tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post3563196611660116019..comments2024-03-29T01:11:45.309-07:00Comments on Bigfoot Evidence: Bigfoot Heard Laughing In AlabamaShawnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059275107499275007noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-72584720335679693422016-06-14T00:53:16.455-07:002016-06-14T00:53:16.455-07:00If I was to ignore repeatable scientific evidence ...If I was to ignore repeatable scientific evidence for the possibility that it somehow doesn't exist, then I would be unscientific.Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-77730344423809006332016-06-13T10:30:49.593-07:002016-06-13T10:30:49.593-07:00^Dude, are you willing to admit that possibility t...^Dude, are you willing to admit that possibility that bigfoot don't exist? Every reputable name in the field, Meldrum, Sykes, Krantz, etc, even if they believe existence likely, were/are willing to admit that the creatures not existing is a distinct possibility, even if they view it as unlikely.<br /><br />Your refusal to acknowledge this possibility is what makes you unscientific. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-16157384645048981892016-06-13T08:20:02.820-07:002016-06-13T08:20:02.820-07:00Based on the physical evidence, the size of track ...Based on the physical evidence, the size of track impressions, the weight measured by the depth of these, the stride distance and the fact that we are talking about a primate... It is natural to conclude that relict hominids must have phenomenal strength. There are also inummerable reports as to how strong they are. Strength equates to great speed in primates. <br /><br />You were provided a published study up top that concluded upon infrasonic abilities in an unclassified primate in the US... What perverse level of denial do you endure?? The appliance of this is pure speculation.<br /><br />Only a couple of years ago, a new species of primitive hominin, homo Naledi was discovered that buried it's dead in caves. These were very primitive hominids that lacked the evolved brain capacity and intelligence of more modern hominids such as Neanderthals that also buried their dead. By this, it is not a stretch to assume that Sasquatch bury their dead. In fact, there is more reason to assume so than otherwise, given the fact that they are quite clearly human and not a dumb animal. Even if we didn't have the hairs that are morphologically consistent with a wild human, if we didn't have the track castings that quite clearly show a large human, then the innumerable reports that basically describe what one would expect from a caveman attest to this. Given the high frequency of science journals that account for such large human remains being found, and the long standing cultures to which state that Sasquatch are another tribe of large humans, one does not require Sherlock Holmes to be able to draw a link from such data. Don't take my word about 7-8 foot skeletons, take it from your beloved PhD Andy White who's literally making a name for himself debunking giant claims lately. "Bigfoot" burying their dead is logical. Because people like you fail every day of your obsessed lives to explain away the evidence, then there is little doubt that they exist. From this premise it is possible to use heuristical principles such as Occam's Razor, and it is therefore logical to theorise as to how they might deal with their dead in-line with accepted hominid behaviour. Do you see how this works? Try it one time... Substantiate one of your claims and from their there is reason to make educated theories.<br /><br />There is repeatable scientific evidence for what is being reported, and there is three whole databases of sightings reports to learn behavioural traits from. There is no requirement to doubt this reports as there is forensic evidence that supports. At this rate, it requires a far greater leap of faith to assume that hundreds of years of reports with accompanying physical evidence is the product of hoaxing and misidentification... Than it is to at least entertain the idea that relict hominids reside in wilderness areas.<br /><br />I can't even understand your last sentence, and for someone who fails to substantiate what allegedly is so obvious, you shouldn't really be claiming to understand the scienific method. You would have at least explained one of the many evidences away by now if that was the case.Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-56464404786691442542016-06-13T07:50:52.721-07:002016-06-13T07:50:52.721-07:00The text is widely considered racist. It also does...The text is widely considered racist. It also doesn't support your argument what so ever. Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-62159950297092253452016-06-13T07:39:40.214-07:002016-06-13T07:39:40.214-07:00Only racist because you disagree with it.Only racist because you disagree with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-68127949930068723132016-06-13T07:30:52.028-07:002016-06-13T07:30:52.028-07:00Iktomi and his sock puppets are awesome. Can't...Iktomi and his sock puppets are awesome. Can't stop Bigfoot? <br />Well, Bigfoot has superhuman strength. <br /><br />Can't capture Bigfoot?<br />Well, Bigfoot has superhuman speed.<br /><br />Can't locate Bigfoot in the forest?<br />Well, Bigfoot has just blasted you with infrasound to scramble your brain waves and disorient you.<br /><br />Can't locate Bigfoot remains or body?<br />Well, Bigfoots clearly bury their dead.<br /><br />Remember, these creatures have never been proven to exist. This is a fact. And fools like Iktomi spout off like they have all these knowledge about how these creatures think, act, behave, despite the fact that they may not even exist.<br /><br />And if you do value science and the scientific method, you have to concede the Bigfoots not existing is one possibility, even if you consider it highly unlikely. To rule out entirely the possibility that they aren't out there is pure unthinking dogmantic intellectual dishonesty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-91239234513646658782016-06-13T05:15:21.854-07:002016-06-13T05:15:21.854-07:00..The penalty for breaking that NDA better be extr.....The penalty for breaking that NDA better be extremely severe because someone in a position to snap a photo of a dead body is in a position to make some serious cash...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-29342943295538097492016-06-13T02:43:34.028-07:002016-06-13T02:43:34.028-07:00Oh... And Erectus Walks Among us is racist materia...Oh... And Erectus Walks Among us is racist material. Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-1839282827329712762016-06-13T00:39:37.625-07:002016-06-13T00:39:37.625-07:00A Negroid cranium is long in length, narrow in bre...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. <br /><br />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. He 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. <br /><br />None of the collective archaic features that determine Khwit's skulls unique. Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-1718499216108779272016-06-12T23:57:32.926-07:002016-06-12T23:57:32.926-07:00At Myakka State Park the only employee who seems t...At Myakka State Park the only employee who seems to be "briefed-in" is the resident biologist who when you are reporting a sighting doesn't need your description, doesn't need to see your sketch and only wants to know one thing, "where did you see it?".<br /><br />They are covered under NDA, all park business is "official business" so its already illegal for them to say one word about operations at the park.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-62427571823704903542016-06-12T23:53:59.925-07:002016-06-12T23:53:59.925-07:005.55... Four of the traits refer to size of the sk...5.55... Four of the traits refer to size of the skull features, but when aligned with archaic morphological features only collectively seen in paleolithic peoples... This is very, very significant. Yes you can keep on claiming that brow ridges and occipital buns are found in modern examples, I could have sourced you far more examples than what you've presented... But those are SINGULAR examples, not COLLECTIVE examples that present a specimen with all aforementioned archaic features in one skull, you digging me? Especially that from West Africa from the 1800's. There were loads of these slaves, remember? Ironic you keep claiming I haven't read my own source, this is probably the fifth time in this comments section that I've had to outline this very fundamental aspect of my point. It's not so much my "Bigfoot conclusion", the data is no coincidence to a person that was described as an entire community as being a primitive human.<br /><br />7:43... Still sore about the pioneering plastic surgeon I reference that supports Patty's biological anatomy I see, eh? Good.<br /><br />: )Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-71654893670537839832016-06-12T23:53:18.135-07:002016-06-12T23:53:18.135-07:00so Donna is at the cottage eh?
Be careful Donna, ...so Donna is at the cottage eh? <br />Be careful Donna, you never know what creatures are stalking you in the woods mate<br /><br />JoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-33947192157638221462016-06-12T20:57:57.584-07:002016-06-12T20:57:57.584-07:00...Seriously, you need to imagine how broad and de......Seriously, you need to imagine how broad and deep a conspiracy need be: secretaries, rangers, volunteers who help maintain forests and everyone else who works for forests services worldwide would have to be kept out of the loop or prevented from blabbing if they stumbled across anything..it does not seem possible that such a secret would not leak..Welcome aboard, btw...<br /><br />EEGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-45240391607407499352016-06-12T20:53:16.656-07:002016-06-12T20:53:16.656-07:00...Yes, if bigfoots existence becomes known I for ......Yes, if bigfoots existence becomes known I for would one would start rioting and looting...I can use some new sneakers...lol..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-1949097951840963572016-06-12T19:43:22.226-07:002016-06-12T19:43:22.226-07:00I refuse to read all the crap above. However, I...I refuse to read all the crap above. However, I'll contribute this. Joe's Lee's Summit hack apparently got bounced for non payment of his bill's. I'd suggest a smoke outlet store but someone's beat us too it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-59142425152417401202016-06-12T18:15:31.958-07:002016-06-12T18:15:31.958-07:00(sigh) Your noble efforts to educate are probably ...(sigh) Your noble efforts to educate are probably in vain Anon 5:55. You and dmaker make compelling arguments but lktomi (Joe) is so ingrained in his belief that he simply will not accept anything to the contrary. I did enjoy reading it and the only thing that would have made it better is if you would have used his own phrase in ending . . . <br /><br />No, no, no - the pleasure is all mine. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-72163422130340915912016-06-12T17:55:29.098-07:002016-06-12T17:55:29.098-07:00Four of your alleged archaic traits in Khwit simpl...Four of your alleged archaic traits in Khwit simply refer to the size of skull features. Modern human skulls come in all shapes and sizes and those alleged archaic features mean nothing. You can't even give me any size dimensions. Those are not archaic traits.<br /><br />Occipital buns are common in Europeans and Africans. Elevated brow ridges are common in Europeans. Both traits would be normal in someone of mixed European and African heritage.<br /><br />The plain truth is that you did not even read your sources carefully and jumped to a preferred Bigfoot conclusion. You did not notice that one researcher grouped the skull with non-archaic types and you had no idea what the descriptions even meant.<br /><br />I had some free time today and I generously broke it down for you and now you are better informed because of my efforts. Instead of inventing absurd and non-sensical explanations, you should be thanking me.<br /><br />You're welcome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-3259847810226473532016-06-12T17:44:40.669-07:002016-06-12T17:44:40.669-07:00Unlike you, I am actually going to leave this disc...Unlike you, I am actually going to leave this discussion right now. I'm at my cottage and am going to go down to the campfire and read a book for a bit. <br /><br />Feel free to post nonsense in the meantime. I know you will.<br />dMaKeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16012894710920995978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-43074703115892654002016-06-12T17:44:26.081-07:002016-06-12T17:44:26.081-07:00Your opinion would be valued if you didn't bel...Your opinion would be valued if you didn't belittle people and tell them they are wrong because the research they've conducted doesn't add up to what is preferred on your part. When that happens, you have a responsibility to demonstrate that the things you claim aren't there are just that. <br /><br />Laters (seriously this time, I'm ******).Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-28496149692952704992016-06-12T17:42:42.180-07:002016-06-12T17:42:42.180-07:00The evidence offered to date does not, in my opini...The evidence offered to date does not, in my opinion, lead me to think that bigfoot is a real animal. As such, I must provisionally conclude that bigfoot is a social construct as I happen to think the lack of hard evidence supports the social construct theory more than it does the real animal theory. That is my opinion and that is my take on the evidence available. <br /><br />I am not on some personal quest to deny the existence of anything. I am simply offering my take on the evidence. Perhaps you should do the same and avoid stating as fact things that you cannot possibly know.dMaKeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16012894710920995978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-11735673089445195942016-06-12T17:41:02.122-07:002016-06-12T17:41:02.122-07:00"In science, Joe, you cannot take negative re..."In science, Joe, you cannot take negative results and provide excuses for them."<br />... But where are these examples of negative results, Donald? They are everywhere yet nowhere? Your shortfalls and failure to shift your burden are not my excuses, dear Donald.<br /><br />"special pleading<br />noun<br />argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view."<br />... Where are these aspects Donald? In you moving the goalposts on DNA for a creature you neither can substantiate nor find credible? I'm pretty sure that's special pleading ya know?<br /><br />For example, your argument about special traits being applied for lack of evidence is perversely unsubstantiated. In this very comment section you've been presented a published scientific study that shows there's an unclassified primate in Northern California that has vocal ranges both above and below normal human ranges. That's not my excuses, these are your obstacles. Your burden is to test that and present evidence against it should you be critical. We know that early human ancestors and most other mammals' brains are wired with straightforward circuits that pick up information from the surrounding environment through the senses and relays that information to motor neurons so the body can move and respond to the surrounding environments. If Sasquatch exists, and it appears that way based on the physical evidence far cleverer people than you fail to explain away, then it would be scientifically logical that it has evolved attributes to survive and evade so well in that environment.<br /><br />Now I've really got to go to bed! But you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be back tomorrow. Kiss, kiss Donald! Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-53613272662000874482016-06-12T17:39:35.647-07:002016-06-12T17:39:35.647-07:00I'm not trying to deny the existence of anythi...I'm not trying to deny the existence of anything, Joe. That is where you let your adversarial bias come into play. <br /><br />I am simply saying that I don't think the evidence offered to date supports bigfoot as a real animal and instead more supports the idea that bigfoot is a social construct. <br /><br />That is my take on the evidence to date. I'm not actively trying to deny anything. I am simply offering my interpretation of the evidence. You are the one who spins everything as a US vs THEM scenario, not me.<br />dMaKeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16012894710920995978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-74408214657207912772016-06-12T17:35:57.665-07:002016-06-12T17:35:57.665-07:00LOL. Thought you went to bed?LOL. Thought you went to bed?dMaKeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16012894710920995978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-79566736669534115692016-06-12T17:34:07.444-07:002016-06-12T17:34:07.444-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-31019846239554213192016-06-12T17:24:13.913-07:002016-06-12T17:24:13.913-07:00What is a matter of opinion, is you thinking that ...What is a matter of opinion, is you thinking that alleged sasquatch DNA always tests as common animal or is insufficient for proper analysis... This is not only hypocritically preconceived and unsubstantiated, but throwing something out because it doesn't fit your expectations of something whose existence you don’t even think is credible, isn't very good logic. It means that nothing you claim can be taken as a substantial argument, because your original premise contradicts your methods of moving the goal posts. If that's how you think science works, you shouldn't be trying to condescend anyone, dear Donald. If Sasquatch is hit by a car and I'm wrong about the DNA, then a Sasquatch has been discovered (cough, cough). <br /><br />"All that can be known at this point is that DNA testing of alleged sasquatch samples returns results that do not support the original claim."<br />... That's if the original claim is to expect a "preferred" classification of a creature who's existence you're trying to deny. That's called moving the goal posts, dear Donald. That's audacious and you are narcissistic to think you're somehow better than anyone else to call the shots. You've got so much to explain away before you expect that to sit well and be representative of anything remotely scientific. Every time I claim Sasquatch is human, I am basing that claim on the readily available data that consists of video, audio, forensic and biological evidence. <br /><br />4:52... Yet none of those traits are shown as a collective in one example of modern skull. Please learn to read the arguments posted to you the first ten times. You've only gone and wasted a couple of hours of your time. <br /><br />(Sigh)Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.com