Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Finding Bigfoot In Wisconsin


From the Bigfoot Conundrum youtube channel:

The search for an elusive creature known as Bigfoot recently brought a cable television show's staff to Northeast Wisconsin. And while the creature itself has been forever elusive, the crew from Animal Planet's "Finding Bigfoot" was recently spotted in Oconto County.

99 comments:

  1. The moment Stuey was banned:

    AnonymousMonday, March 6, 2017 at 11:57:00 AM PST
    uhhhm, i just got banned!! what the


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

      Delete
    3. ^ Perfect, I was gonna publish the same comment myself. He said the same thing last time Matt K banned him, and proceeded to pretend to be him & raged at other people for 48 hours.

      CuriousMonday, March 6, 2017 at 3:26:00 PM PST
      Now on the other hand I would have to ask lktomi why he, day after day, continues to respond to those who obviously are taunting him?
      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/something-grabbed-trail-cam.html

      Well what I would say to that, Mr Curious, is just take a look at the filth that got published around here over the past 24 hours, because I didn't respond to him. I'm his therapy exercise.

      Delete
    4. You do seem to be a popular fellow around here - LOL.

      Delete
    5. What's the matter Stuey? You pretending to be someone else so you don't get banned again?

      Delete
    6. It finally clicked in my head yesterday that you had told me he does this when he gets banned. He really wears his ego on his sleeve about it. And its great to know he does get bounced.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousFriday, September 25, 2015 at 2:53:00 AM PDT
      Zero bigfoots

      AnonymousFriday, September 25, 2015 at 3:34:00 AM PDT
      Now Shawn if you're going to block me do it right,I can still reply

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/kelly-shaw-reports-tabiona-swells.html?m=0

      ... This was the reason for his last ragefest.

      Delete
    8. Wow, what an epic flip out. Classic psychopath behavior. Its not about hurt feelings, its about ego and domination. Hopefully his care takers will monitor him for a while. Maybe up the meds until he stabilizes.

      I dont understand why there isnt a way to get rid of him for good though.

      Delete
  2. Todd Standing is back!

    https://youtu.be/CgfFMUYv5C8

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes. I remember when you used to promote his puppet heads.

      Delete
    2. I seem to remember you having a mental breakdown at being alluded to an SFX expert suggesting the most unrealistic & expensive Hollywood methods for making those "puppets heads". I also seem to remember you putting words in my mouth because for the couple of years prior... You pretty much had zilch else to go on.

      Same as it ever was.

      Delete
    3. Jesus christ he still thinks they are bigfoots

      Delete
    4. You've still got zilch else to go on.

      Delete
    5. HAHAHA SERIOUSLY? Have you actually seen the videos and the stills that were proven photoshopped? Hahahaha

      Delete
    6. Like I said Stuey, go check out that Rev Jeff interview. I'm not claiming they're real, never have. What I'm saying is for someone so hell bent on spouting your hate speech, you've got that SFX's opinion to address.

      : )

      Delete
    7. You are very much saying thet are real and extremely reluctant to say otherwise despite even some of the most hardened believers outrightly dismissing it as a really badly done hoax.

      Delete
    8. Nope!

      What I'm saying is, I'm dubious about those photos being real, but I can't for the life of me think how Todd might have afforded the most unrealistic & very best SFX and Hollywood methods of making manufacturing them.

      Maybe you can help me out?

      : )

      Delete
    9. Well his sister was an sfx artist for one

      Delete
    10. No, she isn't. She's cosmetic make up artist. I used scepticism to deduce that it's unlikely that she'd be able to produce the most unrealistic & very best SFX and Hollywood methods for these puppets.

      Delete
    11. But the puppets arent even good..

      Delete
    12. Not according to an SFX professional. They're akin to the most unrealistic & very best SFX and Hollywood methods.

      Delete
    13. There is a LOT of stuff written that would lead anyone to think Todd Standing is indeed a hoaxer. As I understand it even most hardcore believers have distanced themselves from him and some have outright called him a fraud. Even insinuating that there is something legit about his stuff is not in your best interest if you want to be taken seriously lktomi.

      Just some friendly advice.

      Delete
    14. Curious, last time I checked, two PhD's confirmed they had an experience whilst with him at his research area, with accompanying physical evidence. A research area I might add, that some other researchers condemned him for stealing, which means that there is little doubt in their minds that his research area is legitimate, otherwise why the fuss?

      I'll say it again (it's amazing how many times I have to publish this and watch people work around it), I am dubious about his photos. But a massive obstacle for me, you, and anyone else that is critical of his work... Is finding out how he made them.

      Simples.

      Delete
    15. The why not simply state that because you are dubious of his photos/models that you are skeptical of all his claims instead of alluding that where there's smoke there's fire?

      Simples.

      Who were the two PhD's by the way? Link?

      Delete
    16. I spoke to Jeff Meldrum almost a year ago about Standing and I predicted to Jeff that Standing will not take him to where he shot the alleged Sasquatch face photos. I recently emailed Jeff to see if he ever saw these locations with Standing and the answer was "no".

      While Jeff is not prepared to say Standing hoaxed the face images, I am reminded of the some of the answers Standing has given concerning his so-called evidence. For instance: When the BFRO Finding Bigfoot crew asked to see the Sentry location, Standing did not want to take them there because he said there were bears and mountain lions in that area, thus it would not be safe to go there - Yet Standing says he goes there alone. No explanation was given for why he would think 5 to 10 people would be more at risk of a bear or mountain lion attack than one man would be in going by himself.

      When Standing was asked why he only shot 3 seconds of film of the alleged Sentry rising up - Standing replied that 'No one will believe its real by just capturing it on film, so why bother shooting more than 3 seconds of footage'. Again Standing's answer made no sense and defied his bothering to take a camera along in the first place. I mean, what if the alleged Sasquatch Sentry would have picked up a large rock and hurled it towards Standing ... would that not go a long way that a mere man could not have lifted and thrown such a stone? I'm sorry, but I wish Meldrum would consider the man's obviously made up answers and add them to his decision on whether Standing deserves any consideration.

      When I asked Jeff to explain how it was that Standing went from looking straight on at the subjects face to then looking up its trunk without it showing any concern of his being near its feet - Jeff replied that Standing had told him the creature was up in a tree. It was at that time that I had great doubts that Standing will ever take Jeff to the alleged Sasquatch face location. And if he ever does, I hope Jeff can explain the boulder seen in one of the images as it blocks part of the alleged Sasquatch's torso. Boulder's in a tree - yeah right!

      Bill Miller

      Delete
    17. Curious, because even if I am dubious of his photos I cannot prove that they are hoaxes. That's what real scepticism does see pal, it refrains from judgement and keeps asking questions beyond that which is preferred. I'm not so dubious however of two PhD's attesting to an experience and physical evidence. I'm also not dubious about the backlash he recieved regarding his alleged stealing of a research site. Would you rather me believe what Standing has to say about that? The two PhD's are Jeff Meldrum and John Bindernagle. I'm not about to look for links for you, that's a lot of work, maybe you need to brush up on the general knowledge of the subject?

      Delete
    18. The two PhD's - both hardcore believers.

      Thanks lktomi - I just may have to find the time to brush up on my knowledge of him if he indeed is back although judging from the comments it seems others are starting to do it for me.

      Delete
    19. By the way, thank you Bill Miller for schooling Iktomi.

      Delete
    20. That's ad hominem, Mr Curious... And I'll take the word of two PhD "believers" in the field than a denialist who's never done the same, OR debunked their work. It always makes me chuckle, people like you demand proponents get out in the wilderness and support their ideas, proponents who obviously tend to be those who have a predisposition to look, and pseudosceptics then discredit people for finding what they set out to look for.

      Rhetorical isn't the word.

      Delete
    21. Also, a chain of custody from amateur researchers' footage is always a problem. Unless professionals with professional equipment are at hand to verify the capturing of footage, it's always going to be called into question. And as much as I love Bill, I didn't see an explanation I'm satisfied with as to how he made his puppet heads.

      Delete
    22. Lastly, the place in which he captured his alleged footage, is well known to be a place where problematic & aggressive bears are dropped off;

      https://youtu.be/6RetQRg7J5Y

      Delete
    23. When you feel compelled to respond to your own comment two times, that's not a good sign at all.

      Delete
    24. Fake Curious, you seem angrier than usual?

      Delete
    25. Well, you discerned the last two comments by Curious above was not made by me. I'm impressed. But I suppose you have had lots of practice perceiving those using someone else's comment name here. Some have even accused you of doing the same.

      In any case I bear no malice to those who might believe even though I certainly disagree with their conclusions. I can't give Standing any credit other than perhaps coming up with an artistic model. I'm curious to see what he presents now that he has made the announcement he is back.

      Delete
  3. "You really are a piece of work, aren't you JJ?

    You blatantly plagiarize.
    You troll, while condemning others for it and telling them to seek psychiatric care.
    You use twisted and flimsy logic to accuse others of something, but refuse to apply the exact same logic to yourself.
    You belittle people and call them stupid simply for having a low paying job.
    You post under multiple accounts solely to support your own comments.

    You do all these things while arrogantly thinking you maintain some moral high ground. You really are a twisted individual. This is what you spend your days doing. Manipulating and antagonizing people on an obscure fringe blog. This is your life work. You are, honestly, probably the saddest and yet most dislikeable individual on the web that I have ever come across.

    You really need to take a break and seek some help." - dmaker

    ReplyDelete
  4. Got sylvanic sentinel monkeys?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yep, Bigfoot's 15 minutes of fame are gradually ticking their last tock.

    There'll always be a following, though, but I think the whole Bigfoot movement of the last decade has basically run its course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah... A world beating geneticist finding the subject worthy of study is most certainly the final nail in the coffin. Let's not forget the many sightings reports and track impressions that continue to roll in weekly.

      RIP Bigfoot.

      Delete
    2. It is when he finds absolutely nothing

      Delete
    3. Did you have your fingers crossed then?

      Delete
    4. We both watched the documentary. Nothing. Nudda.

      Delete
    5. You can pretend like he hasn't written a book since that documentary, and has only last year finished studying Zana's DNA, but it just makes you look a little kooky.

      Delete
    6. Both of which returned zero bigfoots

      Delete
    7. Unfortunately, Nature of the Beast doesn't have enough illustrations for you to find out.

      Delete
    8. I checked. Zero proof of any bigfoots. Sykes has also tried to distance himself from footery stating he is not a "bigfooter". Clearly quite embarassed at the whole affair.

      Delete
    9. Not according to Loren Coleman;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Nature-of-the-Beast.

      Unfortunately for you, Nature of the Beast doesn't have enough illustrations for you to find out... And should Sykes state he's not a "Bigfooter", it means his conclusions will be impartial and you won't be able to ad hominem.

      Delete
    10. Shouldn't it be easier for you to contend such a "shabby" source?

      Delete
    11. Stuey has issues with big hairy guys

      Musta begun in jail

      MMC

      Delete
  6. What Footers are unable to answer in any way whatsoever, NL has often avoided this question, is:

    if Bigfoot is this amazingly stealthy creature, intelligent and savvy, able to avoid detection for seemingly thousands and thousands of years, then why on Earth does it routinely mistake the hilariously nonsensical yelling of overweight men in the woods with the supposedly unique vocalizations of its own kind?

    If Bigfoot is routinely being fooled into communicating with humans, the folk that they've apparently been avoiding for...well, forever...by a simple hammering of a baseball bat on the bark of a tree, then why the hell do people like NL et al turn up here year after year with absolutely no evidence whatsoever?

    Ask yourself that.


    Bigfoot - highly intelligent creature who has avoided detection for thousands of years, yet he sits in the woods returning "tree-knocks" with your average weekend-warrior who spends his working-week pumping gas. Get a load of David Attenborough over here!

    Bigfoot - surviving century after century without tools, fire, or clothing, avoids infra-red and stays 5 steps ahead of even the most resourceful scientist, and yet he spends his hours in the forest returning the hilariously silly yelling of the most ridiculous looking adventurists you've ever seen.

    Yet we've still got no Bigfoot in any museum on this planet we call home.

    Have a little think about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I spent almost ten seconds stooping low enough to think about it, and the simple answer is it's a communicative choice on their part. An 8 foot hominin that weighs around 800lbs that evades in social groups doesn't have to really worry about the fat bigfooter tree knocking or shouting in the near distance. And if "Bigfoot" had avoided detection for all this time, we wouldn't be able to reference 50 years worth of physical evidence.

      Delete
    2. You cant have bigfoot not avoiding detection in every single way apart from the ways that would confirm its existence. It just doesnt work.

      Delete
    3. "Bigfoot's" existence was confirmed to many in the evidence it's left for the past 50 years. It's existence to someone in denial of that, rests on the moment a consorted scientific effort on mainstream science's part gets underway.

      Delete
    4. Footage, audio, thermal, hair samples, track impressions with forensic data... To anyone who can apply that the thousands of years of anecdotes, "Bigfoot" is indeed confirmed. And even if that isn't good enough for the chronic denialists... What's confirmed is there is a creature with the widely reported anatomy of "Bigfoot" leaving its impressions on the wilderness of the US & Canada.

      Delete
    5. So unconfirmed then. Got ya

      Delete
    6. Unconfirmed to someone who needs to bypass the overwhelming evidence.

      Delete
    7. Or confirmed to someone who doesnt respect the scientific method

      Delete
    8. Oh dear.

      It might be news to you, but the scientific method does not adhere to chronic amnesia & conspiracy theories as a means of observation, measurement, experiment and testing.

      Wow, that was a cringer!

      Delete
    9. You should be more worried about what's "adhering" to your knickers!

      Delete
  7. Pwned like scott nelsons lifes work being dismissed as a 70s kung fu movie and laughed at by an MMA commentator

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was absolutely fantastic. After years of pandering to his bigfoot conference audiences, to get a reality check like that was beautiful.

      Delete
    2. It would amount to someone like you being totally unqualified (and uneducated), scoffing at an expert on national TV. Sure, it's funny for someone like you who needs reassurance about the boogeyman, but it's doesn't debunk his work.

      Delete
    3. Yeah... I know that word is a little alien to you.

      Delete
    4. What does it matter if a geneticist is "world beating", if he does not provide any proof of bigfoot?

      Delete
    5. Did you have your fingers crossed then?

      Delete
    6. Not at all. I know Sykes is not going to provide any proof of bigfoot. What does it say to you, JJ, when even "world beating" geneticists cannot find any proof of bigfoot?

      Delete
    7. I can sense those fingers crossed from across the pond.

      Delete
    8. I'm having a hard time trying to picture donny boy crossing his sausage fingers . He could be double jointed I suppose
      donny would you like some sausage ?
      donny would you like some sausage ?

      Joe

      Delete
    9. Crossing them for what? Sykes is not going to deliver what you want. If he had such groundbreaking proof, we would have heard by now.

      You're in for yet another disappointment.

      Delete
    10. Yeah, yours. I don't have much to lose. If he fails to provide any proof of bigfoot, then that is totally what I expect. If he actually does, then great. It would be an interesting discovery.

      You on the other hand, run your mouth every day about how Sykes is going to prove something.

      Delete
    11. On 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."

      ... 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.

      Delete
    12. Keep on hoping, JJ. Not gonna happen.

      Zana was modern HSS

      Delete
    13. Sykes has already let on as to what the deal is there. I'll also be around so you can rub my nose in it if you're right. In the meantime, you keep those fingers crossed, sporto.

      Delete
    14. Dr Sykes is a world leading authority on Mitochondrial DNA . I tend to want to believe what he says a lot more than sausage fingered donny boy any day of the year.
      What degree in genetics do you have donny boy?
      drops the bloody mic

      Joe

      Delete
    15. Incidentally mates, the mic is bloody because I also fancy using it as a butt plug !

      Joe

      Delete
    16. Sykes is an idiot, and is never going to produce anything positive for Bigfoot Research! You can gladly rub in my face if i'm wrong!

      Delete
    17. Doc, I think you'd love to have something else rubbed in your face
      And btw, you never answered my question from the other day
      Kelly

      Delete
    18. I don't answer questions from fat ignorant slobs who never produce evidence.

      Delete
    19. Go play in traffic Stuey

      Delete
  8. Joe/Iktomi's mum sucked my caulk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I heard he got fired for eating too many onion rings on the job.

      Delete
    2. Why would you say "Todd Standing is back?" His pics are totally fake, and he's done nothing to promote the species!

      Delete
    3. DS, Ikstuey is retarded.

      Delete
  9. Standing's photos are not hoaxed. They are 100% genuine photographs of a stuffed toy Sasquatch.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ikdummy thinks Standings muppets are real.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm backing Standing as of now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he had anything, he would have showed it, not some stupid intro video.

      Delete
    2. DR. SQUATCH - BEST BIGFOOT & DOGMAN PAREIDOLIAWednesday, March 8, 2017 at 12:36:00 PM PST

      I spoof these a-h0les!

      Delete
    3. Maybe, I'll wait and see,all the best to you

      Delete
  12. Hmph.

    Many things in nature exhibit a Gaussian probability distribution. Take, say, size variation of leaves on a tree, or height variation of modern humans, they all fall into a Gaussian distribution. When applied to modern human intelligence it is called the Bell Curve.

    The interesting thing about Bigfoot tracks is that when the sizes of observed and cast tracks are carefully measured and the data expressed in a database the size variation of those tracks follows a perfect Gaussian distribution. That would not be the case if tracks were being hoaxed on a large scale. The totality of the documented Bigfoot tracks in North America follow a natural pattern and so likely belong to a real bipedal creature. While I realize that most of you have not had training in probability and stochastic processes I still think that many here can comprehend what I am saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do the three toed prints fit in with that "Gaussian distribution"?

      Delete
    2. They don't.

      Read it and weep, "Haints".

      Delete