Jeff Meldrum Patterson Film Anniversary
Jeff Meldrum gives a presentation about bigfoot at the recent annual Texas Bigfoot Conference in Jefferson, Texas.
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...
Pathetic. Its a fella in a monkey suit.
ReplyDeleteSo go ahead and prove it big boy ! Stop playing your fort nite and go and seek out that magical mystic monkey suit !
Deletecheers
Joe
Got monkey suit?
Delete^ quite clearly they have - and they have been filmed wearing the suit.
Delete...and now...shut the fuck up you loser
No monkey suit? Oh dear.
DeleteSo in the face of no explanation for how they allegedly manufactured impossible biological detail that SFX can’t even produce to this day... you have mere circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.
Keep up the good work boyo, you sure know how to science. Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Shouldn't be hard fr PS to make an even better looking monkey suit if a yokel like Patterson can make one using 60s material surely PS can out do him right ? I'll be waiting for this magnificent magical monkey suit PS comes up with and it will be with the blessing of Randi !
DeleteCheers
Joe
So is sykes still coming or was the bet ultimately lost?
ReplyDeleteIf he's still coming than he sure is S-L-O-W. Seems to me he came and went (and not providing any proof of Bigfoot's existence).
DeleteSykes came, declared the reports of an entire community on Zana were likely accurate, confirmed that Khwit’s skull had archaic features and theorised Zana could be a subspecies of homo sapien that left Africa 100,000 years ago.
DeleteNo, no... the pleasure’s all mine.
You must have watched a different show. No bipedal north american ape found. No trace of dna, no sign of any evidence what so ever.
DeleteFeck the show, pick up book, thicko. So funny to see how closure desperate you were. That turned out to bite you, eh? Bigfoot DNA is human boyo, been sequenced many a time. Here we go, some peer reviewed evidence for you mate;
Deletehttps://beta.capeia.com/zoology/2017/10/20/on-the-plausibility-of-another-bipedal-primate-species-existing-in-north-america
https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/18/jse_18_1_meldrum.pdf
https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/30/jse_30_3_Meldrum.pdf
Go do some reading. All that TV will give you square eyes.
Haha ! PS cant get past that show and is too busy playing his fort nite and smoking meth to pick up any book . He's going to have a meltdown in
Delete3....2.....1
cheers
Joe
hahahahaha Joe can`t handle the fact that he has been found to be wrong yet again...it really is so funny to watch him falling down every day...and the nights are sheer torment for him as "Stuey" fills his head and dreams.
Deletehahahahahah
You really have to feel sorry for lktomi. He has so much of his time invested in believing that a Bigfoot like creature could exist that he can't bear to think he has been wrong all these years. He now has has to resort to flawed interpretation, distortions and outright lies to defend his beliefs. Using words such as "likely accurate" and "theorized" does not install high confidence in what you are proposing. The statement was made that Khwit’s skull had archaic features but we only have the word of TWO Russian anthropologists for that and no examination of other experts for confirmation. If you want cut and pastes then take a look at this. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in Syke's work and methods:
Deletehttps://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/06/zana-the-ape-woman-or-bryan-sykes-the-incompetent
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2015/07/no_reason_to_believe_that_sykess_yeti-bear_cryptid_exists/
The lktomi states "Bigfoot DNA is human". How in the world can you possibly make that jump with utmost confidence when we have never had a Bigfoot to confirm it? This is faith and belief talking not science and evidence. Ever notice how much of this so-called evidence comes from a few selected individuals and the "peer-reviewed" Journal For Scientific Exploration? Posting the same stuff over and over will not make it fact no matter how much you wish it to be so. Pity poor lktomi - he will go to his grave never have the gratifying satisfaction of being proven right. Better start praying harder.
Oh dear. You never fail to make others cringe, PS. The thing is, you don’t really need a long list of anthropologists to determine archaic features, you just need a basic knowledges of archaic skull morphology. At the rear of a Neanderthal skull, for example, is a minor protrusion called the “occipital bun”. Though seen in very rare examples of anatomically modern humans, it is mostly seen in archaic peoples. The occipital bun was a knot of rounded bone at the back of the Neanderthal skull and may have been an adaptation for the attachment of their massive neck and jaw muscles. Vestiges of the occipital bun were common in early modern European skulls, but are relatively rare among Europeans today.
DeleteKhwit's skull was analysed, naturally his mother had the same, exaggerated features of the following;
*very wide eye sockets
*elevated brow ridge
*pronounced occipital bone
*bigger all round
*bigger teeth
*bigger jaw bone
... The audacity here is you know next to feck all about what you’re talking about.
And to your link that attempts to virtue signal to quash basic science (there is nothing more false & vile). A Negroid cranium is long in length, narrow in breadth, and low in height. The sagittal contour is flat and the occipital profile is quite rounded. The flatness of the sagittal contour is due to a post-bregmatic depression, a trait that occurs frequently in the Negroid cranium. The Negroid forehead is described as steep, with some sources describing it as rounded. According to studies in the 70's the Negroid cranium exhibits thicker parieto-occipital areas than Caucasoid crama, but nothing as pronounced as paleolithic occipital buns dimensions across a frequency that would determine them an accepted trait. Other features of Negroid skulls are the saggital outline being highly variable, post-bregmatic depression. Nose form is broad. Nasal bone size is medium to small. Nasal profile is straight/concave. Nasal spine is reduced, with the nasal sill being dull or absent. The incisor form is bladed with the facial prognathism extreme, as is the alveolar prognathism. Malar form is reduced and the palatal form parabolic. Orbital form is rounded with the mandible described as gracile and at an oblique gonial angle. Chin projection is reduced with the chin form being median. Given all this, you don’t need a degree in anthropology (cringe) to know that West African woman from the 1800's don't have these morphological features, if so... Source it, there were loads of these "slaves" remember. We have a collection of archaic traits that are not found in any modern human, nor in any geographical connection to the skull in question. Along with a pronounced occipital bun, aligning with the other ancient morphology of the skull, then there is no chance of the skull being from modern lineage alone. In the examples listed up top of extra mass in various areas, regardless of there being modern versions of singular instances of these traits, there is still the the fact that this is accompanied by many other archaic features not akin to any example of modern homo sapien skull.
And to your second link, Sykes is an expert in human DNA, nobody gives a feck about bear DNA.
^ Ahh ! PS as the special pleading anon makes an appearance today ! You see, PS acquired his meth addiction by way of frustration and staying awake late at night fearing the fact bigfoot is real thus destroying his paradigm of skeptical ignorance that has grown roots in his way of thinking. The poor st literally prays daily to his effigy of James Randi that bigfoot should never be proven to be real but he knows it's only a matter of time before he must finally wave his white flag to the likes of Iktomi an me screaming "yes, you were always right about bigfoot being real !"
DeleteLets go England and Wales to meet in the Rugby world cup final !
cheers
Joe
And how in the world can I possibly make that “jump with utmost confidence“ regarding DNA?Every time biological evidence for Bigfoot in hair samples is sequenced for DNA, it simply comes back human. Human DNA doesn’t confirm Bigfoot’s classification at this time because the majority of the people observing those results are expecting a new non-human primate’s DNA. 12 morphologically congruent hair samples analyses by experts with decades of experienced with primates, one sample being directly linked to a report by government employees that yielded track impressions of the same creature whose physical evidence is now peer reviewed. Might I add that this peer reviewed evidence is consistent to the “T” with widely accepted homo erectus trackways which means to attempt to debunk this level of evidence is not only impossible due to it being replicated on different continents before the average person even knew about midtarsal breaks, but you’d be challenging the work of several different world renowned anthropologists over many decades. So since you don’t even grasp “anthropology for dummies”, I doubt you’ll be delivering on that any time soon. This is the reason why in my opinion Bigfoot is an archaic homo sapien, with those results having nothing to do with human contamination. If not, then something so close to us in the genus homo that it requires more testing to establish. Don’t like it? Then pick up a feckin book for once PS. Because watching Finding Bigfoot back to back doesn’t even begin to start finding you your scientists who have never... NEVER been able to explain away the footprint evidence, let alone the thousands of years of anthropological data that exists, the footage, the published audio recordings and the fair fibres.
DeleteIn short “science boy”... you are utterly helpless. Now feck off back to your thousand YouTube channels you like to obsess over.
: )
Bravo ! this take down of PS is epic and staggering in its awesome nature. In short, he has been put in his place permanently ! All he'd have to do is watch the Meldrum video and his whole world would change but alas he hasn't the patience to sit through more than a few minutes, pity
Deletecheers
Joe
LOL- once again lktomi remains true to form with his distortions, lies and cherry picking. The findings of 2 (count them - 2) RUSSIAN anthropologists is good enough for him because their conclusions suit his belief. Who needs the opinion of others who might actually dispute those findings anyway? I'm amazed he even admits that such features CAN be seen in modern human skulls.
Delete"Khwit's skull was analysed, naturally his mother had the same, exaggerated features of the following"
That's quite a leap considering "Zana's" skull or any other part of her has never been found. He and other advocates base their opinion on hand-me-down stories from generation to generation which as we know are notoriously unreliable. The biggest laugh is making the claim that the DNA results coming back is human which means Bigfoot must be human which means Bigfoot is real (yes, that's the claim he makes). How about it comes back human because IT is human as in normal, modern human submitted DNA. No body - no Bigfoot - it's just that simple. When you look at ALL the evidence the case for Bigfoot is worse than weak. No amount of cherry picking, lies and distortions or using sock puppets (Joe) will change that. He's desperately trying to keep his dream alive by blindly accepting anything which may support his religious-like belief. When you dig deeper the evidence for Bigfoot always grows weaker. Pity him - he will NEVER get the satisfaction of Bigfoot being proven real.
Actually Sleepy Joe and Iktomi are very funny. Keep up the great comedy!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePS, who the feck are you talking to, you creepy narcissist? Do you think you have some audience or something?
DeleteAnd just as I start to think you can’t get any more audacious, you claim others are cherry picking, without providing a single piece of evidence to the contrary, whilst cherry picking from my comment. Ha ha ha!! As I’ve listed off archaic morphology that’s noted in Khwit’s skull, I have also stated clear as day that such a COLLECTION of archaic traits that are not found in any modern human from Africa, eradicating any suggestion of a modern geographical connection to the skull in question. This not only destroys the argument about Zana allegedly being modern African, but it makes the claim that the reports from a community being a mere coincidence of “hand me down reports” simply laughable. Allow me to put this in simpler terms for you... Zana’s reports from an entire community as an archaic woman, are substantiated by the archaic features in her son’s skull morphology. Sorry that burns.
You never fail to embarrass yourself about things you pretend to know about for the sake of a cheap trolling thrill. I haven’t even referenced anthropologists in this entire comment section, PS, are you confused? Are you showing your scars? Maybe you’re high, but the archaic features of Khwit’s skull require no such reference, they’re so obvious that they merely need pointing out.
"From remembered descriptions given to Mashkovtsev and Porshnev, her face was terrifying; broad, with high cheekbones, flat nose, turned out nostrils, muzzle-like jaws, wide mouth with large teeth, low forehead, and eyes of a reddish tinge."
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/zana2.htm
And lastly, even though you’re too dense to know when you’re destroyed... allow me to hold your hand through the profound chain of custody of human DNA with respect to “Bigfoot”...
So not only do we have footage of Bigfoot that is impossible to replicate using fur cloth SFX techniques to this day, but that footage shows a subject that looks like an archaic human. Not only does that documented archaic human leave an archaic human footprint behind, but that archaic human footprint is scientifically consistent with trackways from different continents and widely studied/accepted trackways of hominin in the genus homo. Know what the genus homo means, PS? You struggled last time as I remember. Not only that, but having collected hair fibres from the same widely observed hominin, when they sequence as human then it doesn’t take a lot to deduce that the big hairy human looking thing that is leaving centuries of big human footprints is going to yield human DNA. You insufferably thick ****. It’s not like the chain of evidence is just down to one questionable piece of data, like you pray & special plead for, it’s three sources of corroborating data that are scientifically consistent with decades of reliable methods of analysis such as anthropology & primatology. Pair that off with three databases of modern reports that attest to the exact same thing that’s studied in footage... then you’re up against impossible amounts of data. That’s the “weakness” that you haven’t even began to scratch the surface of. You haven’t even got one reliable scientific opinion that debunks one source of that chain of evidence.
Unlucky punk. Now go back to your TV and YouTube channels. Your psychological safe space isn’t under threat within that type of fan-boy territory.
: )
Blokes like PS just can't wrap their heads around the glaring fact that it was impossible for Patterson to create a suit using 60s fur techniques so they try to discredit him and carry on with the tired line "guy in a suit" but yet even with current fur possibilities can even come close to even being a shadow of the bigfoot in the PGF.
DeleteI'd say this is check mate , game over for the skeptics and they know it and that's the reason they become s hostile !
The truth hurts eh mates ?
cheers
Joe
Wow, Iktomi had a total meltdown. What a sad little clown
DeleteHa ! more like PS is the one with the meltdown ! Nice try though but sorry you lose boyo !
Deletecheers
Joe
See, just like I said
DeleteMeldrum takes LSD at the Moron temple.
ReplyDeleteI know a grip that worked on Monsterquest and he said that Meldrum scrapped his pants during the episode where BF throws a rock at their cabin.
ReplyDeleteIt was a bigfoot throwing rocks 100% !
Deletecheers
Joe
If bigfoot wants rocks he can look in your head
DeleteRo Sahebi...dick bag
ReplyDeleteEvery sample that Sykes tested turned out to be be from an animal known to science. Not one of the hair samples provided to Sykes was unidentified. They were ALL from known animals.
ReplyDeleteThere were any number of animals’ DNA not shown in the results, does that mean they don’t exist? The only known researchers who submitted samples were Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja and Derek Randles. The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples.
DeleteI'll bet the Dan Shirley samples are good
DeleteThe PG film is real and the subject Patty was real. The probability that Patty is dead is.. well.. unity. We will never know why Patty was "caught out" in Bluff Creek but I'm glad that I was afforded that sense of wonderment as a kid when I saw a few stills. It was that feeling that there remains a few things mankind has not sorted out and that feeling persisted.
ReplyDeleteJeff Meldrum? Pfft Hoax Enable ala Todd Standing.