Finding Bigfoot Needs Your Help With The World's Largest Grid Search
The team from Animal Planet’s hit show “Finding Bigfoot” is going to attempt the world’s biggest Bigfoot
grid search and they need your help! Join Matt Moneymaker, James “Bobo” Fay, Cliff Barackman and
Ranae Holland as they try to make television history!
WHEN: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12TH at 5:00pm
WHERE: The greater Knoxville, Tennessee area. Exact location will be provided upon RSVP.
WHAT: The cast and crew of “Finding Bigfoot” is attempting to set a record for one of the world’s LARGEST Bigfoot grid searches. The team is looking for fans of the program and sasquatch enthusiasts
from all walks of life to help them reach their goal.
TO RSVP: If you wish to participate in the “Finding Bigfoot” grid search, you MUST RSVP to the following email: bigfoot.tennessee@gmail.com
Please indicate how many people will be in your party. Full details will provided AFTER you RSVP. Children under 18 years of age must be accompanied by a legal parent or guardian.
Uno!
ReplyDeleteGood one Uno!!
DeleteThanks, Joe! Uno
DeleteYes Hillary TO RULE US ALL in 2016
Deletefor the SAFETY of the WORLD : )
WILD BILL needin to gits rid of that thar shotgun ans gits him a AK fer huntin tham critters
DeleteWild Bill likes boys!
DeleteCliff Barackman ADMITS he never even saw one yet, after 25 years of searching!
DeleteHas Meldrum seen one I wonder....until I see one, I will remain a skeptic. Not like many of the looney tunes who believe and defend the wackos) just because others tell them it is real.
DeleteI think that they need to conduct a grid search of Bobo's arse for dingle berries.
ReplyDeleteget ready to find people down there...as i understand it folks go missing around dingleberries
DeleteZero bigfoots.
ReplyDeleteIts always zero.
Never even one.
Zero.
Men in suits don't count.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
DeleteNot personally no. You could make one yourself if you wanted or you could buy one off the shelf. Google would be a good start.
DeleteSo you've got a monkey suit??!!!
DeleteNot personally no. You could make one yourself if you wanted or you could buy one off the shelf. Google would be a good start.
DeleteNo monkey suit to back up your argument then?? Looks grim.
DeleteWhy would anyone need a monkey suit? Absurd suggestion.
DeleteUmmm... Anyone maintaining a source presented as evidence by scientists isn't organic?
DeleteLol wat
DeleteLol that.
DeleteYou spew absolute nonsense. Daily.
Deletebut he gets hits for BFE. That is all that matters.
Delete3:16... Nonsense to you, a requirement of standard science to test the source sufficiently for us.
Delete3:21... Hits, shmits... I'm here like you.
Science tests the sources daily. When no monkeys show up the conclusion is evident.
DeleteWhen scientific method has tested the evidence and come to the conclusion that an unknown primate is leaving it, then your stance takes a reality check. Science is a tool, not a thinking entity.
DeletePlenty found;
http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
... None caught.
Hey Joe, i never knew that you believe Bigfoot to have a ufo connection. I, too, believe that!
DeleteOn the May 14th thread you posted that you believe there to be a connection.
DeleteThat may be your conclusion but it certainly isn't the conclusion of the car majority of scientists.
DeleteVast*
DeleteI am very curious as the the UFO phenomena surrounding so many reports, I refrain from making a conclusion about it, cause I simply don't know... But I have a very open mind.
Deletehttp://www.amazon.com/Hunt-Skinwalker-Science-Confronts-Unexplained/dp/1416505210
DeleteHunt for the Skinwalker by Colm Kelleher Ph.D is an interesting read ‘if’ you take it light hearted IMHO.
A scientific study, though with no photographic evidence or anything is presented in the book, just anecdotes.
UFO’s and more around the Gorman ranch were reported and what I found humours was the anecdote of seeing Bigfeet crawling out of a worm-hole.
The word I have a problem with is ‘crawling’ which gives the impression of a solid internal structure. I would have assumed a worm-hole having two states!
1) instantaneous
2) traversable given time (seconds to minutes)
^^^^^ Skinwalker Ranch is amazing!!
DeleteThank you for your response, Joe!
DeleteYou're always very welcome with the average quality of your comments bro!!
DeleteI may dust it off and re read it again, as I did find it entertaining.
DeleteI discussed this with a rather colourful fella many years ago. He said later he wanted to mail a present of this book to sombody in the UK and could I mail my copy.
I replied. Well wouldn't that be a present from me not you? Then he started a barrage of insults....
Ha ha ha ha ha!! That strange behaviour for sure!!
DeleteI told you who he was awhile back....He was let's just say interesting. lol
DeleteOh yes! Ha ha ha!!
DeleteGRAYs been collecting DNA for years and BIGFOOTs are controlled by the GRAYs
Deletehttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/bigfoottruthnlies/2009/11/25/a-legendary-bigfoot-researcher
ReplyDelete28:30 Roger Patterson Film
34:00 Krantz 161 Tracks in a line
39.20 Fecal matter, enzyme and it vanishing comment
42:00 Applying for a grant comment
46:36 name of enzyme or what he thinks.......
1:05:56 Owl calls or mimic calls which should be present! Interesting if you listen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-PPZwHZBak
Also above Bigfoot - Man or Beast 1:13:03
So they hear some owls and then pretend that a mythical ape is making the sound instead of say, I don't know, an owl?
DeleteThere's a difference when you listen to an owl and someone minicing an owl. The only myth is your alleged intelligence.
DeleteOh boy here we go^
DeleteIf you had of listened, the Owl call was not Indigenous to the region and alleged to be the mating call of the snowy owl from the Artic.
DeleteSo a monkey was mimicking a snowy owl from the arctic?
Delete2:30 got smoked.
Delete2:38... No monkeys, just giant hairy people.
DeleteHell if I know
DeleteHeh.
DeleteSigh.
How about some evidence for bigfoot that isn't "I heard an owl"
You've been shown plenty... You started rocking in the corner in sweaty denial... Remember?
DeleteShown none that can't be explained. Smoked.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
DeleteNot personally no. You could make one yourself if you wanted or you could buy one off the shelf. Google would be a good start.
DeleteNo monkey suit to back up your argument then?? Looks grim.
Deleteas I'm bored....
DeleteKoshik, an adult male Asian elephant, has learned to reproduce at least five Korean words: "annyeong" (hello), "anja" (sit down), "aniya" (no), "nuwo" (lie down) and "joa" (good). The feat was documented in the journal Current Biology. Tecumseh Fitch, a professor of cognitive biology at the University of Vienna, and his colleagues believe that Koshik understands what the words mean.
a clever African bird known as the fork-tailed drongo copies the warning calls of meerkats, southern pied babbler birds, and other animals, according to the study. As fooled individuals flee, the fork-tailed drongo steals their food. It would be comparable to a person yelling, "Fire!" in a restaurant, and then staying put to grab all of the vittles after the diners ran out the door.
A harbor seal named Hoover, who was raised by a Maine couple, reportedly vocalized many words and phrases, including "Hoover," "hey," "hello there," "how are ya," "get outta here," and "get down." He became famous for this at the New England Aquarium in Boston, where the couple—George and Alice Swallow— took Hoover when he got too big for their care. Hoover even received his own obituary in the Boston Globe when he passed away in 1985.
A wild cat known as the margay can imitate the call of its prey: a tiny monkey called the pied tamarin. Researchers from the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Federal University of Amazonas documented the vocal mimicry while they were working in a Brazilian forest. Margays emit the call, which brings curious and confused monkeys out of hiding. The margay then pounces, hoping for a monkey meat feast.
^^^^^^^^^^^ awesome!!!!!!!!
DeleteIf its a bit wacky or a bit woo Joe just can't get enough
DeleteHard facts are 'woo' to you bro... The traits of free thinking Nazis.
DeleteHard facts ha ha ha ha
DeleteYeah, ho, ho, ho, ho.
DeleteI made a statement a few weeks ago about an incident that happened to me late June, early July 2011 in which one mimicked an owl and another or the same mimicked a loon immediately after at 2 am in the morn in Huron national forest however this was on Indian Lake in Iosco county Michigan. These were immediately followed by an Ohio howl type coming from as far as a mile away to the north in the forest and all became quiet. Anyway it is very recognized in the Sasquatch researcher circles these hairy forest giants mimick a lot of forest animals and that is all there is to that.
DeleteJOE say something you will like a lot. Was watching Houdini last night on the History channel and an advertisement came. History will be airing a new series this fall In Search of the Giant Skeletons. Crazy times here in NA buddy.
Chuck
Hey chuck.
DeleteThat owl sounding noise you heard... It was an owl.
Chuck, great comment!! Thanks for the head's up too!!
Delete4:30... Rocking in the corner and sure to be putting the owl thing past his therapist later on.
JOE. These ancient giant skeletons in NA, something you have focused on in many posts on this site is an area I have not been up to snuff on compared with your knowledge. Now thanks to History I will get the chance to gain some of that knowledge. I applaud the Discovery Channels and their affiliates for bringing out such shows and series and break down the boundaries erect by the establishment sciences and academia, who for so long have failed us and erected barriers to anyone willing to challenge the status quo.
DeleteChuck
I'll second that Chuck!
DeleteThere is an excellent book out at the moment by Richard J. Dewhurst, called The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America. Richard Dewhurst is the Emmy Award–winning writer of the HBO feature documentary Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam. A graduate of NYU with degrees in journalism, film, and television, he has written and edited for the History Channel, the Arts & Entertainment Channel, PBS, Fox Television and Fox Films, ABC News, TNT, Paramount Pictures, and the Miami Herald.
There are more and more impartial researchers latching on to this, the history of the US is not what we're told it is.
Thanks for the kind words too Chuck, coming from someone who I've learnt so much from, that means a lot.
JOE. I was googling around a bit this morning and found a site with Richard J. Dewhurst and bookmarked it for future reading. Most likely will get his book this winter. Could not be truer. The history of NA is not what we have been told ( and I have know this since the mid 1970s ), not even close and time and patience will prove this.
DeleteYou deserve kind words.
Chuck
The cable channels are focusing on junk science and history, because sensationalism is what uneducated yokels will watch.
Delete> eddicatshun fer tham thar richn folks shure is
DeleteTheir mermaids documentary was top notch, also their coverage of the russian bigfoot attack incident had information you can't find anywhere else.
Deleteand Grays lookin for DNA samples Ancient Aliens got the skinny on them Grays
Delete9:14... When you've got 150 years worth of printed media and science journals documenting exactly what me and Chuck are referring to, then who's the uneducated yokel?
DeleteIt's ok... You're learning something.
So you're a self proclaimed "open minded" person -- do you admit to the possibility that bigfoot (or whatever you want to call it) does not exist?
DeleteNo... If it didn't exist, then people wouldn't be seeing it, and it certainly wouldn't leave tracks and hair.
DeleteSo you're not "open minded," thank you for the confirmation.
DeleteYour version of being open minded means it's so open your brains falls out.
DeleteOccam's razor.
As usual, you jumped to an unfounded assumption. I mentioned nothing about my own thoughts on the subject. My point, which you apparently missed, was that you have come to an absolute conclusion on the matter and you are only seeking evidence to support your preconceived notion and ignoring anything which undermines your belief. That type of approach represents the precise opposite of an "open minded" mind set.
DeleteOk, let's just assume for a second you're enthusiastic about the subject, what's your problem? You confront me and my stance on the evidence and then expect me to buy into a situation where you might have any other mindset? Come on bro, you're trying a little too hard now and being clever doesn't appear to come too naturally to you.
DeleteNo, I got your point alright. What psuedoskeptics like you do, is stop asking the questions regarding evidence as soon as the answers fall upon a preferred conclusion, when if proper skepticism is practiced the questions and following answers far transcend these conclusions. In this essence, everything that you percieve to be 'undermined' has counter questions that once addressed cannot support these notions which can only end up supporting the default position that's proposed by presenting such evidence that has time and time again been supported by scientists practicing consistent scientific method.
For example, if I was to have a closed mind, I wouldn't listen to some of the very best scientists in relevant fields that state this subject is legitimate, and I certainly wouldn't be looking at the countless people who have had experiences in any overly pessimistic manner.
Psuedoskepticism is a fundementalist quasi-religion.
I did not assert that there are not arguments on both sides of the issue. But if you cannot expand your mind enough to view the subject critically to doubt your own presumptions, then you will spin your wheels interminably and never be taken seriously.
DeleteYou might ask yourself why so many "pseudo-skeptics" (as you term them) visit proponent blogs and websites if they were not open to considering the evidence. I notice that the vast majority of believers stay on the proponent sites where they hope to remain in a safe echo chamber and they become quite hostile whenever they are challenged.
Nargh, you would have to be cleverer than me to condescend me, and you're not.
DeleteI've gone over every single last critical point you can think of, every single last one. I have picked the bones out of every single one of these points and not one of them can stand. I find it slightly embarrassing that YOU, should suggest I need to expand my mind when I'm at least three steps ahead of you and far more informed... And yes, I can be this confident because I am everything I say I am. My 'presumptions' I can in fact be backed up with science and scientists that have exceeded all others in their respected fields. My 'presumptions' I can back up with facts, the only people who suggest I'm not being taken seriously, humorously, are those requiring to shut me up with an equivalent.
Oh... And I've been to your blogs, and they merely find a round about way of hurling names and being rude and have as much as 26 threads dedicated to something that is "obviously BS" (hardley convincing), where they are rallied around to go and attack people who have had impartial and unprovoked experiences and who conduct honest constistently scientific research, I have no quarm in calling those people free thinking nazis, who need to listen to people way cleverer than them.
If people want to stay here, it's because they are comfortable in their stance and want to learn of the latest news and discuss topics with like minded people. Remember you are here reinforcing your stance (telling) and if you're gonna challenge people and then cry about it, advice to you sir; stay out of the kitchen.
Oh, and if you are remotely enthusiastic and just trying to be clever, then this comemt can still serve to anyone reading this blog page.
As you are pondering my earlier question (and given your reply, I can infer that you are in fact now engaged in that process), you may consider another issue: by my estimation, over 99% of the people who approach this topic are intrigued by the phenomenon on some level and, no matter what they ultimately choose to believe, they can clearly identify and acknowledge the problems with the evidence.
DeleteBut then there are a few outliers like yourself who insist that bigfoot has been definitively proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. It makes me wonder what this subject does for you exactly -- how does it enrich your life?
So you might want to ask yourself the hypothetical question -- what if bigfoot were proven not to exist? How would it affect your life? Would there be any further purpose for you on this earth? If you can somehow work past your repeatedly stated dogma and engage in some important self-analysis, then you may experience a significant increase in your overall happiness.
"But then there are a few outliers like yourself who insist that bigfoot has been definitively proven beyond any shadow of a doubt."
DeleteArgh, now you're showing some very intriguing colours. If you knew anything about me, knew anything about my theories and stance, you would know that I have never made the claim that this subject has or should be proven based on the frequency of evidence alone. To prove the existence you would require a body to classify, but that is a process of research to which must be driven towards based on the existing sources of evidence there is to point towards an unknown primate leaving it. So, though I cannot prove to you that there is an unknown primate in the wilds of the US, I can however prove to you that there is evidence worthy of investigating further, though I am totally 100% confident that they are indeed there.
"It makes me wonder what this subject does for you exactly -- how does it enrich your life?"
It makes me feel aaaaaaall warm and lovely and gooey inside.
"So you might want to ask yourself the hypothetical question -- what if bigfoot were proven not to exist?"
And how would you do that exactly? I know of no process that can achieve that, do you care to enlighten me? You cannot prove that something does not exist, you can test the evidence in line with what impartial scientific method expects.
"How would it affect your life? Would there be any further purpose for you on this earth?"
I hold down a very responsible job, have two hobbies, a partner and three circles of friends and a very busy social life whilst helping people like you out. Things would, should your fallacy-rich scenario have any weight in reality, remain totally normal and I would have many years ahead of me in good health surrounded by people who love and respect me.
"If you can somehow work past your repeatedly stated dogma and engage in some important self-analysis, then you may experience a significant increase in your overall happiness."
Ummm... My repeatedly stated dogma was directed at you and your theory group, you must be confused. I sleep very well at night, I have dear friends who I trust, who I have no need to doubt, who've seen these creatures in full detail. My happiness would increase if people such as yourself could work through their own issues with such an apparently offensive and threatening concept, but hey! I'm here to help of course!
I wonder how you would react should this subject be proven? Actually, save it... I'm bored and it's late in the UK. I will however be back to respond to any further dribbles, so don't pat yourself on the back in my absence, I can go all week and will respond as soon as I get the chance.
Please don't tell me that I have to define what a "hypothetical question" is for you. And in the coming years, there may be just such technology that comes into being and the question will be put to rest one way or another. Your own imagination seems to be somewhat limited on that particular topic. Or else your psychological mind frame prevents you from even considering the possibility. That would suggest that you have so much emotional investment in the subject that, if it all suddenly crumbled to dust, then you could not go on living.
DeleteRegardless, I am sorry I challenged you so forcefully, as I can see now that you are likely better off living with your current conception. It would obviously be just too jarring for your psyche for you to attempt to shed your bigfoot obsession.
Honestly though, I was just offering friendly advice to someone who seems fairly intelligent and who might be able to apply his efforts to a topic which would be likely to produce more meaningful results. Cheerio!
And I think even the most hardened skeptic (which I am not) would welcome such a discovery and find it quite exciting. We all secretly root for bigfoot to exist, but we an also view the current situation objectively.
DeleteFeel free to pat yourself on the back if that is what makes you happy. My only interest is to find out information regarding bigfoot and some of the personalities in the field (including yourself) fascinate me even more than the creature itself.
Funny you should suggest I require explaining to the meaning of hypotheticals when you so obviously 'forgot' to respond to one put your way. Should they in the coming years invent something that alters scientific theory, I'll be mightily impressed, now that's an imagination that Einstein would even adhere to.
DeleteNotice how you're not engaging on the subject matter anymore? Yeah, having your logic handed to you will do that. Your lack of counter argument is now my 'emotional investment' issues? I have a very enthusiastic stance towards this subject, it's fun. You seem to know a lot about defining someone, but can't seem to define your own stance in your acrobatics. 'Objectivity' is loosely used in this instance when naivity is concerned.
Honestly, I mean no offense, I'm sure you're a very nice person.
See ya around.
"Until you can prove Ketchum is wrong then she's not wrong" - Joe
ReplyDeleteYeah, keep up the good work bro.
DeleteSo Ketchum is right?
DeleteI have always said I trust Erikson, and I'll wait until a comparative DNA study is conducted.
DeleteOnce that's done, forget about me... We'll ALL know.
Scientists have looked at her results and said no bigfoot. Deal with it.
DeleteThis could quite easily be down to shoddy practice. Dealing with something I half agree with, pretty simple. Baiting when you're too stupid to argue your theories regarding the subject matter; typical.
DeleteWat?
DeleteHaskell hart says her data is nonsense and he's a footer!
Choosing Melba to do that study was a poor judgement call by those involved.
DeleteTheir judgement is also in question regarding the alleged bigfoot footage from the Erikson documentary that they included the short clips from.
3:14... Though I generally agree with him for the most part... Haskell Hart also has limited qualifications to make that call.
Delete3:25... Your first part of your comment is right to a degree, finding someone who wasn't going to scoff at the subject, or be concerned with their careers was a major factor in that decision process. Regarding the second part of your comment, Erikson was hoaxed by the landowners with a Chewie mask. This is something that has no doubt been realized by Erikson by now.
Melba didn't even do the testing she sent the samples out to other labs. No samples were "wasted" as footers like to claim. The results are the results. And the results are no monkeys.
DeleteAs Sykes said, genetics is ruthless, ie bullsh*t claims made by footers get shut down because DNA testing is a hard reality check.
Joe is pathetic.
DeleteHe picks and chooses the things that suit his beliefs. Promotes anyone who supports him and dismisses the majority who don't.
The guy is deluded.
"Upon examination of the paper, it can be seen that it was a huge multidisciplinary effort involving a dozen labs and blind studies, and carried out by nine highly qualified scientists, aimed at quelling controversy about the discovery.
DeleteIn the most extensive study ever carried out on the subject, a total of 111 samples were analysed, and standard procedures used in forensic science were implemented, including blank and positive control samples, submitter profiles and laboratory personnel profiles, all of which were utilized in conjunction with the testing of the samples. Laboratories and scientists were not told what they were testing when they were contracted to test the Sasquatch samples. This ensured the integrity of the replication of the findings from test to test to test.
The five year study costing over half a million dollars employed university laboratories, accredited private laboratories, state government and private forensic laboratories in its quest to test whether the Sasquatch truly existed or not. The different analyses in the study included genotyping using short tandem repeats (molecular biology method used to compare specific loci on DNA from two or more samples), standard nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequencing, Next Generation whole genome sequencing as well as whole genome SNP arrays, electron microscopy, forensic hair analysis and histopathology (microscopic examination of tissue). The labs responsible for the testing are listed in the paper and all data and test results are publicly available. This was no small study and whether you agree with the findings or not, the best cutting edge technology was utilized to generate the results. Furthermore, ZooBank, the official International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, has recognised the study by publishing the name that the scientists in the study requested for the new species, Homo sapiens cognatus. One translation of cognatus means blood relative."
The results from these sources, as alleged by Melba, were that which was promoted in Melba's work. One side is lying.
Sykes is also still collecting samples and rallying researchers to keep their chins up, even theorizing and hoping to find relict Neanderthals.
Good to see you agree with me (somewhat) joe.
DeleteAlso did you watch Bobcat Goldthwait's Willow Creek yet?
Check it out. I really enjoyed it.
3:32... Nargh, I've just got an open mind and don't think with fear at the basis of it. I find it rich someone who suffers from chronic denial should make allegations that anyone else should cherry pick.
DeleteNot one of you melonheads take on board that I'm just as critical of Melba and do not trust everything she's done... But to what lengths would someone try and trick the scientific community in such a controversial subject, wouldn't you just not bother? Try and think outside of your little safety blanket zones... Oh that's right, you people are here for one thing; reassurance, that ain't gonna happen.
3:25 Guy... Not yet pal, I will do as soon as I get the chance.
Delete; )
It is one of the creepier bigfoot movies in recent years. Steven Streufert and Tom Yamarone are great in it.
DeleteIf you're wondering why you got whites out... The former gentleman in that comment's name is restricted due to trolls abusing him.
DeleteWillow Creek - watch it free use video.tt as it's more stable.
Deletehttp://viooz.ac/movies/24173-willow-creek-2013.html
You're welcome ;)
BOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You've done it again!!!!!!!!
DeleteIt's old age, I'll clean it up later.
DeleteBrain farts #1 memory loss for old folk
DeleteWHAT THE !!!
DeleteJoe if you took a random subset of say 100 scientists. Do you think it would be the majority or minority that believe in bigfoot?
ReplyDelete"believe" not the correct term
Delete3:38... I would think that it would be a majority that would either not have time for it, be unable to be honest about it, be misinformed about it, be restricted about it, or require being in the field about it.
DeleteHaha joe got smoked
Delete"Sykes is also still collecting samples and rallying researchers to keep their chins up, even theorizing and hoping to find relict Neanderthals."
ReplyDeleteWhere exactly has he mentioned he hoping to find relict Neanderthals?
Do your own homework bro.
DeleteI did. He's never said anything of the sort. In fact quite the opposite.
DeleteLook a bit harder... I think you'll find it's there.
Delete; )
"I thought there was about a 5% chance of finding a sample from a Neanderthal or (a Yeti)," said Bryan Sykes of Oxford University, who led the research, the first peer-reviewed study of Bigfoot, Yeti and other "anomalous primates." The study was published online Wednesday in the journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society B."
DeleteYou didn't look very hard, did you?
Doesn't say he is still theorising that though? Pwned.
DeleteDuh??
DeleteWhy would he state he 'hoped' to find anything... And then go as far as to state/theorise as to what people are seeing?
Bro... You're either very stupid, or perversely denialist; probably both.
You do realise he published his results right? There was no monkey.
DeleteThis time around and based on the very low number of samples, yes.
DeleteThere was a large number of samples which were vetted by none other than your hero meldrum to reduce the number to a manageable amount and to get rid of the dross. The very best samples yielded zero bigfoot results. Not my problem bro.
DeleteFor someone who's without problem, you sure do go to lengths the strengthen your stance?
DeleteI'm really not so sure the 'cream of the crop' from 'all the best researchers' argument has any weight in credence. The only known researchers that I can find who submitted samples were Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja and Derek Randles. The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples.
The sample amount compared to the average yearly sightings, the tracks, the hair samples that can't be tested for lack of medulla, the footage, the thermals; a very desperate attempt at closure that does not consider that we could share the exact DNA of Sasquatch in line with ancient versions of us.
Excuses excuses excuses
DeleteFacts, facts, facts.
Delete4:20 nobody is looking for monkeys...they` were discovered a long long time ago
DeleteOf course not. Using the term monkey is just to trivialise the topic because taking it seriously would be silly
DeleteI'd rather it the way it is... Limited mental capacity on your part.
Delete^ brain farts shure are
DeleteThat would articulate 7:00's thought processes wonderfully, yes... Thanks.
DeleteBill Munns makes the argument that sticking to the film is the only scientific manner by which to approach investigating the film and to do otherwise is to go into uncertain waters of anecdotal evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with ignoring the source is that you are in fact ignoring the film. How the film was made is central to the film's authenticity. Bill acknowledges on the forum that we have had the truth of the film's development deliberately hidden from us, but in a book for the general public he presents it only as a matter of DeAtley claiming oops, I forgot, when he did much more than that, along with Roger Patterson. He gives it two paragraphs and then says oh well, we can't know, and sweeps the entire thing aside. I think that's a long way from doing the film the investigative justice it deserves.
It's one of the most crucial issues with the film's authenticity and it is hardly touched upon.
"Stick to the film" mantra has worked terribly for Bigfootery and ignores the history of hoaxes being exposed.
The following video shows perfectly what sticking to the film has done for Bigfootery. From 32:35 - 37:54 Jeff Meldrum argues for the authenticity of the Snow Walker footage by sticking to the film. Only by going to the source was he able to uncover that the video was in fact a hoax by Paranormal Borderline show producers...
"Assessing purely on face value of what we see, yes, I think this is extremely compelling evidence in favour of the existence of the Yeti, or something akin to that. This is much more compelling evidence than I had expected. It reminds me, in fact, of viewing a recent television show where the first film was made of lowland gorillas in the wild and impenetrable forests. And that same sort of sensation is what I experience in seeing this large, graceful animal in its habitat, and everything about this video just strikes me as very natural, very unorchestrated and just a very simple encounter with a very elusive, very shy creature." Jeff Meldrum, Paranormal Borderline (12:10)
Everyone get's hoaxed from time to time, drawing upon other sources to base cynicism on another is the effort of child-like deflection.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
No bigger defection than "got monkey suit"
DeleteNot really, considering you need to test said source once presented by scientists.
DeleteWhat source has been presented in a legitimate scientific journal?
DeleteNone yet... You have legitimate scientists recommending it for that exact process in it's infancy.
Delete"None yet"?
DeleteNo further questions you honour.
Reading between the lines clearly isn't your forte.
Delete^^ kindly leave the public gallery.
Delete6;06 clearly has no credentials for addressing his honour.
DeleteYou wouldn't get anywhere near a court room with that type of deduction.
DeleteThat was for 6:21.
Delete"Reading between the lines"
DeleteThat's bigfoot science for you.
In other words seeing what you want to see.
This monkey man fantasy has really got a hold of you.
nobody is looking for a monkey,,,they were discovered long long ago
DeleteReading between the lines of a comment has nothing to do with science, old boy? You're now blurring your child like literary skills with your sceptic scientific theoretical fallacies.
Delete"Not yet", meaning... Given time. Papers from niche subject areas may take longer to review because it may take editors some time to locate appropriate reviewers.
It's funny watching you burp around the relevance of editorial boards, we'll pity you this time around and avoid out-rightly labelling you hypocritical and call your latest shortcomings 'interpretations'.
(Pffft)
It's funny you trying to argue bigfoots existence based on no more than a hunch
DeleteIt's funny you trying to argue Bigfoot's non-existence based on nothing more than denial.
DeleteHaha what exactly is being denied?
DeleteEvidence... Better to treat it as a taboo than get into a scrape trying to deny it at length, I suppose.
DeleteYawn.
DeleteYou have not presented a single shred of evidence.
None that you're willing to agknowledge for lack of guts in debating/supporting your lies.
Deleteans iam sayin whuts tham wurds yous be ausin lack agknwledge ans such
DeleteHey Joe fits!! It's TTL!!!!!! Do you want the inside scoop on the Arm found yesterday??????
ReplyDeletethe bear facts ?
DeleteYeah!! Shoot!!
DeleteIf McCheese was around he'd more than likely make a McRib joke....ah come on!! Tough crowd, I've got little to work with these days.
DeleteAKs in da boosh takin tham bigfeets down shure would
DeleteHey joe fitz!! I was told yesturday from a reliable source that's it's a monkey arm!! And that's it! Not to exciting news, I guess this area these guys r in ( there hotspot!) the hot spot from what I've been told is full of monkeys!! Also I do hope all the best for them in there research but sounds like more of a tv gimmick that's probably going to end up like everything else ! How r u doing joe! Still giving these guys a run for there money on here! Lol!! Take care joe, anything else u want to know? Justin Semina ? Questions??
ReplyDeleteTTL!!
Argh well... That'll confirm what 95% of people around here were suggesting yesterday. It did look a bit small for a Saquatch arm, and considering the history there is for people dumping unwanted animals there, it does make sense.
DeleteI'm good thank you buddy! Just plodding along, you know how it is! Any other news your end?
Shoot. Nothing you have ever suggested has come true, so that vast majority do have that on you.
DeleteJ Randi for first gay President !
ReplyDeleteYou go girl ! I want to be the first husband !
DeleteRomney onit
DeleteYa do have some other good news but u would have to email me at
ReplyDeletehauts1978@outlook.com
I don't want to steal someone else's thunder it's there news to release to everyone not mine so will have to talk threw email sorry bud!
Ttl!
I'll drop you an email buddy!
DeleteWhy would they blur my post out I didn't say any bad words etc????
ReplyDeleteWhat did I say wrong??
Ttl!
I think you said fitz
Deleteyep you can't say F I T Z but you can call Shawn a bastard which I find highly amuzing.
DeleteGW GOD WILL
Delete10,000,000 Bigfoot in North America and these 4 morons can't find one of them and get a good picture. Nuf said.
ReplyDeleteBOBO sayin 10,000 in the US and more up north so just take BOBO some time to find 1
DeleteThere are 1.2 Million Big foots in Harlem, N.Y. alone!
Deletewhuts tham wurds yous be ausin lack agknwledge ans such
ReplyDelete