World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
Bigfoot Sightings of 2017 - February Edition"Its almost like bigfoot has disapeared almost as if it never even existed"- Stuart"Sigh"- Iktomi
12:03 Back off you "BRAINLESS BILI APE"!!
Verbal Rorschach test. start #2
go to heck ttuff gguy.
Bigfoot sightings of 2017 - zero bigfoots edition
AnonymousTuesday, February 7, 2017 at 2:22:00 PM PSTLITERALLY a double stepped bear print HAHAHAHA pwned by evansAnonymousTuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:34:00 PM PSTThere aren't any bears in Englandhttps://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/bigfoot-track-spotted-in-manchester.html
Plenty of monkeys. Give your palms a rest and put on an Attenborough documentary and learn something.
^ Wanker post alert
The image is striking; even some skeptics are impressed with the footage. But several issues, besides a complete lack of subsequent corroborative evidence, cast doubt on the film’s authenticity. Significant and troubling is the fact that the original film is missing. More importantly, three key issues cannot be resolved. According to Patterson and his partner that day, Bob Gimlin, the film was “mailed” from California on a Friday evening (approximately 9 p.m.) and arrived in Yakima, Washington, the next day. Supposedly processed on Saturday at an unidentified photography lab, the film was viewed by several Bigfoot buffs (including the late René Dahinden and John Green) on Sunday. The two surviving witnesses to these events, Bob Gimlin and Patterson’s brother-in-law and financial partner Al Detley, have been unable or unwilling to explain how the film got to Yakima so quickly (in an era before overnight couriers), how the film was processed so quickly (in a time when development normally took a week), or even where the processing took place.4Patterson’s sketchy reputation looms over all of these issues. Most Bigfoot believers admit that Patterson was no one’s choice for a reliable witness. In his authoritative 1992 monograph on the film (“Bigfoot at Bluff Creek,” a Bigfoot Times special), Daniel Perez, perhaps the film’s strongest supporter, called Patterson “shady.” Other Bigfoot investigators have not been as complimentary.
How does all that unsubstantiated conjecture provide an explanation to what isn't... The subject in the footage? Does conjecture explain away an alleged costume that can't explained away alleged costume that defies all SFX & costume methods to this day must be the case? Here's the smoke & mirrors proponents of the timeline red flag expect us to swallow... You have a creature that cannot be explained away with any known SFX fur cloth technique known to even today's standards... To be side stepped due to conjecture over a processing timeline. Where's magic monkey suit?
IktomiTuesday, September 20, 2016 at 2:38:00 PM PDTThere's one reason why I seem a bit more open to the idea that the timeline is not accurate, and it's because I know the person with the reel in question and it does indeed have the Kodak sticker on it. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2016/09/woman-in-ohio-spots-giant-bird-like.html?m=1
And I stand by that comment... And again, you have a creature that cannot be explained away with any known SFX fur cloth technique known to even today's standards... To be side stepped due to conjecture over a processing timeline OR a Kodak sticker.
You have absolutely no proof on that film just hear say from a mental case so on that point you should shut up
Make me, Fake DS!!
^ what are you ?some kind of schoolboy ?Fucking idiot...truly laughable.Haha haha
Covered in pimples. And boils. On the nether region. Ewwwww.
Even if we base our comparison on the entire area of three hooves, we get a measurement of about 22.7 pounds per square inch for Gimlin’s horse. If the figure in the film applied the same pounds per square inch, it would have weighed 1,505 pounds.This calculation works if the impressions were the same depth as a horse, but from all indications (photos, film, and testimony), they were not. We are told they were noticeably deeper. This means the creature in the film had to exert more downward force than the horse. If the force exerted by the figure in the film was 1.5 times our estimates, that would yield 34 pounds per square inch. This means the creature weighed 2,254 pounds if the earth compacted evenly. As sediment compacts, it causes more resistance to penetration in a nonlinear progression. In this case, we know the surface material compacted enough to support a horse hoof at a shallow depth, meaning the filmed subject would have needed to exert even more pressure on the sediment!Could the Bigfoot in the film realistically displace the weight needed to make the impressions? For this assessment, we must take into account that the figure is allegedly a female Sasquatch (some claim to see its furry breasts) about to winter in Northern California. The images suggest a thick coat of fur. Fur accounts for little weight. The creature would have to bulk up with a layer of fat, and fat accounts for far less weight than muscle. We don’t know how tall the figure is, but Roger Knights, an active Bigfoot booster, has recently taken a look at this issue. According to Knights, “we are probably looking at maybe six feet at most.” Gimlin’s original estimates were “six-feet one-inch or six-feet two inches.”Others envision the subject as taller. According to longtime Bigfoot enthusiast Peter Byrne, the creature’s height is somewhere between “Jim McClarin’s [another Bigfoot enthusiast] height estimate of eighty inches and mine of seventy-seven inches. This would give the figure in the footage [an average] height of six feet, six-and-a-half inches. This is the maximum that I would allow."When one views the image, does it look like an animal, whatever the height, of such enormous weight? If we could accept that this figure made these incredibly deep tracks, shouldn’t there have been many more impressions found just before and after the event? According to Laverty, “there was some skepticism, because we had been up and down that same road all summer long and never saw anything . . . and then all of a sudden Mr. Patterson comes in for a couple of days and bang! Yeah, I think there was some skepticism.”Gimlin would have us believe the creature in the film is of enormous weight.Isn’t a hoax more plausible? Is it possible Patterson and Gimlin conceived a way of making deep impressions before they left Yakima?Readers must draw their own conclusions, but this track depth analysis casts additional scientific doubt on the Patterson film. In view of the litany of discrepancies swirling around the film’s origin and circumstances, the revelations in the Long book, and this evidence of possibly faked tracks, we are exceptionally close to a judgment against the authenticity of the film.
"Another factor to consider, regarding Patty's 'foot displacement'...is that she may not have placed her foot on the ground flat, and evenly..(all at once)....but, instead...heel first, and then the rest of the foot. If that was the case, then her weight would have been distributed over a smaller area, at any one point in time....and resulted in a deeper impression than the same weight distributed across the whole foot, at the same time.I think Grover Krantz came up with an estimate of about 600 pounds, for Patty's weight."- Sweaty Yeti "Most horses are not 1300 lbs, and depending on the gait, a horse is never putting it's full weight on any given hoof at any given time. A bipedal animal that weighs 800 lbs is putting it's full weight on one foot while it swings the other. I have a 14 hand quarter horse in the barnyard right now that doesn't weigh over 800 lbs. Add a rider and a saddle and he still is right around a thousand lbs. But I do not pretend to know what size horses Bob brought down to bluff creek. But if the horse and squatch were roughly the same weight? I could see where the squatch is leaving a heavier impression. If we are to assume that it was a real creature....... Otherwise we then need to figure out how someone could hoax such a heavy impression, without leaving tell tale signs behind."- Norsemanhttp://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/2388-the-patterson-film-trackway/&page=1I'm also currently trying to source an MK Davis video analysis where the notion is proposed, with the subject in the footage indeed appearing to be deliberately leaving its foot impressions in the ground, suggesting added downward force in the footfall.
Eyewitness accounts and anecdotes comprise the bulk of Bigfoot evidence. This sort of evidence is also the weakest. Lawyers, judges, and psychologists are well aware that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. As Ben Roesch, editor of The Cryptozoological Review, noted in an article in Fortean Times, “Cryptozoology is based largely on anecdotal evidence. . . . [W]hile physical phenomena can be tested and systematically evaluated by science, anecdotes cannot, as they are neither physical nor regulated in content or form. Because of this, anecdotes are not reproducible, and are thus untestable; since they cannot be tested, they are not falsifiable and are not part of the scientific process. . . . Also, reports usually take place in uncontrolled settings and are made by untrained, varied observers. People are generally poor eyewitnesses, and can mistake known animals for supposed cryptids [unknown animals] or poorly recall details of their sighting. . . . Simply put, eyewitness testimony is poor evidence” (Roesch 2001).Bigfoot investigators acknowledge that lay eyewitnesses can be mistaken, but counter that expert testimony should be given much more weight. Consider Coleman’s (1999) passage reflecting on expert eyewitness testimony: “[E]ven those scientists who have seen the creatures with their own eyes have been reluctant to come to terms with their observations in a scientific manner.” As an example he gives the account of “mycologist Gary Samuels” and his brief sighting of a large primate in the forest of Guyana. The implication is that this exacting man of science accurately observed, recalled, and reported his experience. And he may have. But Samuels is a scientific expert on tiny fungi that grow on wood. His expertise is botany, not identifying large primates in poor conditions. Anyone, degreed or not, can be mistaken.
If 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."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... All of which are readily viewable in regard to this subject;Video/clear photos;http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpghttp://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpghttp://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpgForensic physical evidence; http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprintsFurthermore, instances where multiple eyewitnesses see these creatures cannot be so easily applied to the misidentification drivel. Experienced hunters who are accustomed to every recognised creature in North America, and even police officers who are highly trained to the art of observation, all account for instances of multiple witness reports.
The problem for psuedosceptics is there are reliable sources of professional eyewitness testimony and embarrassingly for them, the legal system accounts for much of it. When you have people from walks of life like long term experienced hunters, geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, wildlife biologists, anthropologists, wildlife consultants, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners and forestry commissioners reporting the exact same thing from unprovoked and impartial circumstances you have an issue to deal with called professional consistency. More so when you put occasions of multiple eyewitness accounts where physical and biological evidence had been accumulated from one site. When there is steady level of reports that span cultures, then mediums, then into physical and biological evidence, then the reports by reliable professional people hold weight. The truth is that sheer frequency of professional people who are accustomed to decades worth of experience in wildlife and the wilderness account for much of the opinion and accounts to which from the basis of this field. Police officers are also trained to develop a heightened attention to detail. To suggest that these very reliable people are merely seeing upright bears is an overly cynical and typical statement to make, that's obviously either rhetorical of ignorant of the very detailed accounts that span into the tens of thousands. When bears start walking with a stride, lose the snout for a flat face, grow crazy width in their shoulders and grow hands... Then the suggestion that trained, long term experienced professionals are being mistaken will hold weight. These people who account for hunters, forestry officers, etc, who have reported full frontal, very distinct features of the anatomy that account for nothing that looks like a bears, will always point out to you that very obviously, bears are clumsy when they walk bipedally... They also don't run and jump.
Another day, another Iktomi Beatdown.
Unfortunately for you, your plagiarism can never really provide you with creativity in finding a counter argument.
Bigfoot tracks are the most recognizable evidence; of course, the animal’s very name came from the size of the footprints it leaves behind. Unlike sightings, they are physical evidence: something (known animal, Bigfoot, or man) left the tracks. The real question is what the tracks are evidence of. In many cases, the answer is clear: they are evidence of hoaxing.Contrary to many Bigfoot enthusiasts’ claims, Bigfoot tracks are not particularly consistent and show a wide range of variation (Dennett 1996). Some tracks have toes that are aligned, others show splayed toes. Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes (see figure 1). Surely all these tracks can't come from the same unknown creature, or even species of creatures.Not all prints found are footprints, though. In September 2000, a team of investigators from the Bigfoot Field Research Organization led an expedition near Mt. Adams in Washington state, finding the first Bigfoot “body print,” which-if authentic-is arguably the most significant find in the past two decades. The Bigfoot, according to the team, apparently made the impression when it laid on its side at the edge of a muddy bank and reached over to grab some bait. This of course raises the question as to why the animal would make such an odd approach to the food, instead of simply walking over to it and taking it. As the log of the expedition reads, “One explanation is immediately apparent-the animal did not want to leave tracks. . . .” (BFRO 2000). This explanation fails on its own logic: If the Bigfoot (or whatever it was) was so concerned about not leaving traces of its presence, why did it then leave a huge fifteen-square-foot imprint in the mud for the team to find?
Out of the very many track impressions that have been found all across North America, the issue with the authors' comment is that a lot of the track impressions in fact show too much similarity for them to be realistic hoaxes. Hoaxers would have to have guessed a shared morphology of Sasquatch foot, encompassing total accuracy regarding bipedal evolution that only very few educated people understand. Hoaxers would also have to place such fakes in places where some people might not trek for many decades, hoping that someone some day would stumble across them out of miles and miles of wilderness. Furthermore... To hoax convincing biological dermatoglyphics that are primate in origin, one would have to have a knowledge of all human primate and non-human primate dermals (that not many people on the planet do), THEN fool multiple forensic experts. To note also, when a genuine foot makes contact with the earth, it makes what is called a sequential print. The foot has dozens of bones, tendons and ligaments that flow in a segmented fashion and a fluid motion creates compression lines in the inner perimeter of the track, and can only be made by a living fleshy foot. Now... fake tracks are identified by what are called impact ridges that appear on the outer perimeter of the track. What creates this is the simultaneous pushing out from the pressing down of a solid, non-flexible structure like wood or fake plaster cast. You find out his data by testing the source in question. "The Vadoma tribe lives deep within the confines of western Zimbabwe. Derogatorily referred to as the “ostrich people,” the Vadoma suffer from a rare genetic condition called ectrodactyly, which affects one in four children within the population. Ectrodactyly, or “lobster claw syndrome,” can affect either the hands or feet. In the case of the Vadoma, the middle three toes are absent and the two outer ones are turned inward."http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/ostrich-people-zimbabwe
The most famous recording of an alleged Bigfoot is the short 16 mm film taken in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Shot in Bluff Creek, California, it shows a Bigfoot striding through a clearing (see figure 2). In many ways the veracity of the Patterson film is crucial, because the casts made from those tracks are as close to a gold standard as one finds in cryptozoology. Many in the Bigfoot community are adamant that the film is not-and, more important-cannot be a hoax. The question of whether the film is in fact a hoax or not is still open, but the claim that the film could not have been faked is demonstrably false.Grover Krantz, for example, admits that the size of the creature in the film is well within human limits, but argues that the chest width is impossibly large to be human. “I can confidently state that no man of that stature is built that broadly,” he claims (Krantz 1992, 118). This assertion was examined by two anthropologists, David Daegling and Daniel Schmitt (1999), who cite anthropometric literature showing the “impossibly wide” chest is in fact within normal human variation. They also disprove claims that the Patterson creature walks in a manner impossible for a person to duplicate.The film is suspect for a number of reasons. First, Patterson told people he was going out with the express purpose of capturing a Bigfoot on camera. In the intervening thirty-five years (and despite dramatic advances in technology and wide distribution of handheld camcorders), thousands of people have gone in search of Bigfoot and come back empty-handed (or with little but fuzzy photos). Second, a known Bigfoot track hoaxer claimed to have told Patterson exactly where to go to see the Bigfoot on that day (Dennett 1996). Third, Patterson made quite a profit from the film, including publicity for a book he had written on the subject and an organization he had started.Figure 3. Bigfoot allegedly photographed on July 11, 1995 by forest patrol officer at Wild Creek in Mount Ranier foothills, WA State.Figure 3. Bigfoot allegedly photographed on July 11, 1995 by forest patrol officer at Wild Creek in Mount Ranier foothills, WA State.In his book Bigfoot, John Napier, an anatomist and anthropologist who served as the Smithsonian Institution’s director of primate biology, devotes several pages to close analysis of the Patterson film (pp. 89-96; 215-220). He finds many problems with the film, including that the walk and size is consistent with a man’s; the center of gravity seen in the subject is essentially that of a human; and the step length is inconsistent with the tracks allegedly taken from the site. Don Grieve, an anatomist specializing in human gait, came to the conclusion that the walk was essentially human in type and could be made by a modern man. Napier writes that “there is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind.”Other films and photos of creatures supposed to be Bigfoot have appeared, perhaps best-known among them the Wild Creek photos allegedly purchased by Cliff Crook of Bigfoot Central from an anonymous park ranger (see figure 3).
Is it logical to think Roger Patterson would have been so detailed in his "costume", shooting in shakey 16MM? I don't think he anticipated the footage being digitalised and stabelised 45 years later and decided to put SFX defying detail to his costume just in case. Detail that could have got him a job in the most well paid of Hollywood SFX as opposed to "swindling about Bigfoot". Again, this is the logic of the pseudosceptic. The argument that Patty is within the possible human physical proportions does not hinder the case for it being a genuine biological entity. She is after all, a human being since her anatomy falls within the known traits of lineage in the genus Homo. Below are two links provided by MK Davis with comparative footage, with clearly the same camera lens, to which still attest to some seriously impressive physical proportions for the subject in it;https://youtu.be/snr6_S75dXghttps://youtu.be/fBhr-cZXTGkSo whilst the subject's chest width might indeed be in the possible ranges of which can be acceptably human to a "sceptic", the sheer size of the creature inline with the biological tissue (all endorsed by the likes of a pioneering plastic surgeon), makes the subject in the footage pretty much impossible to hoax even by today's standards of SFX, let alone to the limited materials available to members of the public in 1967. The idea that someone is suspicious should they achieve what they intend to achieve, is very poor logic. Pseudosceptics will demand evidence, to then condemn it because it is provided, which is deeply rhetorical. Pseudosceptics will literally discredit people for finding what they set out to look for. Also, it is common knowledge that Roger Patterson had help in tracking the Bigfoot by some of the best trackers in North America at that time. Patterson and Gimlin set out for the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. Patterson chose the area because of intermittent reports of the creatures in the past and of their enormous footprints near there since 1958. The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find, which was investigated by journalist John Green, René Dahinden, and archaeologist Don Abbott on and after August 28, 1967. This find was reported to Patterson soon thereafter by local resident Al Hodgson.Lastly, Patty walks like a human, because she is a human. Her gait however has been recognised to be of some significance by the likes of Dr Jurgen Konzak of the University of Minnesota;https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2RjLzqOu3qc
One of the more interesting bits of “evidence” offered for the existence of Bigfoot is sound recordings of vocalizations. One company, Sierra Sounds, markets a CD called “The Bigfoot Recordings: The Edge of Discovery.” Narrated by Jonathan Frakes (an actor who also narrated a special on the infamous “Alien Autopsy” hoax), the recording claims to have captured vocalizations among a Bigfoot family. The sounds are a series of guttural grunts, howls, and growls.The Web site and liner notes offer testimonials by “expert” Nancy Logan. Logan, their “linguist,” apparently has little or no actual training (or degree) in linguistics. Her self-described credentials include playing the flute, speaking several languages, and having “a Russian friend [who] thinks I'm Russian.” Logan confidently asserts that the tapes are not faked, and that the vocal range is too broad to be made by a human. She suggests that the Bigfoot language shows signs of complexity, possibly including profanities: “On one spot of the tape, an airplane goes by and they seem to get very excited and not very happy about it. Maybe those are Sasquatch swear words.”Here’s what Krantz writes about Bigfoot recordings: “One... tape was analyzed by some university sound specialists who determined that a human voice could not have made them; they required a much longer vocal tract. A sasquatch investigator later asked one of these experts if a human could imitate the sound characteristics by simply cupping his hands around his mouth. The answer was yes” (Krantz 1992, 134). As for other such recordings, Krantz has “listened to at least ten such tapes and find[s] no compelling reason to believe that any of them are what the recorders claimed them to be” (133).
"CONCLUSION REACHED BY DR. KIRLIN AND LASSE HERTEL ON THE SIERRA SOUNDSThe results indicate more than one speaker, one or more of which is of larger physical size than an average human adult male. The formant frequencies found were clearly lower than for human data, and their distribution does not indicate that they were a product of human vocalizations and tape speed alteration. Although a time-varying speed could possibly produce such formant distributions, an objective hearing and the articulation rate do not support that hypothesis. Statistical analysis was applied to groups of vocal tract estimates from different vocalizations and a significant difference was found between the groups. When compared with human data the results indicated that there could possibly be three speakers, one of which is non-human. The average vocal tract length was found to be 20.2 cm. This is significantly longer than for a normal human male. Extrapolation of average estimators, using human proportions, gives height estimates of between 6’4” and 8’2”. Analysis of the rapid articulations in the beginning of the recording (gob-gob) resulted in human-like vocal tract lengths. Also, the sound /g/ in “gob” suggests a human-like vocal tract (two vocal cavities).The pitch periods found cover the broad range of pitch periods for both normal human male and low-pitched human male. However, they are mainly distributed around the data for the low-pitched human male. Pitch and length estimates vary considerably but they are all found to be within the 95 per cent confidence interval for human speech with varying tape speed; however, assuming that there is only one vocalizer, then time-varying tape speed is necessary to produce data over such a wide range. Both typical human whistles and some abnormal types of whistles were found. By using the formants from the abnormal whistles, very short vocal tract lengths were estimated. These whistles could either have been produced with some kind of a musical instrument or by the creature using only a part of its vocal tract.It is hoped that the remaining uncertainties will not be considered reason for dismissing the recordings. The possibilities for prerecording are many, but there is no clear reason to believe it is likely. If Bigfoot is actually proven to exist, the vocalizations on these tapes may well be of great anthropological value, being a unique observation of Bigfoot in his natural environment."
Hair and blood samples have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters. As with all the other evidence, the results are remarkable for their inconclusiveness. When a definite conclusion has been reached, the samples have invariably turned out to have prosaic sources-"Bigfoot hair” turns out to be elk, bear, or cow hair, for example, or suspected “Bigfoot blood” is revealed to be transmission fluid. Even advances in genetic technology have proven fruitless. Contrary to popular belief, DNA cannot be derived from hair samples alone; the root (or some blood) must be available.In his book Big Footprints, Grover Krantz (1992) discusses evidence for Bigfoot other than footprints, including hair, feces, skin scrapings, and blood: “The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable. In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made” (125). He continues, “A large amount of what looks like hair has been recovered from several places in the Blue Mountains since 1987. Samples of this were examined by many supposed experts ranging from the FBI to barbers. Most of these called it human, the Redkin Company found significant differences from human hair, but the Japan Hair Medical Science Lab declared it a synthetic fiber. A scientist at [Washington State] University first called it synthetic, then looked more closely and decided it was real hair of an unknown type. . . . Final confirmation came when E.B. Winn, a pharmaceutical businessman from Switzerland, had a sample tested in Europe. The fiber was positively identified as artificial and its exact composition was determined: it is a prod- uct known commercially as Dynel, which is often used as imitation hair.” In his analysis, Winn (1991) noted that another alleged Bigfoot sign found at the site, tree splintering, had also been faked.
There are ways of testing biological evidence in the many hair samples found at locations of alleged Sasquatch activity, notably primatology and field biology in comparing against known primates' uniform morphology. If repeated samples are all morphologically congruent (ruling out hoaxing), and are definitively indistinguishable from classified human and non-human primates but uniquely uniform... Then again you have repeatable scientific evidence. Science is simply the process of using repeatable methods to acquire and understand verifiable facts and testable hypotheses."A scientific theory is set forth to explain the available data in light of new information. All too often we hear people with an agenda exclaim, "it's only a theory" or "it's an untested theory". There is no such things as an untested theory! What makes a hypothesis into a theory is the fact that it has been tested and is supported by those test results. The "untested theory" is thus an oxymoron and I believe is used to deceive people about scientific issues."http://science.geologist-1011.net/One 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. Sykes has very recently studied this hair and..."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 SykesIt is important to note that this hair sample has consistency with 12 other samples that are alllinked 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 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, as we do with biological dermatoglyphics verified at the same frequency, that we are at a stage of research that points to a human leaving it's sign. Sasquatch is ancient human, as DNA tested by Zana's lineage and as Dr Bryan Sykes will no doubt confirm in due course.
It's hilarious to watch the house moron argue with pasted comments from a Ben Radford article as if it were a real time conversation.What an idiot.
Hey "dmaker"! You didn't condemn your fan boy for not referring his sources? And it's not like I'm doing anything else... I'm well aware these comments aren't his, and would even encourage him to publish more.Why so angry there, champ?
I don't talk to anons, Joe.
Sure you don't, "dmaker".
I don't. Please find an example of me having any exchange with an anon.
I'm busy, so I'll be back later. In the meantime, go take your face to the toilet.
Once again, dmaker makes Joergy look like the bafoon that he is.
Put your pom poms down and plagiarise a counter argument, Stuey!
^ counter to what exactly ?I have no argument to a thing that isn`t real.Idiot.
That's all lot of evidence as a burden, you stupid boy.
^ still confused ?I have no burden whatever - that seems to trouble you somewhat, eh ?
You're simply too stupid to shift that burden. It's a heavy one after all. Not with all these plagiarised comments can you demonstrate that there is no evidence for the existence of what is commonly known as "Bigfoot". If you had no burden, you wouldn't have to make the effort... You stupid failure.
Dmaker smoked like a kipper by Iktomi !life is goodJoe
Such hoaxes have permanently and irreparably contaminated Bigfoot research. Skeptics have long pointed this out, and many Bigfoot researchers freely admit that their field is rife with fraud. This highlights a basic problem underlying all Bigfoot research: the lack of a standard measure. For example, we know what a bear track looks like; if we find a track that we suspect was left by a bear, we can compare it to one we know was left by a bear. But there are no undisputed Bigfoot specimens by which to compare new evidence. New Bigfoot tracks that don't look like older samples are generally not taken as proof that one (or both) sets are fakes, but instead that the new tracks are simply from a different Bigfoot, or from a different species or family. This unscientific lack of falsifiability plagues other areas of Bigfoot research as well.Bigfoot print hoaxing is a time-honored cottage industry. Dozens of people have admitted making Bigfoot prints. One man, Rant Mullens, revealed in 1982 that he and friends had carved giant Bigfoot tracks and used them to fake footprints as far back as 1930 (Dennett 1996). In modern times it is easier to get Bigfoot tracks. With the advent of the World Wide Web and online auctions, anyone in the world can buy a cast of an alleged Bigfoot print and presumably make tracks that would very closely match tracks accepted by some as authentic.What we have, then, are new tracks, hairs, and other evidence being compared to known hoaxed tracks, hairs, etc. as well as possibly hoaxed tracks, hairs, etc. With sparse hard evidence to go on and no good standard by which to judge new evidence, it is little wonder that the field is in disarray and has trouble proving its theories. In one case, Krantz claimed as one of the gold standards of Bigfoot tracks a print that “passed all my criteria, published and private, that distinguishes sasquatch tracks from human tracks and from fakes” (Krantz 1992). He further agreed that it had all the signs of a living foot, and that no human foot could have made the imprint. Michael R. Dennett, investigating for the Skeptical Inquirer, tracked down the anonymous construction worker who supplied the Bigfoot print. The man admitted faking the tracks himself to see if Krantz could really detect a fake (Dennett 1994).
In bear prints you still have claw marks. Bears have dual tracks, the left paw and the right paw are parallel as you track through. In the Bigfoot track way the right and left foot tracks are in front of each other; a singular track way.The proposition that biological traits of an unclassified bipedal primate exists is definitely falsifiable. In attempting to falsify that proposition, you are obviously attempting to prove a negative statement; that such data doesn't exist. The most absolute method of demonstrating that such traits are a biological truth are those that are found in dermatoglyphics across various impressions, by testing it against the casting process, along with long standing fields of biological & forensic science. If you are attempting to prove the antithesis of this with the same methods to which support it (Matt Crowley's technique), then this evidence is unequivocally falsifiable. The sources of evidence in question are not a negative and if that data exists then it can be scientifically tested, requiring no assumptions on its existence either way. In the possible conclusions by such testing you either have confirmed evidence of the anatomical impression of an unclassified bipedal primate, or you don’t. There are ways of testing physical evidence in dermatoglyphics, notably by forensics against casting artefacts. Considering Matt Crowley has been widely cited, it is backtracking for anyone to then suggest that these things are suddenly unfalsifiable. If the ridge characteristics in dermatoglyphics are consistent with other examples from Sasquatch footprints, are verified in collaboration with tens of scientists who have determined anatomy like heels, ankles, and Achilles' tendons... And are consistent with casts over a period of 50 years (after examining hundreds of alleged Sasquatch footprints), then this is repeatable scientific evidence. One of the oldest native names for this creature is "Shoonshoonootr", one of the few native words to literally translate as “big foot”, giving us some indication of how long physical evidence for this creature has been surfacing. It is generally accepted by modern anthropology that Native Americans have inhabited North America for 14,000 years. And I'll say it again... Maybe the author of that comment 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. There's also more publicity to be made hoaxing a hoax and laying to claim to such, than there is for some anonymous person walking around with Bigfoot stompers, who doesn't come forward. Makes you wonder what the point would be, and compared to the sheer amount of track impressions found in the most remote of areas, it's also unrealistic as an example of how these things might be explained away as a whole.
Krantz certainly isn't alone in his mistaken identifications. One of the biggest names in cryptozoology, Ivan Sanderson, was badly fooled by tracks he confidently proclaimed would be impossible to fake. In 1948 (and for a decade afterward), giant three-toed footprints were found along the beach in Clearwater, Florida. Sanderson, described as a man who “was extremely knowledgeable on many subjects, and had done more fieldwork than most zoologists do today” (Greenwell 1988), spent two weeks at the site of the tracks investigating, analyzing the tracks, and consulting other experts. He concluded that the tracks were made by a fifteen-foot-tall penguin.In 1988, prankster Tony Signorini admitted he and a friend had made the tracks with a pair of cast iron feet attached to high-top black sneakers. J. Richard Greenwell, discussing the case in The ISC Newsletter (Winter 1988), summed the case up this way: “The lesson to be learned within cryptozoology is, of course, fundamental. Despite careful, detailed analyses by zoologists and engineers, which provided detailed and sophisticated mechanical and anatomical conclusions supporting the hypothesis of a real animal, we now see that, not only was the entire episode a hoax, but that it was perpetrated by relatively amateur, good-natured pranksters, not knowledgeable experts attempting, through their expertise, to fool zoological authorities.”The experts, however are only partly to blame for their repeated and premature proclamations of the authenticity of Bigfoot evidence. After all, other areas of science are not fraught with such deception and hoaxing; in physics and biology, light waves and protozoa aren't trying to trick their observers.Even when there is no intentional hoaxing, “experts” have been fooled. In March 1986, Anthony Wooldridge, an experienced hiker in the Himalayas, saw what he thought was a Yeti (Himalayan Bigfoot) standing in the snow near a ridge about 500 feet away. He described the figure as having a head that was “large and squarish,” and the body “seemed to be covered with dark hair.” It didn't move or make noise, but Wooldridge saw odd tracks in the snow that seemed to lead toward the figure. He took two photos of the creature, which were later analyzed and shown to be genuine and undoctored. Many in the Bigfoot community seized upon the Wooldridge photos as clear evidence of a Yeti, including John Napier. Many suggested that because of his hiking experience it was unlikely Wooldridge made a mistake. The next year researchers returned to the spot and found that Wooldridge had simply seen a rock outcropping that looked vertical from his position. Wooldridge admitted his misidentification (Wooldridge 1987).
IktomiFriday, February 24, 2017 at 10:02:00 AM PSTIktomiFriday, February 24, 2017 at 9:38:00 AM PST"The experts, however are only partly to blame for their repeated and premature proclamations of the authenticity of Bigfoot evidence. After all, other areas of science are not fraught with such deception and hoaxing; in physics and biology, light waves and protozoa aren't trying to trick their observers."... Very agreeable and echoes my comment above.
^ cocksucking man
You desperately wish.
Bigfoot researchers readily admit that many sightings are misidentifications of normal animals, while others are downright hoaxes. Diane Stocking, a curator for the BFRO, concedes that about 70 percent of sightings turn out to be hoaxes or mistakes (Jasper 2000); Loren Coleman puts the figure even higher, at at least 80 percent (Klosterman 1999). The remaining sightings, that small portion of reports that can't be explained away, intrigue researchers and keep the pursuit active. The issue is then essentially turned into the claim that “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.”But is that really true? Does the dictum genuinely hold that, given the mountains of claims and evidence, there must be some validity to the claims? I propose not; the evidence suggests that there are enough sources of error (bad data, flawed methodological assumptions, mistaken identifications, poor memory recall, hoaxing, etc.) that there does not have to be (nor is likely to be) a hidden creature lurking amid the unsubstantiated cases.The claim also has several inherent assumptions, including the notion that the unsolved claims (or sightings) are qualitatively different from the solved ones. But paranormal research and cryptozoology are littered with cases that were deemed irrefutable evidence of the paranormal, only to fall apart upon further investigation or hoaxer confessions. There will always be cases in which there simply is not enough evidence to prove something one way or the other. To use an analogy borrowed from investigator Joe Nickell, just because a small percentage of homicides remain unsolved doesn't mean that we invoke a “homicide gremlin"-appearing out of thin air to take victims’ lives-to explain the unsolved crimes. It is not that such cases are unexplainable using known science, just that not enough (naturalistic) information is available to make a final determination.A lack of information (or negative evidence) cannot be used as positive evidence for a claim. To do so is to engage in the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance: We don't know what left the tracks or what the witnesses saw, therefore it must have been Bigfoot. Many Bigfoot sightings report “something big, dark, and hairy.” But Bigfoot is not the only (alleged) creature that matches that vague description.
The sources of evidence for the existence of a currently unclassified bipedal homimin in North America, aren't a negative and if data exists then it can be scientifically tested, therefore requiring no assumptions on it's existence either way. In the possible conclusions; you either have confirmed evidence for an unknown primate, or you don’t… What the positive ramifications mean, is that you don’t have a conclusive means of classifying what that hominin is, but you still have the evidence for the same hominin that has been falsifiably tested.And there are no "homicide gremlins" leaving tracks.
"Many Bigfoot sightings report “something big, dark, and hairy.” But Bigfoot is not the only (alleged) creature that matches that vague description."... But not so many creatures that match the consistent description across thousands of years of a "big, dark & hairy human."
Ultimately, the biggest problem with the argument for the existence of Bigfoot is that no bones or bodies have been discovered. This is really the 800-pound Bigfoot on the researchers’ backs, and no matter how they explain away the lack of other types of evidence, the simple fact remains that, unlike nearly every other serious “scientific” pursuit, they can't point to a live or dead sample of what they're studying. If the Bigfoot creatures across the United States are really out there, then each passing day should be one day closer to their discovery. The story we're being asked to believe is that thousands of giant, hairy, mysterious creatures are constantly eluding capture and discovery and have for a century or more. At some point, a Bigfoot’s luck must run out: one out of the thousands must wander onto a freeway and get killed by a car, or get shot by a hunter, or die of natural causes and be discovered by a hiker. Each passing week and month and year and decade that go by without definite proof of the existence of Bigfoot make its existence less and less likely.On the other hand, if Bigfoot is instead a self-perpetuating phenomenon with no genuine creature at its core, the stories, sightings, and legends will likely continue unabated for centuries. In this case the believers will have all the evidence they need to keep searching-some of it provided by hoaxers, others perhaps by honest mistakes, all liberally basted with wishful thinking. Either way it’s a fascinating topic. If Bigfoot exist, then the mystery will be solved; if they don't exist, the mystery will endure. So far it has endured for at least half a century.
Amazing find!!!Great stuff!!!KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
"In 20 years of active participation in the investigation of reports of giant, hairy, humanlike creatures, I have constantly looked for indications of whether the things described were human or animal or something in between. The initial impression, from Indian traditions, was they were some sort of wild humans, a tribe that kept aloof from its smaller relatives, but nonetheless lived in villages, spoke human languages, used fire, and even carried off human females for breeding purposes. Indeed the non-Indian community generally had the idea that the Sasquatch were hairy only to the extent of having long hair on their heads, something almost unknown among Canadian males at that time. I have seen a drawing in a high school yearbook depicting a handsome long-haired Sasquatch wearing a breechclout. At the same period a sasquatch costume was made by an Indian living in the same area and it was a complete fur suit."http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/219-taking-a-stand-with-science-and-reason-sasquatches-humans-and-apes"You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation)."- Andy White PhDOnly a couple of years ago, a new species of primitive hominin, homo Naledi was discovered that buried it's dead in caves. These were very primitive hominids that lacked the evolved brain capacity and intelligence of more modern hominids such as Neanderthals that also buried their dead. By this, it is not a stretch to assume that Sasquatch bury their dead. In fact, there is more reason to assume so than otherwise, given the fact that they are quite clearly human and not a dumb animal. Even if we didn't have the hairs that are morphologically consistent with a wild human, if we didn't have the track castings that quite clearly show a large human, then the innumerable reports that basically describe what one would expect from a caveman attest to this. Given the high frequency of science journals that account for such large human remains being found, and the long standing cultures to which state that Sasquatch are another tribe of large humans, one does not require Sherlock Holmes to be able to draw a link from such data. Don't take my word about 7-8 foot skeletons, take it from your beloved PhD Andy White who's literally making a name for himself debunking giant claims lately. "Bigfoot" burying their dead is logical. Because people like you fail every day of your obsessed lives to explain away the evidence, then there is little doubt that they exist. From this premise it is possible to use heuristical principles such as Occam's Razor, and it is therefore logical to theorise as to how they might deal with their dead in-line with accepted hominid behaviour. Photographic evidence of such finds here;http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gigantes/esp_gigantes_15.htm
"Terry Reams, commented that on Dec. 6, 1975, four people were in the car on I-84 near Hood River, OR, when a creature came up across the freeway and was possibly nicked by their car, as they slowed to 35 mph. Other traffic was also maneuvering in an attempt to miss the creature. The creature fled along the passenger side of the auto, where Terry was watching, cut across an exit (52 or 54), and ran into the side of a pickup and camper preparing to enter the freeway, then ran up the side of a steep hill. His father was driving and his mother also saw the creature. He reported it later from his home in Yakima and was told to call the local Hood River County Police, who said several others had called in the report, including four policemen. The creature had been in sight about two minutes, Terry said. Terry plans to attend the next meeting on March 26th, and I'll ask him to fill in the report with more details. He plans to mail in a printed report with his subscription. Terry said also in 1994 he had an experience while elk hunting near Lexington, WA, a half mile in the hills. A Bigfoot came out of the brush where he and his wife saw it cross a clearing under a power line. They had been black powder hunting when the brown creature crossed and went up a steep hill."Source: Ray Crowe, Editor of ©The Track Record, March 1998.Oregon Bigfoot Highway A travel book celebrating adventure and history along Oregon's National Scenic Byway No. 5 The Oregon Bigfoot Highway (The OBH) is a collection of 31 Bigfoot sighting reports, 43 Bigfoot track finds, and 69 Bigfoot related incidents in the wild forest of the upper Clackamas and Breitenbush Rivers. With sightings beginning in 1924 and track finds back to 1911, the 352 pages offer plenty of action and suspense. Published by Willamette City Press, LLC the OBH contains 118 b&w photographs, 13 custom drawn maps, plentiful non-Bigfoot history, and nine detailed appendices. Available now in soft cover. A full-color eBook edition will soon be available via Kindle Books. The OBH either begins or ends at the Oregon mountain towns of Estacada or Detroit, each only about an hour's drive from Portland or Salem. For 15 years, authors Joe Beelart and Cliff Olson and a loosely knit group of adventurers branded the Clackamas Sasquatchians have scouted the area and gathered seemingly genuine accounts relating to Bigfoot from persons of diverse professions from loggers to lawyers. The compelling quality and similarity of these reports caused the authors to conclude that this is, indeed, The Oregon Bigfoot Highway. Travelers and explorers alike will find the 70 miles of The OBH, which coincides with the National Scenic Byway No. 5, to be a journey through ancient forests and regal mountains capped in the south by majestic Mt. Jefferson. Embedded in the area are five national wilderness areas collectively designated the Clackamas Wilderness. It also includes two reaches of National Wild and Scenic Rivers. There is little doubt this mountain highway is among the most beautiful in the nation and is a likely home for Our Barefoot Friends. So, find your imagination, open your mind, sit back and enjoy this remarkable book!"https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Oregon_Bigfoot_Highway.html?id=YvORrgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en"State Route 96 (SR 96) follows the Trinity and Klamath Rivers in Northern California. For most of the route it goes through the Karuk Tribal Reservation, the Yurok Tribal Reservation, and the Hoopa Tribal Reservation. Over half of the length is the Bigfoot Scenic Byway, passing through "the region boasting the most sightings of Bigfoot of anywhere in the country" according to the National Forest Scenic Byway Program."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_96
British Columbia, CanadaDecember 9, 2004B.C.T.V. Global News reported on the 6 o'clock news tonight (December 09, 2004) that two women driving in a car on the Island Highway last night at 8:30 p.m. between Port Alberni and Tofino narrowly missed hitting a large Sasquatch that had stepped on to the roadway in front of them. According to the witness, the Sasquatch stood its ground directly in front of the vehicle until it became scared by other approaching cars and quickly ran into the forest the at roadside. This is the same area where there was a sighting by the Frank family in 2002.The women described the animal being cover in dark fur and between six and seven feet tall. They stated it looked more human than ape-like. The witnesses also stated that it was not a bear.Veteran Sasquatch investigator and biologist John Bindernagel did an interview for BCTV News showing various tracks castings he and his wife had found near Great Central Lake on Vancouver Island. He also mentioned that he believed it would only be a matter of time before a Sasquatch is hit by a car offering proof to the scientific community that North America's Great Ape does exist.[Ape? Didn't the informant just say it was more human??]Report courtesy Ken Kristian and John Kirk...http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/portalberni.htmI don't know if the authors of these comments are chronically naive or just special pleading on a perverse level.
How is Andy White "literally" making a name for himself?
By offering scientific explanations for alleged biblical-esque giant skeleton stories. As for 7-8 feet tall human skeletal remains documented by reliable scientific sources, and linked to the cultures who have Sasq'ets at their core; not so much.
So what is the new name that Andy White has "literally" made for himself?
A Bigfoot is NOT going to run out in front of a car,that's absolutely ridiculous! That's why these people have absolutely zero proof for their "Stories"
Yeah, I think that kind of sums up how much you're out of ideas, pal. : )
Here is a challenge. Go to any of the big bigfoot channels on youtube and look at the comments. You will find that the MAJORITY of the comments talk about bigoots "special powers" including: phazeing, zapping, portals, interdimensional travel, cloaking, dream sightings, etc. Go check for yourself. And by the way Joe, you were careless about 2 years ago with your youtube comments, and i found your comments,and a nice little picture of you. OOPS. Stay tuned.
"People use ‘literally’ because they’re always lying and they think ‘literally’ makes their bullshit sound better."https://theawl.com/literally-the-worst-word-on-the-planet-97bb1c816755#.fismjvfk1
It's not so much the attributes enthusiasts assign, as it is you sensationalising the paranormal because you are too stupid to take what's been addressed by science, and attempt to explain it away with conventional means. In short; you're out of your depth. And you'll never ever find any photos of anyone you're trying to intimate, Stuey. You're a total abject failure.