Thursday, August 31, 2017

Bigfoot Spotted During Bonfire


Multiple people witness a bigfoot crossing a field by a bonfire. They watched the bigfoot as it crossed over a 5 foot tall fence.

107 comments:

  1. ░░░░░▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░█░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▀▀▄░░░░
    ░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒░░█░░░
    ░░░█░░░░░░▄██▀▄▄░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░█░░
    ░▄▀▒▄▄▄▒░█▀▀▀▀▄▄█░░░██▄▄█░░░░█░
    █░▒█▒▄░▀▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒░█
    █░▒█░█▀▄▄░░░░░█▀░░░░▀▄░░▄▀▀▀▄▒█
    ░█░▀▄░█▄░█▀▄▄░▀░▀▀░▄▄▀░░░░█░░█░
    ░░█░░░▀▄▀█▄▄░█▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▀▀█▀██░█░░
    ░░░█░░░░██░░▀█▄▄▄█▄▄█▄████░█░░░
    ░░░░█░░░░▀▀▄░█░░░█░█▀██████░█░░
    ░░░░░▀▄░░░░░▀▀▄▄▄█▄█▄█▄█▄▀░░█░░
    ░░░░░░░▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░█░
    ░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░█░
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░█░░

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trololo... The Full Original Version.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTSA_sWGM44



      REJOICE FELLOW TROLLS FOR WE HAVE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. Did you debunk Bigfoot? Or did you simply creep everyone out to the point that they left??

      How many in this "army of trolls" of yours?

      Delete
    3. I count 5-8 on any given day or topic.

      I have not posted for about a week. It has been very funny to watch you lash out at others thinking its me.

      You really are this stupid,it's not an act. Just amazing.

      Anyway eat a bowl joe.

      The trolls here have you consumed with this place in your real life. That is very obvious just based on your posting habits. Very unhealthy for you.



      Delete
    4. I see that my fellow trolls are brutally beating down Iktomi as usual. I'll check in tomorrow to see if there's anything left of him. Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    5. Yes Stuey, just like "all those people attacking you from a psy-ops experiment from a US airforce base"... You have "all these people helping you get rid of all these evil Bigfoot enthusiasts".

      How many times did you report yourself to blogger today? You're sure to "take this blog down" at the rate you're reporting your own comments, alright!

      (Cuckoo!!!)

      Delete
    6. Bigfoot does not need debunking, it needs proving.

      Delete
    7. The evidence for "Bigfoot" needs to be used in order to classify and prove the hominin. If you have a life-long fear of what that evidence represents, then you need to debunk it or learn to deal with it.

      Help yourself, for crying out loud.

      Delete
    8. Dum Dum Chitty Chitty Dum Dum!

      Dum Dum we know you!

      Delete
    9. Great sense... Why didn't I think of that?

      Delete
  2. I check in here about twice a week out of curiosity to see if anything new has come forth and it's always the same recurring people and stories. I can not understand how even the most ardent believer could not become discouraged and skeptical of what is put forth. Even the most enthusiastic advocate would have to admit that not all these stories and "evidence" could be true so how does one pick and choose which to believe? in my opinion the Sykes study was the last good effort to provide some sort of proof for the existence of Sasquatch and in the end proved nothing. The often bantered "Sykes is coming" with new evidence has not been forthcoming and it appears will not be. The absolutely insane types such as Matthew Johnson are now becoming more dominant with their explanations leading even more people to question the seriousness of the field. The final big blow came with the Finding Bigfoot show which absolutely did no favors to the credibility of Bigfoot existing. After 11 seasons of proving nothing with no evidence to their credit it absolutely amazes me it has lasted as long as it has. I think it has reduced the thought of Bigfoot existing to mere comedy and dismissal.

    So what now? With seemingly everyone now seeing a Bigfoot in almost every state how can anyone explain with a straight face that such a large creature has escaped detection? With the increased technology at our fingertips why is the evidence gathered so sketchy and inconclusive? Who is out there who has the desire and finances to pursue this beyond what a television show can?

    I think the way it is now is exactly how it will stay. These so-called researchers will continue, the stories will continue, the inconclusive evidence will continue, the videos here will continue and the comments both pro and skeptical will continue. I'm afraid Bigfoot will never, ever be proven because it does not exist or it would have been discovered by now. If you are content with that then by all means enjoy the ride but don't expect to ever have your belief verified.

    Just keep repeating to yourself "Sykes is coming".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, however, plaster...

      Delete
    2. Sykes' DNA study is yet to be published, and is in fact due to be, as stated by the man himself. Even if we were to use Sykes' last verdict on Zana, he not only attests to her descriptions that was documented from an entire community, but he was theorising that Zana was an archaic subspecies of homo sapien. Essentially what many enthusiasts as well as myself assert that "Bigfoot" are. So when you're trying to get a reaction feom a closure desperate self-proclaimed victory, keep that in mind Mr Curious.

      For every development in technology, there is a piece of evidence that can be attributed to the existence of this hominin. Footage, audio, thermal... What else do you need when rhetorically demanding more evidence you'll just deny is in existence? Without so much as sourcing one credible acamadic that can demonstrate its all so "inconclusive"? By whose authority should such remarks be published? Personally, I'd never assert such things without being able to reference at least one academic to substantiate my stance... But hey, I must simply "believe in things that don't exist"!

      (Sigh)

      How fortunate for pseudosceptics (who follow the crack pots more than any enthusiast, and conveniently IGNORE the majority of such a community who call these people out), that there should be such people so as to side step what CAN be reliably measured by science and deflect from their shortfalls? And if "Bigfoot" escaped detection all that much, there wouldn't be 60 years of modern reports and track impressions.

      Delete
    3. ikdummy, u delve in to so much unnecessary minutia thinking you can prove a supposed 10 foot tall 800 pound mammal to be real based on a lot of nothing when an actual body would prove you accurate. A million falsities will not add up to one body. Why go in a million different directions when you need only one to be undeniably redeemed?

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

      Delete
    5. "A million falsities"... And by whose authority? Biologists use track impressions & subsequent casts for wildlife surveys, & especially mammal surveys, where they are able to determine the presence of a mammals in an area on the basis of its tracks. Might I remind you... That not by all the sceptical academics in the entire world has this equivalent for the Sasq'ets been shown to be bunk. Neither has it in this BFE fantasy world you live in, where you control the Bigfoot universe. So where is the substance?

      But whilst there's actual evidence for the existence of American hominins, you need to confront that head on. You'd have a far more concrete case by proving there's no evidence whatsoever, than by leaning on the fact there is no modern type specimen whilst nobody is looking. Because there always COULD be a body, in line with a simple negative proof fallacy.

      Common sense dear boy.

      Delete
    6. Common sense would dictate you not spent one millisecond on mountains of unverifiable minutia when one body would suffice.

      Delete
    7. I'm not sure if I understood that, Stuey... Shall we attribute that to my "lack of education"?

      A lack of body, especially when nobody has actually used adequate resources to source on, is pretty much what is expected from we know of recognised hominin social bonds in he past, Stuart. As I've stated before, even very primitive hominins like Homo Naledi, very small braincases, had the capacity to look after their dead.

      "For the first time, a chimpanzee has been observed using tools to clean the corpse of a deceased group member. This behaviour could shed light on the evolutionary origins of human mortuary practices. A female chimpanzee, Noel, at Chimfunshi Wildlife Orphanage Trust in Zambia sat down by the dead body of a young male, Thomas, whom she had previously adopted. She then selected a firm stem of grass, and started to intently remove debris from his teeth. She continued doing this even after the rest of the group had left the corpse. A team of scientists from the University of St Andrews, UK, who observed the behaviour think this could mean that the long-lasting social bonds that chimpanzees form continue to influence their behaviour even after their bonding partner has died."
      https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/2124821-chimp-filmed-cleaning-a-corpses-teeth-in-a-mortuary-like-ritual/amp/

      Even chimps have the capacity to look after their own dead on some primitive level. So whilst there is nobody looking, it is merely rhetorical to lean on a negative proof fallacy. It's not very bright... But I'm not exchanging with Einstein here, of course.

      Delete
    8. I realized this is your passion lktomi but sometimes you have to face the fact that we are no closer to proving Bigfoot exists than when the PG film came out. The descriptions of Zana were from those who saw her from BEFORE the turn of the century (long time ago) and it's important to note that Sykes was THEORIZING she was an archaic homo sapiens not proven fact. If you have any recent news on this supposed forthcoming study please share with us as I have not heard anything further on the subject for quite awhile.

      The state of Bigfoot existing and the evidence is so weak now that most academics won't even waste their time refuting it. Just by the sheer number of those ignoring it over these many years speaks volumes. Can you absolutely vouch for all the "evidence" being presented as authentic? Can you absolutely trace back the background story on how it was collected? Can you absolutely verify that those presenting it are on the up and up? Like it or not footprints and sounds can be manufactured and one can sound off all day about dermal ridges and mid-tarsal joints but it is not beyond the realm of possibility they can be created or misinterpreted.

      Yes, with over 60 years of modern reports and track impressions it is amazing how Bigfoot has escaped detection.

      Really amazing.

      Delete
    9. "Sykes' DNA study is yet to be published, and is in fact due to be, as stated by the man himself."
      Anything recent to support that?

      Delete
    10. Dear ikdummy,

      You can keep shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic but after 50 years of stumbling in the woods...you needed to produce a body 50 years ago.

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

      Delete
    12. Got to move on, ikdummy. It's been fun prolapsing your Medulla oblongata...

      Delete
    13. Um, nope. Since 1967 there is every source of evidence that is expected to be accumulated from an actual biological creature, by every technological advancement that can be afforded and applied by amateur field researchers. If we are no closer to sourcing a cadaver, then that would be because we are no closer to arranging a professional effort to use that evidence to source one.

      Zana's son also had archaic skull morphology, coincidence huh? You see, when you have such data, someone with the academic credentials as Sykes has is pretty much warranted to theorise. So at present, dropping "Sykes is coming" in every comment you publish, when the current default position based on his work favours me, is a bit audacious. I've been very careful not to bring this study up until all the chips are down... I would expect others who are actually aware of the study up until now to do the same. But hey.

      Actually... The state of Bigfoot evidence at present at the point of getting published in journals. And is this the excuse that pseudosceptics are now using? The evidence is so bad that a lack of addressing such "obviously poor evidence" is actually proof positive that there is no reliable evidence? Are pseudosceptics now so narcissistic that they think a total inability to explain away such evidence somehow excludes them from having to explain away said evidence? That's some great scientific logic right there. No Mr Curious... There is nobody explaining away the evidence, because there is no avenue of explaining away the evidence. I can vouch for the evidence being authentic, because it follows tried & tested methods of science that have propped up fields of science for decades. Therefore to question the evidence is to question the validity of said fields of study. You can hoax a lot of things, but you can't hoax things that attest to morphological consistency across different samples. Sounds that are outside of normal human frequencies cannot be hoaxes. It's a matter of common sense. If dermals and mid-tarsal breaks were not beyond the realm of hoaxing, then you'd have sourced at least one academic's case against such evidence. Same with such evidence being misenterpreted. Conjecture does not substantiate alleged conjecture, and you are no more special than anyone else.

      There's a reason why this subject is doing nothing but attracting more enthusiastic PhD's, contrary to your little versions of things. And if such academics are resting such opinion on the physical evidence that is now turning up as being repeatable across continents, "detection" of the most elusive creature on the planet will last as long as someone uses that evidence appropriately. What's amazing are these blinking "debunkings"... They seem to be everywhere yet nowhere. Almost as elusive as "Bigfoot".

      Delete
    14. ^ Save us some time and highlight the part where you provide irrefutable proof of a "bigfoot" body.

      Delete
    15. ... Just as soon as a body of professionals can put an expedition together. Until then, a logical fallacy isn't your best friend.

      I thought you were going Stue?

      Delete
    16. You have to prove it exists. No one has to prove it doesn't exist. It already doesn't exist.

      Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

      How's your "negative proof fallacy" working for you?

      Delete
    17. I know your mind cannot be changed lktomi but don't you have to ask yourself with all this ponderous amount of evidence why some rich financier does not mount a serious expedition to find just one? Such a discovery would pay for his expense many times over and give him fame to boot. How hard could it be with some people reporting seeing them regularly on their property? The answer is that they are wise enough to realize they is not enough substantial evidence to risk such a venture. If there ever was such a chance of that happening I'm sure the series Finding Bigfoot extinguished that possibility.

      Delete
    18. Actually... What I have to do is provide evidence that not only warrants people like me being enthusiastic about its existence... But also warrants people like me demanding such evidence be used to attain classification.

      You demand evidence = I provide = you test it and demonstrate it substantiates your drivel or not.

      That's the formula, dear boy. Substance... It makes the adult world go around. If data exists, in this instance 60 years' worth of track impressions, then it is not a negative and can be tested leaving any assumptions as to its existence behind.It's working about as well as that.

      I thought you were going Stuey? Anyone would think you're not satisfied?

      Delete
    19. Curious... Stuey's dead argument isn't any closer to being alive just because you've rehashed it. The fact that some rich financier hasn't mounted a serious expedition, doesn't mean that a Bigfoot body wouldn't turn up if a some rich financier mounted a serious expedition. It's about as difficult as knowing how to track these hominins, and the very best trackers in the world, Native Americans, will tell you all about how hard that is. And before their collective opinion is called into question, might I add that their oral histories have been substantiated by the evidence that's turned up over the past 60 years.

      Plenty of missing hunters remember... And you won't film a deer in the dark with a film crew, screaming in the wildnerness at night. The simple truth is, there are not enough people who are aware of the current state of evidence. And the readily avaible pop culture doesn't really inspire many who need to be convinced of the existence of this hominin, not to mention anyone with a bit of extra dollar.

      Delete
    20. No one is going to put out every "bigfoot" fire you create. You could present 10 new pieces of evidence a day and people would be wasting all their time cleaning up(disproving) all the messes you create.

      Quit lighting fires and demanding that people put them out and come up with a body.

      Delete
    21. Is that just one big pretentious euphemism for a big fat failure? It certainly read like it, Stuey. Stop babbling and shut me up already! I thought you were leaving, Stuey? Anyone would think you're not satisfied?

      Delete
    22. Joe, you're giving mystical magic status to Native Americans. If there were 10 foot tall 800 pound "bigfoot" the US government and/or private entities would have captured every last one of them 200 years ago, much less today. You're silly.

      Delete
    23. Stop babbling and shut ME up already with a "bigfoot" body!

      Delete
    24. Actually... I'm simply relating their oral histories, to the readily available physical evidence. By this, I can substantiate their opinion that these hominins are extremely difficult to track, since their approach to their existence has validity.

      And as explained to you previously, the evolution of more primitive fire arms to this point, does by no means strengthen the claim that one should have been taken down by now. Especially when you have so many hunters with modern fire power, stating that they had no confidence in achieving that outcome.

      You still around Stue?

      Delete
    25. AnonymousThursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:13:00 PM PDT
      Got to move on, ikdummy.

      ... How odd? And you'll get physical evidence you can't explain away, and like it.

      Delete
    26. Stuey is in alpha mode today. He really must be looking forward to the weekend when he can sleep in which is no different than any other day for him . all those late nights playing xbox and drinking red bull sure makes the lad tuckered out
      Stuey, please get yourself a new hobby mate

      Joe

      Delete
    27. Iltomi,

      Thursday, September 23,2017 at 3:34 AM PDT

      ME And MMC agree that Zana was a STUPID Monkey that was a SubSaharan Black Shoe Shine Slave!

      Delete
    28. You do realise anyone can cut & paste that "quote" into a search engine and see that it's bunk? What type of weird little fantasy cyber-world do you "control"?

      Delete
    29. iktomi, you are the only racist on this blog.

      Delete
    30. Hmmmm... I see. How many more fake quotes can you dream up as proof of that? How many in your imaginary army of trolls? Fascinating...

      Delete

  3. "Got to move on, ikdummy."


    I think Matt will find we have different IPs, Ask him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rattled.

      Yeah, someone who never monitors your most horrid comments is gonna care about proving your IP address...

      Delete
    2. You make a false claim. I ask you to substantiate your false claim. You reply, "rattled".

      Childish.

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

      Delete
    4. Right, because no one here wants bigfoot substantiated.

      LOL

      Delete
    5. It's hard to keep track of your serial comment deletions.

      Delete
    6. It doesn't help that you're so rattled.

      Delete
    7. If only you could "move on"... If only...

      Delete
    8. ^ Thinks Culture appropriating is the next best thing to substantiating palusiable deniability in the quest of bigfoot dermal ridges of hoaxed - bigfoot casts,,,fact!

      Yet is MANIC,in the pursuit of said evidence!

      Delete
    9. ^ That statement actually makes sense!

      Delete
    10. Maybe you can explain it to me? Ask your alter ego Stuey.

      The only thing I picked up on was "hoaxed Bigfoot casts"... And god knows, that's a sore subject for Stuey at present.

      Delete
  4. The oral histories you refer to are open to interpretation and are often quite vague and blur the line between the spiritual and real. In addition by their very nature of being ORAL, they can often become distorted in time. In any case not the best reasoning to use for evidence (unless you accept talking coyotes and owls). I question that modern day native Americans are any better trackers than anyone who spends much of their time outdoors. Perhaps years ago in the early west when their survival depended on it. As for missing hunters why would you attribute that to Bigfoot? What evidence is there to conclude that?

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

      Delete
    2. Um, nope. Have you actually read these oral histories, Mr Curious?
      MAYAK DATAT: THE HAIRY MAN PICTOGRAPHS
      Kathy Moskowitz Strain
      U.S. Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370

      ABSTRACT. The purpose of this article is to examine the association of prehistoric pictographs with contemporary stories told by the Tule River Indians about Hairy Man. Located on the Tule River Indian Reservation, the Painted Rock Pictographs are approximately 1000 years old. According to members of the tribe, the pictographs depict how various animals, including Hairy Man, created People. Other stories tell why Hairy Man lives in the mountains, steals food, and still occupies parts of the reservation. Since the Tule River Indians equate Hairy Man to Bigfoot, the pictograph and stories are valuable to our understanding of the modern idea of a hair-covered giant.
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Mayak%20Datat%20Hairy%20Man%20Pictographs-1.pdf

      Furthermore, these indigenous cultures have used ceremonies, dances, utensil designs like baskets, all these things indigenous people do to pass down historical events, identity and culture... Have these hominins in them. When cultural traditions manifest into modern day mediums to the extent of multiple databases of reports, that have physical sources of evidence to support, then there is actually nothing more profound to be honest. If it didn't exist, then you'd merely demand it, and such a steady flow of anthropological data is NOT to the detriment of this creature's credibility (audacious to suggest otherwise).

      It's not just my humble opinion that Native Americans are the very best trackers. Also, there are three books written by an ex-police officer with the collaboration and in dedication to search & rescue personnel that list case upon case where people are missing via circumstances that cannot fall under the bracket of any known animal. All such cases that have a remote chance of falling within these possibilities are not added to the clusters of missing people in these books. There is simply too many experts out there that easily recognise the fights people have with recognised animals before being taken and killed. What's been proven, is that there is forensic evidence for a creature that fits the description for what natives have stated for thousands of years are taking people in these environments.

      Delete
    3. Have you? Do you accept that EVERYTHING in these oral histories are based on factual repeated stories? You have heard of urban legends? Fairy tales? Old wife tales?

      Yes I'm aware of Paulides books and I'm also aware that there are those who have challenged his conclusions such as Kyle Polich. Many of these disappearances can be explained away by simple natural causes but people love a good mystery and that is why his books are so popular.

      Forensic evidence? For Bigfoot? Well if there is it sure hasn't proven anything.

      Delete
    4. Um, yes. Based on the sheer frequency of similar oral histories across impossible geographical divide. Urban legends, fairy tales and old wives tales aren't usually at indegebous people's cultural core, like is seen in North America. And all the "mythical legends" or "tales" you can think of are not being reported by modern cultures that found the previous undesirable.

      Cool! Maybe Kyle Polich can challenge the innumerable search & rescue perseonnel that have contributed to these accounts of missing people being published? "Many of thes disappearances can be explained away by simple natural causes", yet these people remain missing, and are currently acknowledged by search and rescue personal... You know... The actual experts... To be outside of any normal situation to which such experts are accustomed to recognising?

      Yes, forensic evidence would account for dermatoglyphics. But nothing short of extraordinary evidence (a body) would convince denialists... On second thoughts, it would probably just be a "hairy deformed tramp".

      Delete
    5. ^ co-opting NA myths to fit white hobby

      Zero proof hunters/hikers are being kidnapped by "bigfoot"...beyond silly

      we'll deal with your "bigfoot" body when you present one,,,,you never have and never will.

      wipe the stucco off your chin before you go out, iktomi.

      Delete
    6. The very fact that there's evidence to substantiate the creature at the core of these "NA myths", means there's a steady flow of very significant anthropological data that can only exist around a genuine biological creature over thousands of years. And since there's all that anthropological data that is supported by physical evidence... the fact that people are going missing in the present, is consistent with the past. Sure, some of these missing cases have freakishly rare and desperately unfortunate circumstances that don't always equate to what I'm suggesting, but the many reports from hunters as to how temperamental these hominins can be, is again, extremely important data.

      You're still around??? Didn't you have to be somewhere?

      Delete
    7. "...means there's a steady flow of very significant anthropological data that can((((only exist around a genuine biological creature)))) over thousands of years."

      HAHAHAHA! It can only mean that, huh? LOL

      There is ZERO evidence that 1 single human has EVER been kidnapped by a bigfoot.

      You posted a fantasy, ikdummy.

      Stick to plaster. LOL

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

      Delete
    9. Actually... There is testimony from children who have been found, stating being chased by "ape people" whilst being missing. Whilst there is both cultural and modern accounts to these hominins' temperaments... As well as physical evidence for their existence, then you're gonna need a bit more than fake laugher, Stuey.

      Still around Stue?

      Delete
    10. Zero evidence any children were actually chased by ape people.

      Zero evidence of cultural or modern accounts being true.

      Which brings you back to plaster. 10000 ape people and you need to go plaster... because plaster exists...

      Delete
    11. Actually... You have testimony of said children, where the creatures reported are in fact substantiated by physical evidence that's been sourced over the last 60 years. There's so much of that physical evidence, in fact, that average height and weight of the hominins leaving it can be ascertained. Casts of track impressions even show size variation of that follow what is called Gaussian distribution. That would not be the case if tracks were being hoaxed on a large scale. These casts follow a natural pattern of said distribution, and as a result belong to a real bipedal hominin. Cultural and modern accounts, again, which substantiated by the same physical evidence. The morphological detail in that physical evidence, which is repeatable across different examples across different continents, is what's getting that evidence published in journals. If this is what's keeping you from being satisfied... I suggest you address it here;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/man-with-life-long-interest-in-subject.html?m=0

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/surrounded-by-bigfoot-noises.html?m=0

      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/paranormal-creatures-in-woods.html?m=0

      Delete
    12. Gaussian distribution is another term for Normal distribution but regardless of your lack of explanation of this type of distribution it certainly is a keen way for a Chav to get sidetracked with a fancy term. If Jeff had published his confirmation bias in anything more substantial than a fringe journal for pseudoscience he would have have his fire put out but his irresponsible findings don't rise to that level.

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

      Delete
    14. Joerg, were you really awake until 5 AM last night in your alleged home country arguing about bigfoot? Wow. Just wow.

      Delete
    15. I just couldn't get any sleep. Your Bigfoot debunkings were just too much for me to handle.

      Don't get aroused, it's called sarcasm.

      Delete
    16. Take my non-sarcastic advice: get some sleep Joerg! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    17. You don't know what Gaussian distribution is. Your explanation used the word, not the definition.

      Phds participating in pseudoscience doesnt legitimize it, silly.

      'bigfoot' doesn't even rise to the level of an expedition, much less debunking what jeff writes in a fringe journal.

      It's not up to me to put out every meldrum fire.

      Present a bigfoot body, not a science fiction journal with a confirmation-biased author writing about plaster casts of an alleged creature.

      Delete
    18. AnonymousThursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:13:00 PM PDT
      Got to move on, ikdummy.

      14 hours later? Narcissism must remove you from reality so much, I feel for your dear boy. At least you have a free diagnosis. Sorry I can't say the same for a Bigfoot debunking.

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

      Delete
    20. I guess in remembrance of Jerry Lewis, Joerg will be having his own Labor Day weekend bigfoot blogathon! Have fun wasting your life on this blog Joerg. Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    21. AnonymousThursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:13:00 PM PDT
      Got to move on, ikdummy.

      14 hours later? Tut, tut, tut...

      Delete
    22. IktomiThursday, August 31, 2017 at 10:07:00 PM PDT
      "Casts of track impressions even show size variation of that follow what is called Gaussian distribution. That would not be the case if tracks were being hoaxed on a large scale. These casts follow a natural pattern of said distribution, and as a result belong to a real bipedal hominin."

      ... That pretty much reads like an explanation to me Stuart. Are you sure you read the comment properly? By whose example does the work in that journal qualify as "pseudoscience". Fringe, fringe, fringe"... So much "fringe" yet such a lack of substance against the "plaster" published in that journal. Oh but it is up to you, Stuart... 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. Provide substance against this "science fiction journal" Stuey... I keep reading a lot of crying and no substance??

      Delete
    23. ikdummy Gaussian definition: "Casts of track impressions...."

      Gaussian distribution has nothing to do with tracks. I asked you to define or explain Gaussian distribution.

      Setting fires is bad, ikdummy. That's what firefighters are for. Your fires don't even rise to the level of firefighter response. Ridiculing your comic pomposity is entertainment only.

      Delete
    24. I explained Gaussian distribution. Nobody said it defines tracks, Stuey, but it can be applied to variation in tack impressions all the same. It's ok, there's a few around here that recognise you struggle with literacy, you're excused. And all the while, Gaussian distribution in said impressions doesn't go debunked.

      A busy idiot... All the efforts in all the wrong places.

      I don't "rise to your level", because you a total failure. You can't address it. Your idea of substance is logical fallacies. Which in the last few weeks has amounted to both negative proof and circular logic. Pair that off with you're uneducated and unqualified opinion that you seem to think has some worth against PhD's, it doesn't impress anyone Stuey. You'd be laughed off by cringing sceptics in any forum. How many years of harassing people on line, and where has it got you, Stuey? How could it possible have come to this brick wall you're facade with?

      Oh dear.

      Delete
    25. Please try to rephrase that babbling nonsense ikdummy.

      Delete
    26. "variation in tack impressions."
      "because you a total failure."
      "you're uneducated and unqualified opinion."

      I feel like I'm debating a three year old. And how many times have I had to explain to you the difference between "you're" and "your" and yet you still keep confusing the two. It's like you're incapable of learning! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    27. Stuey... You use capitals for the first letters of names. Surely someone so preoccupied with deflecting to typing errors shouldn't be lacking in such kids level grammar? What was your excuse last time, we "weren't worthy of capitals"? (Seriously creased) How many times have you had to explain what? "Find in page" & type "your" & "you're". You live in this little fantasy world Stuey... It's a fascinating insight into the world of someone who's life revolves around a cyber-reality.

      Delete
    28. You just misused "you're" you damn moron. Are you really this illiterate? Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    29. "Find in page" & type "your" or "you're".

      Substance?

      Delete
    30. I just told you, can you not read?

      ". . . that off with you're [sic] uneducated and unqualified opinion that you seem to think has some worth against PhD's."

      For about the 1,000th time, "you're" is a contraction of "you are" and "your" is a second person possessive. Got it now bird brain?

      Delete
    31. "Find in page" & type "your" or "you're"... As in read how many times I've not typo'd it, you dense troll.

      Adios.

      Delete
  5. You did not define Gaussian distribution, ikdummy.

    No one takes the time to deconstruct meldrums nonsense in the same way no one has funded a "bigfoot" expedition. It's silly. You're silly. You're unintentionally funny and entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, plenty have tried, Stuey... If you were up to the standard of half decent pseudosceptics, you'd know this. Anthropologists such as David Daegling & David Begin have tried... all of which are now totally blown out of the water with the disclosure & publishing of those Yeren casts.

      Yes, how amused you must be to have to have someone from the opposite side of the playing field point out your best players. I bet you're in hysterics... Would you like some popcorn?

      Delete
    2. ... And why do I need to "define" Gaussian distribution, Stuey? Are you sure there is actual relevance in your little deflections? I'm not so sure??

      Delete
    3. You're admitting that 'bigfoot' expeditions haven't merited funding by anyone with resources. No kidding.

      Plaster blows away any of your other "evidence" ..... not something to brag about...

      hysterics = projecting

      way too easy, ikdummy

      Delete
    4. You still can't define Gaussian distribution. First you said you already did, now you say you don't need to.

      Delete
    5. I've admitted what? Stuart, is it really that desperate for you, that you now need to put words in people's mouths?

      Stuey... The irony here is that "plaster" is the obstacle of serious projection on your part. For all the millions of times you've published that word of late, I'm not reading any reason to not consider that evidence. Do you think any of the pseudosceptics you aspire to be would continue to assert something they repeatedly fail to substantiate?

      How many more times are you gonna flunk at this?

      (Yawn)

      Delete
    6. Stuey, you didn't answer the question... If you know what it means, why do I need to "define" Gaussian distribution? Are you sure there is actual relevance in your little deflections?

      Was that a little Freudian slip, dear boy?

      Delete
    7. You don't know what Gaussian distribution is.

      You are rationalizing(another psyc 101 term) that plaster "blows away" a 'bigfoot' body.

      I've successfully made you boil down all your "evidence" of 10,000 strong, 10 foot tall, 800 lb creatures to a piece of plaster.

      I'm here to ridicule you.

      Delete
    8. No, of course I don't... That's why I used it to substantiate track impressions. Well done Stuey, you're gonna get accepted at JREF in not time.

      I've rationalised what? "Plaster blows away" what?? Stuart, is it really that desperate for you, that you now need to put words in people's mouths?

      Stuart... You've never, ever, ever addressed evidence such as hair samples, audio, footage, thermal... I have bookmarked innumerable comment sections with exchanges with people ten times cleverer than you (who still aren't all that bright), where I'm still waiting on a challenge... And then we come back to "plaster". A word I'm still not seeing accompanied with substance.

      Oh the ridicule... How will I ever cope?

      Delete
    9. You use the term Gaussian distribution but you don't know what Gaussian distribution is. That hasn't changed.

      "....all of which are now totally blown out of the water with the disclosure & publishing of those Yeren casts."

      Why take the steps necessary to get a body when an article about plaster casts is better? You are rationalizing.

      bob and weave ikdummy, no one can put out all the inconsequential little fires set by bigfooters. What about all of DS's evidence of Catman and other cryptids. You dismiss it outright but you've never even been to the US to check out his evidence? DS has published 1000s of videos. Have you watched every one of them and gone to the area they were videotaped?

      Unless you are a troll, which you probably are, capturing 1 or more of the alleged 10,000, 10 foot tall 800 lb hairy apemen in the USA would be all you need. Not audio, not folk tales, not "thousands of years of oral tradition", not tv shows, not fibers, not plaster, not costumes, not videos,,,,,,

      Delete
    10. No, of course I don't, Stuart... That's why I used it to substantiate track impressions. Well done Stuey, you're gonna get awarded your PhD at this rate. Don't worry about your Freudian slip... we'll forget about that for now.

      Sorry Stuart... You're taking a comment out of context and desperately trying to worm it to your plaster drivel, in some serious weirdo fashion. Anthropologists being schooled about Meldrum's work is one thing, using track impressions to source a Bigfoot body is another. Same general subject, different types of evidence and a proponent preoccupied with research into evolutionary bipedalism. I've rationalised what exactly? It's always very cringey when you try and come across clever, Stuey.

      "Bobbing and weaving"... I'm still not reading substance about track impressions? The data is there, if someone is critical of it they bear a burden. If you can't, then you're just gonna get more and more and more angrier about it. It's as simple as that, you NEED to help yourself in this respect.

      DS has no physical evidence. Nobody is seeing catmen in the US. I don't need to set foot in the US to know that. I also don't have to be a biologist to recognise tree bark when I see it.

      Whilst there's actual evidence for the existence of American hominins, you need to confront that head on. Especially since you like to use so many quotation marks. You'd have a far more concrete case by proving there's no evidence whatsoever, than by leaning on the fact there is no modern type specimen whilst nobody is looking. Because there always COULD be a body, in line with a simple negative proof fallacy. A logical fallacy, dear boy.

      Common sense,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, F-AC.

      Delete
  6. You DO NOT know what a Freudian slip is either and you still have no clue what Gaussian distribution is.

    Not out of context, ikdummy. You have rationalized this plaster nonsense to be as good as a body. It's not in the same city, much less the same ballpark.

    plaster or bob and weave, you do one or the other

    DS's creatures have bodies, that IS his physical evidence. You're too wrapped up in knowing you'll never have a body to even consider a body physical evidence. People mistake bugs for leaves in some instances. Camo much? DS's work is as REAL as meldrums.

    No proven evidence for 'bigfoot'. Your only "concrete case" is plaster. There COULD be a 'bigfoot' body in DS's videos. Because there always COULD be a body, in line with a simple negative proof fallacy. A logical fallacy, dear boy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaaaaaaaargh of course Stuey... Maybe I'll explain to you what "Freudian slip" means next time, since you've inadvertently asked me to explain that to you as well, ha ha ha!!

      The "catmen" in DS's footage are most certainly a negative. Nobody see's them or has even heard of them before DS came along. The morphology in plaster casts is data, there are no assumptions as to its existence either way and therefore, not a negative. It can therefore be tested.

      You take care now Stuey... Substance dear boy... Substance.

      Delete
    2. Take your example of what you believe to be my Freudian Slip onto a psychology forum and ask them if them if is one and publish a link to their answer here, ikdummy.

      The "bigfoot" in P/G footage is most certainly a negative. Having someone with confirmation bias push plaster casts as real 'bigfoot' prints does not make 'bigfoot' real.

      Delete
    3. Maybe, if you're a good boy and promise you're ready to learn... I'll explain to you what "Freudian slip" means next time.

      ; )

      Costumes are not negative, Stuey. You can look whole databases of SFX techniques to test the PGF. Also... The exact same track impressions left by the subject in the PGF, um... (cough, cough)... Were found in China?

      Too easy.

      Take care.

      : p

      Delete
    4. AnonymousThursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:13:00 PM PDT
      Got to move on, ikdummy.

      OUCH!!!!

      Delete
    5. Take your example of what you believe to be my Freudian Slip onto a psychology forum and ask them if them if is one and publish a link to their answer here, ikdummy.

      Delete
    6. I get it. You have no formal education and you're struggling to put it all together and you believe you're part of something big declaring plaster a species.

      Simple creature, you.

      Delete