Thursday, September 14, 2017

Bigfoot Banged On The Outhouse


Woodbooger Farm on youtube searches his property for evidence after he caught a bigfoot peeking in his window, and a couple others hanging out in the yard. Check out what he discovers:

145 comments:

  1. I wasnt going to extend this courtesy after the last blunder that required my valuable time to resolve. The title here again is misleading. Bigfoot does not exist so to label something as a consequence of bigfoot is misleading and I would say highly unethical. I have emailed the account to let them know of this critical mistake. Lets keep bigfoot in the context of fiction. This hilarious topic really gets ruined when people start pretending its a real monster. Anyway you are welcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Population Clines of the North American Sasquatch As Evidenced By Track Lengths and Estimated Statures
      By George W. Gill

      "This article notes that there is a striking degree of internal consistency amongst reports of purported Sasquatch sightings and footprints. The author applies zoological rules of distribution to the reported stature, track length, and fur colour of the creatures and finds that the conformity of sighted characteristics to these rules is high. He concludes that such evidence argues against considering all such sightings as hoaxes and that it supports the possibility that these beings are natural phenomena."
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/92-population-clines-of-the-north-american-sasquatch-as-evidenced-by-track-lengths-and-estimated-statures

      From: Manlike Monsters On Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence, Marjorie Halpin & Michael M. Hames (eds) (University of British Columbia Press, 1980.)

      "George W. Gill has excavated and studied several hundred human skeletons from tropical west Mexico, Easter Island, and the Great plains of North America. His travels have carried him to 45 countries and all 50 states, where he has been able to develop notes and slides on many peoples and cultures. Dr. Gill has developed osteological collections which form parts of the national museum collections of Mexico and Chile, served as scientific leader of National Geographic Society's 1981 Easter Island Anthropological Expedition, and has been active in skeletal identification for law enforcement agencies as a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He has served as Secretary and Chairman of the Physical Anthropological Section of the AAFS and as a member of the Board of Directors of the national certification board for forensic anthropologists."

      Dr. Gill is considered by many to be the foremost world expert on native American and western forensic anthropology.

      Delete
    2. Great fiction would recommend!

      Delete
    3. Sorry, ikdummy. The conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species.

      Delete
    4. Anal wart removal cream ! (audio): http://youtu.be/D7Mh0uNjwVw

      Stu-wart. The pharmacy called and left you a message

      Mommy

      P.s. clean your basement room

      Delete
    5. There is nothing in biological research, or scientific theory, that confirms that verified scientific data is by default irrelevant, if it is as of yet unused to track and classify what's leaving that verified scientific data.

      Fiction doesn't manifest into 60 years of track impressions, studied by a long list of scientists, notably the likes of a world expert on Native American and western forensic anthropology.

      Now shut up, you stupid troll.

      Delete
    6. Sorry, ikdummy. The conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species.

      Delete
    7. It didn't make the verified evidence for Sasq'ets go away the first time you published it.

      Delete
    8. Sorry, ikdummy. The conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species.

      Delete
    9. Rhetorically demanding a type specimen, when the hominin you're crying about is already shown to exist in the physical evidence it leaves, is futile.

      Your burden.

      Delete
    10. Sorry, ikdummy. The conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species.

      Your burden.

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

      Delete
    12. My burden is to demonstrate, via idiots like you, how ignorant and perversely denialist stances are futile when showing that enthusiasts have plenty of reliable scientific evidence to warrant such enthusiasm.

      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... And with the manner in which you're safety netting and repeating yourself, I'll take that a proper roasting.

      Delete
    13. Sorry, ikdummy. The conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species.

      Your burden.

      Schooled.

      Delete
    14. False...

      A knew species may be reliably documented, as long as evidence is scientifically repeatable. Classification may elude researchers due to endangered numbers to harvest a specimen, a lack of expedition to source a cadaver, etc.

      Research does not start with classification. If something isn't reported to exist, or shown to exist on some reliable level, then people are unaware of any such creature's potential existence to study, and efforts to classify cannot occur.

      Your version of how biological research works flies in the face of innumerable studies, and is the cart before the horse... Not to mention plain stupid.

      Delete
    15. ikdummy: "False..."

      "I should reiterate my acknowledgement that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species." ~Jeffrey Meldrum

      Delete
    16. Jeffrey Meldrum: "I should reiterate my acknowledgement that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species."

      ikdummy: "False..."

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

      Delete
    18. Jeffrey Meldrum: "I should reiterate my acknowledgement that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species."

      ikdummy: "False..."

      Delete
    19. The Bili Ape required no such classification prior to expeditions bein put in place to document one via footage. Plus, I believe Jeff is referring to a potential new classification of a new species, as opposed to whether the creature exists pre-classification.

      Delete
    20. Meldrum could make a taxidermy from the hair samples he stole off me!

      Delete
    21. That's of course, you wanna claim that Meldrum doesn't believe Sasq'ets exists without a classification.

      Delete
    22. I have all the possible Physical evidence any research will ever get Iktomi.
      WE NEED A BODY, NOT SURE HOW YOU CAN ARGUE AGAINST THAT!

      Delete
    23. ikdummy argues against a body. He's got things covered from Wales.

      Delete
    24. Sorry Stuey, nobody's arguing against a body... You're trying so hard now that you're putting words in people's mouths. But we never need a particular race, or a tribe member killed and examined like an animal when we come across a lost tribe in the jungle, for example.

      And look how much you digress... There's still scientific data studied by the likes of world experts on Native American and western forensic anthropology, annihilating any "fiction" nonsense.

      Delete
    25. How was Dr. Meldrum's statement false ikdummy?

      Delete
    26. Your interpretation of it was false, Stuey.

      Delete
    27. Joerg makes these kinds of stupid mistakes all the time. It's pretty sad that he's been maniacally obsessed with this subject for the last five years (and probably much longer) and he doesn't even understand the most basic concepts regarding the subject matter! Ha Ha Ha!

      Delete
    28. My mistake was thinking you had at least something in the way of scientific logic as a challenge this morning. Turns out I stooped too low again.

      Laters Stuey!

      Delete
    29. Joerg, you should send an email to Medrum, detailing your reasons for disagreeing with his statement. I'll even volunteer to profread your email so Meldrum doesn't recognize you as the illiterate imbecile that you are! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    30. "...illiterate imbecile that you are! Ha ha ha!"

      Delete
    31. Your shoddy interpretation of both how biological field research works, as well as what Meldrum means by classification, isn't really my problem to send any emails about Stuey. Maybe you could email Dr. Gill and run your thousands' year old, culture hopping hoaxing conspiracy past him?

      Now there's an idea?

      Delete
    32. AnonymousThursday, September 14, 2017 at 6:39:00 AM PDT
      The conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species.

      True or false, ikdummy?


      IktomiThursday, September 14, 2017 at 6:46:00 AM PDT
      Good god, what a meltdown... Ha ha ha!!

      False... A knew species may be reliably documented, as long as evidence is scientifically repeatable. Classification may be elduded due to endangered numbers to harvest a specimen, a lack of expedition to source a cadaver, etc.

      Research does not start with classification. If something isn't shown to exist, then people are unaware of any such creature to study, and efforts to classify cannot occur.

      Child's level stuff.

      Delete

    33. IktomiThursday, September 14, 2017 at 7:03:00 AM PDT

      Delete
    34. There's no interpretation ikdummy. You were simply asked if Meldrum's statement was true or false. You not only declared it false, but stated that it was "child's level stuff."

      Now start writing that email to Dr. Meldrum explaining to him how he doesn't understand "child's level stuff." Ha Ha Ha!!!

      Delete
    35. Meldrum's statement is indeed false, should it be in respect to the legitimacy of a creature's existence pre-classification. It is however not at all in relation to that, and in fact only an interpretation on your part that is somehow props up your cart before he horse drivel.

      : p

      Delete
    36. ... And of course, you'd never be accountable for such silly conspiracy theory nonsense... You can't even grow a pair to even attempt to try and substantiate such silliness when asked to around here.

      Just like your "proud racism", you never seem to want to stick by your wild assertions. What a phoney.

      Delete
    37. I have been getting banged in my outhouse for years now...big strapping hairy guys with huge dicks are just the job.

      Joe

      Delete
    38. Question was for Iktomi, and if i had heard, i would not be asking.

      Delete
    39. Stick to the "alba witches" DS.

      Delete
    40. Just curious why a lady would refer to a guy as "Man?"
      That's something guys do.

      Delete
    41. (S)he might wear a dress, but (s)he still puts those pantyhose on one leg at a time.

      Delete
    42. Nobody wears pantyhose anymore, Its so old school 90's- get real.

      Delete
  2. Iktomi why does it matter so much to you that bigfoot exists and why does it upset you that people believe otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry bro... But if what other people thought worried me all that much, I'd be obsessing on Internet comment sections catered for the antithesis of this blog, and pushing what I think on other people.

      If someone comes here telling me how to think, I'll put them in their place. Simple.

      Delete
    2. The emotion over the topic is almost religious

      Delete
    3. You don't command any emotion other than pity. I enjoy this... It's fun making you look silly.

      Delete
    4. ^ You`ve little else in life to enjoy.

      Delete
  3. There are thousands of biologists in US forests studying the flora and fauna every single day yet not a single one has stumbled on a bigfoot. Really makes you think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go read some sightings reports Stuey, start with the basics look.

      Delete
    2. Go get some sleep Joerg, you've been posting comments here nonstop for over 24 hours!

      Delete
    3. Good point there 8:06. The "evidence" so to speak is always just beyond credible. And before you ask, yes the evidence has been tested by legitimate scientists. Bryan Sykes and Todd Disotel have both DNA tested samples that were put forward by people who were adamant that the sample came from a bigfoot because they saw the bigfoot leave the sample (hair snagged on fence etc). Yet all of these samples have turned out to be from known animals. So from this we can gather there is something else going on. This is a psychological phenomenom where people are seeing known animals such as bears and embellishing the sightings into a fantastical forest monster

      Delete
    4. Sasq'ets hair is notorious for not having medulla to sequence DNA. Learn the f'n basics... For crying out loud. Geneticists are only ever as good as the samples they are given. Might I add, that not even the entire amount of samples tested to date are a fair reflection on the thousands of years these hominins have been reported, as well as the 60 years physical evidence has been documented... To state otherwise is a pathetic attempt at closer.

      Sykes has also tested hair samples that have 12 other examples of morphological congruity, that when successfully tested, had a match to a feral human from Uzbekistan. Sasq'ets could be so close genetically to us, that their DNA might merely indicate archaic as a genetic difference.

      Lastly... A lack of DNA sequence has no bearing whatsoever on the physical evidence documented over the past two decades, and is plain stupidity to reduce the latter as "beyond credibility" when it has a while branch of science outside of genetics in verifying it.

      Delete
    5. What's a psychological phenomena, is the depths of pathological denial a group of obsessed pseudosceptics resort to.. instead of simply finding one little scientifically sound reason to not consider the mounds of readily viewable evidence.

      Delete
    6. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGThursday, September 14, 2017 at 9:01:00 AM PDT

      Hey Iktomi be sure to tell these lumpbrains how the feet of that 8 foot skeleton matches those special foot bones you talk about in all those plaster casts you submit as evidence of species, this is the case closed Bigfoot body, go ahead and tell them, oh joyous day for humanity, and you and Meldrum sure showed everyone, yep, just go ahead and tell them

      Delete
    7. The report of that skeleton doesn't go into detail about any number of its anatomical features... But an 8 foot skeleton with an archaic, sloping skull is good enough for anyone who remembers that 8 foot hairy hominins with archaic sloping skulls have been reported in the US for thousands of years.

      Delete
    8. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGThursday, September 14, 2017 at 9:10:00 AM PDT

      Oh, I'm sorry you said the report didn't go into the skeleton's anatomical features and then you went ahead and said it had an archaic sloping skull, where did it say that? I missed that, or is that just your opinion based on that old black and white photo you claim is a Bigfoot skeleton? And those feet seem to look like regular human feet but I'm nowhere near the skeleton expert you are

      Delete
    9. Yep! The skull being one anatomical trait that anyone without an anthropological background would notice right away, andnonenlf few things that is documented about the skeleton's appearance.

      Oh yes, didn't you claim that the photo was digitally altered in 1933??

      Delete
    10. ^ the only people believing in a "monster" are the child-like fools such as Jotomi...what a facking prick he is.

      hahahah hahahah hahahah

      Delete
    11. Haven't you like... Had to make up a conspiracy theory to ward off monsters?

      Delete
    12. Yes, and he's bitten off all his finger nails too.

      Delete
    13. And also his toenails. He'll be after the dogs nails next.

      Delete
  4. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGThursday, September 14, 2017 at 9:24:00 AM PDT

    Oh so they said that it has an archaic sloping skull? Who said that it has an archaic sloping skull please? I missed that. I never said that photo was digitally altered but now you seem to be saying that, do you know if it isn't? Do you have the original photo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An Ancient Ozark Giant Dug Up Near Steelville, Mo.
      Strange discovery made by a boy looking for arrowheads, gives this Missouri Town an absorbing mystery to ponder.

      "Steelville, Mo. June 11, 1933
      His brow, too, was anything but noble. Height of forehead, once popularly believed to be a sort of hallmark of high or low intelligence, has been largely discredited as such an indicator now, so this cave man's sloping brow may not necessarily be regarded as a stamp of low mentality. But it may be set down, anyway, as one of the cranial characteristics which fit very neatly into the general "pinhead" picture. Of course he had considerably more above the eyes and ears than such extremely primitive types as the Peking man, Piltdown man and the Neanderthaloids."


      "As part of the Search for the Lost Giants show, Jim and fellow researcher James Clary investigated the following account that had this heading:
      "An Ancient Ozark Giant Dug Up Near Steelville: Strange discovery made by a boy looking for arrowheads, gives this Missouri Town an absorbing mystery to ponder."
      From The Steelville Ledger (June 11, 1933):
      "…he turned up the complete skeleton of an 8 foot giant.

      The grisly find was brought to Dr. R. C. Parker here and stretched out to its enormous length in a hallway of his office where it has since remained the most startling exhibit Steelville has ever had on public view."
      While reading through the microfilm at the Steelville library three reports of the find where uncovered including the photo that shows Les Eaton, a 6-foot man, laid out next to the 8-foot skeleton in Dr. Parkers office."
      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gigantes/esp_gigantes_15.htm

      ... Meaning you see the original photo in actual library archives on national TV.

      Delete
    2. "With all his magnificent stature, this primitive chief, if chief he was, really was something of a pinhead. The skull measures only 20 inches in circumference—a pretty small skull, even for a man of normal height. The heads of most average sized men measure from 22 to 28 inches in circumference. A 20 inch dome perched on the shoulders of a giant eight feet tall must have looked tiny indeed."

      Yeah ikdummy, a skull 1/4 the size smaller than a normal human head is really consistent with your reports of bigfoot! Next time try actually reading the hoax reports before you you copy and paste them here! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    3. Actually... Sasq'ets heads are very commonly reported to be far smaller than their bodies, and way out of proportion. In some parts of the South for example, they're even referred to as "no necks".

      It's ok... You're learning!

      Delete
    4. But wait a sec, you've also stated that one of the "archaic" bigfoot traits of Khwit's skill is that it's so massively huge!

      "*bigger all round
      *bigger teeth
      *bigger jaw bone"

      Now you're saying that bigfoot heads are actually smaller than normal human skulls? Or do you just spout off whatever BS pops into your feeble mind at the moment? Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    5. Yes, but those morphological traits are not distinguished from afar, or by an untrained eye.

      These answers are simple logic.

      Delete
    6. So you're admitting that the tiny Steelville skull was not "bigfoot." Thanks for finally being somewhat reasonable. I'm glad that we've made some progress today! =~)

      Delete
    7. ... An 8 foot tall skeleton with an archaic skull... Will serve just fine as an example of specimen in a country where 8 foot tall hominins with archaic faces have been reported for thousands of years...

      Now please, tell me all about how this photoshop in 1933??

      Delete
    8. ... And to answer your comment about Khwit's skull properly, this skull wasn't any bigger than that of any other modern human skull... But had more robust and exaggerated features like that briefly listed above. This cannot be said for the 1933 skull, because we don't have an equivalent study. It can however be assumed to be the case, given its archaic morphology that IS mentioned.

      Delete
    9. Tell me about how this tiny "bigfoot" skull is consistent with your contention that "bigfoot" skulls are massively large.

      Delete
    10. Sorry Stuey, I've never claimed that. Though I don't doubt that very large skulls have been discovered... The available records of the remains I'm aware of, don't attest to anything different.

      Try and be a little more creative.

      Delete
    11. ^ you have little imagination at all as all you seem to post are re-hashed tales..and tales that have oft been debunked

      Delete
    12. Cool... Debunk them then.

      (Yawn)

      I'll tell you what's heck of a tale... The tale of a thousand's year old, culture hopping, hoaxing conspiracy. That's a cracker.

      Delete
    13. A creature with a tiny head smaller than a normal human! LOLLLLLLLLLL

      Delete
    14. Note how 11:57 desperately tries to throw the focus away from his own "tiny head smaller than a normal human" (and it isn't the on on his shoulders).

      Delete
  5. For the sake of argument I would like to point out that Nathan Reo and some others like to state that the giant squid has been long reported but only recently discovered which is absolutely false. The giant squid has been well known since the late 19th century. In addition lktomi made some comparisons in a previous post:

    "• We have the same scientific documentation of relict hominids and giant squid reports & remains being found in the 1800 century."

    I would argue far from the same. Professor Addison Emery Verrill of Yale University who examined, dissected and described them from 1874 - 1882, wrote no fewer than twenty-nine scientific papers in which the giant squid was discussed. In addition we have some of those same squid remains today in collections. Currently there are close to a dozen complete bodies of giant squids in various museums today. I may ask - where can the remains of Bigfoot be found?

    "• The next time we hear of a stranding of giant squid was in the 1960's when guess what? We have the Patterson Gimlin footage!"

    Not true. We have had many carcasses found all during the 20th century and they are documented.

    "• We then have to wait until 2004 until a living example of giant squid is documented, to which time we have 60 years of physical, video and audio evidence pointing to the existence of a bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates; a far greater frequency of evidence than the giant squid enjoyed to that point."

    The first time a live giant squid was recorded was in 2006 after scientists hooked one and brought it to the surface. In 2012 it was finally filmed in it's natural element swimming freely. So we now have film AND over 150 years of actual PHYSICAL material we can hold in our hands and examine. To state that Bigfoot "has a far greater frequency of evidence to that point" is ridiculous. In addition it is far harder to capture images of a deep sea, elusive animal in the vastness of the oceans than trying to capture images on land of an unknown primate said to be twice as big as a normal human.

    You may stand with your Bili Ape argument if you wish but you have no case comparing the giant squid with Bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're correct Curious. And this has all been pointed out to ikdummy about a dozen different times and yet he keeps making the same debunked argument. There is just no getting through to someone who believes in something with such religious fervor.

      Delete
  6. "I would argue far from the same."
    ... I'm sure you would. However, you're not very good at remembering your shortfalls, Mr Curious. For example, there were innumerable 7-8 foot tall human remains located all over the U.S around about the time Professor Addison Emery Verrill was doing his thing. The difference is that the anthropological elite of the time are on record stating that no such remains would be studied.

    "Not true. We have had many carcasses found all during the 20th century and they are documented."
    ... Really? How many is that then Mr Curious? I'm curious to know how many exactly? Comparatively, we have stuff like this too;
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gigantes/esp_gigantes_15.htm
    ... photos and all. So far an exact mirroring of evidences!

    So! When we drop the pathological denial for five minutes, and remember that Sasq'ets had been filmed long ago in 1967, we have a comparative frequency of actual PHYSICAL material we can hold in our hands and examine... for example, if I hit you around the head with a track cast, I'm sure you'd feel the physical affects of that cast.

    If something looks like a human, I thinks like a human, and it can evade like a human. I'm not an academic in biology, but I think I'm safe in suggesting something that evades in social groups like humans do, is gonna trump a squid. In fact, I'd be more than qualified to do so... As I'm the one referencing long standing physical evidence that wouldn't be there, if Sasq'ets wasn't. It is therefore plausible to state that it evades as well as it does, because it's existence isn't a question as a result of that level of evidence.

    Unless you're a pseudosceptic of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong, ikdummy.

      According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), a zoologist when describing a new species should clearly designate a single specimen as its Holotype (Article 73A).

      Delete
    2. Indeed. However... That does nothing to denounce the physical sign of that species, leading up to a conclusive stage of research that is classification. I'm not expecting you to get this any time soon, but it's fun making you look silly all the same. It's odd... dMaKeR had the same prolonged blonde moment as well?

      Delete
    3. For pity sake, you moron, would you please learn how to construct a sentence properly? Reading your attempts to fancy up your rhetoric is like sandpaper on the brain.

      Delete
    4. You can wave plaster around and tell stories all day long but you still need a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species.

      Delete
    5. That's odd... Someone else has been chasing me around for weeks about my alleged poor grammar? You also have the exact same cart before the horse logic about classification? And you just so happen to chime in to respond in minutes as you're name's published?

      Sorry Stuey/dMaKeR... But A lack of an effort to use the physical evidence for tracking purposes, does not disprove the existence of the mammal leaving that evidence. That's a negative proof fallacy.

      What's more, is that not anyone with ten times the intelligence & credentials has ever managed to explain away that level of physical evidence. Meaning your unqualified, uneducated opinions mean squat against a list of PhD's and academics I can reference.

      Reality's a b*tch.

      Delete
    6. IKDUMMY'S PLASTER EXPEDITIONThursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:25:00 AM PDT

      You are not taking into taxonomic consideration pre-classification which conclusively assigns species-specific nomenclature to said specimen prior to expeditionary discovery via sourcing with the aforementioned pre-evidence.

      Schooled.

      Delete
    7. I haven't the time of day to argue every point with someone who's mind will never be changed but I will offer these points:

      So there are many 7-8 foot tall skeletons found back then. Does a 7-8 tall skeleton absolutely prove Bigfoot exists? Don't we have people reaching the 7 foot status today? Are we basing this on old photographs with sketchy detail and the written reports of a few individuals or are we basing it on the ACTUAL REMAINS WHICH WE STILL HAVE TODAY such as the giant squid.

      Check out the book THE SEARCH FOR THE GIANT SQUID by Richard Ellis. It has the listings of authenticated strandings and REMAINS of giant squid along with measurements. I didn't count them but there are 5 full PAGES of listings from 1902 up to 1996 when the book was published. So your comparing that with an Ancient Origins article? You mean that fringe website that Andy White makes fun of?

      You keep referring track casts as physical material (which could be manufactured). I present physical evidence as the actual part of the animal discussed (in this case the giant squid). Apples and ranges in my book.

      PseudoSkeptic? No - just a realist.

      Delete
    8. They're not talking about your grammar, ikdummy. It is clear when you are not copying and pasting that you are an uneducated fool structuring jumbled sentences to monkey what you read in science journals. You are perplexingly someone that skipped over basic education and jumped into a sham scientist/debator.

      Delete
    9. Stuey and dmaker are one and the same person. Both have an unhealthy obsession with Iktomi, both deny the existence of bigfoot, both delight in offending and both live in the basement
      Case closed on the identity of who stuey is

      Joe

      Delete
    10. Mr Curious, as has been posted your way too many times to count... A giant 7-8 skeleton without a published anatomical study can't be proof of Bigfoot, however, the sheer frequency of 7-8 foot tall skeletons being sourced over a 200 year period... In a country where 7-8 foot tall hairy hominins have been reported for far, far longer... Does nothing but support my stance. I'm tired of saying it, but if his didn't exist, you'd rhetorically demand it. And I'm basing this on the word of almost three generations of America's anthropologists and archeologists, as well as photographs and actual Smithsonian Bureaus. The reasons that we can't put our hands on such remains, is highly likely due to the repatriation process. But the fact that we have a moral obligation to respect the cultures of indigenous people by no way lessens hat frequency of evidence, when comparing it to a squid.

      And that squid's evasion capabilities... Many scientists who have studied squid mass strandings believe they are cyclical and predictable. The length of time between strandings is not known, but was proposed to be 90 years by Architeuthis specialist Frederick Aldrich. Aldrich used this value to correctly predict a relatively small stranding that occurred between 1964 and 1966 in line with the previous strandings the century prior. Therefore if we can assume that giant squid are susceptible to the same afflictions of its smaller cousin, then it doesn't make for a creature that can evade as well as a primate that does so in social groups, does it?

      Photographs don't lie... Did you actually open that link and see them? Those are remains sourced at the same frequency as your beloved squid. And a PhD who makes fun out of a site that has documented photographs of the skeletons he sometimes (and confusingly) endorses.. Doesn't mean much to me. Ok... A "realist" thinks it's possible for a hoaxer from another continent to guess the exact same archaic foot morphology, and then find a method of having this morphology arranged in a trackway, whereby such a trackway encompasses different footballs only indicative of a genuine biological foot... And THEN ensures that such a trackway is found by, & then fools a government employee?

      Is that your idea of reality, Mr Curious? Not in my experience of your comments, my friend.

      Delete
    11. ^ 11;08

      old man with severe low esteem syndrome

      Delete
    12. I shouldn't be wasting any more time of my day on this but it IS fun so . . .

      I'm afraid the reality is you can have all the reports and pictures of 7-8 skeletons you like but but without a detailed, modern day analyst of such you have only speculation. As far as the repatriation process, molds are made for future study of anything significant before being returned to the tribe requesting them. Jim Vieira and his brother Bill had a series on TV called Search For Lost Giants which came up empty-handed just like Finding Bigfoot despite doing their best to prove such

      I don't quite get the significance of comparing the giant squid's evasion skills with Bigfoot by citing proposed cyclical strandings however the fact is we have evidence for their existence. We read reports of Bigfoot sightings right here daily from almost ever state and yet we have no part of their body outside of a few questionable hairs to substantiate they actually exist. Nothing, nada, zip.

      Photographs DO lie. Forced perspective and outright hoaxes are common. Having an actual part of the animal in question does not. I personally have a couple of rings of the chitinous "teeth" and a beak from a giant squid sent to me by marine biologist Steve O'Shea - an authority on the giant squid. Do you have any body parts from a Bigfoot - LOL? I think I will take the word of a PhD such as Andy White over some dubious claims by a suspect website such as Ancient Origins.

      Getting the SAME EXACT archaic foot morphology from ANOTHER continent actually raises suspicion for me because I would expect slight differences because of the distance separation. Just seems too much of a coincidence they match up so perfectly. It's not beyond the possibility that one was copied from the other. So being the accused unrepentant PseudoSkeptic that I supposedly am, I remain unconvinced.



      Delete
    13. Joe, why do you plagiarize Wiki so often? You did it again just two posts above with your squid comments.

      Are you truly that unaware of just how horribly awkward your writing style is? You simply cannot get away with stitching anyone else' comments into your own without your jibber japper standing out like a sore thumb and exposing your blatant plagiarism. Again.

      Delete
    14. I think we're all fascinated and entertained by ikdummy's unique blend of ignorance and hubris.

      It would be interesting to know what he does for a living and what formal education he actually has. It's like you took the most cocky uneducated street punk and, instead of learning the basics and building on a foundation, ikdummy skipped over to science journals written by Phds and hilariously tried to emulate what he was reading.

      What is your story, ikdummy?

      Delete
    15. "I'm afraid the reality is you can have all the reports and pictures of 7-8 skeletons you like but but without a detailed, modern day analyst of such you have only speculation."
      ... Um, were you trying to be oxymoronic? So I can have reports, actual photographs of these skeletons from archeologists, but because a modern day analyst hasn't written up a study (due to repatriation), all of that is meaningless? I'm sorry Mr Curious, you are not remotely qualified to make that call, neither should you make it via so much god awful contradictions, and expect it to stick. Photographs of 7-8 foot skeletons in places that are exactly how 150 years worth of journals, archeological studies, newspaper reports and even Smithsonian Bureaus reported them to be... Is pretty much proof positive. That's unless you want to argue that three generations of scientists were all hoaxers, and that they happened to hoax by pure chance what actual grave sites yielded 100 years later? Is that reality, Mr Curious?

      "As far as the repatriation process, molds are made for future study of anything significant before being returned to the tribe requesting them."
      ... Mr Curious, are you aware of how many moulds that would mean? Are you aware of how many skeletons were handed over during this process? If so... Where are these moulds exactly? Could you account for an exact number to each specimen? Of course you can't... Please don't use wild speculation to prop up an argument that's already riddled with contradiction.

      "Jim Vieira and his brother Bill had a series on TV called Search For Lost Giants which came up empty-handed just like Finding Bigfoot despite doing their best to prove such."
      ... Um, no... That's in fact grossly inaccurate. Did you actually watch that TV series, Mr Curious?
      "As part of the Search for the Lost Giants show, Jim and fellow researcher James Clary investigated the following account that had this heading:
      "An Ancient Ozark Giant Dug Up Near Steelville: Strange discovery made by a boy looking for arrowheads, gives this Missouri Town an absorbing mystery to ponder."
      From The Steelville Ledger (June 11, 1933):
      "…he turned up the complete skeleton of an 8 foot giant.
      The grisly find was brought to Dr. R. C. Parker here and stretched out to its enormous length in a hallway of his office where it has since remained the most startling exhibit Steelville has ever had on public view."
      While reading through the microfilm at the Steelville library three reports of the find where uncovered including the photo that shows Les Eaton, a 6-foot man, laid out next to the 8-foot skeleton in Dr. Parkers office."
      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gigantes/esp_gigantes_15.htm

      The significance of comparing the giant squid's evasion skills with Bigfoot by citing proposed cyclical strandings, is because squid are susceptible to far more mistakes in evasions than any primate is, therefore even if "Bigfoot" were to not have the same frequency of reports and physical evidence, it might be understandable... However that isn't even the case. We have evidence for the existence of a biped that fits the exact same anatomical make up reported by people for thousands of years. And here in lies the same obvious negative proof fallacy so many of toot like-minded types love to pass of as logic; if there are no qualified people looking, with no adequate resources to do so, then no "Bigfoot body parts" are going to materialise. It's pretty simple.

      Delete
    16. "Photographs lie"... However, that does not mean the likes of Dr. Donald Dragoo, the curator for the Section of Man at the Carnegie Museum who unearthed a 7 feet 2 inch skeleton during the complete excavation of the Cresap Mound in Northern West Virginia, did. That goes for Dr. Walter B. Jones, Moundsville Alabama (7ft 6 and many 7-footers), Dr. Forrest Clements Head of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma (six 7ft skeletons), Dr. Donald A. Cadzow Cambridge University (7ft 5in skeleton found in Pittsburgh with many other large skeletons with anatomic anomalies reported), Dr. Byron Cummings, head of the archaeology department at the University of Arizona, considered the "Dean of Southwestern Archaeology" (several over 8-footers), Thomas Wilson, Curator of Prehistoric Anthropology at the Smithsonian (verified an 8-foot skeleton with massive jawbone)... And W.J. Holland, curator of the Carnegie Museum (unearthed an over 8 ft skeleton in Pennsylvania as reported in many scientific journals including Scientific American)... To name a few. Let me guess, they're all liars? None of these people can be trusted? Take the word of Andy White by all means, I do too! Especially since he inadvertently supports any notion of Jim Vieira's work when he states more than once, that such skeletons in the 7-8 feet tall range have indeed been documented. What we have in the meantime of not sourcing a cadaver, Mr Curious, are multiple examples of hair fibres that show total morphological congruity (which totally ruled out any hoaxing or misinterpretation), and the many, many, many track casts that show the biological impression of a hominin's foot on the environment of TWO continents. And I take it that all this is mere coincidence and the shoddy practice of the academics studying it all? How many more of these scientists is it gonna take? And before you try to count the numbers to the contrary, there isn't any Mr Curious. There isn't any scientists to the contrary, because every one that has looked at it, either can't explain it, or ends up endorsing what it is. And no Mr Curious... Any notion that any cast can be copied is futile when you have a series of foot falls in the trackway that are only indicative of an actual biological foot... Not a stomper, or a cast copy.

      Delete
    17. "Um, were you trying to be oxymoronic [sic]?"

      Oxymoronic is not a word. How is what Curious wrote an example of an oxymoron?

      Delete
    18. "multiple examples of hair fibres that show total morphological congruity (which totally ruled out any hoaxing or misinterpretation)"

      Nope. That is false.

      Delete
    19. ikdummy somehow thinks he is impressing us with his confused writing style. He was called out recently for stringing some words together but demonstrating in the process that he didn't know what the words meant. When everyone called him out he said, "how did you like that word salad?", not realizing his mistake. In his mind, every comment he is writing is brilliant, like a manic mental patient typing out what he thinks, KNOWS!!!!, will be a Pulitzer Prize award winner. He's trapped in that confident/ignorant mode and can't even be shamed into improving.

      Delete
    20. "Oxymoronic" is in the English dictionary, Donny... And let's not pretend you haven't had those twelve congruent hair samples rammed down that throat of yours at least ten times. Go back to spending your time proof reading my comments like a weirdo, Donny, that's your level.

      Delete
    21. Stuey claiming to understand concepts that he had only learned once they made him look stupid days prior, has made me smile a good few times since.

      : )

      Delete
    22. What does ikdummy do for a living?

      Delete
    23. Oxymoron is in the dictionary, oxymoronic is not.

      Delete
    24. oxymoronic
      (ˌɒksɪˈmɔːrɒn)

      adjective
      1. literature
      of or relating to an oxymoron
      pleasant mall food (if such be not oxymoronic)
      adjective
      2. having the characteristics of an oxymoron

      Delete
  7. Freudian slip by ikdummy:

    "I thinks like a human."

    Ha ha ha!

    ReplyDelete
  8. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGThursday, September 14, 2017 at 9:59:00 AM PDT

    Those damn anthropological elites, if it wasn't for them dismissing what are clearly Bigfoot skeletons we'd have this all wrapped up, now of course those plaster casts you submit as evidence of species must match the feet of those skeletons, I just don't see it myself, do you? Maybe you could go back and show us in the pictures of all these skeletons you just went ahead and referenced? This is your big chance to show us how wrong we've been, it's just zooming in on pictures of skeleton feet and showing everyone how they differ from human feet, because even though they look human they don't walk like humans, right? Meldrum backs you up, this should be easy for someone who doesn't have an elites view of skeletons

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately Stuey, without a published anatomical analysis of those skeletons, then that information is unattainable!

      Delete
    2. lol yes, it's all impossible. So why bring up meaningless old photos of human bones and claim they're bigfoot? Is this to add to your collection of 1000s of pieces of "evidence" that still add up to nothing?

      Delete
    3. IktomiThursday, September 14, 2017 at 11:08:00 AM PDT





      The only "nothing" occurs when you're asked to provide some substance against said evidence.

      Six years and zilch?

      Delete
    4. Not according to Dr Gill up top.

      Short memory.

      Delete
    5. Hmmm... We'll see who rehashes the same lame arguments tomorrow during the early hours of US time. You'll at least have this comment section for reference.

      Delete
    6. I'm UK, mate. It's SH1TE being Welsh! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the farking Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We're ruled by effete arseh0les. It's a SH1TE state of affairs to be in, ikdummy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won't make any farking difference!

      Delete
    7. 12:31 is dmaker aka stuey
      He's really got it out for you Iktomi but that's a good thing because you got them running to the hills

      Joe

      Delete
    8. ^ Bloody miss Marples got this all figured out
      Having fun stuey boy ?

      Joe

      Delete
    9. Aye, if Joe ain't Gracie Fields in the flesh, she is.

      Delete
  9. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGThursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:10:00 AM PDT

    Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and project that your going to say something snotty and not take your big chance in Bigfoot history to prove everyone wrong, you really should take up this challenge, as a matter of fact I say as a scientific fact those skeletons have regular human feet and therefore I have proven you wrong in front of everyone here with your own evidence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:10 Needs a body yet still here after all these years, YES YOU'RE RIGHT IT IS TRUELY SHOCKING. Go away now dear.

      Delete
    2. Can't prove Bigfoot, big surprise^

      Delete
    3. Can't prove his hoaxing conspiracy... No big surprise!

      Delete
    4. And you woke up at 3:00 AM to tell us that? I must have really caused you to have some horrible nightmares! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    5. Some people have reason to be up at that time Stuey. On the flip side, you've been at it since 4:30am US time (allegedly)... Get some sleep pal, & when you wake up, gloss over this comment section. It'll keep you from repeating yourself and looking butt hurt about it all.

      Delete
  10. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 9:37:00 AM PDT

    I actually proved Bigfoot doesn't exist, now show me those skeleton feet matching your plaster casts, you can't, weep, weep, weep

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have never proven that thousands of years of native culture (anthropological data), the three databases of modern sightings reports (by every credible pillar of modern society), and the 60 years of accompanying physical evidence... Is bunk.

      And again... Not being able to provide available data, doesn't mean it doesn't exist... That's a negative proof fallacy. Especially since the skeleton in question has an archaic skull, which when paired with its height is your biggest obstacle. We seem to keep having to highlight this logical fallacy you can't get your head around?

      But it's ok... I've got all the time in the world for you Stuey.

      : )

      Delete
  11. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 11:16:00 AM PDT

    Actually the available data proves ALL your giant skeletons to be human since the feet don't match your footprints but you stick with those wonderful stories and those great Dyer bodies, yep, you have a nice day now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Negative proof fallacy, Stuey!

      And Sasq'ets are human.

      Delete
  12. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 11:41:00 AM PDT

    You'd better stick to arguing here so no one sees and thinks you're on drugs or just thickheaded

    ReplyDelete