Bill Brock Has a Challenge For Ghost Hunters ‪#‎ProveitParanormal‬


Do you believe in ghosts? Do you know for a fact that they exist? Our friend Bill Brock wants to believe, but you'll need to prove to him and make him a believer. Are you up for the challenge? You can reach him on Facebook:

Here is a Challenge to all of my Ghost Hunting Facebook Friends. I want you to make me Believe in the Paranormal. So if you are into the Paranormal like Ghosts Hunting, please Contact me!! I want you to take me out and SHOW me Ghosts are Real. So if you have been sitting on that haunted Location and you want to show the world your findings. Contact Me..... We plan on filming it so be ready for a few Cameras. . Will Travel in New England if your outside of New England Hit me up anyway..... ‪#‎ProveitParanormal‬


Comments

  1. Replies
    1. Paging Dr Doldrum . . . paging Dr Doldrum

      Paging Dr Meldrum . . . paging Dr Meldrum

      Is there a doctor in the house?

      Delete
    2. Don't tell me. Another butt plug blew up in your ta ter hole.

      Delete
    3. Don't be too hard on the Jayrefin' sceptards, 3:59. Let's wait until the New Year and get going again.

      Delete
    4. ^ what a couple of gonads

      Delete
    5. They usually hang in pairs.

      Delete
    6. Unless you're Daniel "One Nad" Campbell.

      Delete
  2. Ironically the non paranormal footers can't prove anything either

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean? There are stacks and stacks of evidence. I'm really surprised there is as much as there is given the gigantic, multi-national conspiracy to keep these creatures off the radar.

      Delete
    2. It's a pity there isn't a gigantic, multi-national conspiracy to keep your two clowns' comments off of the BFE blog. That would be one healthy conspiracy lots of people would get behind.

      Delete
    3. No. Not enough rage.

      The butthurt is weak in this one.

      Delete
    4. True, maybe he is taking in a bit of the Christmas spirit

      Delete
    5. 3:49/3:51 = RRRJPBD

      i.e., Raging Rectum-Ravaged Jayrefin' Poster Boy for the Deluded

      Welcome aboard, kid.

      MMG

      Delete
    6. Here he is folks ^

      Looks like they let him out over the holidays!

      So, 2014 get any evidence of your apeman this year?

      Delete
    7. Hey, look who's showed up at 4:16, our very own watered-down weak-willed jelly-spined official self-appointed BFE sceptard.

      The word is a certain someone will be receiving a certain award by the end of the year.

      It should be fun.

      Delete
    8. It's nice to see MMG finally accept the sceptre of the RBF up his sphincter after denying it so vigorously for so long. Was afraid he was gonna burst a blood vessel and we'd find him dead on the toilet.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. No he ain't. He's just looking to guest star on one of those ghost TV shows. C'mon.

      Delete
  4. DWA is my favourite comedian in the bigfoot community

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which one? I liked the old 'weak sauce' completely incoherent DWA. I've noticed that lately someone else seems to write his posts, which are better with the language but still completely impervious to logic and common sense.

      Delete
    2. I think he hired a writer like a lot of stand up comics do. He has some great material.

      Delete
    3. You no doubt will have noticed the watered-down sceptards now frequenting the comments sections of this blog. They can hardly lift a finger to muster a clever or grammatically correct insult.

      Delete
    4. You imply bigfoot skeptism requires applying some level of effort. In fact we just sit back and let you do the work for us. It's hilarious.

      Delete
    5. Should we tell him he spelled Sceptard (sic) wrong?

      I'm just glad he's too dumb to realize what an ass he's making of himself.

      Delete
    6. Its DWA. His writer must be taking the week off.

      Delete
  5. The cryptozoologist of the year is someone that has provided zero bigfoots or evidence thereof. What a failure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember that meltdown over the book abominable science?

      Delete
    2. The book itself was a textbook meltdown.

      Delete
    3. What a staggering comeback, 4:17. Heavens, I'm fairly reeling under the blinding light of your overpowering intellect.

      Abominable Science is a collection of misquotes, unquotes, ignorings of evidence, selective reporting, faulty reporting, no reporting, and lying.

      Textbook meltdown.

      Enjoy your little tard-fit.

      Delete
    4. Literal retardation ^

      Have you even read the book?

      You seem butthurt by the very idea of it.

      Mainstream media laughs at your beliefs.

      Rogan smoked you.

      Delete
    5. Rogan smokes you nightly, 4:28, as you do him, but that's your business and preference. Do you pop each other in your keysters, too?

      To release yourself from your irrational, stumbling, misinformed, deluded worship of Abominable Science, study this closely and thoroughly:

      http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2013/09/abominable-science-and-loch-ness-monster.html

      Note closely, carefully, fully, the misreporting and errors in the book. The authors were grossly uneducated about many of the topics they attempted to debunk.

      Now go back to smoking and being smoked by your washed-up has-been "actor".

      Delete
    6. Abominable Science = Textbook Meltdown

      Correct.

      Delete
    7. Linking to a nessie blog.

      Self destroyed.

      Delete
    8. 4 28 = LITERAL RETARDATION AND IN THE MIDST OF A MAD TARD-FITFriday, December 26, 2014 at 4:50:00 PM PST

      4:28 etc., that's a tremendously frothing tard-fit you are suffering. Tighten your bib, strap on your crash helmet.

      Go to the link, read, study, learn it.

      Bleeving Abominable Science = "Literal Retardation".

      Go and learn from the link. Do it.

      Delete
    9. 4:28, just do as you're told for Christ's sake. Raging on here about Rogan, a former actor with no expertise on any of these subjects, doesn't mean anything. Go to the link in question and educate yourself instead of advertising here globally through your comments that you are uneducated.

      Why keep yourself down by not only being uneducated, but advertising it to the world? Are you a masochist?

      Is that normal for you to proclaim to the world your ignorance of a topic? Wouldn't you rather get informed about the topic, so that you can then comment without advertising your ignorance?

      Do as you're told, go to the link and study the damned thing. Stop shooting your mouth off about a nobody like Rogan. He has no knowledge of or effect on any of the topics in question here.

      Delete
    10. Again:

      Abominable Science is a collection of misquotes, unquotes, ignorings of evidence, selective reporting, faulty reporting, no reporting, and lying.

      +100,000,000

      Delete
    11. A lot of pwned footers being misguided by the resident butthurt footer and poster boy for footer stupidity ^

      The only reading required is when a paper is published in a scientific journal. As there are zero of those all there is to do is laugh at the circus show of footery and it's weekly blunders.

      Linking to a Nessie blog has to be an all time low. It may even surpass the birthing station one.

      Delete
    12. Was Abominable Science written by an Abominable snowman? That would be cool.

      Delete
    13. That's funny 5:22... I've posted you science journals documenting giant skeletal remians and you blithered and cried like a little girl that they weren't good enough? If you're referring to modern day science journals that support the existence of Sasquatch, then you'll need a body... But unless you've got a negative proof fallacy at the core of your belief system, the fact that a modern version has not materialised does not mean that the evidence for an unknown primate doesn't exist, because in the face of every source of evidence short of that modern type specimen, we merely might not have reached that stage of conclusive research yet.

      Glad I could help.

      Delete
    14. When Joe gets here the tumbleweeds roll by the pseudo skeptard schtick.........

      Delete
  6. Check-out my bigfoot evidence on twitter -- #sand

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would love to discuss the evidence for bigfoot.... the only problem is, there is none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's false. There is no proof of bigfoot; there is evidence.

      Delete
    2. Wrong, actually. The "evidence" offered is not verifiable.

      Delete
    3. 5:24. Sustained. The plaintiff will refrain from lying.

      Delete
    4. Right, cause if it was verrifiable, it would be proof. Dam your a retard!

      Delete
    5. I'm with 4:18, he's my fwiend. Here fwiend, have some of my moon cheese.

      Delete
  8. But it's not our job, or anyone's job, to try and convince someone who's clearly religiously invested in Bigfoot, just as it's not my/our job to try and convince anyone that God isn't strumming a harp in the great beyond, that it doesn't exist. How would accurately recreating Patty convince the Patty-tards that the original was faked? I've nothing against you, but that's some serious bollocks that you're chatting, mate.

    Why stop there? Why not accurately recreate everything we've ever doubted, just to satisfy a bunch of obviously impaired people? Because life's too short. Patty is obviously a hoax. You don't need to accurately recreate a magic trick in order to know that it wasn't real magic happening.

    Enough people have provided enough examples of the sorts of things footers said didn't exist (better costumes that pre-date Patty etc) that it's honestly just a waste of time to try and show them "the light." For me, the Gemora-diaper was the biggest giveaway, what did you make of that? Is that a naturally occurring feature on all Sasquatch? Or just the ones who suffer from incontinence?

    And as someone else already pointed out, Roger wasn't merely a "rodeo rider," he was an artist, I imagine we don't actually know the extent of his talents. He drew, painted, crafted, sculpted, wrote...you name it. He also lied and stole. We don't know who else had a hand in the making of the Bigfoot costume in the PGF, whether it was all Roger or not, and if it's true that he used other pieces from professional suits...then that would make the suit we see in the PGF all the more unique.

    Recreating the suit doesn't prove anything to anyone who doesn't already have an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But it's not our job, or anyone's job, to try and convince someone who's clearly religiously invested in Bigfoot, just as it's not my/our job to try and convince anyone that God isn't strumming a harp in the great beyond, that it doesn't exist."

      No... What you can do is grow a pair, conform to the proper scientific requirements of testing the evidence to a stage that the conclusions stemming from that testing supports your mantras that the evidence is not worthy of agknowledging. To not adhere to the proper scientific method, maintaining the fallacy that if something cannot be explained away that there is nothing to explain, is a supression of evidence fallacy, and mere dogma; far more religious like than anything you can shake a stick at... I guess 'sceptics' always needed their 'opium of the masses', their religion is SCIENTISM and it serves to reassure just like so many other religions.

      "How would accurately recreating Patty convince the Patty-tards that the original was faked? Why stop there? Why not accurately recreate everything we've ever doubted, just to satisfy a bunch of obviously impaired people? Because life's too short. Patty is obviously a hoax. You don't need to accurately recreate a magic trick in order to know that it wasn't real magic happening."

      Circular arguments have always been the approach of the very dense. You must support your premise before making the claim that Patty is fake, let alone insult people in the process. In 47 years there has not only been one single expert come forward, with all the datases and industries of SFX suit making, that can account for the fur cloth methods you see in the PGF. The subject is filmed in direct sunlight which goes against the very most fundamental of lighting & costume methods of the late 60's, and we don't see anything obvious that points to a suit anomoly. Also... How do you test the source presented as scientific evidence to be organic tissue by an anthropologist, a wildlife biologists, a primatologist, a pioneering plastic surgeon and a costume expert? That's right... Accurately recreating Patty would not only convince the enthusiasts, but would go some way to supporting your vomit.

      Delete
    2. "Enough people have provided enough examples of the sorts of things footers said didn't exist (better costumes that pre-date Patty etc) that it's honestly just a waste of time to try and show them "the light." For me, the Gemora-diaper was the biggest giveaway, what did you make of that? Is that a naturally occurring feature on all Sasquatch? Or just the ones who suffer from incontinence?"

      No... The examples listed had CGI, foam suits that weren't available in the 60's, Gemora suits that only ever shown in low lighting to hide suit anomalies and a bunny rabbit suit lacking proportions made my a guy who states the PGF probably isn't a man in a suit... I took the JREF video apart segment for segment here;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/this-is-saddest-video-of-week.html?m=0
      ... Whilst I also took apart the half human crap here;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/bigfoot-and-case-of-missing-glow-stick.html?m=0
      ... And here;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/oh-junk-deer-vs-car.html

      "It's obvious you like Gamora's gorilla, and it is a fine gorilla costume for the time, but it is apples and artichokes when compared to the PGF.
      The head mask has the high forehead dome, the PGF figure does not.
      The fur is very long and shaggy, which obscures any specific body contours like muscles, folds or fatty deposits, but the PGF subject has hair short enough to see the body muscle masses, folds and fatty deposits.
      Gamora's costume was designed for a quadrapedal character, and there are ways to cheat the leg/back proportions when doing so, but these cheats don't work for a bipedal figure like the PGF.
      Gamora's suit is always photographed under dramatic lighting, which allows for hiding a multitude of costume sins, but Patty was photographed under harsh direct sunlight nearly straight on her, the most unforgiving of lighting, so comparing photos of the two is problematic by the variable of lighting.
      It's a poor comparison for any analysis and any claims trying to use that costume to prove Patty's a costume will fail under any formal analysis which factors in the variables."
      -Bill Munns.

      Also... If you look at page 15 here;
      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
      ... There's your 'diaper butt', buddy. Regardless of how rude and vile you come across, what you BELIEVE is very much respected, but when the facts point to techniques and materials unavailable in the 60's, then I would suggest you re-evaluate. How does the costume testing argument make the grade? Because research needs to be tested. When the source is presented as that by a group of scientists spanning every relevant field, then it is required by the processes of scientific verification to oblige that requirement. If it cannot be tested to the point that organic tissue can be replicated, then the default position is that the subject is indeed organic and a major cog in the sources required towards proving the species.

      Delete
    3. "And as someone else already pointed out, Roger wasn't merely a "rodeo rider," he was an artist, I imagine we don't actually know the extent of his talents."

      Can you not see the leap of faith that transcends everything in your pitiful claims of every emthusiast? Because Roger Patterson loved to draw and illustrate, he was able to trump 47 years of SFX methods, to which not one know expert's method (and we know every single one of these due to the efforts towards making claims to efforts towards Acadamy Awards), is not known... How embarassingly bad your your approach seems eh?

      " ...He also lied and stole. We don't know who else had a hand in the making of the Bigfoot costume in the PGF, whether it was all Roger or not, and if it's true that he used other pieces from professional suits...then that would make the suit we see in the PGF all the more unique."

      Roger wrote a couple of bad cheques and was late in returning a camera because he had one of the most incredible pieces of footage ever captured. What gross moral high horse are you on that you should judge someone of such trivial rubbish? Allow me to put myself in your shoes for a second, sir; "I don't care if Greg Long's been caught out falsifying interviews that were published in his book. I don't care that the 'costume expert' that 'made the suit' has no record of Roger ever buying anything from him and had to hire a costume expert to make a gorilla suit that looked nothing like Patty. I don't care if Bob H has more contradictions about the suit he wore than anything I've heard and can't even find the 'film site'. You see... I don't care if there's money in hoaxing a hoax, especially when the target audience are largely sceptical of the subject already. I don't care if author David Murphy spent 11 years writing the biography of Roger Patterson to which in that time he interviewed over 70 people who had some acquaintance with Roger and Bob or people who knew them extremely well, and in that time never came across one person who didn't think highly of both individuals, not to mention endorse their credible nature. I don't care that this is in direct contrast to Greg ‘Liar’ Long who’s book, to which if you practice proper scepticism, notice more holes than anything we can hypocritically point at."
      There's times when reassurance against the boogeyman is just waaaaaaay more important than looking at the facts, and like opium for the masses psuedoskepticism is a fundamentalist quasi-religion!"

      "Recreating the suit doesn't prove anything to anyone who doesn't already have an opinion."
      Doesn't work like that... You are not excempt from showing evidence to support your claims, and no one with half a brain will swallow anything otherwise just because you can't. Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    4. "Heard it in a love song.....heard it it in a looooove song.....heard It in a looooooooove song ....it caint be wrong. " Marshall Tucker Band.

      Delete
    5. Urgh, I hate it when Joe tries to be 'wordy'. All his posts read so badly, they are all so bloated and clunky. Much how I imagine Joe to be in real life.

      Delete
    6. ^ poor boy's so addicted to BBW he imagines big people every where.

      Delete
  9. It'd be daft to just assume that Roger wasn't capable of creating Patty when the clues are all there for us to see. The trap that he made to try and capture Bigfoot with was nuts, but it was a glimpse into the mans apparently vivid imagination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My that was a lot of writting to come to such an ilogical conclusion. Get off the circular reasoning or you'll never get off the meds!

      Delete
    2. 5:37... Read my comment up top, got monkey suit?

      Delete
    3. "I don't have an answer for you skeptics.....but what I do have are a particular set of skills....skills that make me a nightmare for people like you...." Liam Neeson Brookreson. "Taken (by Bigfoot) 3"

      Delete
    4. Now that's a book I'd love to read, DSM! Taken by bigfoot, experienced by LNB! ;-)

      Delete
  10. Science or faith? You decide...but beware of frothing devotees who scream and yell because the nasty men took their monster away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, there's no such thing as monsters, there is in fact evidence for unknown primates in the US... And though some people would like to think they've self served up a nice dose of closure for their apparent control desperation, they would have to go some distance to showing that the evidence for an unknown primate isn't what it is first. Most psuedosceptics are ignorant of the facts and celebrate their own ignorance to attain a sense of community. In sheer naivity of the facts regarding evidence, it's easy to come across so confident, but it only lasts as long as someone can point out these facts to which it then turns into aggresive denial, because they've sounded off so much, for so long.

      Ego's require preserving.

      Delete
    2. They do. In fact I've opened up a large ego preserve here in Texas. They are doing well on the ranch. Wearing Armani ...grazing on compliments.

      Delete
  11. This is an excellent piece of well-researched scholarship, and a very significant contribution to the field. It is welcome, if long overdue. It focuses primarily (quite correctly in my opinion) on the cultural evolution of selected cryptids, while occasionally dealing with underlying problems concerning evolutionary and ecological issues on the topic. The authors treat figures in the field of cryptozoology with perhaps more empathy and respect than they deserve, and there is generally a studied avoidance of the (understandable) temptation to intellectually skewer some of these folks. It closes with a discussion of the one of the fatal weaknesses of field of "cryptozoology" - its reluctance to "play by the rules" of science and the scientific method. Cryptozoologists bemoan the "lack of respect" they receive from main-line science and scientists, but any wounds they receive in this regard are largely self-inflicted. Well worth the money, and my thanks to the authors for this work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Psuedoscience is maintaining that there is nothing worthy of analysis until such a process of conclusive research is reached, such as type specimen. Psuedoscience is also ignoring data based on subjective assumptions and inaccurate data, reclining to preconceived preferences that cannot be supported, and is in fact heuristics (what the scientific method was designed against)... Some of psuedosceptics' very regularly expressed fallacies... Like providing a means to test the sources presented sufficiently and show that their position is not one hypocritically based on lies that they point to others making.

      Their 'version' of science maintains the very obvious cancerous approach that if something cannot be explained, then there is nothing to explain... This being a major supression of evdience fallacy and is indicative of those who required that extra hug before bedtime in reassurance against the boogeyman. This method cuts corners to control that is so, so important to these people.

      Delete
  12. Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero deftly take on some of the biggest monsters and claims in this well-written book. They clearly and patiently detail why it is highly unlikely that famous cryptids exist. Further, they discuss why people might be compelled to believe in the existence of the Loch Ness monster, the Yeti, Bigfoot, and others. And most important, they outline why it is necessary for citizens to understand how science operates and the dangers of scientific illiteracy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is a fine book, debunking the Bigfoot and Nessie hoaxes and other nonsense out there.
    There are some interesting side points to make. One is that the generalized "Bigfoot" idea is a human universal. Every group of people I know about has a story of big, hairy, usually non-talking primates or "wild men." The Chinese talk about the "ye ren," "wild man"--stories of ye ren have actually led scientists to previously unknown monkey populations, so we have a pretty good idea where that legend started. The Maya of Yucatan tell of the "sinsim," who have their feet pointed backwards--as do many other wild men. The wild man myth goes back at least to ancient Sumer, where Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh is a typical wild man before being captured and tamed. The medieval and Renaissance thinkers all postulated wild men. Roger Bartra did a wonderful history of it, WILD MEN IN THE LOOKING GLASS, in 1994. Many of these stories obviously started with real primates--we often forget that Rousseau's "savage" was the chimpanzee, not some imaginary critter. But, alas, Bigfoot is pure hoax. The film so often cited is a transparent case of a guy in a gorilla suit--I believe I even noticed a label on the suit in one frame.
    The sea serpent has some very real ancestors that Loxton and Prothero miss. I have looked at many old pictures of "sea serpents" that purport to be based on actual direct observation, and they all show either fairly recognizable whales or very recognizable oarfish. I'm surprised these authors don't mention the oarfish; Dr. Prothero is associated with the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, and LAMNH has had a pickled one in the lobby for as long as I can remember. The oarfish is enormously long, serpentine in shape, has a high finny crest on the head, and is very rare and obscure. Many early sea serpent pictures show it quite unmistakably--though they usually (not always!) take some artistic license by showing it rearing up out of the water.
    A point in favor of whales and dolphins as inspiring the "sea serpent" stories is that the sea serpent of story tends to undulate up and down, like a cetacean, rather than side to side, the way fish and snakes do.
    So, archetype meets weird reality. People get poor looks at chimps, or orangs, in the forest, and at whales and oarfish at sea. Then they make these into what they want to see. The same goes for flying saucers and the like. Loxton and Prothero do not get deeply into the psychology of error and misperception, but it's huge--recent books by Claude Steele, Daniel Kahneman, Malcolm Gladwell, Dan Ariely, and others are useful in understanding wrong-headed science.
    I now eagerly await Dr. Prothero's new book on science denial.
    Meanwhile, somebody needs to do a number on economic theory. Most of the economic theories in play in the US right now have exactly the same evidence as Bigfoot and Nessie, and are exactly as believable .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually... China has had many fully federally funded Yeren campaigns. Embarrassingly, the argument of previously unknown populations of monkeys, golden monkeys to be exact, being a means to explain away thousands of years of Yeren reports is as fawlty as follows. For starters, the golden monkeys do not account for the inumerable accounts of dark haired subjects, whilst the main premise is that the height of a golden monkey in including its tail accounts of a height of 6-7 feet. Now... If golden monkey's started sprinting around on their tails, then the idea would have at least a little weight in logic. For plenty, PLENTY of links to news reports where the Chinese government have actively participated in the Yeren research, therefore indicating how very seriously they consider such a subject, please go here;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/bigfooting-with-kelly-shaw-rmso-1st.html?m=0

      One of the most remote counties in China, Mutuo for example is the only county in the entire country completely inaccessible by road transport. This hasn’t always been the case – in 1993, they finally got around to building a highway. It existed for two days, carried a total of four vehicles (one of which got stuck and had to be abandoned), and was promptly swallowed up by the jungle. Today, the only access into the county is via a 200 meter long suspension cable, 100 meters in the air. Supplies such as food and medicine have to be carried in and out by hand, this is an idea of how remote and unexplored China can get. Neighbouring Bhutan, at an elevation of 7570 meters above sea level the Gangkhar Puensum has the distinction of being the highest unclimbed mountain on earth. Four unsuccessful expeditions have been carried out till date. Currently the government of Bhutan has prohibited climbing the mountain due to religious beliefs, and is unlikely to be conquered in the near future.

      Occam's Razor says that every source of evidence just short of modern type specimen is what it is; Reality which is as follows... For ten thousand years Indigenous cultures have passed oral history down through generations as written text can be manipulated, and it is one heck of a leap of faith to suggest that for ten thousand years, different cultures residing in the US have been a part of the same secret society gorilla suit wearing people saying boo to people, when the natives never had an idea what an ape looked like, and so many early Europeans in the US thought native customs undesirable... Bearing in mind this time frame has transitioned into modern mediums with modern anecdotal, physical and biological sources of evidence. Science says nothing, it is not a freethinking entity and is a tool that has been applied consistently to this field to yield physical and anecdotal evidence in mounds. When you have the likes of Jane Goodall, David Attenborough, Ian Redmond, Anna Nikaris, Zhoua Guoxing, Lyn Miles, Jeffrey McNeely, Chris Loether, Colin Groves and none other than George Schaller are very much enthusiastic about this subject (I wonder how many primates have been discovered between all them?), not to mention open, proper sceptics that promote the idea that there has to be something to reports like Esteban Sarmiento, telling you that not only is there nothing in the environment of the U.S. that prevents an unknown primate to reside but are in fact likely to be there, then the claims of "wrong-headed science" and the "psychogy of error" is never more evidently running as deeply than the basic requirement of listening to people with far superior expertise who account for the pioneering elite of the fields of research that genuinely count. There is not a comparitive cryptid any psuedosceptic can point at, who's current state of evidence accounts for every source short of that cryptid's type specimen.

      Delete
    2. We are pretty sure Liam Gallagher is up there but Joe and I can't get the funding for Adam Davies to find him. At this point all we know is that he's at a very high elevation.

      Delete
    3. 'One of the most remote counties in China, Mutuo for example is the only county in the entire country'

      Go home Joe, you're drunk.

      Delete
    4. "One of the most remote counties in China, Mutuo for example is, the only county in the entire country completely inaccessible by road transport."

      The message gets there in the end and if I'm drunk I'm still schooling you kiddo.

      Delete
  14. If you are at all interested in Nessie, Big Foot or other mysterious creatures, either as a skeptic or true believer, you need to get this book. Examines mythical creatures from a cultural and historical perspective, written in an easy to read style. Highly recommended.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And so did the disciples who worshipped the false ape spread across the land, howling and knocking and rubbing their foul buttocks on the pillars of science and logic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Therefore, in truth and by their actions, these pseudoskeptics (who call themselves "skeptics") are NOT open minded truth seekers who question things and are attuned to possibilities. Rather, they are ridiculers and prosecutors of anything that strays outside the status quo or challenges the official version of things. They are defenders of orthodoxy and materialism. And they will distort, dismiss, obfuscate and play "verbal hopscotch" to get their way.

      They've hijacked the term "skeptic" to refer to the one who suppresses the act of questioning, rather than to the questioner himself. In doing so, they've pretended to be the opposite of what they are to hide their true agenda, which is to protect the agenda of the status quo power elite and keep people remaining sheeple. See here for more info.

      Additionally, they've hijacked terms such as "rational, reason, logic, critical thinking" to mean the "proper" thinking and behavior that supports materialism and orthodoxy, and rejects against anything that challenges it. That is not what those words mean of course. It's a form of mind control and disinformation. And it seems way too calculated and militant to be due to some accidental misunderstanding, ignorance or closed mindedness. Hijacking a word to mean its opposite is more indicative of a deliberate agenda, such as a disinformation campaign or form of mind control. If that sounds terrible, well, we are here to expose it thank goodness.

      Furthermore, oddly enough, they treat Science as if it were some kind of authoritarian "entity" that takes positions and views on issues (their own of course), when it is in fact merely a tool and method of inquiry based on logical principles. In reality, science does not take positions or hold dogmatic beliefs on subjects. People take positions, not Science, which holds no more views than my computer does. Science is not a living entity. These pseudoskeptics are projecting their own views and Atheistic philosophy into Science, which they hold as the ultimate authority, aka Scientism. (Oh well, I guess pseudoskeptics need something to worship too)."

      Pseudoskepticism is a fundemal, quasi-religion.

      Delete
  16. Replies
    1. "What the ......why that's the damn Yahoo..." Trapper John Tice, when the associate producer hit the wrong sound track button on the "Revenge of the Grassman" episode to the confusion of the actors who were obviously expecting the Grassman sound bite .....

      Delete
  17. "When Folklore bites back....it leaves a trail of proof, one team of native West Virginia's sons seeks the truth"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Now (insert 15th time) it's damn personal...." Trapper. "Our first witness is one armed rabbit hunter named Lefty...Jeff, could you grab your serious researcher's hat, #2 pencil and flip pad and takes some notes, poor Lefty's got 7 grand daughters that are in grave danger if we don't get to the bottom of this real damn quick. The People of Moonshine Holler are in Real Danger. "

      Delete
    2. Trapper to Buck in whisper "this is the same damn nest he made last year!" SLAM on side of old shed " Strategic Retreat! Everybody Get the Hell Outta Here!" Tell Doctor Prothero to analyze that!

      Delete
    3. Now. Based on these reliable mountain witnesses our sketch artist has composed this artist's rendering. Now, by all accounts this creature is 18 ft. tall with a mouth full of canines and an appetite for full size dairy cattle. It's only a matter of time before one of these innocent gun toting homicidal moonshiners is hurt or kilt. We gotta put a stop to this now. Call Wild Bill and Willy and let's get this trap built NOW....we'll get this sunovabitch this time!

      Delete
  18. If this ain't real it'll hairlip the pope...if this ain't real....it's a damn good joke....

    ReplyDelete
  19. It sounds like Bill Brock is just another newbie who has insufficient experience to figure out the the Bigfoot people are in fact, paranormal. And instead of challenging the Bigfooters, he challenges the ghost hunters. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia