World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
We're going to stop showing Dodson because DS hated him
You should stop commenting on here because we hate you.
Make me chump.
You set yourself up all day. Youre the chump.
"I blow goats"-Joe Fitsgerald
If you ,,,,,speak,,,,, against Joe you .....speak..... against meThe Real AC Collins
GOD BLESS YOU AC Collins.the real one that is!
All of the above banned^
Mr. Dodson is certainly an interesting fellow. Frankly I'm more curious about his personal background than his his hunt for Bigfoot.Now lktomi has commented about the psychological aspects of people who claim to have researched and now don't believe and spend a lot of their time on Bigfoot blogs claiming they don't which I presumptuously assume he's referring to me. This is a fair statement and one I ponder myself. I obviously no longer believe so why waste my time commenting on a Bigfoot blog? I already realize I will convince no one to change their mind. 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. He must realize that anything he writes will have little effect in changing the general public's view of Bigfoot. From what I can determine there are not that many posters here so his audience is rather limited. He's obviously very passionate about his belief however because of his location cannot even do any research of his own (unless you believe there are Bigfoot in England). It's also obvious he spends a lot of time on this blog so his views must be very important to him.Now for the record I don't consider myself a researcher as the only thing I have done in this area is make a side trip to Carter Farm while on vacation. Now if you want to call me a researcher that's fine (mom would be so proud?) it doesn't bother me but I feel unworthy of the title. Also I actually comment very little here compared to others. I actually wish I could but just can't find the time. I do try to read the posts as much as I can (guilty pleasure) as I find them amusing.So the big question - why do each of us come here? Well, the short answer is we are both a little nuts but I think when you get right down to it . . . it's just fun. I think lktomi enjoys the back and forth debate and I enjoy reading about the researchers and the comments here regarding them. I am also curious why some are so passionate that they must exist. It's not the end of the world if they don't. If people wish to believe in Bigfoot so be it but I myself can no longer be persuaded by dated articles by a few professionals, dubious evidence and eyewitness reports. Now the most recent effort (Dr. Sykes's DNA study) came up with nothing from the samples sent to him. He alludes to something interesting with what he refers to as the "Walla Walla" hair but so far nothing has materialized. I think I would like the man very much however he's not infallible as he suggested evidence of the existence of fossil polar bear and was proved wrong. He admitted his mistake much to his credit. With this in mind we have to be vigilant to all the claims of these professionals who claim of Bigfoot evidence. In the end I suppose I have as much right to come here as any believer but I do try to be fairly respectful even if I am highly skeptical of some's claims. Remember - it's all in good fun!
Are you stalking Robert Dodson?
I THINK CURIOUS IS AWESOME!!Jotomi,, not so much!!THE REAL "F-AC.
I believe he saw one and also was an independent investigator for a few years.
Cover yourself Curious, pervy Fake AC is sniffing around.
"With this in mind we have to be vigilant to all the claims of these professionals who claim of Bigfoot evidence."I agree, Curious. This hints at one of Joe's fatal flaws. Anything proclaimed as bigfoot evidence from a source Joe deems credible can never be wrong. Retraction is just not in his vocabulary. This is why he clings to decades old evidence demanding explanations.
You two have a lot in common alright. But will both your big swollen heads fit on the same thread?AC Collins
I have something swollen that I can shove up your arse!
Anon @4:44 is sniffin around for some "HEAVY TIMBER" me think's.
That seems to be a problem in proving Bigfoot's existence. Much is relied upon a few individuals with the credentials to back them up however when you dig a little deeper you usually find they had a belief all along and wanted to support that belief.Take Dr. Henner Fahrenbach for example. Very impressive credentials and a man who at face value is convincing with his evidence if one is so inclined. However speaking at a Bigfoot convention in Jefferson, Texas he went into great detail about the sexual habits of Bigfoot. Talking of Bigfoot orgies and . . . well, just read for yourself:http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/10/everythings-bigfoot-in-texasI'm sorry but this does not do wonders for his reputation and indeed puts much of what he has presented in doubt to me.
Sorry Curious 4:59 but "this" Curious is not into arses - LOL.
"You two have a lot in common alright. But will both your big swollen heads fit on the same thread?AC Collins"Well, it's not like you and your tiny balls are going to take up too much room.
Americans only commenting on the great American wood ape please
Bindernagle comes across as quite unhinged in his videos, particularly the most recent one. Not to say that eccentricity has anything to do with a claim. It's always about the evidence. Bindernagle makes too many leaps of faith that the evidence just does not firmly support. For example, in The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010), he shows pictures of what looks to be where an animal has dug out some field mice in the winter for predation. He claims it is bigfoot that did it. That is a huge leap of faith. You cannot even 100% conclude the markings were made by a digging animal, but we can concede that point for now. But to go further and state it was the result of a winter foraging bigfoot is irresponsible, reckless and unprofessional. This type of thing is common with credentialed bigfoot enthusiasts.
When I was young I did believe it was a possibility that Bigfoot existed. The PG film came out at just the right impressionable age and I truly WANTED to believe. Now fast forward to the present and we still have no solid evidence for it's existence. I believe the Sykes study was the best possible chance to prove it and it came up empty. I'm not sure if anyone in mainstream science will ever devote the effort as Dr. Sykes has done again but there is still however a mystery. . . but it's my belief it's psychologically based.
Dmaker and Curious have suspiciously similar writing styles.
Thnx for the tip Donny!AC Collins
Hey AC Collins, why does Iktomi call you "F-AC"? Is there another AC Collins?
Hell ya Brah,,,"HEAPS"!!AC Collins
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr. Sykes tests showed nothing because every time a sample came back with human contamination it was dismissed. Well if Bigfoot is part human its going to have human contamination. In a study done on some very reputable Sierra samples the first 3 times they were tested they came back with human contamination. Someone pointed out that Bigfoot is part human and it was retested. The mitochondrial DNA came back human and the nuclear came back as unknown primate. Thats what I believe confused Dr. Sykes. He even mentioned that a lot of his samples had human contamination (according to him since he had never seen a bigfoot DNA sample) and were not used. So to only use Dr. Sykes test as a foundation for a dismissal of Bigfoot is to be short sighted. There is much to be studied. It can be argued that this species has spent thousands of years learning to stay away from humans at all costs. It became imperative to its very survival. Given that humans are VERY predictable in movement and travel (staying within game trails almost to a fault) its not hard to see that an intelligent species such as this, could stay almost invisible to us for 99% of the time. Even then hundreds of sightings happen every year.
It's not a matter of that Sasq'ets must exist, it's a matter of looking at the frequency of evidence and deducing that they can't not exist based upon it. If something exists it isn't seen for hundreds, thousands of years, which is then mirrored in the present by three databases of modern reports by cultures who are largely prejudiced, and it in turn doesn't leave physical evidence behind. It's not like we have a few tracks here, the physical evidence which is found tens of miles in wilderness areas simply can't be hoaxed. To me, it's either everyone is lying or mistaken... Or all that is real. The former requires a far greater leap of faith than the latter. 1. Dated articles. If the evidence I post is significant enough to be brought up after any serious length of time, however old it is, then that's your problem not mine. It merely suggests that it's lasted the special pleading of innumerable lazy pseudosceptics who haven't found a way around it. If there is forensic evidence from 20-30 years ago, then it merely shows that there is a steady flow of good evidence over a duration from which amateur research began, generally encompassing the last 60 years. There is nothing in scientific theory that states that scientific evidence lessens the more it's substantiated over time. That is embarrassing logic. 2. Dubious Evidence.Hoaxers would have to have guessed a shared morphology of Sasquatch foot, encompassing total accuracy regarding bipedal evolution that only very few educated people understand. Hoaxers would 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. 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.3. As touched upon previously, thousands of years of reports mirrored in the present by people who risk ridicule, which account for three databases of reports.
Vigilance is cool. Vigilance is needed. When you're trying to justify being wrong for turning your back on a subject for your efforts, denial is a contraction of these high standards that I've never seen the likes of you, Curious, or dMaKeR uphold. Curious, I notice this is the thirds time you've brought up a presentation source that has nothing to address the evidence Dr Fahrenach endorses for Sasq'ets? You do this a lot. I'm not sure if you actually read be comments of others, but I would expect someone with such "vigilance" and high standards to at least find a source that does more than scoff and character attack the proponents. I took the liberty of reading the link you provided on Fahrenbach and typically I came across...• Listing with cynicism and scoff some of the things he cites as eyewitness testimony in his presentations. • Rick Dyer's hoax. • Listing with mere cynicism the claims of Sasquatch sounds. • Scoffing at the efforts of researchers listing hoaxing costume methods for spotting hoaxers. • Insults at people who attend conferences.• More cynicism at Meldrum selling plaster casts. • Suggesting that researchers are worthy of ridicule from the media. • Scoffing at a collective audience opinion that Sasquatch shouldn't be killed. • Being cynical as to the honestly of researchers' intentions to keep Sasquatch at bay and always "mythical". • And lastly, cynicism at Henner for again reiterating what innumerable hunters have stated, in that a standard hunting rifle won't take down what is being widely reported (size). ... Um, was that vigilance towards the hair examples I've provided in references? Was that meant to be an explanation for Henner's research? You see, I'm not sure you should be talking about scientific vigilance if that's the case. Cynicism is an attitude or state of mind characterized by a general distrust of others' motives. Unfortunately, attitudes and opinions do not begin to explain away the research of scientists, or what appears to be reliable data. Most other scientists, those in the majority without the academic credentials Bindernagle has, widely believe in what they are studying to be fruitful prior to results, hence the effort. Does that make then any less credible? Pseudosceptics discredit people for finding what they set out to look for. The idea that someone should be less credible because they have a preconceived belief is difficult to swallow, because it assumes that people are wrong for looking at the subject's evidence and making an informed conclusion, and is in fact narcissistic to your own preconceived agenda. The psychological aspects of people who claim to have researched and now don't believe and spend a lot of their time on Bigfoot blogs claiming they don't, is just as fascinating to me. Especially those who turned their hand to looking for something, and came up with nothing for their efforts. To then claim they have anything but bitterness for a subject that owed them something for their invested time, is for sure very dubious.
And to "dMaKeR". When you are convinced on the basis of scientific evidence that a creature is real and you've seen sign of it in the general area to which Bindernagle made that claim, it is natural for a biologist to look for sources with which can be pointed to as attempts at feeding. To me, it's very plausible that a large archaic human would do that. To someone in denial about the evidence he's based his conslusions upon; "unhinged". When you've established that a creature's existence is valid, you are warranted as a PhD to make educated speculations based on that evidential security. Is he correct? Dunno... But if I were you I would be more preoccupied with addressing the evidence that's led him to make such speculations, because scoffing at everything afterwards is pointless when the creature being speculated about is already being seen to exist. I'll take the opinion of a PhD biologist over yours any day.
Good call Averege Joe, Too bad Sykes didn't spend $84 bucks on the bigfoot samples provided to him, Hell!! ancestry .com could have told him what race the contaminated samples were,(Hasda,Bantu,Zandawe,Masia,Pygmy, hell,,,,even Idaltu!) and cancer susceptibility,closest ancestral population,eye colour,,,,ect,,,ON JUST A QUICK MITO BLAST!!Just think what a full Nuclear DNA scan for $1500 bucks would have turned up?? angels baby!! ANGELS. Lol!THE REAL F-AC
Gah gah guh guh ga gah, bigfoot believe, hak hak gahJoe
Something grabbed the camera alright. Take a look at this publicity seekers left hand. There is a glove on it. Now take a look a the photo above. Sure enough. A 100% match. This guy is a hoaxer, a fraud, a charleton.
You can't trust anyone anymore.....
When you can't get any evidence, these researchers HOAX!! I TOLD EVERYONE LONG AGO THIS DOUCHEBAG DODSON WAS GOING TO DO THIS...AGAIN!
Your right DS, I'm glad to see you contribute still, keep us posted on any new discoveries, we'll be having a talk with Iktomi because this is an American bigfoot site about the great American wood ape and we really like to feature Americans and a few Canadians because America is the natural habitat of the great American wood ape
I will thanks!