Frightening Stories from Hiking
From Swamp Dweller comes frightening stories from hikers. Hikes can be a fun and relaxing way to get some exercise, but they can also be terrifying and dangerous.
Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from...
Hiking aint frightening yo. Bigfoot aint no reals! Hikers be trippin dogg.
ReplyDeleteDingo
Plenty of hikers end up with PTSD and cannot go into wilderness areas again for many, many years. Plenty of missing hikers too. There is no reason to doubt these hikers, because there is reliable scientific evidence for the existence of what they’re reporting.
DeleteDINGO IS A RETARDED IKTOMI, I'LL MAKE HIM SMELL MY REEKING CLAM
DeleteName one person...who is legally sane...who suffered PTSD from a monkeyman sighting.
DeleteWhat a jerk you are.
Millions worldwide suffer from very real PTSD.
Yet again you take a very real issue,skew it to your weird beliefs,and use it as your own.
Name one hiker you lying sack of garbage.
PTSD, Posttraumatic stress disorder, is also known as shell shock or battle fatigue syndrome and it can be very serious. Most only associate PTSD with people who have served in a military war but PTSD can happen after any traumatic or terrifying event, even after a bigfoot sighting. In this episode Big Jim talks about PTSD after having a sighting of a cryptid.
DeleteWith PTSD the effected person often relives the event over and over in their mind. This may cause flashbacks, hallucinations, and nightmares. PTSD can cause intense fear, helplessness, horror and many other things. We have seen this type of emotions and trauma in witnesses after a bigfoot sighting. The feeling may go away in a few months or it may last for many years. I have conducted several interviews where the witness is experiencing PTSD. PTSD is serious and should be taken seriously.
This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet.
http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2017/05/ninja-of-woods-ptsd-after-cryptid.html
And that was just one source I could be bothered to find. There are plenty. I also have to admit that the “poet” part made me laugh.
DeleteSo many insults? Not the behaviour of someone who’s in control of a debate, I might add.
Hikers be like eatin too many mushys and trippin balls. Seeing all sorts of crazy shizit. The big fella aints real yo. These believerz be straight up whack. Maybez they not right all up in their dome. Know what I'm sayin?
ReplyDeleteDingo
Hallucinogenics do not manifest into physical evidence that can be tested by scientific means.
Deletehttp://healthland.time.com/2011/10/06/jobs-had-lsd-we-have-the-iphone/
DeleteNot necessarily Iky
Tidy little read that.
DeleteBigfoot doesn't exist and hikers do not get PTSD , fools
ReplyDeleteBigfoot related PTSD is as major problem for US hikers. The woods have thousands of 10 foot tall 800 pound ape men concealed in the shadows. The ape men kidnap plenty of people. This is not fantasy or speculation.
DeleteThis is only in the US. Hikers in the UK are okay because bigfoot does not exist there even though there are increasing reports of it being there. Bigfoot's territory is role-play dependant. On this blog the UK role players prefer a US bigfoot only. The non reality of a UK bigfoot hits too close to home. A US bigfoot is way off, far away, and the right level of mysterious to UK residents.
DeleteThe UK giant cats are cause for concern for UK hikers only but since "men" in the UK are such pasty weaklings no one bothers to hike and giant cats run unperturbed throughout the woods, fools
DeleteI’d love for these bigfoot role players to be forced to confront the loved ones of missing hikers and tell them, “I’m sorry, your loved one was taken by bigfoot. That’s the only possible explanation.”
DeletePeople go missing for any number of reasons. There are however three books written by an ex-police officer with the collaboration and in dedication to search & rescue personnel that list case upon case where people are missing via circumstances that cannot fall under the bracket of any known animal. All such cases that have a remote chance of falling within these possibilities are not added to the clusters of missing people in these books. There is simply too many experts out there that easily recognise the fights people have with recognised animals before being taken and killed. What's been proven, is that there is forensic evidence for a creature that fits the description for what natives have stated for thousands of years are taking people in these environments.
DeleteThere 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 refefence. If there was no physical evidence for the existence of such hominins in the US, then I wouldn’t be so quick to assert they are there.
AnonymousTuesday, February 20, 2018 at 11:16:00 AM PST
Misidentifications seem to be the overwhelming majority of bigfoot reports.
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/werewolves-dont-exist-but-dogmen-do.html?m=0
The above comment was from you when asked for a rough guess as to how many “role-players” it would take to run around the US in gorilla costumes, planting tracks and holding/attending events, etc. Since you have shaved that number of role-players to an overwhelming MINORITY... I’m curious to know how little an amount of people it would take to maintain such a community? Bearing in mind, when you were originally asked to apply a moment’s worth of logical thinking to your role-playing theories, you couldn’t provide one single coherent, logical answer. This is because you know damn straight that if you estimate too low, your “multi-million dollar Bigfoot” fantasy doesn’t stack up... and if you estimate too high then it’s a laughablely illogical amount of people running around the wilderness of the US. Being teased about that face fall made you dodge every attempt to extract such a basic estimation out of you over the course of two days. This is because you have no confidence whatsoever in an assertion you’ve made sometimes multiple times a day for every day of your life for the past few years.
As long as fools like you believe every incredulous story without a shred of evidence it would take very few hucksters to perpetrate fraud on the flimsy evidence level you so readily accept, grow up, fools
DeleteMore cognitive dissonance.
DeleteEvidence has been peer reviewed.
How many role-players?
you have no evidence you insufferable fool, it's obvious you're a mental case not worthy of my time, go back to your fairy tales and leave the adults be, fools
DeleteInsults now. Telling.
DeleteEvidence has been peer reviewed.
How many role-players?
Peers of whom? I cannot help that you are a gullible fool, hikers eaten by giant monsters, you are a fool, fools
DeleteMore insults. If you can’t sustain a civil exchange on a subject, you probably shouldn’t obsess about it.
DeleteThere is no evidence for “giant monsters”. There is however plenty of evidence, some of which is now peer reviewed for what is commonly known as “Bigfoot”.
Police in the US have a bigfoot checkbox on missing hiker reports for when they aren't certain how the hiker got lost.
Delete
DeleteIktomiThursday, March 1, 2018 at 9:22:00 AM PST
11:26, the "peer reviewed" journal to which he refers once had a senior editor who believes that (and I'm not making this up) HIV is not sexually transmitted and did not cause the A*DS epidemic:
Deletehttps://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/19/jse_19_4_bauer.pdf
The same buffoon published a "peer reviewed" article regarding the Loch Ness Monster:
http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/lnm-scientificevidence.pdf
The article employs all of the usual worn out pseudoscientific arguments that ikdummy uses for bigfoot.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe Case for the Loch Ness “Monster”: The Scientific Evidence
DeleteThe Journal of Scientific Exploration seemed the best place to publish this article. Since the author is also Editor of the Journal, no truly disinterested mode of having the piece refereed seemed available. Consequently it is published not as a Research Article but as an Essay. In lieu of formal refereeing, I sent the MS. for comment to a number of interested people, including non-believers and disbelievers as well as fellow believers. I am most grateful for all the responses, as a result of which the essay is greatly improved from its initial drafts, in particular concerning the significance of eyewitness testimony.
I thank especially Ike Blonder, Dieter Britz, Gary Campbell, Steuart Campbell, Loren Coleman, Wendy Dinsdale, David Heppell, Rip Hepple, Marty Klein, Gary Mangiacopra, Martien t’Mannetje, Bob Rines, and Richard D. Smith. Of course there is no implication that they agree with my interpretations or are responsible for any remaining errors of fact.
http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/lnm-scientificevidence.pdf
Demographic Characteristics of HIV: I. How Did HIV Spread?
DeleteConclusion: HIV Is Not a Sexually Transmitted Infection
Direct observations, reported above, have shown that HIV is not efficiently transmitted either by infected needles or by sexual intercourse. It could not have spread by 1985 from the AIDS epicenters into the general population, with the wide distribution already found in all social groups when testing began. The demographic characteristics of HIV are quite different from those of gonorrhea or syphilis in chronology, geography, racial disparities, and gender differences. The lack of change in its geographic distribution marks it as somehow endemic, with a marked East-West asymmetry.
All this shows that HIV did not cause the outbreaks of AIDS of the early 1980s.
Prolegomenon
The conclusion just reached is diametrically opposed to "what everyone knows". "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS", can be heard and read every day in the popular media. So my conclusion will immediately incite a host of disbelieving rhetorical questions: So what is HIV? So what does cause AIDS? What is AIDS? How could everyone have been so wrong for so long about HIV causing AIDS?
Quite reasonable, substantive answers are available to all those questions, but they can hardly be given in short order. Yet some sort of response seems needed here to make this paper's conclusion seem less incredible. Therefore, the following paragraphs outline those parts of the rest of the story that are already clear.
https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/19/jse_19_4_bauer.pdf
^ run a cursor over it.
DeleteSo I’ll say it again... the evidence has been peer reviewed.
How many role-players?
Thank you blog editor for whiting out that crap.
DeleteYou read it.
DeleteThe paper is very interesting.
DeleteWhy you so angry?
"HIV denial refers to the view that A*DS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is not caused by HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), but by some other factor, or combinations of factors. This is based on bad scientific foundations and false accusations similar to those of vaccine denialists that ART (antiretroviral therapy) is toxic. Such ideas have been scientifically shown to have dangerous consequences — the most infamous of these being the deaths of over 330,000 South Africans while a 'review council' was set up by HIV denialists, delaying treatment."
Deletehttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/HIV/A*DS_denialism
"Interesting" is not the word that I would use for it.
Talking to yourself, who's really angry here? Fools
DeleteAGAIN!
DeleteVery interesting, considering the data that’s readily viewable in that paper.
Explain that to the loved ones of the 330,000 South Africans who delayed treatment and died based upon such “data.”
DeleteThe typical moral highground you like to take. Just like “the loved ones of the missing”. Just like I’m allegedly a racist for listing the archaic features of a skull from the mid-1800’s.
DeleteAll very typical.
Like I said... From what I read; rather interesting. I don’t necessarily have to subscribe to the content, I don’t really care to be honest. But science doesn’t/shouldn’t refrain from asking questions and compiling data, because of how it might offend people. And you are welcome to use the data in that paper to scrutinise it. A false moral highground from the likes of you, doesn’t begin to achieve that.
"But science doesn’t/shouldn’t refrain from asking questions and compiling data, because of how it might offend people."
DeleteNo problem there. I'm not who you have been going back and forth with for most of this particular thread.
I don’t have to subscribe to the bigfoot content published in those journals as well, even if they have anthropology degrees. There is a much greater percentage of anthropologists who considered but reject bigfoot evidence and the 10000 hiding giants premise, as do I.
No, you are the person I’ve been going back and forth with for this entire thread. And though you don’t have to subscribe to the content that’s published in that journal about Bigfoot, should you be obsessively critical of it then you are obligated to challenge it. This is your burden.
DeleteAnd your latest attempt at deflection seems all the more odd, since you left this comment section earlier;
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/more-amazing-sasquatch-stories-from-bc.html?m=0
You are well within reason to claim that the majority of anthropologists reject the existence of Bigfoot being real. However... A lack of evidence for that majority allegedly not offering consideration to something like evidence, is not evidence of them denouncing said evidence. What you DO have, like in the lists of scientists I provided earlier, are some experts who have spent much of their adult lives around primates in the wild, and who are encouraged by the notion having given evidence a genuine consideration. I could just as easily claim that this majority of the world’s anthropologists DO in fact offer a positive consideration to the evidence but are too afraid to commit publicly. There would be just as much evidence for that, and I would be jumped all over for being a biased fantasist.
After I’ve conclusively demonstrated that you’ve been endlessly citing to a so called “scientific journal” which publishes articles supporting patently absurd ideas — some of which lead to mass deaths — I’d certainly agree with you that I have the moral high ground.
DeleteMaybe you can sock puppet some more rape threats against Chick and attribute them to me to try to regain the moral high ground?
LIE: No, you are the person I’ve been going back and forth with for this entire thread.
Delete2:27 is not me either. I stopped calling you ikdummy because you apologized for an error in an earlier thread. Now you want to start with the whole "all anons are the same person" lie all over again? If I were 2:27, what would I gain by denying it? This nonsense is why you people dislike you.
Actually... You’ve attempted to sensationalise the papers published in those journals, when in fact, by simply reading the conclusions of said papers (and essays, you couldn’t differentiate), would simply indicate a very conservative and adequately data rich process which is adhering exactly to what the demands of such a publication requires. The more taboo subjects that much of that journal have edited are either debunked or are concluded upon with realistic approaches to the evidence (or lack of). The difference compared to other mainstream journals is, that such subjects are not outside of the demands of scientific scrutiny. Which is very, very important. Would you like me to cut & paste what a Nobel Prize winner has to say about mainstream journals?
DeleteAnd it’s FALSE moral highground.
Oh dear... You’re getting awfully personal, throwing around the accusations? Not exactly the behaviour of someone who’s in control of a debate.
2:36... I never apologised to you. And you’re only bringing the “ikdummy” name up again because you’re struggling to control your emotions during a (cough, cough) mentally demanding time.
Delete... And I’ll continue to reference peer reviewed “Bigfoot” evidence all the same, thanks.
DeleteLooks like you lost bad with your crap Bigfoot evidence , now tripping over yourself to try a paint a win? Not this time chump,fools
DeleteI’m actually yet to see the evidence I reference challenged.
DeleteDid I miss something?
I'll give you a break Joe because it is obvious that your life is a struggle.
DeleteI wonder if it will ever just snap into your head that your premise of 10,000 primitive 10 foot tall ape men hiding in US forests is ridiculous?
Well, at least ikdummy apologized for something, I’ll give him credit for that.
DeleteYou’ll “give me a break”?
DeleteFor the existence of 10,000 primitive 10 foot tall ape men hiding in US forests, I can point to 60 years of physical evidence that average height and weight ratios can be ascertained from. Some of which is now peer reviewed. I never seemed to get an estimated figure on the role-players that are allegedly perpuating this hoaxing empire?
330,000 South African deaths were also “peer reviewed” by the same journal, so that clinches bigfoot!
DeleteUm actually... I think you’ll find they weren’t. You’re confusing your quote with the paper you never adequately scrutinised.
DeleteProven to be a gullible fool, I told you that wasn't an insult just a fact about you, and judging by the comments peer reviewed ,fools
DeleteI’m sorry.... but you would prove me a “gullible fool” by addressing the evidence that I reference, and demonstrating it is not scientifically sound. Again... I’m yet to see that occur, not only in this thread of comments, but in many months.
DeleteI’m waiting for the journal to publish a “peer reviewed” article that argues that the moon is made out of cheese and you demanding that I “scrutinise” it!
DeleteHmmmm... well in the meantime, you could simply address a journal that addresses the evidence for a creature you obsessively assert does not exist every day of your life. Considering the journal is allegedly so terrible, it shouldn’t be too much of a task.... should it?
DeleteDefinately 2, maybe 3 people communicating with Joe right now, but we're all the same person to Joe.
DeleteHIKER, are you 2:59 or someone else?
You seem like you really need to convince someone of that?
DeleteWhy would that be?
Here’s the sad truth ikdummy. Until a few years ago, you didn’t even know what peer review was. And then dmaker pounded you over the head with it so many times that you went on a desperate quest to find a bigfoot “peer reviewed” article.
DeleteYour bigfoot blinders are so thick that you ignored the fact that the “journal” (in actuality a haven for every crackpot failure with an inane theory) is a laughing stock in the scientific community.
The really pathetic part of it is that you now know all of this, but you’re so insecure and stubborn that your ego will not allow you to admit it. Don’t worry, I’ve got plenty more!
To break the spell you are under, Joe.
DeleteExtremely personal now.
DeleteI’m sorry... would you care to reference a comment section where I’ve struggled to fathom the meaning of peer review, as well as another example of dMaKeR “pounding me over the head” with it? Unfortunately for you, it’s the sign of the times. “Bigfoot” is now being taken so seriously that editorial boards are happy to publish it. And to go along with that, world renowned scientists coming to defend the work in that paper. This is the process that you have demanded for many years. A journal is a journal, and an editorial board by PhD's, is an editorial board by PhD's. A process that has many, many critics, but one that you have adhered to for all this time. I’m sorry that it appears to have inflicted upon you so much mental anguish. I really am. But don’t shoot the messenger. I couldn’t have simply “found” a published paper... it would have had to have been published, and it was.
“…This depends on whether we think that science is all worked out or whether it’s, let’s say, an ongoing process. If we think that scientists know all there is to know, then there is no need for the, the Journal for Scientific Exploration, but if we think science is an ongoing process that has problems to work through and work out, and some of which are ignored by mainstream science, and many of which are of interest to the public, then there’s a real need for the Journal of Scientific Exploration.”
- Dr. Peter Sturrock on the legitimacy of the Journal of Scientific Exploration
I’m sorry... I would ask you to provide an example of the scientific community actually challenging the data presented in such a journal, but we all know how well that went when you were asked earlier to provide on this scientific majority that’s allegedly actually considered the evidence for Bigfoot.
Oh... and please don’t hesitate. I’m rather enjoying the read if I’m honest.
"Leading academic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a "tyranny" that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner who has declared a boycott on the publications. Randy Schekman, a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine this year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would no longer send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science. Schekman said pressure to publish in "luxury" journals encouraged researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make a splash."
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
That’s your luxury mainstream journals right there. Doesn’t really sound like science does it? And to elaborate on the critics of the peer review process I touched upon;
"CONCLUSION
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
So I’ll say it again. The more taboo subjects that the Journal of Scientific Exploration have published are either debunked or are concluded upon with realistic approaches to the evidence (or lack of). The difference compared to other mainstream journals is, that such subjects are not outside of the demands of scientific scrutiny. You cannot have his holier than thou approach to such publications, because the alternative more mainstream versions appears to contradict what science should be all about; asking the questions no matter what. The icing on the cake, is this...
"Journal Accepts Paper Reading “Get Me Off Your F*****g Mailing List”;
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list
^ oh deary, deary me.
Delete^ Meltdown in progress.
DeleteOr does that actually read like something you now need to address?
DeleteI’ll be along tomorrow morning.
DeleteNo need to respond to your incoherent ravings. Your non-sequiturs speak for themselves. Before you go to bed, you can read this article about the former editor in chief of your beloved “peer reviewed” journal:
Deletehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/debunkingdenialism.com/2012/01/16/the-breathtaking-inanity-of-henry-bauers-hiv-aids-denialist-balderdash/amp/
I'm someone else but this gullible fool wouldn't have a clue of that, same as the stupidity he presents as evidence , same as his asinine PTSD statements on hikers, he's an ignorant fool , fools
DeleteUm... no. There is in fact a great need for you to respond to the points posed. Or they define your entire day.
DeleteArgh great stuff! I’ll have a little skim read in the morning (since I don’t really give two hoots about it). And since the whole idea of peer review is that even after publication, it’s still very much invited for scrutiny (that’s how science self-corrects and evolves).... I’ll assume that the scientific method is merely at play.
Now if you could only manage the same with that pesky Bigfoot paper, eh?
Laters.
Oh... and if you didn’t notice, I provided substance to my claims on PTSD, am still referencing peer reviewed evidence... and never did get to read an estimated figure on all these role-players?
DeleteNight, night xx
Um, isn’t it already the morning where you’re supposed to live? You’d better check the time zone map on your beat up computer!
DeleteAnd no, you won’t be talking to me in the morning. I come here once every few weeks at most. I think it’s pretty funny that I am so deeply imbedded in your messed up mind that you think everyone is me. I don’t even have to be here to beat you down! Ha ha ha!
No one must respond to a moron and you are a moron, you have some gall trying to dictate to me with your garbage, shameless doesn't begin to describe you and your ilk,fools
DeleteI'll come back in the morning and respond when all of you are gone because that's how gutless morons roll, I'll also chime in as my other selves about how great I am to inflate my ego because again, moron and that's how gutless morons roll , so ha, schooled
DeleteNo, I’ll be speaking to you all day today.
DeleteAnd I expected to chime back in and read a little substance for this alleged garbage.
GUTLESS MORON^
DeleteHello mates
ReplyDeleteDingo is just another name for Stuey. Why do we bother engaging with him when it's obvious he feeds off the attention?
Best to ignore the pillock and maybe he will go back to his sofa and his mountain dew and cheetos
cheers
Joe
It’s best to ignore me when you have no response to my thorough debunking of bigfoot.
DeleteDingo
haha, good morning sunshine.
DeleteNot that I want to interrupt your marathon trolling/mountain dew fest but I must say you have quite the persistence normal trolls don't possess on here and that makes you special mrs sunshine so bully for you
now back to your boring life of a rather droll lad living the basement life
yaaaawn
Joe
A thorough debunking?
DeleteDid I miss something? The evidence for Bigfoot is still adequate enough for peer review. And not even the biggest and baddest of academics have managed to debunk Bigfoot. So one needs to ask, by whose authority could such a statement be made?
How many role-players?
Laughed out of court, debunked
DeleteIt’s a fantasy. Just like your role-playing empire.
DeleteIs it, why respond then?Truth hurts
DeleteBecause I am helping you process the message that if you are going to spread lies, you are committing to a very long exchange that has no positive final outcome for your mental health.
DeleteAll those comments, 35 by my count and everyone says you're full of shit, all your evidence and the consensus of everyone is you're full of shit, congratulations you gullible fool , fools
ReplyDeleteEnthusiasts would be gullible if there was no reliable evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. There is in fact an abundance of it, some of which is now being acknowledged by a growing body of the world’s leading academics & experts.
DeleteBULLSHIT^
Delete