More Amazing Sasquatch Stories From BC


These encounter stores between humans and sasquatch from British Columbia are fantastic. Check it out.

Comments

  1. British Columbia aint got no bigfoots yo. Bigfoots aint no real yo! British Columbia playin you dogg.

    Dingo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.sasquatchcanada.com/bc-sightings.html

      Attached to the above link is John Green’s sightings database for BC. The many reports coming out of that province are substantiated with reliable physical evidence that is now peer reviewed.

      "The two things that are fact & that cannot be disputed, not knowledgeably disputed anyway... Is that something makes enormous footprints that indicate enormous weight, and there are thousands of people whose word would not be questioned on any other subject, who tell of seeing a huge hair covered biped in North America. And science cannot explain that fact and isn't trying to."
      - John Green

      Delete
    2. Bigfoot DNE

      Does Not Exist

      ... ain`t dat da troof.

      Delete
    3. No, it’s actually not. Every time DNA is sequenced it appears to come back “human”, leading people assume contamination. It appears that “Sasquatch” are genetically extremely close to us.

      Delete
    4. Any time a scientist finds human DNA they assume it's contaminated and therefore bigfoot.

      Delete
    5. Nice try. But hair samples that are linked to sightings and physical evidence cannot be misinterpreted either way. There is no reason to doubt the evidence submitted for DNA testing, because we already know footage of the same widely reported creature has yielded physical evidence that is now being found in other continents.

      Delete
    6. Crikey !
      The dingo ate my stuey !
      i'm sure it will be a super smelly dump later on
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    7. So DNA testing confirms bigfoot sightings, but if someone challenges the testing, the sightings themselves confirm the DNA testing? The circular reasoning is making my head spin!

      Dingo

      Delete
    8. DNA doesn’t confirm “Bigfoot” sightings, because the majority of people observing the results of that DNA are expecting a new non-human primates DNA.

      The physical evidence, as well as the footage linked to that evidence that is now peer reviewed is what confirms “Bigfoot” sightings. 12 morphologically congruent hair samples, one directly linked to a report by government employees, that yielded track impressions of the same creature whose physically evidence was peer reviewed... Is the reason why “human” is not simple contamination.

      Delete
    9. Is the source for the “congruent hair samples” finding this bozo?

      “Drawing on interviews with dozens of eye-witnesses, Fahrenbach went on to say that Bigfoot’s diet is rich in mussels, clams, peacocks, and the ‘hindquarter’ of deer. He insisted that Bigfoots enjoy wrestling, tickle fights, and, most surprisingly, gangbangs. He assured us that even a horny Sasquatch has an impeccable sense of orgy etiquette.

      “‘When an especially large male came onto the scene,’ Fahrenbach said, describing a sexual pileup involving one willing female and lots of dudes, ‘he didn’t try to buck the line but simply stood there and took his turn in good time.’”

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/10/everythings-bigfoot-in-texas/amp

      Dingo

      Delete
    10. Yes, the source has been published here a couple of times by Curious in an effort to discredit him, which is essentially an ad hominem. Not one line of that source even begins to address the hair samples I’m referring to. One can only assume that Henner is trying to apply the same liberal sexual behaviour that recognised great apes are known to express in social groups, such as bonobos. However, if drawing upon the behaviour of recognised primates (Henner was zoologist who worked thirty years as Chairman of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the Oregon Regional Primate Center in Beaverton in Oregon), is somehow to the detriment of 12 hair samples, one of which is now linked to footage and other examples of the same archaic foot morphology (now peer reviewed), I’ll eat my hat.

      Delete
    11. Bigfoot are smarter than humans. You try being naked, 10 foot tall, thousands strong and evading capture for 50 years in every US state.

      Delete
    12. Try being a hunter when one of thousands of naked, 10 foot tall Bigfoot that are evading capture for 50 years in every US state are p*ssed and got mom & pops around the corner.

      Delete
    13. 1000s have succeeded being hunters when one of thousands of naked lions, tigers, bears, elephants, rhinos, and wolves are p*ssed and got mom & pops around the corner.

      ... except Hawaii.

      Delete
    14. Yes... We had this exact exchange not a couple of weeks ago. All the wild & visious animals you can think of are nothing compared to a group of highly social, highly intelligent giant primates, in terrain that conceals them far, far better. Hunters generally know very, very much about how to track and what to look out for as far as behaviour of those animals goes. If a hunter comes across something he either can’t identify or didn’t even know existed... they generally leave as quickly as possible and ask questions later.

      Plenty of missing hunters too.

      ... except Hawaii.

      Delete
    15. Speculation. Humans are much smarter and dangerous than any alleged creatures that haven't invented clothes or fire. However, there are 0 Native American lost tribes these days and there were plenty of Native Americans that lived in wooded areas that were highly social trackers and concealers and were very skilled with deadly weapons up close and even at longer ranges(arrows).

      This is all fantasy speculation that such a monster exists in the first place though, like Thor could beat Ironman.

      ... except Hawaii.

      Delete
    16. It’s actually the polar opposite of speculation. There are three databases of reports from people with ten times the wilderness experience of you and I combined, with all the big bad hunting firepower you can reference, that have described in great detail the behaviour and temperaments of these hominins. People like me have no reason to deny those reports, because what’s been proven, is there is forensic evidence for the same widely reported hominin. Evidence that fits the descriptions for what Natives (for example) have stated for thousands of years have occasionally taken people in those exact same environments. If you know anything about the attitude of Natives towards these hominins, they are perceived as “Master of the Mountain”, “Boss of the Woods”, and have superhuman tracking and evasion skills. Just as you would expect from a primate that has evolved in such environments.

      Fantasy doesn’t manifest in 60 years of physical sign.

      ... except Hawaii.

      Delete
    17. Anecdotes and tales, human DNA evidence, and footprint evidence that have been historically faked don't hold out much hope beyond true believers.

      Most anthropologists dismiss the premise that bigfoot are hiding in the woods based on their training and knowledge, not because of ignorance of hominids present or past. All would likely love for there to be such a creature. I would.

      Delete
    18. Actually...

      Thousands of years of anthropological data, databases of eyewitness testimony, human DNA attributed to what is widely reported as an archaic human, and footprint evidence with forensic data that is impossible to fake... is holding up well to academics & PhD’s, much of which are the very best in their respected fields and some of which are now publishing it in journals. “Most anthropologists” usually play catch up to the very best and most pioneering in their field too. There are seldom any deniers who declare there is nothing to that body of evidence, once they actually take the time to look at it.

      Any level of evidence presented in any scientific or judiciary system can be faked, has been faked, yet has never been to the detriment of said fields. If you wanted Bigfoot to exist, you’d have the integrity to acknowledge the same dated excuses for not considering consistent science, being taken apart with simple logic the first 1000 times around. Plus, you wouldn’t settle for conspiracy theories & conjecture in a desperate attempt to side track consistent scientific method.

      Delete
    19. I’ll be back tomorrow.

      ... except in Hawaii.

      Delete
    20. The Leakeys, Johanson, Dawkins, Berger and the other top names that are known outside the Bigfoot community do not acknowledge Bigfoot existence. Even Jane Goodall seriously backtracked when she admitted that she only wished Bigfoot existed. None of the above names, especially Dawkins, is afraid of a new competing human species . ALL would DIE to be the first capture a Bigfoot were it real. The Leakeys etc... all have the intellect to process evidence for Bigfoot as well as the curiosity to do so. They all dismiss the premise and evidence or they would be on the case 24/7. A real Bigfoot would be the biggest story of any year.

      Delete
    21. George Schaller is an International science director for the Wildlife Conservation Society. His pioneering field studies of mountain gorillas setthe research standard later adopted by Goodall and gorilla researcher Dian Fosse. Schaller’s 1963 book, “The Year of the Gorilla,” debunked popular perceptions of the great ape and reintroduced “King Kong” as a shy, social vegetarian. Schaller’s studies of tigers, lions, snow leopards and pandas also advanced the knowledge of those endangered mammals. In 1973, he won the National Book Award for “The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations,” and in 1980 was awarded the World Wildlife Fund Gold Medal for his contributions to the understanding and conservation of endangered species. During the past decade, he has focused on the little-known wildlife of Mongolia, Laos and the Tibetan Plateau.

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

      Russell Mitterneier is a trained primatologist, herpetologist and Biological anthropologist, he has discovered five new species of monkey, including two very recently. Mittermeier has conducted fieldwork in more than 20 countries around the tropical world, with special emphasis on Brazil, Guyana and Madagascar. Since 1989, Mitterneier has served as president of Conservation International, which has become one of the most aggressive and effective conservation organizations in the world during the last decade. His publications include 10 books and more than 300 scientific papers and popular articles.

      Daris Swindler is an Emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of Washington, Swindler is a leading expert on living and fossil primate teeth and one of the top primate anatomists in general. His book, “An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy,” has become a standard reference in the field. A forensic anthropologist, Swindler worked on the Ted Bundy and Green River murder cases along with hundreds of others.

      Esteban Sarmiento is a functional anatomist affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History, Sarmiento focuses on the skeletons of hominids. In 2001, he participated with George Schaller in a search for Congo’s Bili ape, a possible species super-chimp reported by natives but unknown to Western science. Sarmiento has also studied the Cross River gorilla, a critically endangered subspecies on the Nigeria-Cameroon border whose population is thought to be numbered in the hundreds. He has taught in the U.S., South Africa and Uganda.

      an Michael Redmond OBE FZS FLS (born 11 March 1954) is a tropical field biologist and conservationist. His career spans more than 30 years in which he is renowned for his work with gorillas and elephants. Best known for his work with mountain gorillas, Redmond has been involved in more than 50 documentaries on the subject for, among others, BBC, National Geographic and the Discovery Channel. Redmond was also involved in the film Gorillas in the Mist spending some time with Sigourney Weaver so she could better understand her character (Wikipedia).

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

      Delete
    23. “Dr. Goodall: As for the other, you're talking about a yeti or bigfoot or sasquatch.
      Ira Flatow: Is that what he's talking about?
      Dr. Goodall: Yes, it is and ...
      Ira Flatow: Is that the message I'm missing here?
      Dr. Goodall: I think that's the message you're missing and ...
      Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Is that right?
      Caller: Pretty much.
      Ira Flatow: (Laughing) I'm out of the loop. Go ahead.
      Dr. Goodall: Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.
      Ira Flatow: You are?
      Dr. Goodall: Yeah. I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I've probably got about, oh, thirty books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place, and there was a little tiny snippet in the newspaper just last week which says that British scientists have found what they believed to be a yeti hair and that the scientists in the Natural History Museum in London couldn't identify it as any known animal.
      Ira Flatow: Wow.
      Dr. Goodall: That was just a wee bit in the newspaper and, obviously, we have to hear a little bit more about that.
      Ira Flatow: Well, in this age of DNA, if you find a hair there might be some cells on it.
      Dr. Goodall: Well, there will be and I'm sure that's what they've examined and they don't match up. That's what my little tiny snippet says. They don't match up with DNA cells from known animals, so -- apes.
      Ira Flatow: Did you always have this belief that there., that they, that they existed?
      Dr. Goodall: Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. (Chuckles.)
      Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Alright?
      Caller: Thank you.
      Ira Flatow: Thanks for calling. (To Goodall) Well, how do you go looking for them? I mean, people have been looking, right? It's not like, or has this just been, since we don't really believe they can exist, we really haven't really made a serious search.
      Dr. Goodall: Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.”
      ... if you do on any internet site that documents that interview, it will cite that Goodall believes in “Bigfoot” off the back of it. Goodall does what most reputable scientists would do on live air and that’s be conservative. She cites evidence and well as Native Americans’ take on the subject as important.

      Delete
    24. Martin Lockley, University of Colorado Denver, Jeong Yul Kim, Department of Earth Science Education, Korea National University of Education, Cheongwon, Chungbuk, Korea, Colin Groves PhD Australian National University Canberra Australia, Chris Loether PhD Idaho Sate University Pocatello ID, Jeffrey McNeely PhD Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union Gland Switzerland, Lyn Miles PhD University of Tennessee Chattanooga, John Mionczynski Wildlife Consultant Atlantic City WY, Anna Nekaris PhD Oxford Brooks University Oxford England.

      Delete
    25. A shame the overwhelming majority of these notable non-curious anthropologists ignored thousands of 10 foot tall 1000 lb giants in US woods, the biggest anthropology story ever by far.

      John Adair,B. R. Ambedkar,Giulio Angioni,Talal Asad,Timothy Asch,Florence Babb,Nigel Barley,Fredrik Barth,Vasily Bartold,Keith H. Basso,Daisy Bates,Gregory Bateson,Ruth Behar,Ruth Benedict,Dorothy A. Bennett,Carl H. Berendt,Lee Berger,Brent Berlin,Catherine Helen Webb Berndt,Catherine L. Besteman,Theodore C. Bestor,Lewis Binford,Wilhelm Bleek,Anton Blok,Franz Boas,Tom Boellstorff,Paul Bohannan,Dmitri Bondarenko,Pere Bosch-Gimpera,Pierre Bourdieu,Paul Broca,Sir Peter Buck,Kari Bruwelheide,Julio Caro Baroja,Edmund Carpenter,Napoleon Chagnon,Pierre Clastres,Mabel Cook Cole,Malcolm Carr Collier,Carleton S. Coon,Frank Hamilton Cushing,Regna Darnell,Raymond Dart,Emma Lou Davis,Ernesto de Martino,Ella Cara Deloria,Raymond J. DeMallie,Stanley Diamond,Mary Douglas,Cora Du Bois,Eugene Dubois,Ann Dunham,Katherine Dunham,Elizabeth Cullen Dunn,Émile Durkheim,Verrier Elwin,Arturo Escobar,E. E. Evans-Pritchard,James Ferguson,Raymond Firth,Raymond D. Fogelson,Meyer Fortes,Dian Fossey,...

      Delete
    26. ....James Frazer,Lina Fruzzetti,Clifford Geertz,Alfred Gell,Ernest Gellner,Herb Di Gioia,Max Gluckman,Maurice Godelier,Jane Goodall,Marjorie Harness Goodwin,Harold A. Gould,David Graeber,Hilma Granqvist,J. Patrick Gray,Marcel Griaule,Jacob Grimm,Wilhelm Grimm,Michael Harkin,Michael Harner,John P. Harrington,Marvin Harris,Kirsten Hastrup (born 1948), Danish anthropologist,Jacquetta Hawkes,Stephen C. Headley,Arthur Maurice Hocart,Ian Hodder,E.Adamson Hoebel,Earnest Hooton,Robin W.G. Horton,Aleš Hrdlička,Eva Verbitsky Hunt (1934–1980), Argentine anthropologist,Dell Hymes,Miyako Inoue (linguistic anthropologist),Bill Irons,Ira Jacknis,John M. Janzen,Thomas Des Jean,F. Landa Jocano,Alfred E. Johnson,William Jones (philologist),Michal Josephy,Jeffrey S. Juris,Sergei Kan,Jomo Kenyatta,David Kertzer,Anatoly Khazanov,Richard G. Klein,Eduardo Kohn,Dorinne K. Kondo,Andrey Korotayev,Conrad Kottak,Charles H. Kraft,Grover Krantz,Alfred L. Kroeber,Theodora Kroeber,Lars Krutak,Adam Kuper,William Labov,George Lakoff,Harold E. Lambert,Louise Lamphere,Edmund Leach,Eleanor Leacock,Murray Leaf,Louis Leakey,Mary Leakey,Richard Leakey,Richard Borshay Lee,Charles Miller Leslie,Claude Lévi-Strauss,Ellen Lewin,C. Scott Littleton,Albert Buell Lewis,Oscar Lewis,Phillip Harold Lewis,Iris López,Robert Lowie,Nancy Lurie,Alan Macfarlane,Saba Mahmood,Bronisław Malinowski,George Marcus,Fran Mascia-Lees,John Alden Mason,Michael Atwood Mason,Marcel Mauss,Phillip McArthur,Irma McClaurin,Charles Harrison McNutt,Margaret Mead,Mervyn Meggitt,Josef Mengele,Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay — Asia-Pacific (Maclay Coast), Papua New-Guinea; Australia,Emily Martin,Horace Mitchell Miner,Sidney Mintz,Ashley Montagu,James Mooney,Henrietta L. Moore,John H. Moore,Lewis H. Morgan,Desmond Morris,George Murdock,Yolanda Murphy,Laura Nader,Jeremy Narby,Raoul Naroll,Erland Nordenskiöld,Gananath Obeyesekere,Kaori O'Connor,Marvin Opler,Morris Opler,Sherry Ortner,Keith F. Otterbein,Bruce Parry (television show host),Elsie Clews Parsons,Bronislav Pilsudski,Thomas J. Pluckhahn,Hortense Powdermaker,A.H.J. Prins,Harald E.L. Prins,James Quesada,Paul Rabinow,Wilhelm Radloff,Roy Rappaport,Hans Ras,Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown,Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff,Kathy Reichs,Audrey Richards,W. H. R. Rivers,Paul Rivet,Joel Robbins,Eric Ross,Gayle Rubin,Robert A. Rubinstein,Marshall Sahlins,Noel B. Salazar,Roger Sandall,Edward Sapir,Patricia Sawin,Nancy Scheper-Hughes,Wilhelm Schmidt,Tobias Schneebaum,Thayer Scudder,Elman Service,Afanasy Shchapov,Gerald F. Schroedl,Florence Connolly Shipek,Sydel Silverman,Cathy Small,Jacques Soustelle,Melford Spiro,James Spradley,Julian Steward,Herbert Spencer,Marilyn Strathern,William Sturtevant,Niara Sudarkasa,Michael Taussig,Edward Burnett Tylor,Colin Turnbull,Victor Turner,Bruce Trigger,Karl Verner,L. P. Vidyarthi,Eduardo Viveiros de Castro,Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf,Vishwajit Pandya,Anthony F. C. Wallace,Alyise Waterston,Lee Henderson Watkins,Camilla Wedgwood,Hank Wesselman,Douglas R. White,Leslie White,Tim White,Benjamin Whorf,Unni Wikan,Clark Wissler,Eric Wolf,Alvin Wolfe,Sol Worth,Nur Yalman,Kim Yeshi, R. Tom Zuidema

      Delete
    27. Eric Berger is a science journalist, and even though I think I remember one of the Leakeys being referenced in Daegling’s book, and though I could only find the first round of DNA Yeti testing on and anything to do with “Bigfoot” on Dawkins’ sites, I found no evidence of the Leakeys or Dawkins commenting on any level of evidence and subsequently dismissing the notion of “Bigfoot” off the back of that.

      Do you have any more of these “top names”?

      Delete
    28. Sorry... that’s just a list of scientists. Common sense would dictate that you would need some affiliation to the subject. That’s what an adult would attempt to do. Would you like some more PhD’s that have actually looked at the evidence?

      Delete
    29. Stephen E. Braude, Ph.D. Emeritus Prof. of Philosophy U. of MD Baltimore County. Carlos S. Alvarado, Ph.D. Parapsychology Foundation, New York, NY. Imants Barušs, Ph.D. University of Western Ontario, Canada Daryl Bem, Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Robert Bobrow, Ph.D. Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY. Courtney Brown, Ph.D. Emory University, Alanta, GA. Etzel Cardeña, Ph.D. University of Lund, Lund, Sweden. Jeremy Drake, Ph.D. Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA
      Roger D. Nelson, Ph.D. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Mark Rodeghier, Ph.D. Center for UFO Studies, Chicago, IL Daniel Sheehan, Ph.D. University of San Diego, San Diego, CA
      EDITORIAL BOARD
      Richard C. Henry, Ph.D. (Editorial Chair). Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Mikel Aickin, Ph.D. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Steven J. Dick, Ph.D. U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DC. Peter Fenwick, Ph.D.
      Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK. Alan Gauld, Ph.D.
      University of Nottingham, UK. Robert G. Jahn, Ph.D.
      Princeton University, NJ. Wayne B. Jonas, Ph.D. Samueli Institute, Alexandria, VA. Michael Levin, Ph.D. Tufts University, Boston, MA. David C. Pieri, Ph.D. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Juan Roederer, Ph.D. University of Alaska–Fairbanks, AK. Yervant Terzian, Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. N. C. Wickramasinghe, Ph.D Churchill College, Cambridge, UK.

      Delete
    30. Lee Berger as in Homo naledi, not sure I ever mentioned an Eric Berger.

      Exactly my point: "I found no evidence of the Leakeys or Dawkins commenting on any level of evidence and subsequently dismissing the notion of “Bigfoot” off the back of that."

      They don't give the premise of thousands of 10 foot tall...any consideration despite, if real, would be the biggest anthro story ever.

      Delete
    31. If I also posted the credentials of notable bigfoot ignoring anthropologists the list would be 10 feet long of scrolling.

      Delete
    32. Yep! Just checked on Lee Berger too, and I found no evidence of him commenting on any level of evidence and subsequently dismissing the notion of “Bigfoot” off the back of that. The fact that there is no evidence of them doing something does not mean that something exists. That’s like saying 10,000 hoaxers are running around the wilderness of North American, in gorilla suits and planting tracks, with no evidence of it at all. You don’t know what those anthropologists are or aren’t convinced by. My list actually has genuine affiliation to this subject.

      Delete
    33. Exactly my point again: "Yep! Just checked on Lee Berger too, and I found no evidence of him commenting on any level of evidence and subsequently dismissing the notion of “Bigfoot” off the back of that."

      They don't give the premise of thousands of 10 foot tall...any consideration despite, if real, would be the biggest anthro story ever.

      Yes, giving no consideration to 10000 hiding archaic human giants is affiliating with dismissal of the subject matter. 10000 hairy giants hiding in the US is not something easily dismissed if believed possible.

      Delete
    34. A lack of evidence of not offering consideration to something, is not evidence of denouncing said something. What you DO have, like in the list provided above, are some scientists who have spent much of their adult lives around primates in the wild, and who are encouraged by the notion and have given it genuine consideration.

      See how that worked?

      You could claim that most of them find the notion of string theory ludicrous.

      Delete
    35. In fact... I could just as easily claim that your list DO in fact offer a positive consideration to the subject. There would be just as much evidence for that, and I would be jumped all over for being a biased fantasist.

      Delete
    36. Leading anthropologist like Leakey, Johanson, Berger, etc....believed/believe that there are 1000s of bigfoot in US woods but they never talked about it?

      Or is more likely that they were aware of bigfoot claims but dismissive.

      Real 10000 man-monsters in US woods is not something a reputable anthropologist would never give consideration. Their silence speaks of their not taking the claims and evidence seriously.

      Delete
    37. There any number of reasons why they might not partake in commenting about such a subject... They might want to distance themselves from ridicule. They might believe the subject plausible but would rather wait for something other than Finding Bigfoot and hoaxes getting air play to affiliate themselves. They might be weary of being hoaxed for committing an opinion & losing credibility (this I believe is the main reason many scientists don’t commit). They might even believe that the subject isn’t worth looking into at all... but even in that scenario, not looking at the readily accessible data renders the most qualified as unqualified in that immediate instance.

      No reputable anthropologist is going give consideration to 10,000 “man-monsters” in the US woods. It’s a shame for you however that reputable anthropologists, primatologists and biologists do offer plenty of consideration to a breeding population of man-sized primates in the US woods.

      Delete
    38. I SAID: "Real 10000 man-monsters in US woods is not something a reputable anthropologist would never give consideration." THE WORDS NOT AND NEVER ARE MEANINGFUL THERE. DOUBLE NEGATIVE ADDING UP TO ANTHROPOLOGISTS GIVING CONSIDERATION.

      I NEVER SAID: No reputable anthropologist is going give consideration to 10,000 “man-monsters” in the US woods. YOU SAID THAT.

      I SAID that Leakey, etc. DID give consideration but rejected the evidence and claims by never discussing it. Can you imagine a physicist never being quoted on String Theory? Bigfoot, if real, would be bigger than that to anthropologists.

      Delete
    39. Example: Reputable anthropologist Tim White HAS given Bigfoot consideration. He rejects the evidence.

      Delete
    40. Your statement and my version of it are in reference of the same means. Just like you’re resorted to word play on Goodall, you’re doing it again that you can’t find evidence for your scientists rejecting evidence for Bigfoot.

      So by never discussing and subsequently confirming this alleged rejection, after allegedly giving this subject’s evidence consideration... how can you assert that any such conclusion was arrived at? You have absolutely no evidence, not one quote to reference that any such conclusion was made. You can’t even reference an instance of them analysing the data. These conclusions are almost as elusive as the 10,000 apemen you so very much like to sensationalise. They’re everywhere... yet nowhere. I’m also sure that there are a number of fringe topics aligned with physics and other branches of science that loads of physicists haven’t quoted on. Should that fringe subject finally become peer reviewed, they would have considerable difficulty contesting such data... But they would have to be made aware of such data in the first place, and be known to have given it consideration.

      None of which you can provide in writing here now.

      Delete
    41. So does this mean you have something to reference for Tim White examining the current state of evidence and basing that conclusion upon it?

      Delete
    42. What you will find, if anything at best... is the notion that there is no evidence to scrutinise, not that the existing data presented as evidence has been scrutinised on their part. I wonder what all these alleged critics on the evidence would have to say about the latest peer reviewed results that are gaining traction?

      “Although not firmly announcing the yeti's definite existence, Sir David (Attenborough) stated that as there is no doubt that a giant ape did exist in the area at some point and that it is therefore not impossible that it may have been able to avoid human contact within the vast open space of the Himalayas."
      http://eden.uktv.co.uk/blog/article/attenborough-yeti-mystery/
      "I actually believe that there is a real possibility that there might be something in the abominable snowman mystery.”

      Take a leaf out of his book.

      Delete
  2. There is no way that thousands of 7-10 foot, 800-1000 pound bipedal primates are walking around North America entirely unknown to science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science is a tool, and it has been applied to 60 years worth of physical evidence, attributed to 10 foot, 800-1000 pound bipedal primates who are seemingly walking around North America.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story

Ketchum's Publicist Speaks Out Regarding "Rejected" Bigfoot DNA Paper