Monday, February 6, 2017

Alabama Bigfoot Q and A


From Jonathan Odom:

Hey guys this is a Q and A session. Also for everyone that's wanted to donate here is one time link to donate. Here is the Gofundme link. I will be deleting this video and the link in 48 hours. Thanks for always watching.

59 comments:

  1. "The Humboldt skull is that of an anatomically modern human. It is robust, but it is a human skull that has features that are found in many other anatomically modern human skulls."

    Andy White, PhD

    ReplyDelete
  2. Got alabama bigfoot q and a suit? Unless you can produce the alabama bigfoot q and a suit then alabama bigfoot q and a is the real deal!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Andy White agrees that there are reliable sources that have documented 7-8 foot human skeletons in early woodland mounds in the US." - Iktomi

    YES but he DOESNT AGREE that they are bigfoots you delusional moron!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 7-8 foot tall human skeletons & skulls with archaic features found in a country where people for thousands of years have reported 7-8 foot tall archaic humans, does nothing but support my stance.

      Delete
    2. Could andre the giant run 35mph ?

      Delete
    3. They were using feet to measure things in America thousands of years ago?

      Delete
    4. 2:31... No, but unlike his early human ancestors brains that were wired with straightforward circuits that picked up information from their surrounding environments. Through the senses that relays information to motor neurons, the bodies of Andre's ancestors could move and respond to the surrounding environments in accordance with what they needed in harsher environments.

      2:32... No, they were using them in the present, in archeological studies. From the early 19th to mid-20th centuries;
      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gigantes/esp_gigantes_15.htm

      Delete
    5. "An Australian anthropologist, Peter McAllister, wrote a book (“Manthropology: The Science of the Inadequate Modern Man”) where he argues that our distant ancestors were probably faster and stronger than us. He claims that footprints of Ancient Australian Aborigines show that some of them could run very fast. The particular footprints that he mentions are of an ancient man that was running at 37 kph, which is only 5kph less than how fast Usain Bolt was running when he set his world record."
      http://gainweightjournal.com/prehistoric-men-and-the-ancients-were-better-faster-stronger/

      Delete
    6. Hey 2:59,, Google the actor Hawthorne James (he is known as the 1st bus driver in the movie SPEED) so much for your skull theory.
      It's always cool when a PHD such as Andy White shows up at the BFE to set things straight

      AC Collins

      Delete
    7. Addressed on the previous comment section... What, like when Andy set the record straight about your Paracas skulls?

      Delete
    8. Could andre the giant run around in -30 degree weather buck naked?

      why bother

      Delete
    9. @3:04 I just set YOU STRAIGHT!


      mr.collins

      Delete
    10. 3:06... I do believe your query was addressed. Are there certain big words that you would like me to take my time with?

      Delete
    11. And you'll "set me straight" when you find a rebuttal to my comment on the previous comment section, F-AC.

      Delete
    12. Stinks of angry small man syndrome. Iktomi is likely 5 foot tall.

      Delete
    13. "Modern humans differ from archaic humans in many respects, but anthropologists have been trying to define our species, Homo sapiens, based on the features of their skulls alone. That’s because skulls vary in obvious ways and many have survived as fossils. 'The problem is that some skulls that are clearly modern don’t have all the modern features and a number of clearly archaic skulls have some of these features,' Lieberman notes."

      http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/02/skull-and-face-changes-define-modern-humans/

      Delete
    14. You've been posting the same quotes multiple times on three consecutive comment sections... And I'm angry?

      Delete
    15. He probably wears heals hahaha

      Delete
    16. 3:38... Aside from the robust jaw, there is a prominent brow ridge, glabellar development, the notably strong nuchal crest, low retreating forehead with post-orbital construction, os inca, divided occipital or interparietal bone, accompanied by generally high sutural complexity with several Wormian bones. The simple fact remains that some singular elements of that archaic morphology do indeed exist in contemporary examples, but not to the highly pronounced and collective frequency as we see in the Humboldt skull.

      Delete
    17. All I can say is you are wrong. Beyond that you are on your own. I hope you find your way.

      Delete
    18. It appears that without an example of skull, your assertion falls flat. And personally, I don't really care what happens to you.

      Delete
    19. Nice strawman. Expected more from you... actually no... I didnt. Par for the course.

      Delete
    20. Actually... The whole basis of your attempt to belittle me rests on whether you can find a modern example of skull. Are you sure you know what "strawman" means?

      Delete
    21. When you asked that on the previous thread, you declared it to be a rhetorical question for some reason. So you're not even demanding an answer apparently. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the term "rhetorical question"!

      Delete
    22. If you assert something, it's your responsibility to provide... Whether I've already researched it, know better and want to be rhetorical is another thing altogether.

      You seem to be a little bit under to collar there, dear boy?

      Delete
    23. So you weren't stating a rhetorical question then. Thanks for clearing that up for us Joerg!

      Delete
    24. Youve researched it and "know better" than Andy White phd?

      Delete
    25. 4:27... Not on this comment section I wasn't, but you'd have to know how to spot one to work that out.

      4:27... I can't attest to knowing more than a PhD, only the likes of you.

      Delete
    26. why can't andre the giant run 30-45 mph As anecdotal bigfoot sightings have claimed?
      Why is that?? "MR.WHO'S JOE"

      thats right.

      Delete
    27. learn to read,^ as in ANSWER THE QUESTION!

      LOL.

      Delete
    28. I just read what Jotomi wrote at 2:49 , and then laughed my ass off , IT JUST GOES TO SHOW THAT JOTOMI WILL SAY ANYTHING JUST TO SOUND LIKE A TOTAL FOOL!..lol!

      AC Collins

      Delete
    29. Usain Bolt 27.8 mph !!!worlds fastest homo sapien sapien, andre the giant could not even jog let alone sprint!!

      dr Bryan Sykes threw you a curve ball (as in sub saharan 100,000 yr old dna, and the obscure Uzbek dna from a hair sample from washington) the thing is I linked nat geo documentary's 20× in the past
      That SLAM DUNK your assertions

      And yes its fun for me, as I am the one that conned and boxed you into foolishly saying sasquatch are HOMO SAPIEN SAPIEN ! Haa haa haa
      Never ending gafaws!

      AC collins

      Delete
    30. * THAT SLAM DUNK your assertions as idiotic!

      Delete
    31. "Assertion"... another word you've learned in the past 24 hours.

      http://www.drmirkin.com/weekly-ezine-page/andre-the-giant-and-acromegaly.html

      None of your drivel about the Uzbek sequence has any basis in fact. None of it has ever happened. When you literally make things up, it's weird behaviour. It tells me that you're not on this planet dear boy.

      Delete
    32. i've giving you links to a nat geo DOCUMENTARY that explained sykes statement, you lieng "CHEAP SUIT",,,
      SCHOOLED!

      AC COLLINS

      Delete
    33. The Nat Geo documentary is fine... You've made up information about the Walla Walla hair sample to fit that documentary. You've made this little "AC" character, literally so that you can make up nonsense to aggravate people... I must have scarred you pretty bad along the way.

      : )

      Delete
    34. Haa haaa haaa lol ^

      idiot!

      Delete
    35. You're an idiot if you think anyone's fooled.

      Delete
  4. https://www.dropbox.com/s/chvg4fbxy66dcjz/Trog-Boy-1.png?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/dx527xjpm213ndh/Trog-Boy-2.jpeg?dl=0

    ReplyDelete
  5. "If brock lesnar lived in the woods for 6 months he would look similar to patty" - Joe Fitsgerald

    ReplyDelete
  6. Imagine if there was a massive study undertaken by a world leading geneticist where all of the best sample bigfooters had to offered were dna tested and they all came back as known animals. Imagine if that happened!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd probably list off the many recognised animals that weren't present in the results and ask if it means anything as to the existence of them. I'd also suggest that 30 samples, not even enough for every State, is a gross injustice for thousands of years of anecdotes that are accompanied by 50 years of physical evidence in the present.

      Delete
    2. Anecdotes are not evidence. Physical evidence you have none.

      Delete
    3. "However, witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence


      Would you like me to cut and paste the corroborating evidence? I know cut & pastes burn, so I thought I'd ask first...

      Delete
    4. "Bigfoot" exists in the physical evidence far cleverer people than you have failed to prove otherwise for the past few decades.

      Delete
    5. Bigfoot exists in your mind.

      Delete
    6. ... In the realisation that the physical evidence for its existence is repeatable, yes.

      Delete
    7. Please ^ no more cut&pastes..
      if you do.I SWEAR I'LL FLIP OUT !
      NO MORE OF YOUR SICKO CUT&PASTES IKTOMI,,PLEASE!

      Delete
  7. The way DNA evidence is being distorted here requires a clarification. BF DNA has been properly tested and the results released in a peer-reviewed journal.

    BF mitochondrial DNA is entirely human. BF nuclear DNA, the genome, contains significant differences from modern human DNA. These findings are consistent with the theory that there are extant archaics humans living today albeit unknown to modern archeology, anthropology and zoology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bigfoot dna evidence was in a peer-reviewed article. That means the article was reviewed by other Bigfoots.

      Delete
  8. GoFundMe? Uh huh. Now we're getting somewhere.

    Does anyone want to fund my bigfoot research? You can donate at www.bigfootmakesbucks.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. Replies
    1. Streufort could'nt care less about that Joe F fool!

      haa haa haa lol!

      Delete