Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Items Messed With At Bigfoot Gifting Site


A man has left items out for bigfoot to interact with after noticing regular activity on his property.

119 comments:

  1. Guy leaves cup for homeless to jizz in.
    Great story !!!!!
    These bigfooters really live exciting lives.

    Hey Itkomi
    When are a you going to the states and finding bigfoot? You clearly know more about the subject than anybody else on earth. It should be so easy to find one. Maybe you should meet up with Dr Squatch. You two guys would love searching a local park for big hairy creatures.

    Dazz

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would you care? Aren't you like, from Leeds or something?

      Delete
    2. You talk so much c-rap but you never back it up. I just thought you might want to prove everybody wrong. I'm from Australia. I can't stand those filthy POMS

      Dazz

      Delete
    3. Suuuuuuuuure you are... You talk so much crap that you can't remember what you've told people, dear boy.

      : )

      Delete
    4. I've only told people I'm an Aussie. I think you might be thinking of somebody else. So why don't you go and find bigfoot? Maybe you don't actually believe in bigfoot and you like playing an expert on something that doesn't exist. Come to Australia and find a yowie. You can even stay at my house.

      Dazz

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

      Delete

    6. Yeah Stuey... Lucky for you, the internet provides a platform for most sadistic little loons to be anyone, anything they want. If "Bigfoot" didn't exist, it would be easier for even the most dense people like you to explain away. It must be tough knowing that not even academics can manage that.

      Delete
    7. Last time I checked, I was the one being able to substantiate my position.

      Delete
    8. Can't you answer a simple question? Why don't you go and find bigfoot?
      I'm even offering you free accommodation. I'm such a good bloke.

      Dazz

      Delete
    9. For the same reason you don't go to the States and prove the evidence is non-existent. Surely someone as obsessed as you shouldn't be pointing fingers at why someone else isn't rushing across the pond?

      Narcissism is on the psychopathy spectrum after all.

      Delete
    10. Dazz he has been asked before why he doesnt go to america or why he doesnt even look in his own backyard (many believers support there existence in the UK) but he wont do it because why would he waste his time looking for something that he knows doesnt really exist?

      Delete
    11. Why would I fly to America to prove that magic monkeys don't exist. I don't need to do anything. The facts are the bigfoot has never been proven and even Itkomi has admitted that. He clearly doesn't believe his own dribble or he would go and find his beloved bigfeet.

      Dazz

      Delete
    12. Logic isn't something that comes to you in sockpuppet mode either, it seems.

      Considering I have shown on innumerable occasions that the evidence stands up to all sorts of academic scrutiny... Then even if I was to be in denial of that evidence, I would have shown myself to be wrong.

      Last time I checked, the proverbial ball is in your court. You're that obsessed, why don't you go across the pond and show us all that there's no "magic monkey" in the woods?

      Delete
    13. Maybe you're this obsessed because you actually need to come out of the closet, and maybe you're scared of what's lurking in the wilderness of the US?? You are on record whilst in F-AC mode to adhering to the "Skinwalker Ranch paranormal Bigfoot" theory, after all.

      : )

      Delete
    14. If the evidence stands up. Then why are you on record saying " there is no proof that bigfoot exists" . It just doesn't make sense. Once again, I think you're thinking of someone else. I don't even know what Skinwalkers ranch is. You really don't get it do you?

      Dazz

      Delete
    15. Dazz, he is deluded and a self admitted troll. Debating him is what he wants. This blog is his drug.

      Delete
    16. Because it's idealism that you misinterpret, due to your intellectual inferiority. The idealism is, that Bigfoot won't exist to the lazy mainstream scientists, and the obsessed denialists, because there is not body which ultimately constitutes proof.

      Delete
    17. No, debating me doesn't ever work out for you... That's why you have to resort to trolling in more sadistic ways.

      Delete
    18. So you agree there is no proof. That's a start. It's very hard dealing with you some times. I think it just takes a while for things to sink in for you. That's ok, I will just take it slow and let you catch up.

      Dazz

      Delete
    19. I agree there's no body... To YOU that constitutes a lack of proof. To me, the evidence wouldn't exist if Sasq'ets didn't. Therefore a lack of body merely means a lack of proper investigation on the part of mainstream scientists with the adequate resources.

      Delete
    20. Theres even a show called "killing bigfoot". Number of bigfoots killed: zero.

      Delete
    21. Well you cant make money calling a show " no bigfoot footage , evidence or captured. Just a bunch of tools pretending to look for a magic ape " doesn't have the same ring to it.

      Dazz

      Delete
    22. Hahaha best comment ive read on here for ages

      Delete
    23. You see, this is why you're a total education in mental health. Not only do you sockpuppet, but you cheer on your own comments. Not only do you cry about copy & pasting that is actually referencing, but you encourage people like me to do it to take your drivel apart.

      It really is quite something. I've said it before... But you'd make some psychologist famous.

      Delete
    24. You would have a point if it wernt for the fact that dazz is someone else

      Delete
    25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

      Delete
    26. That doesn't even skim the surface of your issues.

      Delete
    27. Another couple of words you learned... Shame you never apply them properly.

      Delete
  2. Got foot massage from cloaked bigfoot in your bedroom?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you care to reference two cases of "dream sightings"?

      Delete
    2. Not talking about dream sightings here. Talking about bigfoots actually visiting bedrooms which dr johnson has stated has happened multiple times (along with being cloaked)

      Delete
    3. Would you care to reference two cases of "dream sightings"?

      Delete
    4. Again I am not talking about dream sightings and I know nothing about that.

      Delete
    5. I'm talking to you about "dream sightings", as you've been claiming everyone believes in them for the past couple of days.

      Delete
    6. No I havent. You do know "Anonymous" is not just one person? You do know that right?

      Delete
    7. Argh ok... I'll take that as a capitulation in taking crud. Just like everything else that comes from those sausage fingers of yours whilst in sockpuppet mode.

      Delete
    8. Sockpuppet mode? Dont think you know what that means either. Your paranoia is unsettling.

      Delete
    9. I've seen you slip up in every single sockpuppet mode you've attempted. Nobody is as stupid as you, Stuey.

      Delete
    10. A sockpuppet would be a second account. Using Anonymous is not sockpuppeting because it is not gaining anything. Like it or not there are many posting as Anonymous here. This is a fact.

      Delete
    11. This Stuey guy has seriously f-ucked with Itkomi. He is seriously obsessed and paranoid. Stuey has become a god to him. He thinks Stuey is responsible for everything that happens.

      Dazz

      Delete
    12. sock puppet
      noun
      noun: sockpuppet
      a false online identity, typically created by a person or group in order to promote their own opinions or views.
      "both sides in the debate use sock puppets to make it seem as if scores of people are arguing a point"

      Delete
    13. Um... Wouldn't that be the opposite of what a god represents?

      (Cringe)

      You did have to be taught what a rhetorical question means, after all... As well as the basics of what's in the primate family tree. And that coming from someone who's literally scarred for life because his Patty drivel got obliterated four years ago, is only ever so slightly rich.

      Delete
    14. Kinda like vegas and iktomi...

      Delete
    15. Argh yes, with delusional account dates that nobody has ever, will ever see. Like the wikileaks that never materialise... I could go on and on...

      You're a loon.

      Delete
    16. Anyone noticed how joe has derailed the thread to get away from discussing cloaked bigfoots visiting peoples bedrooms?

      Delete
    17. Anyone notice that you derail, every day of your life, from addressing what gets rubbed in your face about the existence of "Bigfoot", that actually can be measured and potentially proven otherwise by science? Purely because you are too dense?

      Narcissism is on the psychopathy spectrum after all.

      Delete
    18. There is nothing to address. I have looked at all your links. Nothing there. Zero bigfoots or proof thereof.

      Delete
    19. No, you have looked at my links maybe a thousand times and come back with "duuuuuuh, zero bigfeets". That is all you have ever done and all you'll ever be capable of. You serve the purpose of the archetype idiot in the street. You have found a purpose, at least...

      Delete
    20. Well there was zero bigfoots in all of them... I feel sorry for you that you are so gullible when it comes to this stuff

      Delete
    21. There is a creature with the widely reported anatomy as "Bigfoot" leaving that evidence. You have so many avenues in science to try and prove that premise incorrect... But you are sadly too dense. I can't say I feel sorry for a sadistic person like you.

      Delete
    22. Trying to have a discussion and you resort to insults.

      Anyway, your interpretation is that "bigfoot" is leaving that evidence. This is not proven and it is a major flaw in your critical thinking abilities. Its ok, it can be forgiven. The notion of Bigfoot is a romantic one after all and it can be very easy to force the evidence to fit the preconceived notion of its existence.

      Unfortunately for you reality kind of gets in the way of the fantasy.

      Yet again you are asking others to prove a negative which is scientifically ignorant and id even go so far as to say rude.

      There is only one burden here, and thats on you, to provide critical evidence for the existence of bigfoot that is devoid from special pleading and misinterpretation.

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

      Delete
    24. "This is not proven and it is a major flaw in your critical thinking abilities."
      Prove it.

      "It can be very easy to force the evidence to fit the preconceived notion of its existence."
      Prove it.

      If data exists, it is not a negative and requires no assumption to its existence either way. I data exists, it can be tested... So test it. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. Here we go;
      ttp://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      You have hijacked various pseudosceptical religious like mantras to try and distance yourself from very basic responsibilities, but you are with adults now, dear boy. You are not special, however narcissistic you are. There is the link, prove that my thinking is flawed, prove that I am using it to fit my preconceived notions (another couple of words you didn't use until I published them here).

      I'll be waiting.

      Delete
    25. Thats 4 times right there you try to shift the burden. Scientifically ignorant.

      If you feel there is sufficient evidence then write a paper and submit it to Nature. Let me know how you get on.

      As it stands I have absolutely nothing that I need to prove. Burden is solely on you and your claim that ape men are roaming around undetected.

      Delete
    26. Nope! My burden is to work towards providing a solid basis of evidence that warrants people to be enthusiastic about the thousands of years of anecdotes... I just did that with that link (one of many). Now... If a critic asserts that there is evidence to disprove that link, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. It is a rhetorical argument to not only require a peer reviewed journal on the matter, but to expect to be able to peer review something that hasn't even been properly investigated yet... There were no peer reviews on other man sized primate tracks such as the Bili Ape. So please don't act like you understand how science is peer reviewed. It's cringey.

      You have "no burden", because you have no explanation. And are a grade "A" loser that has to hate on people because of it. What a cowardly spoiled brat.

      Delete
    27. Enthusiast #1 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #2 – “I have forensic evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #3 – “I have video evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #4 – “I have thermal evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #5 – “I have biological evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #6 – “I have audio evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #7 – “I have more physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #8 – “I have even MORE physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #9 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #10 – “I have physical evidence that amounts to repeatable, scientific evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      … Pseudosceptic – “Burden is solely on you and your claim that ape men are roaming around undetected.!”
      Iktomi – (Sigh)

      Delete
    28. Resorting to insults again?

      Look kid, I didnt make up the rules on how science works and the way science works is proven. We know science works in its current form by the simple fact that, for example, you can write words from your handheld device that can be instantly seen by anyone in the world. Incredible. You may not appreciate the many feats that science has accomplished but a great many of us do.

      Your wish to change how science works just so you can elbow in your fantasy ape man beliefs is damn right insulting.

      Delete
    29. Dazz is having his daily meltdown. i find it amusing that someone who doesn't believe in bigfoot should be this obsessed in coming to this forum day after day . You wont find me going on a unicorn sightings forum day after day posting ad nauseam trying to disprove they don't exist . Sorry mate, i've got better things to do with my life and when it comes to bigfoot , yes, I do have a very strong interest in the subject so it is not wasted time for me unlike in your case mr Dazz man


      Joe

      Delete
    30. Stuey... If you knew how science worked, you'd dip into that "vast scientific knowledge" of yours and substantiate your drivel with at least someone else's ideas. You can't, nobody ten times cleverer than you ever has, and that leaves you as nothing but a big fat failure considering how long you've been trolling about this subject.

      And fantasy apes don't leave forensic evidence, numpty.

      Delete
    31. All you need is a single bigfoot. Just one. And you win:) Off you pop.

      Delete
    32. http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg

      Your nerves will pop by the end.

      Delete
    33. You didnt achieve much the first 3000 times you posted that. Not much has changed.

      Big ole zero.

      Delete
    34. If you claim that's a monkey suit, you bear the burden...

      Delete
    35. Euphemism = zero explanation.

      That's all I read.

      Loser.

      Delete
    36. Stop shifting the burden.

      Delete
    37. There is a whole thread of comments here about your warped ideas about that... I'll take that as a capitulation.

      Laters, gators.

      Delete
    38. "There is a creature with the widely reported anatomy as "Bigfoot" leaving that evidence."

      That is not a fact. That is what you believe, Joe, but it has not been proven. There is no consensus and no proof.

      Delete
    39. And before you start with your shifting of burden nonsense, I am not making a negative claim. I am simply pointing out a fact. There is a difference.

      Delete
    40. 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.

      Hoaxers would have to have guessed a shared morphology of "Bigfoot" foot, encompassing total accuracy regarding bipedal evolution that only very few educated people understand. They would 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. And 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.

      What is left, is the physical evidence for an as of yet unclassified bipedal primate. If your are critical of that evidence, you bear a burden just like your fan boy.

      Delete
    41. Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
      Ahhh.. But there is a match for castus artifactus !

      http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygat...s/dermals2.gif
      Speaking of which, the cases of purported dermals are:

      1) the original Mill Creek casts from Freeman (human fingerprints even Chillcut could i.d.).
      2) the Onion Mtn. cast from 1967 (dessication ridges formed by plaster on a dry substrate).
      3) the Walla Walla or Table Springs or Wrinkle Foot from Freeman (dessication and/or fluid flow over wet surface).
      4) Hyampom from 1963-4 (indeterminate, isolated on portions of toes).
      5) Bossburg "Cripple Foot" (seen by no one but Grover Krantz and Ed Palma).
      6) Bossburg handprint (faint, transverse striations, but no whorls, loops, or evidence of being dermatoglyphics).
      7) Elkins Creek (acknowledged human fingerprints introduced into cast, also possible dessication artifacts).
      8) Skookum Elk Cast (hairs from an elk's metacarpal block).
      9) Indiana Cast (recognized fake)

      Wow...yep...them "dermals" sure are significant!

      Delete
    42. Q&A with Dr. Meldrum about this article
      Q: The article mentions a track that Chilcutt determined was fake. What is the origin of that track?
      A: The "fake" element was overstated by the reporters. It was one of Freeman's casts from Elk Wallow (if memory serves me, but I will check the location name).
      There was evidence of contamination by human fingerprints in the toe region. The question remains whether this was intentional or not.
      There seems to be a natural inclination to touch tracks, brush away debris, or even embellish an indistinct spot. One of the toes clearly had a triple strike, in that the core pattern of a fingertip (human appearing ridge texture) was repeated down the length of the toe. This may have been done by Freeman or any of the numerous other individuals who examined the tracks prior to their casting.
      What the reporter failed to mention was that along the margins of the foot there were examples of the distinct coarse textured ridges trending parallel to the margins of the foot! So it is not unreasonable to conclude that a legitimate footprint was literally "touched up" in the toe region.
      http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MELD/houston_chron_article.htm

      As for the 1982 Mill Creek dermals, these do not align with any of the casting artefacts that Crowley has manufactured and if anything, Crowley's work serves as the perfect means to falsify these casts. Crowley is even on record stating that these do not have any resemblance to the casts he's tried to debunk, and was resorted to the LIE that Freeman was a self admitted hoaxer as the best means of attempting that. Nobody has debunked the Elk Wallow dermals. Everyone who has tried only serves to demonstrate how they're even more authentic, and it leaves the trolls a little upset with the likes of me for reminding them how grossly uneducated on the subject they are.

      Figure 41. Dermal ridge experimental cast. Dr. John Bodley made this cast, which included impressions of his own skin. It was shown to various fingerprint experts, along with one of those from the Blue Mts. All five authorities immediately picked Bodley's cast as showing anatomically incorrect ridge orientations, but could find nothing wrong with the other one.

      Krantz, Grover S. Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence-The Anthropologist Speaks Out.
      Canada, Hancock House Publishers Ltd, 1999, Page 82.

      Delete
    43. After studying the claims of the dermal ridge advocates for some time, I’m of the opinion that all of the casts that are claimed to exhibit dermal ridges could simply be misinterpretations of prosaic phenomena and/or human hoaxing.

      Delete
    44. Oh... And ya link don't work. You might as well have referred to the Mill Creek casts as casting artefacts without demonstrating how, it would have held just as much weight.

      Delete
    45. 9:57... Unfortunately, your opinion doesn't demonstrate how the Mill Creek dermals are the result of misinterpretations of prosaic phenomena and/or human hoaxing.

      Delete
    46. The first is the opinion of Anton Wroblewski, PhD Geology (who discovered the desiccation ridge phenomenon after Grover Krantz died) and the second is from Matt Crowley, who spent several years studying the subject.

      The sad thing is that, for someone who is obsessed with the subject, you had no idea about these people's opinions.

      Delete
    47. If you actually read Matt Crowley's work, you'll know that none of his work can be applied to the Mill Creek casts, and this is self admittedly. Secondly... I don't care if you're Jesu Christ, if you reference work that can't be applied to said casts, it counts for zilch.

      Opinions are like backsides. It's data that makes the world go around, pal.

      Delete
    48. All right then, so you admit that all of the casts besides the Mill Creek ones do not show dermal ridges!

      Delete
    49. ... And don't pretend like you haven't only come across that whilst angrily scouting the internet in the last couple of hours. Jimmy Chilcutt is adamant that the casts he's studied are biological, however, apart from an interview Chilcutt did for a sceptical radio show explaining how manufactured dermals fall short of the biological mark, Chilcutt is not forthcoming with extra information at this time. What I can endorse for the time being are the Mill Creek casts that have a line of forensic specialists attested to their authenticity, and do not look maturing like casting artefacts that have been presented as possible causes.

      I can't say I've applied the other casts with alleged dermals to Crowley's work, but I'll be happy to do that when I've got time.

      Delete
    50. Do the dermals make it through the portals?

      Delete
    51. Do trolls have electric sockets for laptops under bridges?

      Delete
    52. Ha ha, you've been here for five years posting about Crowley and Chilcutt and you haven't had time to apply the "other casts" to Crowley's work? You certainly have time to engage in trolling this blog!

      By the way, Crowley and Chilcutt agreed that the prints on the Mill Creek casts were human and superimposed onto the tracks.

      "Indeed the 'Mill Creek' cast has dermals all over the toes. They certainly look to me like human dermals and that was also the conclusion Chilcutt came to."

      Matt Crowley

      So you're left with nothing. Sorry about that, have a nice day though.

      Delete
    53. Answering yourself again?

      Why do I need to apply Crowley's work to other dermals when I have a long line of forensic experts verfying one set of casts that can be falsified against Crowley's work adequately? Are you asking me to do your job for you? Lazy boy.

      And again, Crowley has stated in his work that the Mill Creek casts look nothing like the Wrinkle Foot casts... This was used to suggest that there is no consistency in Freeman's casts, inadvertently admitting that none of the casting artefacts that exposed the Wrinkle Foot casts can be applied to the Mill Creek ones. It's all very well Crowley stating that the Mill Creek casts look like known human dermals to him, but he's not a forensic expert... Whilst Chiclutt's "conslusion" was cleared up by Meldrum in the comment I posted at 9:51.

      Something new... This is getting boring quickly.

      Delete
    54. So you're declaring that you will rely upon opinions (that predate the discovery of the desiccation phenomenon) that you think support your conclusion and ignore those that do not? You just admitted that you don't care about the truth.

      Here's a possibility: since his fingerprints were found on the prints, perhaps Paul Freeman himself was bigfoot! Ha ha ha!

      I'll come back in a few months after you've had a chance to apply Crowley's work to the prints. If you choose not to do, I'll take it that you don't want to accept the hurtful truth.

      Delete
    55. Joe just got exposed. Fantastic.

      Delete
    56. It doesn't matter if the discovery of dermals predates that of identifying desiccation marks on casts, Crowley's methods can't be applied to the Mill Creek casts, he's actually compared these to his work and couldn't do it. Is that your idea of an argument? I'm not ignoring anything, I in fact addressed your drivel comments ago with two different sources... Very easily I might add.

      Furthermore, one minute you're using Crowley's work to condemn the opinion of someone like Chilcutt... And the next you're using the opinion that you've attempted to condemn to prop up your drivel (even though it's been established to be mere contamination)? That's not even cherry picking, that's a desperate contradiction. It is widely accepted that track impressions get cleaned and sweaped of forest litter. It's what generally happens in the earliest stages of trying to identity a track impression. Oh... And please tell me in all your logic and wisdom, should I find Crowley's casting artefacts in other casts with alleged dermals... How does that make the casts that can't be applied to Crowley's methods fakes?

      (Oh dear)

      Yeah, I'm terrified. Keep up the good work... I'll see you tomorrow when you're back for more.

      Delete
    57. Here we go!

      "Compare this texture with another cast associated with Paul Freeman, also claimed to exhibit dermal ridges. This is a close-up of the 1982 so-called “Elk Wallow“ cast. Both textures are said to be “Bigfoot’s dermal ridges”, yet they are grossly and obviously dissimilar."
      http://orgoneresearch.com/category/bigfoot/

      Nowhere in Crowley's work does he apply the casting artefacts he's studied to the Elk Wallow AKA Mill Creek casts.

      Delete
    58. That's the toe area that everyone agrees were Freeman's fingerprints -- of course they look different than desiccation ridges. Regarding other "dermals" on the Elk Wallow cast:

      "Made in Loess soil, which Meldrum's student Lon Erickson found also creates casting artifacts. One has a double tap human fingerprint that Chilcutt initially discounted as a hoax, but when discovering the pattern on the Onion Mtn. Cast he came back to and found legitimate because it had the same pattern as found in the Onion Mtn. Casts, the same pattern the casting artifact tests have produced."

      Those are the "distinct coarse ridges" (which you referenced above) that Crowley found in the other casts -- clearly desiccation ridges.

      Sorry, you have nothing and you didn't read the sources closely.

      Delete
    59. The Onion Mountain cast and the Mill Creek cast are different casts. Sorry... you didn't learn your casts properly.

      Delete
    60. The Onion Mountain cast is potentially one of the most significant casts ever taken. John Green discovered this old track on a dirt road in August of 1967.

      The Skookum cast, cynically referred to in your link as the "Elk Skookum", was taken on September 22, 2000, during a Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) expedition to the Skookum Meadows area of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington State.

      The Mill Creek, Elk Wallow casts (the ones that don't fit Crowley's artefacts) are from 1982 of three large human-like footprints were accumulated by U.S. Forest Service personnel in June, 1982, in southeastern Washington State.

      Delete
    61. the trolls, the trolls
      spending their valuable time on a forum about a subject they claim doesn't exist only to be royally schooled by Iktomi day in day out.it's like bloody groundhog day !
      Oh the irony
      Well, it's your life to waste lads

      Joe

      Delete
    62. The "dermals" on the Onion Mountain cast have been thoroughly debunked by Crowley.

      http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/ridge-flow-pattern/
      http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/more-ca-19-photos/
      http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/ca-20/
      http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/ca-6/

      Because you're so obsessed with this topic, I would have thought that you'd know about that already, but you admit yourself that you haven't applied Crowley's methods to the casts he analyzed, so I suppose that's not a surprise.

      And no, the quotation above does not apply to the Skookum elk lay (that's a whole different can of worms). It refers to the Freeman Elk Wallow prints from the 80's. Chilcutt found human fingerprints on the cast and initially dismissed them, but then found "dermals" similar to the ones found on the Onion Mountain print -- the same type that were completely debunked by Crowley. They are desiccation ridges.

      I'd strongly advise you not to discuss the Skookum cast any further, so you can avoid the terrible embarrassment involved with that debacle.

      As I stated earlier, you have nothing -- sorry about that Joerg.

      Delete
    63. I am sure Joergy will return with some nonsensical, word salad response in an attempt to obfuscate how badly he mangled the details.

      Way to go Joergy!

      Delete
    64. oh donny boy, the trolls , the trolls are calling
      The summer's gone and so has the time you've wasted on here .
      Please go back to the ISF head office . They need you there for your next top secret mission - Something about animal costumes and lube

      Cheerio

      Joe

      Delete
    65. ^IMF office Dingleberry.

      Delete
    66. ^ official ISF dazzleberry

      Joe

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

      Delete
    68. The links you provided mention Elkins casts, Onion Mountain and The Skookum cast. None are in reference to the Elk Wallow of 1982. Nowhere in your reference which is from here;
      http://www.orgoneresearch.com/ca20.htm

      ... Do Crowley's methods apply and there is not one mention of the Elk Wallow of 1982. Chilcutt found human fingerprints in more than one cast, one of which turned out to be contamination (cleared up by Meldrum in the quote up top). Crowley, ten times more thorough than anything you can adhere to, would have used the Elk Wallow 1982 cast as a means of consistency throughout his entire work (as he had done with all other applicable casts) and didn't. In fact, he states (quote provided) that the Elk Wallow/Mill Creek does not have any resemblance to the Wrinkle Foot cast which is be other cast Freeman presented with alleged dermals to which his casting artefacts appear similar (quote again provided up top). The best Crowley can do out of all his work is summarised in the last chapters;
      1) the original Mill Creek casts from Freeman (human fingerprints even Chillcut could i.d.).
      http://orgoneresearch.com/category/hoaxes/page/4/

      ... Which is misinformation. Again, unlucky, you need to better understand your casts. I don't need to apply Crowley's methods to any other casts, because other casts don't have forensic experts endorsing them. And "dmaker"? You ain't nothing but a low ranking cheerleading troll.

      Delete
    69. "This ridge flow (of the Elkins) is consistent with the ridge flow of the 1967 Blue Creek (Onion) Mountain Road casting and the 1984 Walla Walla, Table Spring casting."
      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/elkins.html

      ... These are the casts that Chilcutt has stated in his professional opinion, have species traits, and thus were comparable to what he first thought were human impressions in one of them. Nowhere are the Elk Wallow/Mill Creek casts referenced in his work as consistent.

      Anatomy and Dermatoglyphics of Three Sasquatch Footprints
      By Grover S. Krantz
      Casts of three large human-like footprints were made by U.S. Forest Service personnel in June, 1982, in southeastern Washington State. The fine-grained soil preserved many impressions of dermal ridges and sweat pores. Careful study by dermatoglyphics experts shows these impressions are perfectly consistent with the friction skin found only in higher primates. The foot size of 37.5 x 17 cm rules out any known primate; the nonopposed first digit indicates a hominid. Physical circumstances suggest a body weight of 300 to 400 kg. It is believed that all possible methods of faking this evidence have been considered, and ruled out.
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      Delete
    70. In fact, it's almost as bad as when "dmaker" tried to misinform due to lack of substance. Here's how dmaker was either dishonest or stupid...

      dmakerFriday, December 11, 2015 at 7:39:00 AM PST
      According to Krantz, quite a few forensic experts were fooled by the Mill Creek fake tracks:
      "Krantz (1983: 71-72) writes: "Thus far, every specialist who has examined these casts [Mill Creek] agrees that their detailed anatomy has all the characteristics and appearance of being derived from an imprint of primate skin. These include thirty police fingerprint workers, ... six physical anthropologists ... four pathologists and two zoologists."

      But if you actually read the source to which dmaker has quoted;
      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skeptical.htm
      ... It is in no context what so ever to the Mill Creek tracks being faked, and thus not fooling any of the forensic experts listed in Krantz' paper;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      ... The only track that has been shown to be faked, was the Bloomington track by a J W Parker by allegedly using his own dermals pressed into the dirt, but were recognised immediately to be authentic human dermals, thus fooling no expert. Anyone would think that with such levels of comparative misinformation, cherry picking and vile dishonesty, that you and dmaker might be the same person? You do use the same insults that the resident racist loon uses, after all.

      Hmmmmmmmm... ??????

      Delete
  3. Bigfoot has soooooo much BS associated with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Portals is one of my favourites

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

      Delete
    3. I love that Daz/Stuey doesn't see the leash around his neck. Totally controlled/owned by Iktomi.

      Delete
    4. Then why do you need a sock puppet to cheer you on?

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

      Delete
    6. Projection.

      How's about you let everyone know how to see these accounts that were allegedly made within minutes of each other?

      Delete
  4. Noone said portal life would be easy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Such a pleasure seeing Real-Joe (tm) absolutely pound the intellectual crap out of the legions of semi-literate maladjusted skeptics that haunt this site. They simply cannot see that they have been eviscerated by a master. Bravo Joe!

    ReplyDelete