Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Paranormal Researchers Have Run In With Sasquatch


From Bigfoot Eyewitness Radio:

Tonight's guests, John White and Matt Ridgeway, are members of Paranormal research group named Southern Ohio Supernatural. They're also father and son.

John and Matt have had several experiences with Sasquatch. Most of them happened at a property they used to own in Southern Ohio.

We hope you'll tune in and listen to John and Matt talk about their experiences with Sasquatch.

Click here to listen

252 comments:

  1. Like it or not, bigfoot is here.  The end times will be under there law.  Planet Earth offline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take it you're a glass half empty kind of guy?

      Delete
    2. Glass always full.  Until last call.  Then fckn cab sht  stumble etc.

      Offline for one day.  Is bigfoot in you?

      Delete
    3. Shribes... You're easier to spot than most.

      Delete
    4. Damn you Ik, I swear I don't have Shribes.  I got checked.

      Delete
    5. The first symptoms of "Shribes" is an outbreak of Aqueous.

      Delete
    6. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha



      Queers

      Delete
  2. Isnt that convenient... a couple of nutcases run into a "bigfoot". Lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not as convenient as a nutcase that stumbles across the internet to fulfil his perverse little sadism.

      Delete
    2. Strange man. I like it how obviously butthurt you are when paranormal woo claims are brought into a topic that you spend your entire life try to legitimise. Brilliant. Does bigfoot come into your bedroom at night like matthew johnson?

      Delete
    3. Again!

      You should be focussing on what CAN be measured by science, dear boy. Everything else afterwards is irrelevant when the creature you're trying to sensationalise is by scienific methods being shown to be leaving its sign on the environment.

      : p

      Delete
    4. What can be measured by science? Indeed. Lets have some of that then please. A bigfoot body to put on an examination table would be a good start.

      Delete
    5. Forensics is a science... You've been given plenty of that. Don't pretend like you have the capacity to understand it.

      Delete
    6. Exactly so lets see the actual bigfoot.... waiting....

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

      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      Glad I could help!

      Delete
    8. Bloke in suit
      Bloke in suit
      Bloke in suit
      Inconsistent casting artifacts

      Next

      Delete
    9. 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. Your uneducated, unqualified words don't shift that burden... Referencing professionals who are qualified with readily viewable explanations, does.

      Delete
    10. Absolute retard. I thought you couldnt sink any lower but wow just wow.

      There is no burden on the skeptic. The skeptic is not making any claims. Your burden however is astronomical. So you best get out and find that monkey.

      Delete
    11. "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
      - Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

      You are not a sceptic, because a sceptic suspends all judgement and questions his own standpoint. You are not clever enough for that, however you want to hijack the word in order to give yourself some significance. You are a pseudosceptic that when is confronted with the titty grutty, is grossly out of his depth. Now... How's about a professional opinion for that burden of yours? You didn't know what a rhetorical questions was, so forgive me if I suggest you're a little unqualified to counter forensic experts.

      Delete
    12. A bigfooter is honestly trying to say they have no burden of proof? Jesus christ. I thought it couldnt get any more retarded but yet again joe lowers the bar.

      Delete
    13. My burden is to demonstrate as best I can why enthusiasts are warranted to believe in the existence of extant hominids. I can work towards that by presenting you scientific evidence, and sources that are substantiated by professional/expert opinion. If you are critical of that, then here in lies your burden. You are not special, you have a responsibility to demonstrate your ideas have substance. If you can't do that, then you lose.

      Simples!

      Delete
    14. But the sources have not been substanciated. Not even once. Dummy.

      Delete
    15. "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."
      - Grover Krantz

      As for the PGF, it has been presented as a piece of evidence for the existence of "Bigfoot", by Jeff Medrum (anthropologist & authority on evolutionary bipedalism) John Bindenagle (PhD wildlife biologist & former advisor to the UN), Ian Remond (OBE FZS FLS tropical field biologist and conservationist), and O Allen Guinn (MD FACS Aurora Plastic Surgery).

      Now your turn. I'm not expecting much from someone who didn't know what a rhetorical question was, and spells words out like "substanciated".

      Delete
    16. You are really going to comment on spelling when you delete half your posts due to spelling and grammar errors? Truelly scum.

      Delete
    17. I at least recognise when I've spelled something wrong.

      Any professional opinions there?

      Delete
    18. My proffessional opinion is that iktomi Is a loon.

      Delete
    19. That needs a job and a to get find a boyfriend

      Delete
    20. I know of two Bigfoot researchers down in Florida who would welcome a threesome.

      Delete
  3. Ha ha ha ... there are a large number of videos doing the rounds on Youtube about WikiLeaks going to release evidence that NASA Apollo landings were a hoax - however, the people posting these videos have been caught by a story from George Noory on Coast2Coast who himself has foolishly been duped - by the spoof news website WorldNewsdaily.com --- lost a bit of credibility there George...

    http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/wikileaks-documents-reveal-apollo-program-was-a-fraud-moon-landings-never-happened/

    - hilarious...but mustn`t be too hard on him as this is the same site that spoofed Iktomi with the Smithsonian story of "hidden giants" etc ... idiots all.

    haha haha haha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, I'll bite... But just to make you look like a loon again. Someone so desperate for attention probably needs to be appeased so he doesn't transmit his behaviour in the community.

      I keep reading this claim from Stuey/F-AC/Fake Joe/Fake DS... Care to post a link to any comment section, ever, where I've used a world news daily source?

      Delete
    2. I forgot "Dazz" in that list... But could have been here all day.

      Delete
    3. Leave me out of this Itkomi. Just a quick question. Do you believe bigfoot can mindspeak and they use portals?
      Careful now, the trap is set.

      Dazz

      Delete
    4. Sockpuppet right on cue! A trap? Brrrrrrrrr!! Shivering in my boots!!

      Unfortunately, apart from remote viewing and our currently limited understanding of quantum physics, "mindspeak and portals" can't be measured with our current scientific means. Therefore, though I find such reports interesting and am not too closed minded to deny them... I tend to focus on what CAN be measured with our current scientific means, and quite frankly, so should you. Everything else afterwards is irrelevant when the creature you're trying to sensationalise is by scienific methods being shown to be leaving its sign on the environment.

      Delete
    5. There is no such thing as portals and mindspeak dummy

      Delete
    6. By what authority? Science can't even show that to be the case, so how can you??

      : )

      Delete
    7. Cant prove a negative and noone has shown they exist. Checkmate retard.

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

      Delete
    9. I think you'd better google the meaning of a rhetorical question before calling anyone that, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    10. Why did you delete the post retard

      Delete
    11. A grammatical error and the post immediately after demonstrated how stupid you are... No need for anything else to be said really.

      rhetorical question
      noun
      a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.

      Delete
    12. So you admit to being a drama queen

      Delete
    13. You two queens go get a room

      Delete
    14. I admit I stoop low in making you more significant than what you're worth... But I'm guilty of having a cruel streak too.

      Delete
    15. So you admit to being a troll too. Great. You better go read that article about trolls you like to paste every day.

      Delete
    16. I think with that, you're just about toasted nicely.

      Delete
    17. Unfortunately you still miss. What a dummy

      Delete
    18. Looks like I'm hitting my mark with your nerves by the comment.

      Delete
    19. If you are trying to get on someones nerve then you are by definition a troll and therefore a massive hypocrite. You better go read that link you always paste you psychopath.

      Delete
    20. It's not hard to hit someone's nerve when they're failing at explaining away what according to them is he equivalent to the tooth fairy.

      Delete
    21. Nothing to explain away kiddo. Oh and that is a great analogy. It is exactly like the tooth fairy. Ill use that in the future. Thanks.

      Delete
    22. You've got links to explain away up top pal. If this subject is the equivalent to the tooth fairy, why procrastinate?

      Delete
    23. Because despite its equivalence to the tooth fairy you actually believe in it. Fascinating. Scary but fascinating.

      Delete
    24. He tooth fairy doesn't have scientists endorsing its physical evidence.

      Delete
    25. You can always find a few people endorsing anything. We are talking about thousands and thousands of scientists in this country alone. The reason none of them look into it? Because there is nothing to substantiate the reason for doing so. Bring on some NEW evidence - not stuff from 20 years ago that can't be verified.

      Delete
    26. Can you? Care to offer an example of a scientist endorsing "anything"?

      The reasons why the evidence isn't chased up by mainstream scientists are;
      1. If scientists are interested in studying the topic, unless they are already established then they have careers and credibility to look out for.
      2. The general public which account for people in all professions including mainstream scientists, have "flag ships" like Finding Bigfoot as the main mainstream output, which would make anyone remotely intelligent cynical.
      3. IMPORTANTLY, hoaxes always get massive publicity.
      4. EXTRA IMPORTANT, when people are already suspicious of the credibility of the subject, they'll settle very quickly for an uncountered "debunking" due to the "extraordinary" nature of what's being proposed. However, should these people listen to the actual experts' counter opinions to these shoddy "debunkings", they'll realise very quickly that the evidence is reliable by consistent scientific standards. The problem is the only people who realise this are those willing to put in the time to look at it.

      I'll say it AGAIN (thank god for copy & paste)... What mainstream science recognises or is even aware of means little. If there's scientific evidence that not one from that mainstream can explain away, and it is substantiated with consistent scientific means, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority.

      Delete
    27. Iktomi @ 1;36

      No need to be defensive about being duped one time by this site - it is very easy to get drawn in by WorldNewsdaily and I have almost been duped myself there by a story - it was only because I checked elsewhere and finally saw their disclaimer page saying they were a spoof site that saved me from believing their story - so there really is no cause for your defensive stance - just admit you were a fool and move on.

      Delete
    28. Why can't you post a link to where I've used the site?

      Delete
    29. "What mainstream science recognises or is even aware of means little."

      Wow - just wow. Everyone read this statement. THIS is the mantra of lktomi. Only things that a few people recognize is of importance. The mainstream of scientists are clearly wrong and should be ignored.

      Why should any scientists be interested in pursuing this when Dr. Sykes study CLEARLY showed there was no evidence for doing so?

      Delete
    30. ...If there's scientific evidence that not one from that mainstream can explain away, and it is substantiated with consistent scientific means, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority.

      Dr Bryan Sykes is still studying Zana... And even after he found nothing in the North American samples (who were not submitted by organisations such as the BFRO), he was still rallying around researchers to go get some authentic ones. There was a lot of North American animals not found in the many samples he tested, does that mean they don't exist as well?

      Delete
    31. Must be an intensive study because we have no heard anything from him on this for quite awhile. I realize you are pinning all your hopes on the chance Sykes will be able to prove something to benefit your cause however the silence so far is deafening. Even if he does release some finding it will most likely be nothing to prove your case Zana was some sort of human relic.

      Delete
    32. Dont listen to joe 9:08 hes utterly clueless. Sykes has finished his study, stated he is not a "bigfooter" and has strictly said he will not touch any more samples unless the submitter foots the bill (back to normal).

      Also zanas dna has already been sequenced and is modern homo sapiens sapiens. From this joe somehow concludes she was a bigfoot. God knows how he deduced such nonsense from a very straight forward conclusion.

      Delete
    33. Sykes has already alluded to his theory that Zana was a subspecies of homo Sapien that left Africa 100,000 years ago. Hopefully his results won't be much longer... What will be interesting is seeing if first he finds ancient DNA, and then if he attributes this find to either what is as widely reported as a relict hominin in the US, Asia, Russia and Australia, or something completely different. It's all subjective to what Sykes thinks "Bigfoot" or the "Yeti" are in the end (Ancient human or whatever else). Personally, & considering Zana's descriptions are exactly what we have come to know in "Bigfoot" of the US, it'll finally be a no-brainer as to what we're dealing with.
      Ancient human.

      Now, how's about that World News Daily quote?

      Delete
    34. Coast to Coast AM of March 19th 2016, Sykes made two very interesting statements;
      "You can tell the difference between modern and ancient human within DNA."

      "I'be just finished studying Zana's DNA."

      Delete
    35. Ironic of joe to use the term "no brainer"

      Delete
    36. Gosh - almost a YEAR ago and no startling revelations as of yet.

      Got to tell you something - eh?

      Delete
    37. So far... You have failed to substantiate anything you've vomited on to this entire comment section... And I have aaaaaaaaaaall day for you.

      : )

      Delete
    38. Sykes is due to publish a paper that could potentially demonstrate that a subspecies of Homo Sapien was residing on the planet 150 years ago... Smashing apart world history and science as we know it. I think that he'd be more than inclined to take his time and make sure it's all in order.

      Delete
    39. Lol^ you said the exact same thing before he released his book. And the exact same thing before he released his documentary and the exact same thing before he released his paper. Every single time none of that happened. Absolutely deluded.

      Delete
    40. This coming from someone who claimed he was done after Bigfoot Files... Done after he wrote one book... Done after he wrote two books... Done after he did an interview clearly starting he's not done... Um... Something about being delusional?

      Oh... And just to upset you some more, Danny Campbell lost the bet.

      Ouch!

      Delete
    41. Tick tock, tick tock - Sykes is coming.

      Remember that one? Oh yes, he DID come and showed thru a SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF DNA FROM HAIR SAMPLES SUBMITTED BY THOSE CLAIMING THEM TO BE FROM A BIGFOOT that none of them were.

      None.

      Delete
    42. "Headlines such as "DNA Debunks Bigfoot Myth" and "Genetic Testing Shows That Bigfoot Is Not Real" are completely false and misleading. The only thing the DNA tests proved were that none of the hair samples used came from an unknown primate such as a bigfoot or a yeti. Does that mean they do not exist? If the study had been about dogs living in the wild, but none of the test results matched a domesticated canine, would that mean no dogs live in the wild? It simply means the test samples did not come from the sources they were believed to have possibly come from. Mark Evans and Justin Smeja during BBC Documentary
      Another misleading matter in this whole thing is just about that. Where the test samples came from. I've read various articles that claim a little less than half of the samples came directly from bigfoot sightings. Really? How so? Because someone reported a sighting in a general area, and the hairs were found in that same general area? Did someone pluck the hair directly from a bigfoot creature, or see a clump fall out as it ran away? I'm fairly certain you could find all kinds of hairs in my front yard, that doesn't mean they came from the rabbit I saw out there. This is exactly what happened during the documentary about the Sykes study where Justin Smeja was interviewed about his claim to have shot and killed at least one bigfoot. It was well known within the community that Justin submitted a tissue sample to Sykes that was believed to be that of a bear. This was known information before hand. Yet when the documentary was released, it was edited to make it sound like Smeja claimed to have acquired the tissue sample directly from the bigfoot itself. This was not only misleading, it was an outright lie. Regardless of how you feel about Smeja, or what your opinion is on his claim, he was in fact misrepresented and lied about during this documentary. That is a fact."
      - Matt K

      The only known researchers that I can find who submitted samples were Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja and Derek Randles. The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples. Oh, and you might wanna read Loren Coleman's reviews of his first book down below...

      Delete
    43. "The only thing the DNA tests proved were that none of the hair samples used came from an unknown primate such as a bigfoot or a yeti."

      I think that's quite telling considering all 30 samples claimed to be so.

      "It was well known within the community that Justin submitted a tissue sample to Sykes that was believed to be that of a bear."

      Well if it was well known to be a bear then why even submit it in the first place? God - how stupid is that?

      Delete
    44. Whether they were claimed to be from a Bigfoot is irrelevant. 30 samples as a fair representation for thousands of years of anecdotes and substantiating physical evidence collected over the past 50 years, is a painfully short of the mark. Not to mention that DNA has already been sequenced and found to be human anyway.

      Delete
    45. "Whether they were claimed to be from a Bigfoot is irrelevant."

      Huh? Sykes put out a call for samples and these were pulled from what he considered was the best story behind them. Now that they were proven false they ARE irrelevant but they weren't considered such before the analysis. This was one of the best chances to prove the existence of Bigfoot and it failed miserably.

      Delete
    46. IktomiWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 9:49:00 AM PST
      The only known researchers that I can find who submitted samples were Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja and Derek Randles. The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples.

      IktomiWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:16:00 AM PST
      30 samples as a fair representation for thousands of years of anecdotes and substantiating physical evidence collected over the past 50 years, is a painfully short of the mark. Not to mention that DNA has already been sequenced and found to be human anyway.

      Delete
    47. So you are saying Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja and Derek Randles are all fools and whose research should now be doubted.

      So why did not the BFRO submit samples? Or are they only interested in stories and soliciting money for fake expedition?

      Delete
  4. Good to see joe getting destroyed. Lovely stuff anons keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know when hes getting destroyed when he starts trotting out the burden of proof stuff and then starts laying on top a couple of strawmans. Truelly a worthless individual.

      Delete
    2. Haven't oh got a burden to shift? Talk about strawman...

      (Creased)

      Delete
    3. 3:22 hes been doing for years and zero bigfoots to show for any of it. Just ignore him. This blog is his drug. He couldnt walk away if he tried.

      Delete
    4. So you keep maintaining... (every day of your life). Unfortunately, you can't explain away the evidence that contradicts that drivel.

      See ya later!!

      : )

      Delete
    5. Get the evidence published if it is good. Bigfoot is not exempt from standard scientific processes.

      Delete
    6. What YOU require is peer reviewed evidence... What enthusiasts require is evidence that constitutes reason for the mainstream to finally investigate & track the creatures in question, THEN whatever idealistic unscientific system you can adhere to might be applied. It is a safety net, 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.

      Don't pretend like you understand anything of the sort.

      Delete
    7. Its been thoroughly investigated, hence your many sources. Why dont they go through the standard scientific method? We both know why.

      Are you saying enthusiasts have a lower standard of evidence than actual scientists? If you are then I guess that explains it! Ironically one might call that a "safety net". Lol.

      Delete
    8. Are you able to reference one mainstream study into using that physical evidence to track "Bigfoot"? And nope, what I'm saying is mainstream scientists have the idealism of "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary ideas". The same frequency of evidence for the Bili Ape at this stage was dwarfed in comparison... I wonder if you would have required a peer review for the Bili Ape tracks priory to the year long investigation into tracking one?

      Delete
    9. Ah I wondered when you would trot out the bili ape. Probably one of your worst arguments. Bigfoot has to exist on its own merits, not on the merits of other animals that actually exist. Dont use that one again, its embarassing.

      Delete
    10. Argh of course... A man sized primate that was reported by the indigenous woodsmen of their residing country for many decades, that was initially ignored by western scientists only to be shown to exist once the physical evidence was used to track said primate... Really hurts my stance, right?

      By the same merit that the physical evidence stood up and was subsequently used to track the primate leavin it (Bili Ape), so does the Sasquatch require the same. You want scientific consistency one minute, then you contradict yourself by demanding measures that exceed that of comparative studies in the past the next.

      You're a mess dear boy.

      Delete
    11. One actually exists and when looked for guess what they found it. Bigfoot not so much.

      Delete
    12. Again! You were asked in this very comment section to provide an example of where mainstream scientist have spent time looking. Even before this has occurred, amateur researchers have managed to source every source of evidence short of a modern type specimen, which dwarfs that of which the Bili Ape had at this stage.

      Chop, chop! Anyone would think you don't know what you're talking about!

      Delete
    13. If you have dwarfed the evidence then actually finding one should be no problem. Much easier than the bili ape. Yet its nowhere to be found. Convenient:)

      Delete
    14. You'd still need adequate recources and time from professionals to track a Sasquatch. For example, it took a year by experienced trackers and primatologists to locate and film a group of Bili Apes. Katy Gonder PhD, Biological Anthropologist, had been tracking and studying a group of chimpanzees in the wild for 20 years... In that time she's only actually had "very fleeting glimpses" of them about 10 times. We could be talking of a much more calculative primate in the Sasquatch, more akin to our intelligence (more intelligent even).

      How about that mainstream study where someone has looked for Sasquatch? Twisting a frequency of evidence against the idea of the existence of the creature leaving it (cough, cough), doesn't really achieve that (cringe).

      Delete
    15. Plenty of strawmen.

      Firstly there have been plenty of searches for it. It is a major pastime in america. Nothing.

      Secondly there are people out there not searching who could come across it. Doesnt happen either.

      If you have the frequency of evidence you claim... then wheres the big fella. It seems like you cant even point to location of one. Truelly delusional.

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

      Delete
    17. "Firstly there have been plenty of searches for it. It is a major pastime in america. Nothing."
      ... Cool, name one lengthy professional effort, adequate in classifying a primate in comparison to previous discoveries. Not a BBQ weekend talking about "Bigfoot". Name just one.

      "Secondly there are people out there not searching who could come across it. Doesnt happen either."
      ... There are three databases of sightings reports from people who have been looking, not looking and all other scenarios you can imagine.

      There is 50 years worth of physical evidence for the existence of a creature with the same widely reported anatomy as Sasquatch, in he US and Canada.

      Delete
    18. Wow - could it get any worse for Joe! He's getting absolute smashed in his arguments on every level. Bravo Anon Bravo!

      Delete
    19. Bindernagle, krantz, meldrum, standing, ericksson, ketchum and many many more have lead multiple searches. Many documentaries and tv shows have lead searches. Many many many non bigfoot searches and wildlife studies have taken place which also happened to miss all the bigfoots.

      Database of sightings lol. Damn if only they had a camera or took genetic samples or came across a body or part. Oops.

      50 years of fu.ck all.

      Delete
    20. Cool... name one lengthy professional effort, adequate in classifying a primate in comparison to previous discoveries, from Bindernagle, Krantz, Meldrum, Standing, Ericksson or Ketchum... Not a documentary appearance or TV show. Name one wildlife study out of these "many". I'm not asking for much, just one.

      And again... To substantiate those three databases of reports, amateur researchers have every source of evidence just short of modern type specimen.

      Delete
    21. Might I add, that not one of those from your list are a primatologist or expert tracker.

      Delete
    22. Im not asking for much. Just one bigfoot. So where is it?

      Gee i wonder why you have all the evidence apart from the ones that actually count. Hmmmmmmm really makes you think.

      Delete
    23. Please Anon - have mercy on him. Don't you think you have humiliated him enough? You know he doesn't have the intellectual tools or evidence to counter you with. Have pity.

      Delete
    24. You were presented photographs of a "Bigfoot" up top that are endorsed by scientists... And you were presented supporting forensic evidence for the hominid in those photographs hat was again, endorsed by scientists.

      There is nothing in scientific theory that states that repeatable scientific evidence "doesn't count" because subsequent investigative measure have not occurred yet.

      Delete
    25. Cue more circular reasoning... Oh please, have mercy.

      Delete
    26. Yes, have mercy Anon. It's getting hard to watch this verbal beating. Joe must be suffering. Oh the humanity!

      Delete
    27. I gotta chime in here.
      Joe aint gonna have a spinchter left if you guys keep it up!!
      LEAVE JOE ALONE!
      AC collins

      Delete
    28. Yes, it's heartbreaking to watch a man's belief get so destroyed but he brings it on himself. He badly needs some encouragement from the Superfiends.

      SUPERFIENDS ASSEMBLE!

      Delete
    29. So far... You have failed to substantiate anything you've vomited on to this entire comment section... And I have aaaaaaaaaaall day for you.

      Delete
  5. 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.”

    BLOWN THE FU.CK OUT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only are there countering expert opinions on the gait of Patty (I can source this in due course if I can be bothered) and plenty of enthusiasts believe the PGF to be a hoax... However...

      "I am convinced that the Sasquatch exists, but whether it is all that it is cracked up to be is another matter altogether. There must be SOMETHING in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints. The evidence I have adduced in favour of the reality of the Sasquatch is not hard evidence; few physicists, biologists or chemists would accept it, but nevertheless it IS evidence and cannot be ignored."
      John Napier MRCS, LRCP, DSC(Lond.) "Bigfoot- The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality"- Sphere Books Ltd.

      Delete
    2. Joe got BLOWN THE FU.CK OUT what a cunt

      Delete
    3. For example;

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2RjLzqOu3qc

      Delete
    4. Not according to the evidence.

      Laters, gators!

      Delete
    5. Actually it is according to the evidence. Zero bigfoots provided = zero bigfoots.

      Delete
    6. You'd need to explain away the evidence first...

      (Tumbleweed goes by)

      Delete
    7. Show me the published paper first....

      Tumbleweed

      Delete
    8. Show me a comparative paper on the track impressions of other pre-tracked primates, and your drivel will apply.

      Delete
    9. Nonsense. Show me a published paper.

      Delete
    10. Show me a paper on Bili Ape tracks pre-discovery.

      Delete
    11. Why? I am asking for you to provide a paper for your sources. Otherwise they are worthless.

      Delete
    12. By what authority are they useless when no comparative primate has required their physical evidence pre-discovery to be published in a paper?

      Delete
    13. They havent been objectionally peer reviewed by experts in those areas. Scientifically speaking they are worthless.

      Delete
    14. Yes... But by what authority are they worthless when no comparative primate has required their physical evidence pre-discovery to be published in a paper?

      Please address the questions put your way, quality not quantity dear boy.

      Delete
    15. When you ask a sensible question i will gladly answer

      Delete
    16. Troll... Stuey... F-AC... I've made you more significant than what you are by responding to you long enough.

      Adios!

      Delete
    17. If it's evidence you require visit my site and see for yourself

      Delete
    18. Isn't it obvious Dr. Squatch? lktomi thinks your evidence is crap.

      Delete
    19. Yes, this and his friendship with Vegas mark him a fool

      Delete
    20. Forgot you signed in with your Shribes account... Eh? Didn't you offer to come to my house to perform oral *** yesterday?

      Yuck.

      Delete
    21. I chomp your shriveled dong right off fag boy. And I have never posted as an anon nor do I respond to them like you

      Delete
    22. Stevie ShribesTuesday, January 31, 2017 at 12:13:00 PM PST
      Ill pick up the skin flute if I can come to you place and learn from the master
      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/just-camera-and-gun-alone-with-bigfoot.html

      Ew!!!

      Delete
    23. Ew yucky what a gross thing shribes would say tehe twiddledee look at my copy paste skills!


      For fu cks sake iktomi your a child

      Delete
    24. A grown man cheerleading & plugging a cruddy band? Whilst using the most juvenile of toilet humour and insults? You need to grow up man.

      Delete
    25. calling anyone else a child is only ever so slightly audacious.

      Delete
    26. I wanna remind you I did not comment on anything you said directly yesterday ad you got on me about the journal thing so...


      You started it!!


      Who's a child now..

      Delete
    27. And if you have any musical recommendations let me here em I will listen totally unbiased.. and not something I've listened to my whole life i.e. Beatles or stones

      Delete
    28. I'd be more than happy to discuss music with you Shribes.

      Another time.

      Delete
    29. Aqueous has a song called Sasquatch


      I'll be back later sachmos!

      Delete
  6. Pwned like joe trying to shoot fish in a barrel and missing everytime hahahahahahahaaaa

    ReplyDelete
  7. Idiotomi still believing in his magical monkey man and his laughable evidence.
    Keep up the good work Joedo it's always good entertainment!

    ReplyDelete
  8. There's many ways to skin a cat but zero bigfoots is always zero bigfoots

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sasquatch are real but, people have to start showing proof with their stories, like Utah Sasquatch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incorrect. Sasquatch do not exist.

      Delete
    2. Evidence: zero bigfoots anywhere ever
      Oops

      Delete
    3. If you'd get behind my evidence already you could cement your case Iktomi

      Delete
    4. Good morning Iktomi! 97 views at 9 am? Youre giving them quite an EXCELLENT beatdown. I am only disappointed that I will be working and unable to stop back by until 5pm.

      Delete
    5. No worries Chick! You'll at least have plenty to laugh about by the time you check in again later.

      Delete
    6. You're a strange bird, Dr Squatch. I try to avoid you.

      Delete
    7. Massive Black Bigfoot, eyes morph, go full screen!
      Left hand side! Enhanced version coming soon!

      KABOOM!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li6GWT3afug

      Delete
    8. Huh? What the hell? That is suppose to be a Bigfoot? Really? Seriously???

      Delete
    9. Don't worry 7:55 the enhanced version will be in 3D and surround sound.Prepare to be amazed xx

      Delete
    10. LOL - well, it's going to need something to make sense out of what is being presented.

      Delete
    11. I'd say that it's 110% it isn't.

      Delete
    12. if you don't believe me i can show you binders and binders filled with evidence

      Delete
    13. I'll bet they are blurry as well.

      Delete
  10. I'm number 1 in Bigfoot evidence, see them and weep

    ReplyDelete
  11. So how did they get the film developed? Did patterson develop it himself?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Asking for an explanation of events to something that is based on conjecture of events that can't be shown to be false either way, is futile. It's asking for an unfounded stance to be responded with even more vague unfounded stance. It goes around in circles and by the end is still never gonna be an accurate reflection of what actually happened in that timeline.

      What we do have, is the footage and the subject in it. What we do have is 100 years of costume and SFX to falsify what we see in that footage.

      Delete
    2. Short answer - they can't explain away the time sequence with developing the film. It just could not have happened the way they said it did.

      Delete
    3. They can't explain away the time sequence with developing the film. It just could not have happened the way they said it did.

      ... LEAP IN LOGIC...

      An alleged costume that defies all SFX & costume methods to this day must be the case.

      Delete
    4. What happened is they filmed the hoax weeks maybe months before. The film was developed professionally and they watched the film to make sure it was shaky / blurry enough to fool people.

      Then to ensure the "encounter" looked authentic they went up to bluff creek on the friday to fake the footprints. The technique of faking the prints was taught to them by wallace. This is known because wallaces prints were proven hoaxed and wallace had met roger about bigfoot previously.

      Now in order that the fake prints stayed intact. The gamble was made to show the film to others on the sunday, saying it was filmed on the friday, and hope that the impossible development timeline would be ignored. Either that or they simply did not think about it and assumed development was possible in that timeline. Fatally however it wasnt.

      Delete
    5. Cool story bro. But please tell me... How does all that unsubstantiated conjecture provide an explanation to what isn't... The subject in the footage? Does conjecture provide an alleged costume that defies all SFX & costume methods to this day? Also... You'll notice at the bottom of the link here;
      http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

      ... That none of the most significant Bigfoot casts over time, as well as the ones taken from Bluff Creek in 1967, match that of the stompers that Wallace's family presented. A family who wanted to distance the themselves from any enthusiasm of the subject Wallace had. There is easily attainable photos of Wallace as a clear enthusiast with casts and witness claims.

      Delete
    6. Kaboom. ..more great evidence all you need

      Delete
    7. Kaboom is also a cereal eaten by people on welfare, like Iktomi /Vegas, that's right they are the same person

      Delete
    8. HI THERE MY NAME IS IKTOMI,profile created 2-16-2015-7:32pm,

      HI THERE MY NAME IS VEGAS THE DOG,profile created 2-16-2015-7:40pm,

      Delete
    9. Um... You do realise you've been posting the same drivel under your AC Collins sockpuppet account? Right?

      Delete
    10. I realize that you don't dispute your use of sock puppets.

      Delete
  12. His genetics say Zana is a modern subSaharan African woman. If we’re talking something farther from us than Neanderthals, Denisova, the un-named west-African archaic only found in descendants with no type fossil, etc., then we aren’t talking anatomically modern, are we? And for someone furry and “giant,” we’d be talking about that.

    Maybe I’m wrong. But my take is that he’s got something that seems out of place, and he’s not discounting the stories about Zana. I personally think that without real genetic evidence suggesting something separated from us by over 300,000 years or more, we should discount the stories. She was an African, and the report is coming from the time when Africans were most likely to be misrepresented as apes because of the rise of scientific racism in the wake of Darwin (who did not support such frames, but who gave the ideological cover to do so), and when people were all too happy to throw around descriptions of “primitive” to describe modern human variation.

    If Sykes presents a major mtDNA split of the sort that has been used to separate out the other archaics, so be it. But just pointing at “primitive” morphology, when one has the DNA in hand, is crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "1) In an unnumbered chapter after Chapter 27, entitled “Postscript,” Sykes details an intriguing finding from a hair sample from Dr. Henner Fahrenbach. It had a result that Sykes is still pondering, and we may hear about in the future. The DNA sample of a “Sasquatch” from Walla Walla matched that of a feral “individual from Uzbekistan,” Sykes exclaims (page 282).
      (2) Sykes’ verdict on Zana, an alleged almasty captured in the 1850s on the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains, is a nod to the labor of the Russian hominologists during four decades of the Snowman Commission at Moscow’s Darwin Museum. The mainstream media has completely misinterpreted what Sykes’ book has to say about this, and talk of Zana being an “escaped African slave” demeans what appears to be the genetic realities behind the case. You must read Sykes’ Chapter 29, to fully appreciate what he has discovered.
      “Part-human, part-ape with dark skin (Zana means ‘black’ in Abkhaz) she was covered with long, reddish-brown hair which formed a mane down her back. She was large, about 6’6″ tall, and extremely muscular with exaggerated, hairless buttocks and large breasts. Her face was wide with high cheekbones and a broad nose,” notes Sykes (page 296).
      Zana was no slave from Africa, but an individual with genetics who tells us much more about the population from which she sprang. As Bryan Sykes hints, “Zana’s ancestors could have left Africa before the Laran exodus of 100,000 year ago” and “they might well be still there [in the Caucasus Mountains] to this day, living as they have for millennia somewhere in the wild valleys that radiate from the eternal snows of Elbrus,” (page 306).
      (3) There is one more revelation in this book that caused me great astonishment. I have written an entirely separate article about it. Few seem to have read the book closely enough to realize that part of the DNA testing that Sykes did gives a complete revision to the status of the Pangboche finger findings of only four years ago, when it was dismissed as merely “human.” Read here for the big reveal that Sykes shares on that case. Please see, “Pangboche Finger’s ‘Human’ Verdict Clarified By Bryan Sykes DNA Finding.” The fact is, the Pangboche hand may yet be an important artifact to re-study and re-test, regarding a piece of the puzzle to solve the mystery of the Yeti."
      - Loren Coleman

      Delete
    2. If he has ancient Homo Sapien DNA to match Zana's reports, that are in turn substantiated by her son's skull... Then that seals it. If not... You'll know where to find me to gloat.

      Delete
    3. How long after Zana died were these "reports" collected?

      Delete
    4. "Unlike so many other stories that depend on unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts, hundreds of people saw Zana the wildwoman in the forty of more years she was held in captivity.

      We know the details of Zana's capture thanks to the work in the early 1950's of the Russian zoologist Alexander Mashdovstsev and his young associate Boris Porshnev, who went on to become he leading figure in Russian hominology.

      Mashdovstsev and Porshnev obstained detailed and consistent eyewitness descriptions of the creature, named Zana, in the 1950's."

      Pages 294 & 295 of The Nature of The Beast.

      Delete
    5. So more than 50 years after she died?

      Delete
    6. Whether it's 20, 30, 40, 50... If you and your community have lived with an "ape woman", I can't imagine you'd really forget much about that ape woman.

      Delete
    7. Don't you realize Anon 10:14 that all eyewitness reports no matter how old are rock solid evidence PROVING the existence of Bigfoot? We have thousands of years of reports from people all over the world. None lie, embellish or exaggerate - FACT!

      Delete
    8. For those reports over time, there is physical evidence in the present. For Zana's reports, we have the ancient morphology of her son's skulls.

      Sorry it burns!

      Delete
    9. And 10:21... on the flip side, are we to believe that thousands of years of such reports are the product of lies, embellishments and exaggerations? That's your idea of logic?

      Delete
    10. Could you provide the "hundreds" of eyewitness accounts? How old were these people in the 1950's?

      Delete
    11. You had me at large buttocks and breasts

      Delete
    12. 10:38... I'm not your dancing monkey. I took the time to copy that extract from my copy of Sykes' book. And if you didn't notice already, those reports are substantiated by the ancient morphology in her son's skull.

      Delete
    13. Are we to believe all these reports when there is no evidence to support them? Is this YOUR idea of logic?

      Delete
    14. You didn't seem to get around to showing that the evidence I linked you was bunk. It's ok troll, I can remind you aaaaaaaaaaaaall day.

      : )

      Delete
    15. So you've provided a report from a book that is a report of other reports? Why would it be difficult to provide the original witness reports?

      Delete
    16. No, I gave you an extract of a book from a world pioneering geneticist, who studied Russian hominologist's interviews with direct eyewitnesses.

      Delete
  13. 196 comments lol. Tough day at the office for joe!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So far... You have failed to substantiate anything you've vomited on to this entire comment section... And I have aaaaaaaaaaall day for you.

      Delete