Sunday, March 25, 2018

Scary Stories From the Deep Wilderness


From the Swamp Dweller channel on youtube comes a collection of scary stories about encounters and experiences in the deep wilderness.

64 comments:

  1. Yokels telling “scary stories” by the campfire apparently constitutes evidence for bigfoot believing rubes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But...but... it comes from Swamp Dweller which automatically means all these stories are TRUE. Swamp Dweller says these are TRUE and scary stories so it must be so. Why would he lie?

      Delete
    2. What’s the matter Stuey? Didn’t you publish an essay on another thread claiming people needed you?

      Oh, and Bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    3. Of course bigfoot exists. It exists in the minds of:

      (1) Stupid rednecks who need to pretend there’s a ten foot tall monster in the local woods to give some meaning to their empty lives;

      (2) Lazy, illiterate buffoons who’ve accomplished nothing in life and create online personas with avatars so they can fantasy role play that they’re discussing an important subject; and

      (3) A few failed and unknown academics whose dysfunctional need for fame and recognition leads them to pursue fringe subjects and even publish crappy articles in pseudoscientific journals. People in groups (1) and (2) tend to idolize these few dingalings and feed their gigantic egos.

      Make sense?

      Delete
    4. What makes me laugh... is the fact that you’ve claimed everyone else has had a “tough week”, and then you behave like that.

      Listen Stuey... Stop calling people names, start debunking the evidence. You’ll simply feel better about yourself.

      Delete
    5. What makes me laugh is that if I left here, you and your role playing sock puppets would lose your life’s purpose and most likely commit “group” suicide!

      Delete
    6. Stop projecting... Stop calling people names and start debunking the evidence.

      Anyone can hurl crud and call people stupid, unqualified, etc. And whilst you’re very, very good at bringing people down to your level, it comes down to one thing and one thing only... the evidence.

      You’ve got the obsession, use it productively.

      Delete
    7. You make my points for me. You open by personally insulting me and then when I respond by stuffing your face in it, you lecture me about making personal insults! You’re a real prince! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    8. Swamp Dweller provides all the evidence needed because it is TRUE! No need to lie when you can back it up with TRUE stories. Swamp Dweller says they are TRUE and that's all you need to know.

      Delete
    9. And by the way, you’ve been like a broken record for the past few weeks in your demand that others explain the so called “role playing empire.” The comment above describes the situation perfectly and, because the truth hurts your precious feelings, you cry that you’re being insulted. Be careful what you ask for ikdummy! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    10. I asked how you were Stuey, since you’re obviously seething. Whilst I thought it appropriate to remind you that you claimed everyone else needed you... when the opposite is very apparent.

      If that offended you, it probably rung true.

      Delete
    11. And Stuart... it’s pretty simple. If there is evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, then nobody is role-playing.

      It all boils down to evidence.

      Delete
    12. Iktomi: Explain the role playing empire you mean skeptic!

      Skeptic explains role playing phenomenon.

      Iktomi: Wahhhh! Why are you insulting me you mean skeptic. Let’s talk about the debunked “evidence” for bigfoot instead!

      Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    13. You insulted enthusiasts, with “stupid rednecks” with “empty lives”, “lazy, illiterate buffoons”, and “failed and unknown academics” who are “pseudoscientific”.

      You still didn’t explain how 100 “role-players” who don’t appear to have a single bit of coherency in their alleged methods... who have impossibly low numbers to achieve all the activity and evidence around the US, who are in cahoots with PhD’s, who nobody reports seeing, and who dodge loaded weapons all year round... are managing to hoax the evidence.

      Yep! You still failed to answer that question, after I’ve been a “broken record for the past few weeks”. But since you’re all so sensitive, I wasn’t gonna bring it up.

      Delete
    14. Evidence, Stuey...










      ... Evidence, dear boy.

      Delete
    15. Similar to your lying routine above, you misleadingly pushed a “peer reviewed” fringe journal that published a Meldrum speech as something that adds great credibility to the subject of bigfoot.

      That is basically begging for the journal to be scrutinized. When the journal was definitively proven to be a pseudoscientific rag that will publish the screeds on any zany crank, you cried that it was an ad hominem attack!

      And then what did you do? You demanded to discuss the debunked “evidence” for bigfoot instead! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    16. Nargh! I provided you with a link to a page that had another link to the journal where Meldrum’s work was published. If you couldn’t read the source properly, then that’s nobody else’s fault Stu.

      It’s all very well calling a journal a “rag”, when mainstream journals have GENUINELY been proven to be biased, academically corrupt and susceptible to the most schoolboy of hoaxing and manipulation... even so incompetent as to not fact check papers on something as important as cancer before publishing it to the general public. It’s all very well you calling something pseudoscientific, when it follows the exact same review process as journals that are guilty of the aforementioned flaws that fly in the face of any scientific method.

      Stating evidence is debunked because it’s debunked is circular reasoning; a logical fallacy. Calling something pseudoscientific without debunking it’s core data, is pseudoscientific. And not attending your burden of debunking the evidence and simply offering insults... is ad hominem.

      Evidence, dear boy.

      Delete
    17. IktomiSunday, March 25, 2018 at 9:08:00 AM PDT

      Oh, and Bigfoot exists

      Oopsies!

      Hypocrisy is not a “good look” for you. Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    18. If you didn’t already notice... I’m the who’s backed that up for some time now.

      Delete
    19. Oh wait I’m sorry, ikdummy is allowed to make a bald assertion because he’s convinced that bigfoot exists based upon his own crazy eight year history of publishing barely readable comments on a blog.

      If someone else is convinced of their opinions, that’s “circular reasoning”! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    20. If you didn’t already notice... I’m the who’s backed that up for some time now.

      Delete
    21. ... And I have 60 years of physical evidence to reference. Some of which is peer reviewed.

      Delete
    22. I’ve noticed that every piece of “evidence” has been thoroughly debunked despite your awful attempts to dishonestly dredge those pieces back up with outright lies and deceit.

      Is that what you meant? Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    23. Have they? Cool! Prove it... I’d love to see it. The fact that you’re here trying to claw back some satisfaction... Pretty much puts these “debunkings” into perspective.

      Your fake laughter is cringing me out bruv.

      Delete
    24. To summarize, ikdummy can (1) insult people, but cry like a baby when he thinks he’s being insulted, (2) brag about the reputation of a journal, but cry like a baby when someone critically analyses the journal, (3) baldly assert that bigfoot exists, but cry like a baby when someone asserts that bigfoot does not exist.

      I guess it’s pretty easy for you when there are two sets of rules! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    25. In case you missed it the first time, here is the answer to you role playing question:

      (1) Stupid rednecks who need to pretend there’s a ten foot tall monster in the local woods to give some meaning to their empty lives;

      (2) Lazy, illiterate buffoons who’ve accomplished nothing in life and create online personas with avatars so they can fantasy role play that they’re discussing an important subject; and

      (3) A few failed and unknown academics whose dysfunctional need for fame and recognition leads them to pursue fringe subjects and even publish crappy articles in pseudoscientific journals. People in groups (1) and (2) tend to idolize these few dingalings and feed their gigantic egos.

      Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    26. Read that comment back and tell me you don’t sound like a cranky ten year old. Something about “waaahh!”?

      (Cringe)

      You’ve analysed zilch. And insults are somewhat excused when you’ve already taken apart the other person’s argument. Evidence Stuey... try it. Help yourself. You can’t keep on like this you’re gonna blow.

      One of us has the scientific standard... the other has conjecture, contradictions and conspiracy theories.

      Delete
    27. Hahahaha I see nuttytomi is still at it defending his religion. Well, so called "evidence" is in the eyes of the beholder. What YOU consider evidence may completely differ from what others call evidence. Now FACT is what is generally accepted by the majority of the world and Bigfoot existing is not. When you advocates can come up with a body or even a piece of this creature THEN you will have proven your point. But circumstantial evidence such as footprints, pictures, eyewitnesses, hair etc. will NOT prove your case.

      It's really that simple - produce a body and case closed.

      Delete
    28. No Stuey... you need to evidence how role-players achieve what they do.

      Insults don’t cut it.

      Come on pops.

      Delete
    29. By the way, I’m still waiting for you to publish my biography (or my “dossier” as you call it). I consider it quite a compliment that you think so much of me that you’d devote such considerable energy in compiling a chronicle of my accomplishments! Thanks again bud!

      Delete
    30. Keep at it, Iktomi. They're not making you look all that bad.

      Joe

      Delete
    31. “And insults are somewhat excused.”

      “Insults don’t cut it.”

      Two sets of rules. Tell me about the “scientific method” again! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    32. You should probably stop sockpuppeting, cherry picking from comments and flattering yourself (none of which has anything to do with the scientific method)... and hurry up and show me these “accomplishments”. Only an antisocial degenerate would use such a euphemism for criminal behaviour.

      You’ve got zilch.

      Delete
    33. Oh... and what “majority of the world”, meaning mainstream science are even aware of means little. If there's scientific evidence that not one from that mainstream can explain away, and it is substantiated with consistent scientific means, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority. To refer to it as evidence would simply be drawing on the same consistency of other examples studied under things like wildlife biology. And it’s not just me that thinks that, since it’s been peer reviewed. I need a body to classify, I don’t need a body if we are dealing with anthropology, and I don’t need a body if the hominin in question is being proven to be leaving its physical sign on the environment of two different continents. footprints, pictures, eyewitnesses, hair, etc, is pretty much essential,m because if that didn’t exist, there would be no case to demand further research, and denialists like you would only THEN have a case for developing self-esteem off the back of it.

      Crying for a body when the creature is already being shown to be leaving its physical sign on the environment is futile. Trying to argue that you don’t have a burden about that, isn’t cutting it. You’d be behaving far less unhinged if you had a level of satisfaction, and you clearly don’t have any of that.

      Delete
    34. Now nuttytomi I know your hooked on the "number of role-players it would take" thing but for the record "I" (meaning THIS commentator) gave no estimates. I know in your delusional (or wishful) world you think they are all coming from one person but you are dead wrong on that...like so many things.

      Your so-called evidence is the result of many things - misidentification, misinterpretation, outright lying, presenting for profit, hoaxing for fun and yes even role-playing and wishful thinking. There are many things that can discount what is presented as evidence if you dig deep enough Look at all the DNA samples that Dr. Sykes examined which turned out to be other things and THOSE were presented as bona fide evidence. Your Bigfoot "evidence" is built on a house of cards. Produce a body and it's all over - you win!

      Delete
    35. AnonymousTuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:42:00 AM PST
      I would guess around a hundred or so judging from the stories reported here.
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/werewolves-dont-exist-but-dogmen-do.html?m=0

      Now, now Stuey. It’s all in writing remember. If the evidence is down to misidentification, misinterpretation, outright lying, presenting for profit, hoaxing for fun and yes even role-playing and wishful thinking... please, go ahead and demonstrate how. Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t seem logical for 100 “role-players” who don’t appear to have a single bit of coherency in their alleged methods... who have impossibly low numbers to achieve all the activity and evidence around the US, who are in cahoots with PhD’s, who nobody reports seeing, and who dodge loaded weapons all year round... to be accountable for misidentification, misinterpretation, outright lying, presenting for profit, hoaxing for fun and yes even role-playing and wishful thinking.

      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 physical evidence was peer reviewed... Is the reason why “human” DNA is not simple down to mere contamination.

      Delete
    36. I’ll be back in the morning Stuart!

      Delete
    37. The next time you’re wondering about role playing, you can ignore your own sock puppeted comments and remember that the role players are:

      (1) Stupid rednecks who need to pretend there’s a ten foot tall monster in the local woods to give some meaning to their empty lives;

      (2) Lazy, illiterate buffoons who’ve accomplished nothing in life and create online personas with avatars so they can fantasy role play that they’re discussing an important subject; and

      (3) A few failed and unknown academics whose dysfunctional need for fame and recognition leads them to pursue fringe subjects and even publish crappy articles in pseudoscientific journals. People in groups (1) and (2) tend to idolize these few dingalings and feed their gigantic egos.

      Delete
    38. "I" meaning THIS commentator did not make that post. So you think every story reported here, every footprint, every hair COULD be evidence of Bigfoot existing? Do you even read the stories reported here? So you actually believe footprints in the dirt is a lock for proof of it's existence? Even when there are videos on how to make them?

      Ah yes, the moving goalposts. It's now due to Bigfoot being closely human even though the holiest of evidence being Patty shown in the PG film would indicate otherwise.

      By the way - Where is that paper for peer review on Zana by Dr. Sykes you were always promising? It's been years now and no show. It has already been shown Dr. Sykes has made mistakes and is not infallible. The same can be said of Dr. Meldrum but anyone who follows the wacky Mormon religion with it's magic underwear makes me question how readily they accept unscientific teachings.

      No matter what is presented to you it will be discounted because it's challenges your faith. You are now at the point where you will never accept it doesn't exist. But you CAN change my mind - produce a body or any part of for examination. I will concede to you willingly.

      Delete
    39. Ikky has NO evidence to produce...not one single piece of verified evidence.

      Delete
    40. No, no Stuey... you are the same person. And you’re the exact person through this entire comment sections. People hoax... however it is impossible for a hoaxer from another continent to guess the exact same archaic foot morphology, and then find a method of having this morphology arranged in a trackway, whereby such a trackway encompasses different footballs only indicative of a genuine biological foot... And THEN ensures that such a trackway is found by, & then fools a government employee. And yes, this is at least proof that a creature with the same widely reported anatomy as “Bigfoot” is leaving its trace on the environment of two continents.

      Moving the goalposts? Yet another concept you’ve learned in the last couple of days from me, and another argument that you made yourself look foolish about the last time you used it. Remember when you claimed that Patty couldn’t be human because she looks more like something akin to HOMO Neanderthalensis? Patty looks like a human, has all the features of what one would expect from an archaic human and the DNA sequenced from hair that was sourced from a direct sighting of the exact same hominin from a government employee, which yielded track impressions included in the peer reviewed paper of the Patterson Gimlin tracks... was human.

      One can only assume that if Sykes is about to prove that a hominin was walking the earth only 150 years ago, then he kind of needs to get his ducks in order. Sykes is also an expert in human DNA, and whilst his process in infallible, his ideas on bear species might not be up to scratch with those of experts in that field. And the religion that Meldrum was born into has nothing to do with his credentials as an authority on bipedal evolution, nor his research on this subject, and is essentially just a big fat add hominem.

      Maintaining something that has scientific backing is not legitimate, without presenting a single equivalent case to dismiss this, merely on the aspect of FAITH... Is as belief based and religious like as you can ever point to. To suggest that thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports are down to misidentification, misinterpretation, outright lying, presenting for profit, hoaxing, role-playing and wishful thinking, is a bigger leap of faith than anything you can reference... And is quite simply a dogmatic view applying impossible concepts to appease fear, akin to a fundamentalist.

      “Psychologically, a fundamentalist is a person with an intense fear of being 'wrong'; that is, an intense fear of being judged to hold the wrong' view or to engage in the 'wrong' behaviour. This intense fear of being wrong develops during childhood when one or both parents, and probably teachers, dogmatically refuse to listen to the child, thus denying it the chance to develop its own views and moral code (based on its own experience), while also terrorising (by threatening and using violence) the child into believing/adopting a particular set of values and beliefs, and behaving in a particular manner. It is the intensity of their fear of being judged 'wrong', and the violence they will suffer if they are so judged, that makes the child hold, with phenomenal tenacity, to the 'approved doctrine' with which they are presented. It is this intense fear of being wrong that marks out the fundamentalist from the person who is open-minded and/or conscientious.”

      You have a pathological need for Bigfoot to not exist, but are too lazy to actually spend the time looking for a reason why the evidence for it is bunk. Psuedoscepticism is a fundamental, quasi-religion.

      Delete
    41. Patty melt, as in Patty meltdown. I'm usually on your side, mate, but patty looks like a bloke in a costume.

      Joe

      Delete
    42. It’s ok... I at least know a bit of facts shut you up.

      Delete
    43. Would you like onions with your Patty meltdown? Just kidding, Iktomi. Cheers, mate.

      Joe

      Delete
    44. Used to serving up burgers, are you Stu?

      Delete
    45. Why you! Cut that out, mate! Arrrg, Narrrg, Ahoy. King Arthur. Cromwell. Islam.

      Joe

      Delete
    46. Sums up your knowledge of the UK?

      You’re as much a failure as when role-playing an intelligent person.

      Delete
    47. "No, no Stuey... you are the same person. And you’re the exact person through this entire comment sections."

      Absolutely 100% WRONG and deep down inside you KNOW it.

      "however it is impossible for a hoaxer from another continent to guess the exact same archaic foot morphology'

      Why is it impossible? Who says they were guessing? We can transmit information and images to every part of he world. It doesn't arouse suspicion that it's the EXACT same foot morphology?

      "Patty looks like a human"

      You must have some real strange looking people where your from because if I seen that walking on the street I sure wouldn't mistake it for a human.

      "the DNA sequenced from hair that was sourced from a direct sighting of the exact same hominin from a government employee"

      Huh? You will have to link me to that.

      "Sykes is also an expert in human DNA, and whilst his process in infallible"

      No process is infallible. He has made mistakes like everyone else.

      "You have a pathological need for Bigfoot to not exist"

      Pot meet kettle - YOU have a pathological need FOR it to exist.



      Delete
    48. “It's impossible for a hoaxer from another continent to guess the exact same archaic foot morphology, and then find a method of having this morphology arranged in a trackway, whereby such a trackway encompasses different footballs only indicative of a genuine biological foot... And THEN ensures that such a trackway is found by, & then fools a government employee.“
      In adult debate, if you’re going to challenge someone’s points, be sure to read them first; “whereby such a trackway encompasses different footballs only indicative of a genuine biological foot“. You can’t do that with fake stompers. And why would the same foot morphology be suspicious if it’s the same species? If said hominin might have emerged from Asia? That’s odd... Curious had the exact same argument and he also liked to rehash them like they were somehow more logical the second or third time around. Would you expect to see a difference in the foot anatomy of a modern homo sapien from the US and China?

      Patty has the face of a human. The arms, legs and torso of a human. Her ace without fair, looks like a human... She’s human. Be it a very primitive and archaic version of a human, but a human none the less. Sykes also pioneered the mitochondrial DNA sequencing, so whilst people make mistakes, it’s drastically less concerning him in the instance of testing for human DNA. The hair I’m referring to, was later verified to be that of a currently unclassified primate by Dr Paul Fuerst of Ohio State University & the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre. Dr Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's department of anthropology confirms this. Sykes has very recently studied this hair and...
      "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".
      - Dr Bryn Sykes

      It is important to note that this hair sample has consistency with 12 other samples that are all linked to their own sightings, physical evidence and general Sasquatch activity. These have been studied at length by Dr Henner Fahrenbach, a retired zoologist who has worked for thirty years as Chairman of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the Oregon Regional Primate Center in Beaverton in Oregon. He has published numerous papers in a variety of journals in the fields of histology and neurobiology, in addition to several analyses of sasquatch biology.

      I’m on a Bigfoot blog. If I needed Bigfoot to exist... I’d be spending all day, every day of my life on a psuedosceptical blog crying that it exists... no what I mean?

      Delete
    49. Well my previous post seems to have wiped clean or at least I can't see it. I don't remember using any profanity. Curious? You mean "stuey"? Yes, I remember that exchange and I believed I even commented on it. How can you come to a absolute conclusion they could not be faked? How about giving us all a link to all this proof in the newest thread so we can all see the source and judge for ourselves. Seems to me it's very suspicious that it matches up exactly. I would like to know how how long this track way was and the background of it being found as well. Perhaps it will all be in the link you will provide.

      Well I concede that Patty does look like a human.....with an ape suit on.

      Pointing out conclusions from a few academics does not prove a case. I can't help but notice it's always from the SAME people and usually quite dated as well.

      For some reason you DO need for it to exist (if nothing else to prove you are right). At least we agree on one thing - that Dr. Squatch is a loon. I'm not so sure he's not playing you - no one can be THAT fanatical....(ahem) know what I mean?




      Delete
    50. He won’t post the link because he’s ashamed of the source journal which publishes any and all of the insane harangues which are submitted to it from various deranged whackos.

      Delete
    51. “This interpretive model of the sasquatch foot function received dramatic corroboration during a visit to China’s Shennongjia Nature Reserve, in Hubei province. It was there that in 1995, a park ranger, Mr. Yuan Yuhao, claimed to have witnessed an upright, hair-covered hominoid, a yeren (Chinese—wildman) while patrolling within the park (Meldrum & Zhou 2012). He was climbing a slope near the head of a valley at an elevation of approximately 2100 m. The site, which I inspected, is a mosaic of fir forest and sedge meadows, not unlike the Rocky Mountain habitat I am so familiar with. Yuan observed the yeren through binoculars at a distance of approximately 500 m. It was covered in reddish brown hair, reclining, and sunning itself on the exposed facing slope. When Yuan called out to it, it returned his gaze. Instead of the expected snout and prick ears atop its head, he described a flat face. Furthermore, it arose and walked away bipedally into the nearby tree line. Yuan estimated its height at 2.3 m. He subsequently tracked the creature and cast a clear pair of its footprints on the banks of a spring.
      The casts measure approximately 38 cm in length, 16.5 cm across the forefoot, and 10 cm across the heel. A distinct midtarsal pressure ridge indicates a significant degree of flexibility in the midfoot (Figure 5, top). Presumably the right and left footprints were left as the yeren squatted beside the spring to drink. This action apparently elevated the hindfoot, concentrating pressure beneath the forefoot distal to the transverse tarsal joint. The plasticity of the moist bare soil resulted in a pressure ridge proximal to the transverse tarsal joint. The deepest points on the cast lie just distal to the pressure ridge, apparently beneath the talonavicular joint medially, and to a lesser degree beneath the cuboid laterally. These two points of concentrated plantar pressure lend a distinctive appearance to the proximal edge of the forefoot ahead of the transverse pressure ridge. The margin is marked by a double convexity. In all distinguishing characteristics the casts resemble those of North American sasquatch footprints, especially those recovered at the Patterson-Gimlin film site. This resemblance not only substantiates the model of foot form and function, but indicates a circum- Pacific distribution to this form of relict hominoid, with its likely origin in Asia (Meldrum 2006).”
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/JSE-303-Meldrum.pdf

      There we go, you’ve seen it multiple times before but I’m always happy to cut & paste time and time again for the “forgetful” and slow learners. There is no fur cloth technique known to any SFX expert that accounts for what you see in the PGF. You might also want to familiarise yourself with what Hollywood budgets could accomplish ten years after the PGF was filmed... it’s a fantasy to suggest she’s a man in a suit. And mere faith doesn’t find you a magic monkey suit. Actually, pointing out the conclusions of a few academics is what makes the scientific world go around. And it’s an ad hominem to suggest that research published is suspect because someone has invested a career researching it, and that research shouldn’t be considered because it has not been used appropriately to wrap up a conclusion to said evidence. I only need to demonstrate that people are warranted their enthusiasm, when lazy psycho-nerds want to try and he’ll themselves forget about their emotional problems. No psycho-nerds; no Iktomi.

      Delete
    52. So it’s wrong to argue that “research published is suspect because someone has invested a career researching it”?

      Someone has researched research? Got it ikdummy. Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    53. And why don’t you go and publish that on the latest thread so you can “all judge for yourselves”? Maybe bookmark it so the next one you want to role-play like it never happened... you can just remind yourself.

      Stuey... Psychologists are calling people like you psychos, I don’t think PhD’s on any editorial board would lose sleep knowing you’ve called them names. Considering you’ve obsessed about Bigfoot for almost a decade and failed to provide at least one coherent, logical reason to not consider the same evidence that’s been published in the above journal... you’re a bit of a laughing stock.

      Sorry!

      Stick to calling people names, it prevents you looking even sillier trying to explain the evidence away.

      Delete
    54. “I can't help but notice it's always from the SAME people and usually quite dated as well.“

      And in response...

      “And it’s an ad hominem to suggest that research published is suspect because someone has invested a career researching it, and that research shouldn’t be considered because it has not been used appropriately to wrap up a conclusion to said evidence.”

      Stuey...
      “So what you’re saying is...”

      Delete
    55. So someone spent a career researching published research, you’ve made that clear! What was the result of his research on research? Ha ha ha! Now you understand why you’re an illiterate buffoon.

      Delete
    56. “So it’s wrong to argue that “research published is suspect because someone has invested a career researching it”? “

      The fact that the “same people” are prominent in this field is because a career’s worth of research has maintained their presence in the public eye. There’s a reason why you have to keep coming back to harass people...

      Delete
    57. Ah yes - your source is none other than the Journal of Scientific Exploration which is based on Meldrum's opinion. So we see he is basing it on the CLAIM of a sighting and ONE pair of cast footprints from China. They look like they could have been rough copies of the Patterson casts which were available for viewing at that time. So where are all the other hundreds of casts Meldrum supposedly has showing the exact same thing? Cherry picking only 3 sets doesn't seem very convincing to me regardless of what they show.

      I would say to Meldrum "throw me a bone here" - literally.

      Delete
    58. Huh? What do you mean, “based on Meldrum’s opinion”? The journal has nothing to do with Meldrum outside of it peer reviewing his work. The journal had even at one time published a review of David Daegling’s work that criticised Meldrum. Are you sure you know what you’re talking about? And you clearly didn’t read...

      “A distinct midtarsal pressure ridge indicates a significant degree of flexibility in the midfoot (Figure 5, top). Presumably the right and left footprints were left as the yeren squatted beside the spring to drink. This action apparently elevated the hindfoot, concentrating pressure beneath the forefoot distal to the transverse tarsal joint. The plasticity of the moist bare soil resulted in a pressure ridge proximal to the transverse tarsal joint. The deepest points on the cast lie just distal to the pressure ridge, apparently beneath the talonavicular joint medially, and to a lesser degree beneath the cuboid laterally. These two points of concentrated plantar pressure lend a distinctive appearance to the proximal edge of the forefoot ahead of the transverse pressure ridge. The margin is marked by a double convexity.”

      “Rough copies” do not account for the impression an actual biological foot makes with the ground. You want me to evidence 100’s of casts? I’m sorry, but I would suggest that asking someone to evidence 100’s of casts is a pretty obvious cop out, but you can have this;
      http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

      ... With some more examples that Meldrum draws from. And what you find convincing doesn’t really matter. If it’s up to the standards of what’s classed as scientifically repeatable, then that’s all that matters.

      Delete
    59. Mr Curious, you don’t have to hide away in anon mode.

      I have to sleep... I’ll be back tomorrow.

      Delete
    60. So who are these esteemed scientists who "peer" reviewed Meldrum's work? It IS his opinion - he wrote it. I haven't seen this make the front headlines anywhere so apparently his "views" are not shared by the rest of the world. You can bluster all you want but the fact remains it IS a fringe journal with fringe topics. What YOU find convincing doesn't matter when the rest of the does not recognize it's existence.

      Oops - I've been exposed! Or is it Dmaker...or A.C. Collins...or Bruce...or Stuey...or...oh that's right, we are all the same person.

      Here's what I think of your "footprints":

      https://www.google.com/search?q=bigfoot+footprint+maker&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2jrSV2IvaAhVH52MKHUC1A_AQ1QIIfygF&biw=1920&bih=949

      It IS possible to fake footprints no matter how you present it.

      Delete
    61. “Finge” does not mean that it’s wrong. This word is used around here like it’s a secret weapon to somehow dismiss something. Quantum physics was a fringe topic for a long time. Why don't you have a little listen what Meldrum has to say from the 27mins mark in this link?
      https://youtu.be/BS1jPUz5CDg
      ... And take note of the calibre of world renowned scientists that are defending his work immediately after that paper was published? Martin Lockley, University of Colorado Denver... And Jeong Yul Kim, Department of Earth Science Education, Korea National University of Education, Cheongwon, Chungbuk, Korea. And you want to know these reviewers because you simply want to character assassinate them, because you can’t challeng the work they’ve reviewed... but if you knew anything about the peer review process you’d know that reviewers for journals are largely anonymous.

      You post links to all the fake stompers you can find, the chain of custody is simply too great. You do not get different foot falls in a track way with a stomper. When a genuine foot makes contact with the earth, it makes what is called a sequential print. The foot has dozens of bones, tendons and ligaments that flow in a segmented fashion and a fluid motion creates compression lines in the inner perimeter of the track, and can only be made by a living fleshy foot. Now... fake tracks are identified by what are called impact ridges that appear on the outer perimeter of the track. What creates this is the simultaneous pushing out from the pressing down of a solid, non-flexible structure like wood or fake plaster cast. Casting footprints have been a part of science for decades... and there is too much method behind it to be able to identity how they are faked. So it’s possibke to fake footprints, but to a learned eye, you can’t fake the way a biological foot comes into contact with the ground.

      Delete
    62. “Now here is the remarkable aspect to all this. Although the Titmus cast was gotten in 1967, to my knowledge only a single screened black and white photo of it, depicted among a number of other casts in Titmus’ growing collection, was ever published, and that initially in 1973 (Green 1973:32). The first replica and analysis of that cast was published by me in 1999, after Titmus’ death. A photo of the footprint itself, depicted in Figure 4, taken by Lyle Laverty, was published in 1978 (Green 1978:122), but no previous investigator had identified or drawn attention to the midfoot pressure ridge, let alone interpreted or discussed its significance for sasquatch foot function. Mr. Yuan had discovered and cast his footprint pair in 1995, with no knowledge of the North American sasquatch phenomenon, let alone details of alleged footprints. The Mill Creek cast was documented in 1991. To these could be added the tracks I cast near Walla Walla in February 1996 (Meldrum 2004a). How could these independent examples, separated by nearly three decades and half-a-world apart coincidently share these sound and significant subtleties of anatomy and functional morphology? Simply a convergent happenstance of unrelated hoaxed footprints? I think not.”
      - Jeff Meldrum

      Delete
  2. Ikky the Autistic likes it deep inside.

    ReplyDelete