Sunday, March 11, 2018

Bigfoot and Gigantopithecus - Are They the Same?


In this episode of Mountain Beast Mysteries, they took a look at bigfoot and gigantopithecus. Are they the same creature?

162 comments:

  1. I really fancied taking care of a sexy bloke’s “gigantopithecus” at my flat last night !

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i'm sure you bloody did fake Joe, in your dreams
      now please bugger off kindly
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    2. By the way mates , I used the word “bugger” for a reason !

      Delete
    3. ^ knows all about buggery...don`t you,Joe.

      Delete
  2. Tim Fasano is more honest than Bob Gimlin that is a fact.

    He is out there looking and reasearching in the brush.

    Gimlin just collects checks for a hoax he pulled half a century ago.

    At least Tim does not lie to us like Gimlin does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If thousands of rubes and yokels were willing to pay to see you talk about an obvious hoax and lie, wouldn’t you do it?

      Delete
    2. Got monkey suit?

      Didn’t think so. When Fasano documents evidence that is peer reviewed... then come back with the same.

      How many “rubes and yokels” are running around the country in gorilla costumes avoiding tens of thousands of hunters?

      10,000???

      Delete
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjvPcpdu8mk

      Delete
    4. 100-10,000 hoaxers in gorilla costumes running around the US. And not one hunter has shot & killed one.

      Isn’t that odd?

      Delete
    5. Same amount of alleged bigfoots running around as well. Not one of those shot and killed either.

      Sunk by your own idiotic logic. What a moron.

      Delete
    6. That’s not answering the question. You have been given ample reasons, lists of them in fact, as to why one hasn’t been put on display yet. None of these very obvious & widely reported physical and social attributes were good enough.

      So why can’t the average human in a gorilla costume be shot & killed by a hunter? There’s loads of them in the woods hoaxing people... isn’t there??

      Delete
    7. Why so touchy dNaKeR? Are you somehow above a little scrutiny for your wild claims?

      Delete
    8. I've never said there are loads of people in the woods hoaxing in costume, actually. I believe most alleged bigfoot reports are due to mistaken identity of common animals and sign or outright lying.

      Delete
    9. Aaaaaaaaaaargh, so we’re changing our tune now are we Don? (Creased) Are you aware of how hole-ridden that utter reach of a claim is? What are the chances of every single person, even the multiple eyewitnesses at one time who report very detailed reports, the experienced people with many decades of wilderness under their belts... misidentifying what they’re reporting?

      Delete
    10. Good chance most of them are lying.

      Not changing my tune at all.

      Delete
    11. “ I believe most alleged bigfoot reports are due to mistaken identity...”

      “Good chance most of them are lying.”

      Delete
    12. Nice cherry picking there. Use the full quote, why don't you? I said mistaken identity and lying. I never weighted one over the other. I just happen to think lying outweighs mistaken identity, but they both contribute to the reports.

      Delete
    13. So you’re in with Stuey and his hoaxing conspiracy?

      That’s an awful lot of people allegedly lying?

      And even by the amount of people who are now apparently simply mistaken (eyes rolling), that’s shaving the alleged amount hoaxers by a significant number, surely?

      And all the while evidence is rolling in?

      Delete
    14. Your whole point underscores that bigfoot is imaginary. On the one hand you assert that there simply cannot be hundreds or thousands of people running around the woods in bigfoot costumes because a hunter would have shot one by now. All the while, not seeing that the same logic applies to bigfoots. By your own logic there simply cannot be hundreds or thousands of bigfoots running around because a hunter would have shot one by now. Therefore neither thing exists. No thousands of bigfoots and no thousands of costume wearing pranksters. By your own framework.

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

      Delete
    16. Actually Don... In the time it’s taken you to come up with that comment, you’ve totally missed the boat.

      The whole point of me demanding answers to this, is that Stuey (the one that claims your comments are “almost spiritual”), asserts that Bigfoot cannot exist, because one would have been shot by now. It doesn’t matter how many times I reference the easily accessible data, average height & weight ratios for the size of these things, the fact that all primates are highly social, and the many, many, many eyewitnesses who have attested to physical and behavioural traits, not to mention plausible circumstances for not shooting one (or getting away with it)... None of it is plausible. Of course, I’m well aware that I’m merely getting the rhetorical excuses of a chronic denialist. But if the opposite is true, as he asserts, and there are hundreds or even thousands of role-players planting tracks and running around in gorilla costumes... And something of the reported size of Bigfoot would be easily killed, where are the dead hoaxers?

      You tried applying a role-reversal when the whole basis of my premise was exactly that about YEARS of assertions from your like-minded theory group. It’s ok... I’ll let you off this time since you’ve not been around for a while.

      Bigfoot exists... because there is evidence for it. A hoaxing conspiracy empire; not so much.

      Delete
    17. The answer is simple: neither exists. You can have zero bigfoots and a negligible number of people hoaxing in costume and still have the exact same phenomenon we have now.

      We know people hoax bigfoot in costume. At least one was struck by a moving vehicle a few years ago. But no bigfoots. There is more concrete evidence for costumed hoaxers than there is for bigfoots.

      Delete
    18. Let’s not get carried away now D, there’s an awful lot of evidence that you need to explain away before that sticks around me.

      Different hoaxers would have to have guessed up
      the same Sasquatch foot accurate to bipedal evolution that only very few educated people understand. This would require a consorted effort to manufacture and make convincing. They would also have to place such fakes in places where some people might not trek for many decades, hoping that someone some day would stumble across them out of miles and miles of wilderness. This would need planning and the information on strangers to predict to the exact yard out of hundreds of miles of wilderness. To hoax convincing biological dermatoglyphics that are primate in origin, one would have to have a knowledge of all human primate and non-human primate dermals (that not many people on the planet do), THEN fool multiple forensic experts. This would require some accosoation between amateur hoaxers from the general public and leading academics. The same is true of the behavioural traits noted native Americans over hundreds of years, by witnesses in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, before general knowledge of primates was common, and before these hominins were in popular culture, eroding away any powers of suggestion. For there to be consistency of this, there would need to be require a consorted dialogue to invent over a transitional period of pop culture.

      So either Bigfoot exists... or there is a role-playing hoaxing conspiracy society at play. Only one of them actually has evidence.

      Delete
    19. I could not care less what "sticks around" you.

      Delete
    20. I’m sure you don’t... but it has to stick with Mr Logic too.

      Delete
  3. Of course they're not the same.

    Gigantopithecus existed.

    Bigfoot doesn't.

    That's a big difference right there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In one we can point to fossil remains.

      The other we can point to peer reviewed trace evidence.

      Since 100 role-players are all accountable for wearing gorilla costumes up and down the US and Canada, and as easy as you claim it should be to shoot a Bigfoot, why aren’t more hoaxers in costumes turning up shot by hunters?

      Delete
    2. Where, exactly, are you getting this "peer reviewed" tripe?

      And do you not understand that peer reviewed does not mean peer confirmed?

      Delete
    3. > why aren’t more hoaxers in costumes turning up shot by hunters?

      For the same reason Bob Gimling didn't shoot "Patty": he didn't want to kill Bob Heironimus.

      Don't you know that it takes at least two people to pull off that sort of bigfoot hoax? One in the monkey suit, and one behind the camera.

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

      Delete
    5. But you have asserted for years that the reasons given for hunters not shooting a Bigfoot are not plausible.

      Are you really backtracking on YEARS of assertions that a Bigfoot would have been shot by now? Be VERY careful with what you’re about to publish... I can make you look very, very silly indeed with the dossier I have of your denial.

      Answer the question... Since 100 role-players are all accountable for wearing gorilla costumes up and down the US and Canada, and as easy as you claim it should be to shoot a Bigfoot, why aren’t more hoaxers in costumes turning up shot by hunters?

      Oh... and got monkey suit?

      Delete
    6. Oh Stuey... Not only have you spent the past 8 years setting the peer review process up as the benchmark for what is acceptable science... But you’ve been given the peer review details almost once daily, every day of your life for the past few months. And you want it again?

      “Peer review is one of the gold standards of science. It’s a process where scientists (“peers”) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. By doing this, they aim to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already knew.”

      “Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality.”

      Let me guess, peer review isn’t important to you anymore?

      Delete
    7. That’s backtracking on the importance of peer review...

      ... PLUS how easy it would be to shoot a Bigfoot, in the same comment section.

      YEARS of assertions down the drain in an instant. Do you have an confidence in anything you harass people with?

      Delete
    8. ^ knows all about "backtracking"

      Delete
    9. You’re a mess boio.

      None of your 100 strong hoaxers in gorilla suits are turning up dead, are they?

      Delete
    10. Tip for Jotomi - take a minute to read through before posting to correct errors and ensure your post makes sense.

      "Do you have an confidence etc" doesn`t make the grade...neither do you.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9t_KDGqOmE

      Delete
    11. Really? Does using a YouTube link that’s been published at you to make you look silly a load of times, really amount to a logical response for basic questions on your theories? Nuff said.

      You lose pal.

      Delete
    12. ^ Oh...it has gotten to you hasn`t it...haha haha ... learn to spell you imbecile.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjvPcpdu8mk

      Delete
    13. Only one of us is showing our scars.

      Maybe you should start thinking about explaining how your role-playing empire hasn’t come up with any dead hoaxers?

      Delete
    14. I tought that hunters were so reluctant to shoot bigfoot because it looks human? That logic doesn’t apply to hoaxers?

      Delete
    15. That’s indeed one of the reasons! Yet that wasn’t good enough for you. Remember when you claimed “people shoot other property all the time”?

      The dead hoaxers should be piling up?

      Delete
    16. So hunters are reluctant to shoot a non-human bigfoot because it looks human, but they are more than happy to shoot an actual human because . . . reasons. That probably makes sense to a permanent drunk! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    17. That writing looks an awful lot like someone else’s around here you know! Stop deflecting and answer the god damn question... You claim that none of the many reasons set forth as to why a Bigfoot hasn’t been shot isn’t good enough. If Bigfoot exists (and it does), it would have physical attributes that make what a civilised human could do pale into significance.

      Why aren’t they being shot?

      How many role-players in the woods in gorilla costumes?

      Delete
    18. So you’ve painted yourself into a corner and you want me to make your argument for you because your booze filled mind can’t explain yourself? I’ll give you some advice instead: put the bottle down! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    19. Oh dear...

      I’m giving you one more chance to at least attempt the question.

      One more deflection, and I’ll take it that another one of your 8 year assertions has been debunked.

      All because one simple question was asked.

      Delete
    20. At least it’s no longer the “god damn question.” Are you sobering up some? Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    21. Consider another one gone!

      What do we have left? Role-players, Bigfoot millionaires, peer review and conspiracy theories are all done and dusted. Surely that doesn’t sum up your 8 years?

      Delete
    22. Did ikdummy actually just argue that there are no bigfoot bodies because hunters are reluctant to shoot bigfoot as they look too human, but there is proof of bigfoot because those same hunters would gladly shoot and kill the human hoaxers?

      Delete
    23. Blah, blah, blah, blah... stop your blithering! According to you, it should be easy for a hunter to shoot and kill a Bigfoot. Given the fact that this subject is “all role-play” and people are allegedly running around the wildnerness of the US and Canada in gorilla costumes... where are the dead Bigfoot hoaxers?

      It’s a very, very, very simple question.

      : )

      Delete
    24. You’re also now admitting that Patty looked like a person in a gorilla costume. I was wrong in my advice to you earlier. Please keep drinking! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    25. More blithering!

      Surely you’re man enough to answer one SIMPLE question?

      Delete
    26. I have a question for you: above you distinguished bigfoot from a “civilized human.” If bigfoot has a language, uses tools, and erects shelters, why doesn’t he become more “civilized”?

      Delete
    27. I wouldn’t know, since we don’t know how to track them, sit down with them and ask them. In the meantime, I can at least point to evidence for their existence.

      YOUR TURN!

      How about one little answer? Anybody would think you’re struggling a little?

      Delete
    28. You still don't know who you're talking to, Ikky.

      You use the term "peer review" like a magic shibboleth thinking it will dispel all doubt and skepticism of your BS.

      But it doesn't work that way.

      You can't just say "peer reviewed" and leave it at that. What was reviewed? Which journal are we talking about? Who were the peers? What was their conclusion?

      You can't simply claim that one ignorant bigfoot believer agreed with another ignorant bigfoot believer. Calling it "peer review" among a peerage of credulous buffoons means nothing. It's just your same old argumentum ad verecundiam, and it's still worthless.

      Where is the specimen?

      Delete
    29. Sorry Stuey! I can leave it at that... Because you’ve had it smashed around your cyber-chops every day of your life for the past few months. I’m not your dancing monkey.

      : p

      As long as the process has been adhered to, your preciousssssss scientific method is applied. Ad hominem doesn’t cut it, your uneducated and grossly unqualified agenda-blob piles of words don’t cut it. And the fact that you claimed the 100th comment before me, isnproof positive who you are.

      I’ll reference a specimen, when there’s an actual funded expedition to find one.

      Delete
    30. Okay, I’ll try to answer the question. You want to know how someone like you could argue that hunters would be reluctant to shoot a bigfoot because it looks like a human, while you simultaneously maintain that those same hunters would happily shoot an actual human in a costume?

      Well, I can think of three possible answers:

      1. You drink constantly and are pretty much always drunk as a skunk;

      2. You’re insane and cannot think rationally;

      3. You’re incredibly stupid and have trouble understanding that 2+2=4.

      My suspicion is that the truth is some combination of all three factors.

      So I answered your question, are you happy now?

      Delete
    31. Iktomi Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:54:00 AM PDT
      That’s not answering the question. You have been given ample reasons, lists of them in fact, as to why one hasn’t been put on display yet. None of these very obvious & widely reported physical and social attributes were good enough. So why can’t the average human in a gorilla costume be shot & killed by a hunter? There’s loads of them in the woods hoaxing people... isn’t there??



      You’re an abject failure, not to mention a coward, for not standing by your assertions. And I’ve denunked yet another.

      Delete
    32. IktomiMonday, March 12, 2018 at 2:17:00 PM PDT
      There’s a great documentary on BBC2 now pal... you’re not remotely interesting enough.

      Laters!

      Delete
    33. ..Like Meldrum, I believe the data bases have a great deal of false sightings. Its hard to quantify, but I find thousands and thousands of sightings without discovery to be incredible. If they exist they are rare, and if rare, then rarely seen..You only need 1 true one for existence and there are plenty of sightings from honest people with half a clue...Thus I dont know why some proponents are reluctant to toss out a large percent..Meldrum would go as high as 80%..On the down side, it could be 100%!..Remember, there were plenty of "good" reports from the Loch, and its petty much a given at this point there are no plesiosaurs in Loch Ness..Another downer is the current phenomena of the British bigfoot: that is a 100% throwaway situation....
      ..In summary, a characteristic of cryptozoology is the belief that one can mine data by digging through the anecdotes, but it is not easy or well-defined as how to go about it....EEG

      Delete
    34. ..As for the article, unfortunately we dont have giganto footprints for any kind of comparisons...One thing that the idea has in its favor, besides the obvious, is the closeness of giganto and baboons. The tendency of old males to go rogue and cover long distances jibes nicely with restricted rlcit hominids to the pnw, with an occasional rogue covering large distances and become responsible for starting a "legend" in places very far away...Thus the now famous cop on monster quest could have seen an oddball that popped up in upstate NY, then splitting for parts unknown(and leaving many bigfoot clubs in his wake...lol)...

      Delete
    35. Interesting idea EEG. I might add that your scenario is further supported by the striking similarities between baboons and certain humans (e.g. Iktomi) in their odors, skull morphologies, and writing skills! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    36. ...I meant orangutans(not the critters with the remarkably ugly asses...whats up with their butts? What is the evolutionary cause of such a gross butt-hole area? I suppose the ones with the ugly asses were not raped in baboon prison thereby remaining aids-free and able to propagate the species...thanks Mr. Darwin!..lol)

      Delete
    37. ...1.29..Peer-reviewers are anonymous..They contact the authors a few times prior to publication through the editors to give suggestions or edits..Technically, peer-review refers to the review prior to publication, but the term is also used, for lack of a better phrase, to people reading and commenting on the article after publication...I suppose this is what you are referring to when you ask for the reviewers..I think you are asking "who actually read the damn thing"...


      Delete
  4. Anyone who looks at a digital analysis of the P-G film, and thinks that's a man in a suit, is an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You just called almost all scientists and most of America idiots. I'm sure they all have their opinion of you as well.

      Delete
    2. Can you name one scientist that’s looked at the digital version of PGF and proclaimed otherwise?

      Delete
    3. Bernard Heuvelman
      D.W. Grieve
      John Napier
      David J. Daegling
      Daniel O. Schmitt

      Delete
    4. Because as for what was ACTUALLY asked of you... I can list Redmond, the late John Bindernagle, Jeff Meldrum and Allen Guinn... to name but a couple.

      Delete
    5. His name was spelled “Bindernagel” and he was Canadian since you apparently don’t know who he was.

      Delete
    6. Really? Because according to you, he was “American” the other day?

      Delete
    7. lkdummy has no idea who he's talking to on any given day (or minute).

      Delete
    8. It must be all the grog going to his head, making him permanently confused.

      Delete
    9. He not only doesn't know WHO he's talking to but also doesn't know WHAT he'stalking about.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousFriday, January 19, 2018 at 6:53:00 AM PST
      American John Bindernagel would not appreciate welsh poof joe f. role playing an American fictional being.
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/true-stories-of-cryptid-encounters.html?m=0

      And when you’ve quite finished talking to yourself...

      Delete
    11. Since when is January 19 “the other day”? Are you continuously drunk and unable to perceive the passage of time? And that comment was likely sock puppeted by you during one of your marathon posting benders.

      Delete
    12. It’s a figure speech. And since I’ve just made you look even sillier... maybe that question needs addressing? I know being unable to worm out of your theories being throughly debunked is taxing... but please try and stay on topic.

      Delete
    13. Hahahahaha! Iktomi views all anons as the same person. "Here, you said this...." Then he posts a link of someone else's quote like that means anything. Stupid.

      Delete
    14. Reality check...

      You don’t have an audience that doesn’t remember how many times I’ve exposed you.

      Delete
    15. LOL Posting a link claiming an anon poster is someone else is meaningless. I see you're still flailing with your 10,000 retort. Not a very cohesive plan. All we have to do to destroy you is reveal that you believe there are....10,000 ten foot tall hairy apemen hiding in 49 US states.

      KABOOM!

      Delete
    16. Again... You don’t have an audience. If the subjects presented as your own weren’t anything to do with you, why respond? Why argue the case? You’re not too smart in this respect, are you?

      Again... Considering I can reference thousands of years of anthropological data, tens of thousands of eyewitnesses and 60 years of accompanying physical evidence which is now peer reviewed... 10,000 ten foot tall hairy apemen hiding in 49 “US states” seems like a plausible breeding population.

      See what I did there?

      Your turn... How many “role-players” does it take to plant footprints & run around in gorilla costumes, and why aren’t the hoaxers piling up dead? You do have some confidence in your claims, surely??

      Delete
    17. So DM, DS, and all the anons are all one person? Stupid.

      There's no "your turn", there's only you believing in 10,000 ten foot tall 1000 lb hairy apemen perpetually hiding in 49 US states. WOW!!!

      Delete
    18. F-AC Sockpuppet Style Proven -
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/strange-cases-of-missing-people.html?m=0

      Rape Threat Boasts With Same “>>” As Quotations -
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/the-glagg-saga.html

      And Your Twisted “Free Speech” Sentiment linked with the above “>>” Quotation Marks -
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/bigfoot-truth-told.html

      Delete
    19. No... there is a “your turn”. You are either stupid, or your role-playing conspiracy doesn’t stack up. Which one?

      One of us can point to a body of evidence that some of which is peer reviewed. The other has conjecture and impossible hoaxing conspiracy theories. The irony here if course, is that for years you’ve demanded peer review and claimed that others have had nothing but conspiracy theories. Now you’re stuck in your own flip sided bubble of pseudoscience.

      Delete
    20. Posting links to every nasty thing anyone ever posted anonymously is meaningless.
      You can't be that stupid.

      You make false accusations when you are cornered and made a fool of. You couldn't get away with those tactics in a real debate, weasel. Just posting links to your own dimwitted quotes saying "I know it was you" is childish. You continue to fail.

      Delete
    21. Iktomi believes in 10,000 ten foot tall 1000 lb hairy apemen perpetually hiding in 49 US states. WOW!!!

      Now, lie and libel because you have no other argument, weasel.

      Delete
    22. Yet, in the above links is the proof you’re the same person. You’ve even used “>” in this exact comment section. It’s ok... I am fully aware that you’re likely getting off on this. And you’re not playing mind games, I rather enjoy exposing a pathological pervert.

      You’d make me look a fool by doing some damage on the subject matter. So far, conspiracy theories you can’t back up with a moment’s worth of logic isn’t “making the grade”. There’s no real debate as far as you’re concerned.

      But let’s not deflect... let’s explore the idea of these role-players avoiding hunters at all cost.

      Delete
    23. Actually Stuey... I have plenty to reference. It’s unfortunate for you that you can’t point to the same, eh?

      Delete
    24. Iktomi believes in 10,000 ten foot tall 1000 lb hairy apemen perpetually hiding in 49 US states. WOW!!!

      Get a clue, dimwit, watch the entire video: https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=kMcEb_1520519917

      Delete
    25. Yes! However, we can’t seem to get a figure on how many ninjas in gorilla constumes are dodging hunters’ bullets?

      Tell me... Do they move in Matrix slow motion too?

      Delete
    26. Iktomi believes in 10,000 ten foot tall 1000 lb hairy apemen perpetually hiding in 49 US states. WOW!!!

      ^What a premise you have there, Mr. Science. 10,000 monsters all playing hide and seek in the 21st century United States. Derp!

      Delete
    27. Sure do! But I can also reference the scientific method for that. Tell me... Is it 10,000 gorilla suit wearing hoaxers, or are we settling for just the 100? Please Mr Conspiracy, tell me how science works?

      Delete
    28. AC collins Monday, April 11, 2016 at 6:44:00 PM PDT
      ^ DUH.DERP.DUH!!

      an yes,TK is a complete "MORON"!!

      BOOO!-------------
      AC collins.ha ha ha ha ha!

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/group-catches-bigfoot-watching-their.html

      Delete
    29. Look, you typed words someone else did. You must be them! More stupidity from ikdummy.

      Iktomi believes in 10,000 ten foot tall 1000 lb hairy apemen perpetually hiding in 49 US states. WOW!!!

      Delete
    30. Sure do! And there’s ten times more evidence of them than the role-playing hoaxing empire you’re struggling to substantiate.

      You seem a little emotionally invested, given the amount you’re repeating yourself there, old boy?

      Delete
    31. Iktomi: "Sure do! I believe in 10,000 ten foot tall 1000 lb hairy apemen perpetually hiding in 49 US states."

      Delete
    32. Sure do!

      Let’s do a like for like comparison to your role-playing empire...

      Delete
    33. No. Role-play somewhere else.

      Delete
    34. It seems to me that the only person role-playing here can’t substantiate his fantasy.

      : (

      Delete
    35. "How many “role-players” does it take to plant footprints & run around in gorilla costumes?"

      One...two....three...three role-players.

      Delete
    36. Are you sure? Last time we counted five... all of whom frequent here and one (me) who lives in the UK.

      Delete
    37. ikdummy, 1:54 was over your head, sucker.

      I just gave you a clue!

      Delete
    38. So did 1:54(he also gave you a clue, ikdummy), come to think of it.

      I have to (parenthesis) explain things for ikdummy because there's no telling what will confuse him.

      Delete
    39. There’s a great documentary on BBC2 now pal... you’re not remotely interesting enough.

      Laters!

      Delete
    40. Too bad there's not adequate wi-fi in forests so your 10,000 monsters hiding in the woods can experience the BBC.

      Delete
    41. But I’m guessing all these hoaxers in gorilla costumes have smart phones, right? I mean... how else would their planned hoaxing on strangers work without a communication link?

      Delete
    42. Everyone seems to have a smart phone these days so maybe you can donate yours to one of the thousands of giant primitive men you say are perpetually hiding in American forests so that they can enjoy clips of BBC programming by pale, crooked-teethed fops not unlike yourself. Good day, sir!

      Delete
    43. Oooooooooh, the insults are telling.

      I wouldn’t say they’re hiding all that well. We wouldn’t have 60 years of evidence and accompanying eyewitness testimony it that was the case.

      I wonder if there’s an equivalent for the hoaxing role-playing empire?

      Delete
    44. 0 evidence but a lot of bigfoot role play.

      Watch some Tommy Robinson, you treacherous creep.

      Delete
    45. And here in lies your burden.

      Not only have you struggled for 8 years to explain away that evidence... But now you’re struggling to substantiate your role-playing, multi-million dollar empire.

      I can’t tell you how embarrassed I would be, if I couldn’t respond to the first couple of questions about my long-standing theories?

      Delete
    46. speaking of lies, 8 years, all anons same, bigfoot, false accusations, strawman...

      Your debate technique is a house of cards, unapplicable to the real world.

      Delete
    47. Your 8 years are defined by harassment, intimidation attempts and conspiracy theories. There is one troll here who sockpuppets with one other writing style (until I buried it).

      If it’s that easy to debate me... why ignore one simple question?

      Abject failure.

      Delete
    48. ^ case in point. Lies. You are just lying. How is that furthering your debating tactics?

      ikdummy, your premise is wrong. Your minutia is immaterial. Find out the probability that there could be 10,000 hairy giants, etc... hiding in the woods before you buy into all the hoaxes, misidentifications, mythology, etc.. set around the bigfoot myth.

      Delete
    49. Have you ever consulted a probability expert on the existence of “Bigfoot” to know?

      The probability that there are “10,000 10 foot tall hairy ape men hiding in US woods” is very high, since there is reliable, peer reviewed scientific data to substantiate them. If something doesn’t exist... it isn’t seen on average 200 times a year, and doesn’t leave 60 years of physical evidence that people can ascertain average height & weight ratios, not to mention point to Gaussian distribution. Myths don’t leave that level of evidence. As for 100 role-players, accounting for all the alleged hoaxing in the US, avoiding hunters... without a single shred of evidence?

      Now there’s modern mythology if ever I’ve seen it.

      Delete
    50. No, I have not consulted a probability expert on the existence of “Bigfoot”.

      It should be done bipartisanly.

      Minutia, minutia, minutia.... There you go again. Examine your premise before you confirm your biases with every claim down the pike. It's surprising that you would get so deep into all this but not even examine the silliness of your premise. You have some kind of disconnect.

      Delete
    51. So you think referencing the opinion of experts you’re asserting allegedly support your drivel, doesn’t matter? Did you honestly suggest I can’t debate earlier? I am pretty lost for words at the moment... and that doesn’t happen too often. But not for too long.

      I’ve examined my premise, and it has peer reviewed science surrounding trace evidence. That’s not my bias, that’s the scientific method applied to a satisfactory standard. The sheer audacity here... (and I’m well aware that I’m being trolled)... is that you can’t answer one simply question about your premise.

      You insufferably dense soul.

      The fact that you have no confidence in estimating a number of role-players because you’re too scared to have the Mickey taken out of you, means you have not for one second examined the silliness of your 8 year asserted premise. The fact that you can’t offer one simple answer as to why gorilla suit wearing hoaxers are not ending up dead at the hands of hunters means you have not for one second examined the silliness of your 8 year asserted premise.

      You are a fool.

      Delete
    52. Premise, stupid.


      An insufferably dense fool believes there are 10000, hairy 10 ft tall 1000lb primitive apemen hiding in the United States. That is your stumbling block. You can't even get out of the gate. Your minutia is superfluous without probability.

      Delete
    53. Yet I have evidence for it.

      Probability experts making claims about Bigfoot... not so much.

      Role-playing, bullet dodging, hoaxing conspiracies... Not so much.

      Your claims; go get some evidence!

      Delete
    54. You are a psycho bigfoot role-player. 0 evidence for bigfoot existence.

      Watch Tommy Robinson videos and get away from your fantasy bigfoot diversions. Your country is rotting and you're a proud fantasy monster chaser. UK DNA has unraveled. You are the new low.

      Delete
    55. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

      Evidence, yet it some time. You might like it.

      Delete
    56. Cart ahead of the horse. Premise first, unless you're just role playing, which you are.

      Delete
    57. This coming from someone who asserts that research starts with a body (conclusion of biological research).

      My premise has evidence... where’s yours?

      Delete
    58. Strawman assertion. Not applicable in real debate. Fail.

      Wrong. You do NOT have facts proving whether your bigfoot belief is true or valid(evidence).

      You fail the definition of evidence and, of course, you don't have a valid premise either.

      Delete
    59. My premise is that 10,000 Bigfoot roam North America. I have peer reviewed evidence for that. I have the scientific method applied to a body of evidence that is impossible to fabricate.

      "Real evidence, physical evidence, or material evidence is any material object that plays some role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on the object's demonstrable physical characteristics."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_evidence
      If I knocked you over the head with a footprint cast, you'd no doubt feel the physical effects of it. By that track cast, we can tell things like weight, gait, height and morphology; all physical characteristics of the creature that left it. If by the definition of evidence I fail... If you do t like it, put your money where your mouth is. This is your burden.

      Your behaviour reeks of someone who has spent too much time at the desktop, believing his words are the universe. Stop pretending to know scientific theory and just address the most basic of burdens. You need facts and data... go get some against the evidence I reference, and for your hoaxing empire. I’ll check back tomorrow to see how you get on with your homework.

      Delete
    60. Good grief. Plaster is real, the fakery it casts is not. You can hit yourself in the head with all manner of matter but casting fake feet and then getting another clown to sign off on it doesn't make 10,000 hairy men real.

      You have never referenced evidence for bigfoot. Rick Dyer's bigfoot would not be evidence even if Jeff Meldrum said it was a corpse.

      Delete
    61. “You can hit yourself in the head with all manner of matter but casting fake feet...”

      That’s all very well. I’m very open to being convinced that this evidence is fake. But what are you doing to convince anyone of that? You are not remotely qualified enough to expect your uneducated opinion to merely say something is fake without any data, not one logical scientific explanation, against something that has consistent science behind, and expect that to wash.

      Help yourself for crying out loud. This subject is clearly destroying your life... do something about it. I have done nothing but reference evidence for Bigfoot, and you seem all out of ideas champ. And comparing a hair covered mannequin to peer reviewed science is not only desperate, it’s patheric and shows you haven’t got anything else but junior level drivel.

      Grow up. Take some responsibility. Prove your points.

      Delete
    62. It is your responsibility to prove the tooth fairy is real. No matter how many Quarters and missing teeth under pillows you provide, I dismiss your silly premise and faked evidence. You are a mental patient and many of us are waiting for you to just "get it", not that any of us could convince you, but we want to be here when our patient just "gets" that his whole premise is absurd.

      Delete
    63. It’s my responsibility to provide ample reason for people to invest enthusiasm into the existence of Bigfoot. I can do that by referencing 60 years of physical evidence, some of which is now peer reviewed.

      All the uneducated & grossly unqualified trolls in the world can merely dismiss that evidence, it’s referencing reliable and logically solid scientific data against the idea of Bigfoot existing, that counts.

      Like I said... Grow up. Take some responsibility. Prove your points. The tooth fairy, just like you’re role-players, don’t leave evidence.

      Delete
    64. LOL "uneducated & grossly unqualified" sums up Joe. Seeing you effortlessly smacked around by Andy White and your obliviousness to your ordeal was priceless.

      Patiently waiting to be here when you snap out of it.

      Delete
    65. Aaaaaaaargh, Andy White. A thoroughly enjoyable and productive exchange that was too.

      But I wouldn’t worry about Andy... Unless you’re wondering what he’d have to say about your ridiculous conspiracy theories. I’d worry about answering one simple question...

      Delete
    66. Not believing in 100000 hairy apemen is a conspiracy in iktomi/Joe-F1tzgerald-land. Sad.

      Delete
    67. Nargh! Claiming a minority of the subject’s proponents (after you backtracked on the majority not being dishonest), is down to role-play, liars and hoaxers is.

      Your conspiracy, man up and deliver.

      Delete
    68. You're the one who believes in the 10,000 non-existent hairy apemen playing hide and seek in US forests.

      Have your psycho-ward nurse sedate you.

      Delete
    69. Let’s look at what’s non-existent...

      Peer reviewed evidence for Bigfoot - we’ve got that.

      A shred of evidence for a hoaxing conspiracy - not so much.

      Delete
    70. 2 guys agreeing that faked prints are real does not mean that there are 10,0000 hairy men hiding in US woods. That's not how reality works.

      Yeah, ikdummy, no hoaxers exist. No shred of evidence that Rick Dyer or any hoaxers conspired to hoax. Blimey!

      Delete
    71. Two men?

      Oh dear Special Plead-Boy. At this rate you’re busting out more fantasy than any of the woo-footers were ever accustomed to. Sorry, but there are far more than two people on the editorial board publishing the evidence, let alone the scientists recognising said evidence as authentic. People hoax... the type of hoaxing that would be needed for your hoaxing role-play empire is impossible. Not impossible?

      Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence...

      Delete
    72. Confirmation biased individuals suggest that faked prints are real and that means there are 10,000 apemen hiding in US wooed areas?

      You said there were 450 misidentifications in the UK, an area 30 X smaller than the US, but 13,500 US misidentifications(450 times 30) is out of the question??? No one said all the bigfoot sightings are hoaxes. Strawman.

      Delete
    73. I’m sorry Stuey... But the peer review process safeguards against biases. Did you not read EEG’s comment up top? A great example! The plethora of cultural, anecdotal and anthropological data that just so happens to have peer reviewed evidence in the present... Is your burden. If it’s fake, crack on. But you need something more than your mere words, because they hold no worth against the scientific method.

      “There is as of yet, no physical evidence for the existence “Bigfoot” in the UK. More sightings of Bigfoot occur in two years in the US than have ever been reported in the UK. I have spoken to people in the UK at length about their sightings and they are clearly not making anything up and are not misunderstood about what they’ve allegedly seen. However, it is not scientifically prudent to endorse the existence of a large bipedal primate without so much as one single example of track impression to reference. If there was no physical evidence for the existence of such hominins in the US, then I wouldn’t be justified in asserting they are there.”
      - Me

      I’ll be back tomorrow sweetheart. Please surprise me and leave some sort of challenge.

      (Yawn)

      Delete
    74. You missed the point. You have stated that in an area the size of the UK there are 450 misidentifications.

      Using your own logic, in an area 30 times the size of the UK which is the US, there could be "450 misidentifications times 30" which equals 13,500... 13,500 possible misidentifications in the US using your own logic. Regardless of "evidence", using your own logic, there could be 13,500 misidentifications in the US.

      Delete
    75. Comparative EVIDENCE... Very fundamental to the whole picture.

      Try it some time... You might just like it.

      Ciao Bella!

      Delete
    76. There could be 13,500 possible misidentifications in the US if there are 450 possible misidentifications in the UK. You agree that there are 450 possible misidentifications in the UK, which is 30 X smaller than the US.

      How many documented bigfoot sightings TOTAL in the US?

      Delete
    77. There is no physical evidence in the UK for what is commonly referred to as Bigfoot in the US. There is not one track impression. However... having spoken to eyewitnesses myself in recent times, I am happy that they are not misidentifying what they have seen. Contrary to what you think (cringe), there is no other wildlife in the UK for eyewitnesses to misidentify (cringe).

      In the US, there is 60 years of physical evidence, plus plenty of wildlife that likely attributes some number of reports to misidentification. Now genuinely... I know you thought you finally had an argument to try and forget about the role-players avoiding bullets... but I’ll see you tomorrow.

      Nighty night Einstein!

      Delete
    78. How many documented bigfoot sightings TOTAL in the US?

      ^ You're now too scared to answer that??? I'm THAT effective?????

      Delete
    79. Too scared to answer?

      Ok... I’ll bite.

      Not only would you need a valid and effective comparison at the root of your drivel for me to even begin to be scared... but it’s pretty impossible to say. It’s not like I can make an estimate based on predictable data... like that of 60 years of track impressions for a breeding population in the present. Bigfoot have been at the cultural core of ingegenous peoples of North America for at least 14,000 years. That’s anthropological data that hasn’t been written down due to oral traditions, therefore difficult to predict. That’s a lot of sightings. And since civilisation has encroached more and more over time, it’s impossible to know at this point whether breeding populations have dwindled or even increased over many thousands of years. But you know all about these role-players. Surely they mirror every report and event since it’s all role-play and hoaxing? Have some responsibility for your own face falls... you child.

      I’ll be back tomorrow.

      Kiss, kiss.

      Delete
    80. How many bigfoot sightings does the BFRO Geographical Database of Bigfoot Sightings & Reports have? Afraid?

      You really stepped in it when you denied the 450 UK sightings. Coming back to haunt you, eh? Sleep well. ;)

      Delete
    81. zzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ!!! Huh? (Cough, snort, splatter)

      For a Bigfoot report to be logged in a database, someone needs to actually report it. And people in the last god knows how many years haven’t done that due to fear of ridicule. Therefore databases, though extremely important (three regarding modern reports in total), are at the mercy of the courage of people witnessing these hominins. Anna Nekaris has done research into the amount of eyewitnesses that don’t come forward with their reports. However... if the reports average that of 200 a year, and have occurred for the past 10-14,000 years... What’s the math?

      Your drivel cannot apply... since the second someone can present a steady flow of physical evidence for Bigfoot in the UK, I’m happy to go along with it. I am therefore, unlike you, not denying Bigfoot in the UK outright. There is not one effort at comparison on your part, through this entire comment section, that actually works.

      And I’m still waiting on a reason why Bigfoot role-players in monkey costumes don’t turn up shot dead.

      : (

      Yaaaaaaaaaaawn... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

      Delete
    82. You say roughly 200 sightings in the US for 60 years.

      That's roughly 12,000 US sightings in the last 60 years. Yet, 13,500 potential misidentifications possible in the US based on your UK logic of 450 out of 450 misidentifications in the UK(scaled for region square miles). There are wild man reports in Europe as well for 10-***60,000 plus*** years... What’s the math? Hell, they even tall ancient humans bones in Europe and actual archaic hominid fossils.

      Misidentifications are 100% in the UK, according to you, but that logic doesn't apply to the US because to deny the US sightings I would have to believe them mostly hoaxes, according to you, instead of overwhelmingly misidentifications, which is what I believe. You are the holder of the misidentification flame. I must believe 12,000 US sightings to be all hoaxes, according to you, not largely misidentifications(my actual belief), like you believe of 100% of the UK sightings. My belief is misidentification, wishful thinking, attention seekers, and some hoaxers but ZERO real bigfoot in the US and UK.

      Delete
    83. * First paragraph above... 200 sightings a year.

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

      Delete
    85. Me on the UK -
      • There are mythologies, there are however no oral histories of Natives in the UK.
      • I have spoken to some eyewitnesses, they are not misidentifying.
      • When physical evidence turns up, those eyewitnesses are validated.
      • That means some portion of the 450 are genuine sightings, once that occurs.

      Me on the US -
      • There are thousands of years oral histories in the US from Natives.
      • There are more eyewitnesses in the US in two years than have ever been in the UK.
      • There is no needs for physical evidence to turn up, as there is 60 years of it. Some of which is now peer reviewed.
      • This means regardless of the likelihood of some portion of the inummerable US sightings being hoaxed and misidentificaton... It is impossible for them all to be.

      You on both -
      • It’s all role-play.


      You’re flogging a dead horse. The key here is evidence... That’s fundamental. There is none for one country (to which I’m STILL not dismissing and maintaining an open mind), but there is for another. But let’s pretend you’re correct... Let’s say the words you’re trying to put in my mouth to try and distance yourself from answering one simple question was right, and I’m claiming all 450 UK sightings are misidentifying. How does this help your need to provide an estimated figure for your role-players? How does this sidestep scientific data? Again... You backtrack after referring to the subject as role-play numerous times just in the last three days, and claim that it’s mostly missidentification. But if all the reports are down to missidentification, where is the room to hoax & role-play evidence?

      There is none.

      Where is the room for all the hoaxing? Where is the room for your role-play?

      You’ve debunked yourself.

      Delete
    86. Here’s more perspective as to how pointless your latest deflection technique is...

      I BELIEVE THAT ALL BIGFOOT REPORTS IN THE UK ARE MISIDENTIFICATION.

      There, I played your game for a minute. Ok, so now let’s apply your “UK maths” to the US. Statistically I’d be grossly wrong, since the equivalent sightings per land mass in the US is yielding plenty of physical evidence that no theory of mass misidentification cannot explain away. Suddenly, just like me, you’re wrong and both comparisons cannot be simply attributed to misidentification.

      And that leaves your role-players and hoaxers confounded to impossible numbers.

      : p

      Delete
  5. Easily fooled if you don't research! Where's all the peer review outside of Patty Ikdummy?
    How stupid do you really have to be to think a Bigfoot is going to be snuck up on by men in horses! Did Patterson & Gimlin know where a Bigfoot was and approached quietly, LOL!
    And they had that camera ready just in case right..C'MON!
    Not a single field researcher, with Bigfoot evidence, looked at the Patterson footage, NOT ONE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The peer review I’m referencing encompasses three track impressions, all with morphological congruency. One of the three was taken from the sandbar the subject in the PGF was documented negotiating. It’s painful reading how utterly dense you are when it comes to the subject you’re trying to argue.

      The Patterson Gimlin footage was not the result of anyone “sneaking up” on anything. They rounded a corner and there the subject was, seemingly off-guard. Bigfoot has been reported by tens of thousands of people by anything of to a 1000 different types of circumstances. Be it on horses, be it in cars, be it in groups, individuals hunting... the list of circumstances goes on and on leading to nothing but the total consistency of what we see in the PGF. The witness walking one way, the hominin in the other. If you had but a rudimentary understanding of the reports, you wouldn’t be embarrassing yourself now.

      “Patterson chose the area because of intermittent reports of the creatures in the past, and of their enormous footprints since 1958. (His familiarity with the area and its residents from prior visits may also have been a factor.) The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find, which was investigated by journalist John Green, Bigfoot hunter RenĂ© Dahinden, and archaeologist Don Abbott on and after August 28, 1967. This find was reported to Patterson (via his wife) soon thereafter by Al Hodgson, owner of the Willow Creek Variety Store, a five and dime at the time.”

      They had a camera because that’s what (cough, cough) researchers do? You even do it when playing your Pokemon fantasy. Are you actually going to point the finger at someone using a camera to document the presence of Bigfoot? No... Not a single researcher that would abide by embarrassing pareidolia has looked at the PGF have declared it genuine. You have blurs, you are not remotely qualified to be telling anyone of real research. You have never consulted anyone who isn’t going to pity you and tell you what you want to hear.

      Delete
    2. ^ hasn’t an answer for a sheer lack of dead hoaxers.

      Delete
    3. Bruce thinks blurry photos and a brisk 5 minute walk on his local foot path = research
      hahahahaha
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    4. Joe,

      You don't get evidence because you simply do not spend enough time in the woods. You need to spend days, hours upon hours at the same time, you can't just go for a ten minute walk while filming. You should go out with Dan Shirley and camp out for a few days in the high Sierras or spend a few weeks at SOHA in Oregon.

      Delete
    5. Which is the total opposite of what “DS” does, and claims his pareidolia trumps physical evidence found in the exact locations you speak of.

      Delete
    6. Dan Shirley has proof of bigfoot?

      Delete