the last 40 years. They certainly represent the largest collection of data ever retrieved from any single bigfoot site, ever." - Cliff Barackman on the hoaxed london trackway
You seem a little obsessed with the London Trackway, Stuey? Maybe Sharon Hill can find a reason as to why any wildlife biologist, someone who would naturally have far more expertise in track impressions than Cliff, wouldn't be as easily hoaxed if someone put recognised animal impressions down? Dud argument, but avenues aren't exactly in abundance for you.
"I am no longer accepting submissions of bigfoot samples" - Bryan Sykes
Sykes’ research and DNA analysis did not find any evidence for mystery primates, but it did find two interesting bits of data. One thing it found was that the famous story of Zana, the Russian “wild woman,” was not a relict hominid but was in fact a human woman of African descent who somehow ended up in Georgia (the country, not the state). I found the story of Zana fascinating and weird before Sykes discovery, but afterwards found it sad and depressing and horribly racist. How a poor African woman’s plight could be turned into a scary monster story in a human lifetime was deeply disturbing to me.
"Zana was no slave from Africa, but an individual with genetics who tells us much more about the population from which she sprang. As Bryan Sykes hints, “Zana’s ancestors could have left Africa before the Laran exodus of 100,000 year ago” and “they might well be still there [in the Caucasus Mountains] to this day, living as they have for millennia somewhere in the wild valleys that radiate from the eternal snows of Elbrus,”.- Loren Coleman "Sykes has published a book, The Nature of the Beast, in which he writes that Zana's ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago and lived for many generations in the remote Caucasus region."https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.techtimes.com/amp/articles/44347/20150406/dna-test-suggests-russian-apewoman-zana-was-not-human-and-yeti-may-not-be-a-myth.htm"Zana had at least four children, fathered by local men, and some of her descendants reportedly still live in the area. Sykes says he conducted DNA tests on saliva from six of her living descendants and on a tooth from one of her sons. He has also done further research on Zana since writing the book. "They will be published in the regular scientific press so I can't be more specific," he said. Sykes, however, remains adamant that "anomalous primates" could exist in remote regions of the world, and that dozens of witness accounts convince him there is "something out there."... Tick, tock.
Look at what he’s claiming. An African woman was enslaved by 19th century racists, and she left some descendants. Sykes has analyzed DNA from people in that region and found evidence of an infusion of West African DNA into the population: you should be feeling zero surprise. A person lived, had children, died, and her descendants carry traces of her genome. That’s basic biology.But then it goes off the rails. Sykes unquestioningly accepts the accounts of 19th century racists who regarded this woman as an animal to say that the evidence of West African ancestry somehow supports his contention that she was an ‘ape woman’ who was descended from some relic population of a Homo sub-species that had been hiding in the Caucasus Mountains for millennia, giving rise to legends of yetis and bigfoot and other beast-men in the wilderness.That makes no sense. His own DNA analysis says she was 100 per cent African. You know “African” is not a synonym for “pre-human”, right? But he has written a whole book titled The Nature of the Beast (horrid title that also manages to suggest that an enslaved African woman was less than human), in which he advances this ludicrous theory, and the Times has obligingly fluffed it for him. At least it’ll appeal to all the UKIP voters.I’m not even going to accept his genetic analysis. Here are a couple of papers by Gutiérrez and Pine and Edwards and Barnett that show that Sykes can’t do molecular genetics at all — his analysis of a purported Himalayan yeti hair that claimed it was a Himalayan polar bear wasn’t competently done, and is almost certainly a hair from a more reasonable species of bear.But then, what else can you expect from someone who deplores…math? Take a look at the prominent pull quote.Professor Sykes criticized modern genetics for its lack of ambition and its fixation on mathematics. I’m afraid the golden years are over, he said. It is a field now dominated by the arrogance of bioinformatics and, as such, has lost it’s way.That is utterly baffling. He doesn’t like that genetics is fixated on mathematics? But genetics has relied heavily on math since Mendel! If he actually analyzed Zana’s descendants and compared them to extant human populations, he was using the principles of bioinformatics! What he seems to be saying is that he wants to ignore the data to give greater credence to the bigoted legends of Zana, the Russian ape-woman.It is also dismaying that the London Times and their reporter, Oliver Moody, have given this garbage so much space and so little critical analysis — it’s looking a lot like The Daily Mail. Is this the state of science reporting in the south of England nowadays?
"Zana's resemblance was described as that of a wild beast, "the most frightening feature of which was her expression, which was pure animal," wrote one Russian zoologist in 1996.Now Professor Bryan Sykes at the University of Oxford says he believes Zana had a strain of West African DNA that belonged to a subspecies of modern humans."https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.techtimes.com/amp/articles/44347/20150406/dna-test-suggests-russian-apewoman-zana-was-not-human-and-yeti-may-not-be-a-myth.htmIf Sykes can show that Zana's DNA is archaic Homo Sapien, then the corroborating morphology found in her son's skull is proof that Zana was what a whole community claimed her to be. "I’m not even going to accept his genetic analysis." Of course the author of the comment won't! Ha ha ha!! And it's fortunate that Sykes' expertise is in human genetics, someone who literally wrote the book on mitochondrial DNA. I think he's qualified to call out any area of genetics he likes. "Moral high ground fallacyIn which a person assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make himself look good to win an argument."I wonder if the author of that comment can source an example of African skull from the mid-1800's that has some of Khwit's archaic skull morphology?
"Homo sapiens idaltu (idaltu means 'elder') appeared at least by this time. Three skulls discovered in Herto, in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia critically initially showed that this subspecies bridged the gap between Homo heidelbergensis in Africa and the fully modern humans that spread out into the Middle East 100,000 years ago. The skulls are not an exact match to those of people living today; they are slightly larger, longer and have more pronounced brow ridges.It was originally though that this transitional species was to disappear within 10,000 years as full-blown Homo sapiens emerged in Africa, but it is now known that Homo sapiens appeared much earlier, by 195,000, so Homo sapiens idaltu must have been one of several contemporary variations which existed for a time.http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesAfrica/HominidChronology6.htm#Homo%20sapiens%20idaltuProof that a subspecies of Homo Sapien can live contemporary to anatomically modern humans, supporting plausibility of Sykes' theories.
Joerg is on a meth bender today.
No ,To bad for joe Fitsgerald that kwits skull is 100% classic Caucasian(father is caucasian) skull morphology !and all other physical discription are RACIALLY BIASAND PURELY ANECDOTAL PS look up kwits photo !AC collins
^ no way,Kwits mother must have been a white woman!He looks Caucasian to me!
Your best Zana nonsense & lies smashed;https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/new-interview-with-dr-melba-ketchum-and.htmlYou've got plenty of lies to address regarding that drivel in that links, F-AC!! Chop, chop!!
DR MELBA KETCHUM ????You truly are a "LIGHTWEIGHT TROLL". AC Collins
What about her, loon?