BFE Reader Jaime Just Uploaded An Awesome Stabilized Version of The Lettuce Park Skunk Ape Footage


This is pretty awesome. BFE reader Jaime did a good job at stabilizing this footage. We hope to see more enhancements and more breakdowns of this very intriguing footage. If this is real, this is one of the best footage to date.




Comments

  1. Replies
    1. Extremely Rare Red Fox Observed In Yosemite For First Time In Almost A Century

      http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/extremely-rare-red-fox-observed-yosemite-first-time-almost-century

      Delete
    2. Morning Eva :)

      Morning all !!

      another day of the skunk ape hahaha!!

      Delete
    3. Morning Joe. Morning all

      We have red foxes all over. Amazing they haven't seen one before. They do not stay in the open long at all

      About the vid. The area that said BF was standing can easily be accessed by people. If the bf is not sinking then people won't sink there. I have to put this video in the same category as so many others, inconclusive. Where is the follow up? I want to see a person of known height standing where the said bf is standing.

      MMC

      Delete
    4. goin in tham woods taks U AK 47s fer all yars cryptid needs fer yars safety : )

      Delete
    5. Robert "The Duchess" Lindsay says that he has befriended a troop of bigfoots that live in his backyard at the end of the yellow brick road.

      Delete
  2. There's no doubt about this now. This is the real deal! hey skep-tards you lost this fight! Now deal with it suckers!!! Sasquatch is REAL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a great piece of footage. The mass of the upper body is very much apparent.

      Delete
    2. It is real. I am willing to bet any money on it

      Delete
    3. Looks real to me,it's even better stabilized,good job Jamie Just :) xx

      Delete
    4. Actually this stabilized footage was out 2 or 3 days ago on another site, however it may have been done by someone else. Unlike most video we get the more this is analyzed the better and better it gets. Now someone has to concentrate on individual body segments.
      I really think this guy in a canoe stumbled upon by chance one terrific find, and this one might just turn some heads that did not believe before.
      Chuck

      Delete
    5. If you look closely, you can see the mid-tarsal break of the foot as it enters the water. The sagittal crest is definitely there too, although it's not very pronounced. The hair length and direction is also consistent with that of the skunk ape, as described by others. There is no doubt that this is a young sasquatch. The creature known in Florida as the skunk ape.

      Delete
    6. Yeah...I live around there ..there all over the place!! Lots of monkeys also..

      Lots of poison snakes and igaters to ruin your day if you go looking for them deep in the woods and more!! Hahaha!!

      Delete
    7. Confirms on all points
      Powerful stuff

      Delete
    8. Robert "The Duchess" Lindsay says that when changing Dovers stinky man diapers, he likes to use just a touch of baby powder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    9. It doesn't matter how believable the video is, how real it looks, how unexplainable the creatures size, gate, etc. is. Skeptics will claim that it is a midget wearing a bathrobe regardless. As for me, this looks like a living, breathing humanoid type creature by its movements, actions, etc.

      Delete
  3. This is the real deal , trust me, i'm a doctor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ans U gits to keep U doctor ans U health plan : )

      Delete
  4. Wow !!! Now from the stabilized footage you can clearly discern that the creature is actually wielding a stick/branch, which it uses to bash the fish with . It's probably a fair sized stick, but its huge hand makes it appear like a small twig .

    ReplyDelete
  5. What this is is a very well done hoax. When the creature crouches down to enter the swamp water, you can quickly see that it is wearing some kind of one piece jump suit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey JOE. You knew they were going to come out of the woodwork with ridiculous unfounded statements. Stay tuned much more to follow.
      Chuck

      Delete
    2. @ 2 30. Indeed you are correct. Others have said in original footage it had a stick. Now you can clearly see it in its right hand, and it smacks the fish ( maybe something else, I think fish ) with it twice. It actually walks off with the stick. Wow this gets better and better.
      Chuck

      Delete
    3. Yeah, it's a guy in a suit.

      Delete
    4. The people who put this hoax together are having a good laugh.

      They're not laughing with you Joe. They're laughing at you.

      Delete
    5. What gets me a laugh is you getting all Panicin' Skywalker.

      : )

      Delete
    6. this is not a guy in a suit nor is it any hoax, it is real until further proved wrong which I doubt it will ever be

      Delete
    7. ...^ You are kidding, right? We can say it is either an undocumented primate or a hoax; it is clear enough to say that... The next step would he to get opinions from special effects, film, video experts...Also, the guy who filmed it should subject himself to questioning from an experienced interviewer....

      Delete
    8. Robert "The Duchess" Lindsay says that he prefers mouth breathing over using his nose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. @7:30 you said, "undocumented primate." We get a lot of undocumented democrats crossing the border thanks to our leader. Is this one of them?

      Your evidence it is a hoax or some undocumented primate is from the beginning premise that BF doesn't exist.

      I think it is an undocumented hominoid.

      Delete
    12. Robert "The Duchess" Lindsay says that he prefers it when Dover manages to keep his man diapers clean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    13. ..Well, as you know hominoids are primates and I'm being as general as possible...If my premise was bigfoot does not exist then I would automatically conclude "hoax"..I did not say that..I meant, just like the PGF, it is clearly not a mis-id or blobsquatch and it is obvious we are looking at a hoax or a primate....Thanks for the response(s)..

      Delete
    14. Incredible that anyone would consider this 'genuine' without a full and proper investigation.

      There is nothing about the subject which suggests its definitely a Skunk Ape. Indeed the location means that this vid being the real deal is pretty unlikely.

      Let's be patient and see what develops. Unfortunately I've got a bad feeling about this one but no matter what the footage can never be conclusive.

      We need someone out there to attempt to replicate the movements made by the subject in question.

      Hoping it's not another one for the pile.

      MMG

      Delete
    15. @12:19 Yes, humans are technically primates, but when you use primate in the BF debate I believe it goes to the hominin vs. ape debate, and I believe it more likely an undocumented human species.

      MMG, what investigation would you propose, like the BFRO interview the person and go to the site? What about the location gives you pause? It looks swampy. BF is being sighted more and more close to human occupation, which has spurred the idea their numbers are increasing.

      Delete
  6. So Joe still hasn't proven bigfoot exists?

    I'll check in again next month.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never claimed to. If you want the evidence for an unknown primate, let me know.

      Delete
    2. When asked about this before you provided no such evidence. Todd disotell will tell you that no such evidence exists and he is an enthusiast for the subject.

      Delete
    3. I've posted it more times than you can comprehend, and every time you're nowhere to be seen.

      Told Disotell can jump through hoops for all I care... When you find me a scientist who shows that dermals and hair aren't what they are, then you'll have a point.

      Delete
    4. I just showed you disotel. As an enthusiast, a world class scientist and someone who actually lives in America, don't you think if there was something to dermals and "hair" then he would be all over it? I admire your imagination I really do, but sometimes you have to reign it in and accept reality. Sorry Joe:) Anyway enjoy the snow!

      Delete
    5. Sorry! When Disotell actually shows me a reason to not consider species traits in dermals and hair then you'll have a point. Name dropping someone who claims 90% of enthusiasts are crazy, doesn't quite cut it... Doesn't even come close to countering the line of experts who have actually looked at the evidence, and who state otherwise.

      One day you'll grow a creative spark and possibly develop at argument of your own, not to mention actually source some one else's argument that somehow reinforces your claims.

      Delete
    6. You are an ignorant insufferable deluded individual.

      Delete
    7. Oh... And the reason Disotell isn't "all over it", is because dermals and unknown primate hair stop short of classification. Since Todd likes to make a living off of Bigfoot and he hasn't come up with any of this himself, I think he'll be holding out for/hoping that something a little more conclusive comes his way.

      Still doesn't make physical and biological evidence for an unknown primate go away.

      Delete
    8. Disotell is nothing but a shill, clueless and ignorant for now. He may be paid to find nothing, knowing what I know nothing surprises me. At least Scott Wolter had the good sense to send Doug Hajicek's sample off the University of California to come back with human results, however it is not a human hair as it had never been cut. Got to move past MtDNA and to NuDNA to solve this and that is expensive.
      Chuck

      Delete
    9. Only proof that will work is a body or two, until then it's all just fun and games.

      Delete
    10. You'll get proof by chasing up the evidence... And as long as there's evidence, you'll have people like me referencing Occam's Razor.

      Delete
    11. A Taiwanese fisherman discovers what may be a fourth type of prehistoric man.
      Jeff

      Delete
    12. The unusually thick lower jawbone and large teeth indicate as such. Anxious to see the reconstruction.
      Jeff

      Delete
    13. "The Penghu jaw and teeth most closely resemble a partial skull of H. erectus from Longtan Cave in Hexian on the mainland of China, as well as earlier H. erectus fossils. Although it wasn’t possible to date the jawbone directly, it was found with an extinct species of hyena that suggests this archaic human was alive in the past 400,000 years and, most likely, in the past 200,000 years. If so, the find suggests that H. erectus persisted late in Asia, or that there were several other types of humans still alive at the time in this region. It might even be a member of the mysterious Denisovan people, a close relative of Neandertals known only from a finger bone and two teeth from Denisova Cave in Russia and its ancient DNA. But “if Penghu is indeed a long-awaited Denisovan jawbone, it looks more primitive than I would have expected,” says paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, who was not a co-author on the paper. And that question can only be answered if researchers can get DNA from Penghu."

      Delete
    14. Like wow man (toke). Like that's really heavy man (toke). Wow.

      Delete
    15. Don't bother checking back in. A month from now, Joe will still be talking scat but he'll have nothing.

      Delete
    16. The only "nothing" is between those ears of yours son.

      Delete
    17. So show us what you got, champ; I mean, chump.

      Delete
    18. Anyone who thinks Bigfoot lives in a 240 acre county park surrounded by development is a serious wack job.

      Delete
    19. Dermals, audio of an unknown primate, unknown primate hair, anthroplogical & archeological papers on skulls & giant skeletal remains, footage... Nothing I haven't posted around here before.

      Hey! You think that's a hoax, you're invited to show us boyo.

      Delete
    20. Some areas in south and central florida where bigfoot could live:
      everglades 1,509,000 acres
      green swamp 110,000 acres
      myakka 37,000
      big cypress 729,000
      ocala state forest 383,000
      babcock ranch preserve 90,000 acres
      Lettuce Lake Park 240 acres.

      Heck, the nearby Busch Gardens amusement park is 335 acres.

      Delete
    21. Take a look at my comment down below. Sorry... I know you got as creative as you could... But...

      Delete
    22. Robert "The Duchess" Lindsay says that when skinning a pig, you always start at the butt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    23. Really? Maybe that explains why Joe's hind quarters are so raw.

      Delete
    24. Just be contented you got a geography lesson as well as an anthropological one today.

      Delete
  7. Who is this "Matt M" who supposedly shot this video? Doesn't "Matt M" clue you people in that this is horseshit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, good question. Who is this Matt M.?

      Delete
    2. That's what I want to know. This lack of name sounds suspicious.

      Delete
  8. how come this skunk ape doesn't have the white stripe down its back

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thinking its a HOMELESS Iraq or Afghan war vet going off the grid they goes into da bush ans stays thar

      Delete
  9. Keep up the good work Joe...the cement is strong with these ones!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert "The Duchess" Lindsay says that he has mostly Barbara Streisand on his ipod!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
  10. My first impression was that it looked like some form of cgi. If only we could use science to eliminate all the impressions. Alas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People say CGI without knowing much about it. To do CGI with that many trees between the subject and the camera would be labor intensive because you have to individually master every single obstruction. Bill Munns has discussed how it's much easier to create props than do CGI.

      Delete
    2. WILD BILL not needin any of tham techno gizmos he jist needin that thar BIG KNIFE

      Delete
  11. o cheesus still milkin' this bloke in a suit like a jersey cow.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Clearly a hoax.....it's a bigfoot in a human suit.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why would you believe that this is a bigfoot and not a human in a costume? There is NOTHING in this clip that precludes this from being yet another hoax in a long line of bigfoot hoaxes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because this one has a few odd circumstances, this was shot by a hunter, if you were in a costume you are in water with 12' long Crocs and enough snakes to seriously put your life at risk, so maybe someone stupid, but the odds are stacked in the other direction with this one, plus it looks very real!!!

      Delete
    2. ...^It sounds to me as if you are precluding the possibility the submitter is in on the hoax...We cant do that until the guy is interviewed and subject to at least a little scrutiny...For all we know, he can have a youtube channel with a dozen crappy, fake videoes.....

      Delete
    3. That's true. Matt M. (whoever that is) could have been fooled by someone dressed in a costume.

      Delete
  14. People tend to misuse Occam's Razor. It is meant as a heuristic to help one sort out multiple competing hypotheses and inform actions toward further investigation. It is not meant to be used as proof. It is best used by those who are truly seeking the truth and not by those saddled with bias (in either way) because it is fully dependent on one's analysis of the facts vs. assumptions. Clearly, that will differ between individuals. What one person sees as fact, another sees as an assumption. When two people try to convince each other of their POV by employing Occam's Razor yet can't agree on fact vs assumption, Occam's Razor becomes useless. So if someone cites Occam's Razor as proof that bigfoot exists (or at least in an attempt to bolster their argument), they are treating certain proposed evidence as fact (or at least requiring fewer or less significant assumptions). Those are value judgments and are affected by our bias. If you already believe bigfoot exists or that it doesn't exist, you don't need Occam's Razor. If you don't know and are trying to decide where to invest your research efforts or other actions, then Occam's Razor may help. As always, science should be affected by new evidence and by the quality of that evidence. But until then, we are left to unanswered question and to tools like Occam's Razor if we truly want to inform our actions in finding that answer. Personally, when I use Occam's Razor on the question of whether bigfoot exists, I choose the hypothesis that it does not (and btw, that's not a hypothesis that can ever be fully proven). I'm aware that that leaves unanswered questions. I'm not trying to use Occam's Razor to convince anyone else. And I'm always open to re-evaluating that choice should new, high-quality evidence surface.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who's using it as proof?

      "Scientific method is that within some system you make hypotheses, you make testable hypotheses, you test them, and you keep the ones that are verified, and you throw out the ones that are falsified. If you have two hypotheses which are verified, which explain the same phenomenon, you use Occam’s razor and take the simplest."
      (32 Senior, Physics, Male, France/En)"
      Simple or Simplistic? Scientists' Views on Occam's Razor by Hauke Riesch

      ... And how do I apply this to the topic? When you have unknown primate physical evidence, when you have unknown primate biological evidence, all in conjunction with a sighting of a large bipedal primate; Occam's Razor. That's not even taking into comsideration the footage sources and audio sources that when all accumulated account for every source of evidence short of modern type specimen.

      Hope I've explainef myself a little better.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and I'll add... That still doesn't point to proof, but based on the frequency of evidence and considering that principle, one is more than warranted to come to a personal conclusion, it also is brilliant in getting trolls & pseudosceptics all riled up with simple logic.

      Delete
    3. Doesn't sound like you need Occam's Razor, that you've already moved beyond that point.

      Delete
    4. Though it is my mere opinion that this subject is very much a legitimate one, if I was to prove Sasquatch is real I would need a body, or the primate to classify the unknown primate evidence. When someone is being rude, usually because they are being rhetorical of the evidence & maintaining that it represents nothing, that's when I use that principle.

      Really enjoyed your comment though.

      Delete
    5. ...Agreed: That was a very good comment....

      Delete
    6. Robert "The Duchess" Lindsay says that he had a starring role in the movie "Thug Life"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    7. Thanks, Joe. I enjoy thoughtful and respectful discussions and disagreements. Sometimes that happens here. On the other hand, I find ad hominems and other forms of fallacious arguments from both side annoying but admit that I find myself engaging in sarcasm, etc, at times, just as you do. I'm guessing that I won't be changing my hypothesis until we have a specimen but I have enough interest in the subject (fascinated as a youngster, background in science/biology) to check-in once in a while.

      Delete
    8. Well you'll have me looking out for your comments in future, that's for sure.

      Delete
    9. Just key in on the Anonymous handle. That'll be him. Every time. I promise...

      Delete
  15. Where is MK? We need some contrast boost up in this bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This was shot in a 240 acre County park surrounded by residential and commercial properties. To put it into perspective, Central Park is 843 acres. You are more likely to find a Skunk Ape in Central Park than in Lettuce Lake Park.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well... The map I'm looking at... Lettuce Lake Park runs on to Trout Creek Park to the East, which runs on to Morris Bridge Park to the North-East, which runs on to Hillsborough River State Park to the North-East again, to North of that is Richloam Wildlife Management Area (South of that is Green Swamp Wildlife Management Area), to the East of that is Lake Louisa State Park... To the North-East of that is Lake Apopka Restoration Area and to the North-East of that is Wewika Springs State Park...

      Shall I continue to show you how something like that could get in that area undetected?

      Delete
    2. ..Obviously too small of an area to hold an undetected breeding population, so this would be one of those nomadic males....Where did he come from then? Its a long way to PNW..lol..

      Delete
    3. Really? Have you actually taken the time to look at how big an area that accounts for?

      Lollaz.

      Delete
    4. Sure, you can look at a map. Spend some time driving on I-75 and get back to me.

      Delete
    5. Do I now need to source you the amount of reports there are of Sasquatch crossing roads?

      Wewika is 7,000 acres that has forested corridors straight to Lettuce State Park.

      Delete
    6. Does not take long to do a google earth satellite to see how this whole are is connected to many thousands of acres of swamps and rivers and forested to beat the devil, same place others have found the skunk ape. On top of that several reports have surfaced over the last several years of skunk apes on the outskirts of Tampa. You can take those reports and x by 10 to 20 to get a more accurate account of all who have encountered them in this general area.
      Chuck

      Delete
    7. Robert "The Duchess" Lindsay says that if you follow the yellow brick road, you will end up at his house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    8. ..So your answer to my question is that you think it came from Wewika?...thanks...

      Delete
    9. http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=22358

      Delete
    10. Joe can show you no end of unconfirmed stories. Obective, confirmable evidence? Not so much.

      Delete
    11. ^......." encounter occurred in Rock Springs State Park, in Lake County in a pine flatwoods environment. According to the witness, "This area serves as a wildlife corridor between the Wekiva Springs State Park to the south and the Seminole State Forest to the north."....Thanks...

      Delete
    12. "Objective"; a euphemism for "not anyone who arives at a positive conclusion".

      Delete
    13. ....I just wanted to know how a bigfoot or bigfoots can remain undetected in an area less than 1/2 a square mile!...Joe is saying its connected to larger areas, which seems to be true...

      Delete
    14. I prefer " not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

      Of course Joe will prattle on about dermals being decades apart across states, etc. Ignoring the fact that dermals have been recreated and proven to be an artefact of the casting process in a lab. They have also been demonstrated that it is a simple thing to create a rubber stomper with dermals included. There is a long history of hoaxing involved in bigfoot tracks. All of that would force someone to conclude that track evidence remains ambiguous. As in, the truth of it is not confirmed. You cannot say conclusively an unknown primate made them when other explanations exist. For every one person that Joe will copy that states the evidence came from an unknown primate, there are thousands more who disagree. That does not make any one opinion correct, it simply means there is no confirmation and the evidence remains ambiguous.

      The same for alleged unknown primate hair. Hair morphology has been proven to unreliable in the past. And again, one source might say it is unknown primate, and a thousand other will disagree. Again, ambiguity rules the day. Yet Joe will call this "confirmed", or he will invoke Occams Razor. That is ridiculous. Bigfoot does not align with Occams Razor. It's not a tool to be used as proof. As long as there is no proof that bigfoot even exists, then bigfoot will never the most parsimonious explanation. Throwing around terms like Occams Razor is a feeble attempt to legitimize incorrect conclusions.

      And also, Joe, there is a big difference between " unknown primate" and "primate, unknown". To say the evidence came from a primate, but it's not clear which one, is not the same as declaring there is an unknown primate running around. And in some cases, that is exactly the nuance being missed or exploited by footers.

      Delete
    15. Thank god for copy and paste... All dealt with comprehensively here;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/does-bigfoot-hibernate.html?m=0

      Man, you have a short memory? "... not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

      Indeed.

      ; )

      Delete
    16. 12:24... I like conversing with you sir... Post more often.

      Delete
    17. Artificial desiccation has it's own uniform style that does not match one school of alleged Sasquatch traits, whilst the only way to mimic dermals, in your example (done by Crowley), is under laboratory methods... Which the average anyone attempting to hoax wouldn't be aware of or have access to. On the 36mins mark of the link below, the tile that Crowley, for example, sent Jimmy Chilcutt was covered in artificial ridge artefacts from the pouring process. The three casts in question that Chilcutt examined, they didn't have this... This is because when you are walking barefoot on the forest floor, the foot comes in contact with both fallen leaves and the soil in making an impression. Therefore, these artefacts would be present in consistency right across the different soil areas of the foot fall and they're not. The delta ridges on prints change directions over 45 degrees; they converge and deviate. This is a major indicator that the dermals are biological and as Chulcutt states, these do not appear on any of the artefacts.
      The fact that these are States apart and decades apart, very, very relevant.

      Chulcutt, the actual expert between him and Crowly, is very adamant that the prints Crowely attempted to imitate are genuine (though the actual prints are different they still have the same texture and ridge flow pattern, like a humans however twice the size), whilst Chilcutt stated as plain as day that even Crowley (who's far more enthusiastic than what "sceptics" would prefer) has stated that even he feels that Walla Walla casts are genuine (25mins in the link below).
      http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/03/

      ... Nobody is claiming to have the Bigfoot, just the evidence for an unknown primate.

      Delete
    18. And to unknown pimate hair, verified on an instance where a sighting occured by multiple people, at least one of these a government employee (where tracks were accumulated in the same instance), verified by Dr Paul Fuerst of Ohio State University & the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre. The hairs were collected by forest rangers at a sighting where tracks were accumulated too. Dr Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's department of anthropology confirms this. These were later confirmed to also be be case by Dr Fahrenbach;

      "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."

      So it is here, considering we have hair samples that have uniform morphology verified by multiple experts, as we do with biological dermals verified at the same frequency, that we are at a stage of research that points to an unknown primate leaving its sign. Even though we don't prove anything by this, we have reason to be encouraged and are warranted in persuing the research, whilst it is here we can draw on principles like Occam's Razor in a heuristical sense for the broader picture of what's going on.

      It annoys people like you Don, because your whole approach is that there is no evidence.

      : )

      Delete
    19. Oh... And the difference between "unknown primate" and "primate, unknown", is consistency; species traits.

      Delete
    20. Oh... And for those "thoudands that dissagree", wouldn't they have to actually be aware of/analyse the samples first?

      Made up arguments for authority; not a good look.

      Delete
    21. ..Will do...Thanks, Joe..

      Delete
  17. Robert "The Duchess" Lindsay says that his brother in law, affectionately known as "pig pump", taught Jesco White everything he knows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's good film....I think I'll lean towards genuine. ..hello all cold here so rum tonight and SUM VAG INA GUD

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank god for copy and paste... All dealt with comprehensively here; 

    http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/does-bigfoot-hibernate.html?m=0

    Yep thank god for copy and paste. I just read through all of that........Holy Shit Maker to your ass to school didn't he.

    I love his comment (I shall quote)

    Arguing with Joe is like playing chess with a pigeon, eventuality he's going to shit on the board and strut off like he won.

    Truer things were never said......ROTFLMAO

    AF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Last time I checked... I'm still waiting on a counter argument to come my way?

      ; )

      One day you might put the pom poms down, grow a pair, and a brain cell, and come up with your own argument... Not to mention a counter argument for plain and simple facts.

      : p

      Delete
    2. There is no counter argument required, Joe. Some people think some evidence represents bigfoot. Many others disagree and point to where that type of evidence has been hoaxed in the past, or has been the result of mistaken identity. This does not prove that all of it is the product of mistakes or fakes, but until the original claimant can PROVE the source of the evidence, then it will remain UNCONFIRMED. How can you possibly not understand that? Lord

      Delete
    3. This is why things like falsifiability and repeatability are such important concepts in science. If a claim cannot be realistically proven wrong, then it cannot be analyzed properly using the scientific method.

      Someone claims a trackway was made by an unknown primate. That is an opinion unless they can both prove the unknown primate and that said primate made the track in question. Otherwise, it's an opinion. Science cannot stand on opinion alone.

      Delete
    4. Argh, argh, aaaaaaaargh!!!

      Sorry Don... You must test science or it is a supression of evidence fallacy. I'm waiting on a counter argument for verified, impartial, professionally confirmed species traits across different samples. The same, circular arguments you posted up top have very conclusive means of debunking, cannot be supported with defnitive data that I am still waiting for you to counter; and it still doesn't materialise.

      You cannot missidentify or hoax species traits. There is nothing in scientific theory, that states that research starts or is agknowledged only at conclusion, this was demonstrated when I took your falsifiability argument and actually ended up showing you how it works properly.

      The current state of evidence points to an unknown primate leaving its sign... Running the course of finding the primate that left it is a matter of following up the research.

      Delete
    5. Joe, the claim that this trackway was made by an unknown primate is not testable without said primate.

      Delete
    6. The advantage for someone like me in using Popper's philosophy is that scientific truths can be falsified when more knowledge and resources are available. Even long accepted theories such as Gravity, Relativity and Evolution are increasingly challenged and adapted. Where falsifiability falls down is that it is extremely strict in its definitions and does not take into account that many sciences are observational and descriptive, even theories like Intelligent Design can be classed as scientific, because they have a falsifiable hypothesis. There are many in modern science who have challenged falsifiable science because according to people like Popper, many branches of applied science, especially social science, are not scientific because they have no potential for falsification. Can you see the inherent problem here? Anthropology and sociology, tried and tested branches of science often use case studies to observe people in their natural environment without actually testing any specific hypotheses or theories. These studies are not falsifiable, but no one with a brain would disagree that they are scientific because they significantly advance human knowledge. This means that the most adhering of sciences must make compromises and assumptions on occasion. The testing of any theory must take into account the equipment and resources available. Falsifiability is not a simple black and white matter because a theory, which is difficult to falsify at the time, may be falsified in the future.

      The proposition that unknown primate traits DO NOT EXIST is clearly falsifiable. If you are attempting to falsify that proposition, you are attempting to prove a positive statement; that unknown primate traits do exist. The level of evidence required to prove the unknown primate traits are a biological reality are the species traits in question, by testing it with long standing fields of biological/forensic science. The proposition that unknown primate traits DO EXIST can therefore be falsified, because if you are attempting to falsify that proposition, you are attempting to prove the antithesis of that claim with the same methods to which support it; and show that these traits are not biological and do not exist.

      Physical evidence in dermals =
      there are ways of testing this, notably forensics against casting artefacts, you've been asked to provide drawing on this; nothing appeared.
      Biological evidence in unknown primate hair = there are ways of testing this, notably primatology and field biology in comparing against known primates' morphology, you've been asked to provide drawing on this; nothing appeared.
      Audio = there are ways of testing this, audiology fields that can show that these sounds are within the range of a normal human, you've been asked to provide drawing on this; nothing appeared.

      The sources in question are not negative and if data exists then it can be scientifically tested, therefore requiring no assumptions on its existence either way. In the possible conclusions; you either have confirmed evidence for an unknown primate, or you don’t… What the positive ramifications mean, is that you don’t have a conclusive means of classifying what that primate is, but you still have the evidence for an unknown primate that has been falsifiably tested.

      Delete
    7. Besides, Joe, there has been testing done on some of the specifics of the claim--namely dermals. They were tested in a lab and found that they can be fabricated. Also, it has been demonstrated that they can be placed inside a trackway quite simply using latex and kerosene to create an oversized, stomper complete with dermals. That type of testing creates ambiguity. So much so that without the creature that is alleged to have made a certain track, hoaxing can never be ruled out. This is not circular. It's simply a fact.

      Delete
    8. " The proposition that unknown primate traits DO NOT EXIST is clearly falsifiable."

      That is not the claim, Joe. I am saying that what some believe to be unknown primate tracks have been demonstrated to man made fabrications in the past. Therefore it is still incumbent upon the original claimant to prove the evidence was not mistaken or hoaxed. A good way to do that would be to produce the monkey that supposedly made the track. That would be much better than the pseudoscience approach of asking someone to prove that they were hoaxed. It's enough to prove that identical traits can be the result of human fabrication. This has been demonstrated and was found to be identical and can be repeated. Therefore, the burden is on the original claimant to prove that, in this case, they were not fabricated.

      Delete
    9. 3:24... Read my comment up top; I'm still waiting on a come back argument on the Crowley method that doesn't fit the morphology of Chilcutt's casts, admittedly by Crowley himself. This does not create ambiguity, because the method does not replicate the biological morphology of dermals... Allow me to demonstrate further, with the same comments I'm waiting on for you to respond to.

      Delete
    10. Next, my emphasis is of dermal ridges not even compared to Crowley's artificial casts, and is on the morphology of the three Elk Wallow track casts, which show the greatest detail, especially in terms of the pattern of dermal ridges that was OBSERVED IN THE ACTUAL TRACKS, and that has been preserved in parts of the plaster casts.

      Tatyana Gladkova, Dermatoglyphics expert at the USSR Institute of Anthropology. Saw photographs of casts, including enlargements of key areas. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.)
      "I see dermal ridges of the arch type distally directed. I see sweat pores. If it's a fake, it's a brilliant fake, on the level of counterfitting, and by someone well versed in dermatoglyphics.
      Anthropologists Mikhail Urisson and Vladimir Volkov-Dubrovin (Deputy Director of the Institute) agreed with the above opinion."

      Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Saw several photographs and brief description of circumstances of discovery. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.)
      "Regarding photographs of skin imprints sent over by G. Krantz. I fully agree with his opinion on these footprints, as well as the opinion of Benny Kling. The structure of the dermal ridges is very much like that of man. The sweat glands have large openings because the ridges are much bigger than in man. It was great luck that the footprints were left in the soil that revealed fine details of the imprints. As for the patterns of ridges, some irregularity in ridge lines in separate places in the photos may be connected with the peculiarity of the material in which the imprints were made (unevenness of soil, various inclusions, such as small pebbles, pine needles, etc.). Another possibility is scars and skin injuries.
      Incidentally, even in ideally made human imprints there can be such irregularities. There is even a whole branch of dermatoglyphics studying genetic irregularities in ridge lines, i.e. medical and genetic dermatoglyphics.
      In the imprints shown by the available photographs, I cannot detect anything unusual, except digit I, left foot, which shows, apparently, a pattern of the arch type (in man the whorl type is more frequently found)."

      Delete
    11. Is this the point you shit on the board?

      Perhaps you should change your name to pigeon boy.

      AF

      Delete
    12. Douglas M. Monsoor, Supervisor, Criminalistics Unit, Department of Public Safety, Lakewood, Colorado. Certified Latent Print Examiner, and fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom. Was sent detailed photographs in late 1982, examined original casts in December, 1982, and again in June, 1983, for two hours on each occasion.
      "I see the presence of ridge structure in these track casts which, in my examination, appears consistent with that type of ridge structure you would find in a human. Under magnification, they evidence all the minute characteristics similar to human dermal ridges. The sizes, distributions, and orientations of the ridge patterns are consistent with those found on a human foot. Of the ridge structure visible in the impressions, I believe it was produced concurrent with the creation of the overall impressions, and not added later.
      If hoaxing were involved, I can conceive of no way in which it could have been done. They appear to be casts of original impressions of a primate foot — of a creature different from any of which I am aware."

      Robert D. Olsen, Sr., Criminalist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas. Certified Latent Print Examiner, Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom, Member of International Association for Identification, etc. Was sent detailed photographs in late 1982, and Silastic lifts in early 1983. Examined original casts and two-color lifts in June, 1983, for several hours.
      "Based on everything I see, there is nothing in these tracks that is inconsistent with the impressions of an actual living primate foot. Ridges and pores are consistent with real primate skin. I'm convinced that this represents real friction skin and shows no inconsistencies in structure or orientation.
      If they are faked, the individual would have to know an extraordinary amount about fingerprinting. I could not have done it. A faker would have to be an accomplished artist as well as an expert on dermatoglyphics. He would also need a knowledge of gross anatomy of feet. The amount of time needed to do all this work is beyond the realm of believability."

      Edward Palma, Fingerprint examiner for the Laramie County Sheriff's Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Had latex lifts from the footprints in late 1982 — inked these and traced print pattern extensively. Had cast copies to examine at leisure. Saw original casts for several hours in early 1983 — made Duplicast impressions of critical parts, and took photographs for further study.
      "My professional opinion of the three casts is that they represent footprints of a living higher primate of an unknown species. The over-all configuration of the foot is roughly human, but it is too wide — a human foot would not be over five and one half inches [wide] for this length, and thus these impressions could not be human. The actual width is represented and supported by ridge pattern.
      My study of the tracks concentrated more on the sole than on the more conspicuous details of the toes. I traced the ridge pattern over the entire breadth of the forefoot, finding triradius landmarks appropriate in their respective positions with intervening ridges flowing in proper directions. It could not have been patched together from smaller parts that were copied from skin of a known primate.
      The detailed morphology of the ridge and furrow structures and patterns are especially convincing to me. In all details, they conform perfectly in design and size to real friction skin. The sweat pores are clear and are lined-up and spaced just as expectable, and can be distinguished from occasional air bubbles in the casts.
      I began this investigation with the goal of showing how these prints were, or might have been, faked. All evidence now tells me that any faking would be impossible."

      Delete
    13. Benny Kling, Instructor, Law Enforcement Academy, Douglas, Wyoming. Had latex lifts from the footprints in late 1982, and cast copies shortly thereafter. Saw original casts for several hours on two occasions in early 1983.
      "These track casts show all the characteristics of real friction skin derived from a higher primate footprint. The ridge details, in all respects, duplicate that found in human feet. Parts of the pattern on right and left feet are near-mirror images; some displacia is indicated in the areas where it could be expected; smoothing by wear shows on the weight-bearing areas. In addition, the footprints indicate that an unusual proportion on the body weight fell on the front of the foot, and the arches are evidently flat.
      This kind of print could not have been made by a human foot, nor that of any known animal. It could not have been manufactured by any hoaxer; the design is too dermatoglyphically correct, and the engraving job would be beyond the capabilities of the best forger. Descriptions of the supposed Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, are consistent with the traits found in these footprints."

      Delete
    14. "which show the greatest detail, especially in terms of the pattern of dermal ridges that was OBSERVED IN THE ACTUAL TRACKS, and that has been preserved in parts of the plaster casts."

      It has been demonstrated, Joe, that it is a simple thing to create a large, primate shaped foot complete with dermals in the stomper using latex and kerosene. This would create...wait for it....dermals in the actual tracks.

      Delete
    15. No, no, no... You are not reading the comments I am posting, are you Don? Hey looky, looky... Up top.

      : )

      Delete
    16. AF... You're a cheerleader at best. Now run along unless you want to extend your education a little more.

      Delete
    17. "Science cannot stand by opinion alone..."

      Peer review processes do.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    18. They have left hand prints a number of times, such as on car windows showing fingerprints a lot different than humans. They don't form a semi-whorl like human prints, but are vertical lines. Similar prints have been found 1,000 miles apart.

      The pattern detected on the outer edge of some footprint casts is a different pattern than human's too.

      Of course detractors are going to say its all faked, even multiple times thousands of miles apart, claiming there is no evidence using the circular syllogism that BF doesn't exist, which means all evidence must be faked or misidentified, therefore there is no evidence of bigfoot.

      Delete
    19. "I am saying that what some believe to be unknown primate tracks have been demonstrated to man made fabrications in the past. Therefore it is still incumbent upon the original claimant to prove the evidence was not mistaken or hoaxed."
      ... Which I have done. And it is here that we are back at the same stage we were at on the 21st of January. The one means pseudosceptics use to discount a long line of forensic experts who have impartially verified dermals, in fact doesn't even match key biological traits that are used to define this evidence as genuine. None of the casts have been demonstrated to be man made, only that laboratory situations can yield desiccation that had its own uniform style, and that man made samples do not accomplish key aspects of biological data that forensic fields have studied for decades.

      "A good way to do that would be to produce the monkey that supposedly made the track. That would be much better than the pseudoscience approach of asking someone to prove that they were hoaxed."
      Supression of evidence fallacy. Research does not start at conclusion. At this stage, your contradictions find their way suddenly opposed to the requirements of falsifiability it seems. You must test data... You can do this by using forensics to counter forensics, not by using a self admitted case of diseccation that does not account for biological traits, by someone under situations a that would not be available to the average hoaxer, whom would have to have a lottery win of accidental morphological similarities that don't even appear in artificial castings... This is the total archietype of pseudoscientific reasoning. If you can't test the source to a conclusion that supports your premise; then it can't stand.

      "It's enough to prove that identical traits can be the result of human fabrication. This has been demonstrated and was found to be identical and can be repeated. Therefore, the burden is on the original claimant to prove that, in this case, they were not fabricated."
      Half way down this page, here is your "proof" of human fabrication that's "identical";
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36334-suit-possibly-key-to-final-hoax-proof/page-5
      ... Audacious really, that your failings and shortcomings are suddenly our issue... It's the actions of a spoiled little brat. The burden is in fact with you, dear sweet Don, to man up and adhere to all the hypocritical things you claim everyone else should run around accomplishing, because you'd "rather" a whole bunch of scientific data be dropped because you can't challenge it. Don't take it from me, listen to the experts... No attempts at supressing evidence is gonna cut it.

      Delete
  20. How many cast are known to have dermal ridges?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe he gives a round about figure in Legend Meets Science... I'll find out.

      Delete
    2. I can only find 3, one was proven to be a hoax and 2 were duplicated to show the could be reproduced. ......any more?

      Delete
    3. Absolute nonsense. Read my comments with help with that.

      Delete
    4. No, actually... Though it does get a little tiring repeating myself.

      Thank God for cut and paste.

      Delete
    5. So, how many have alleged dermals, Joe?

      You should be thankful for cut and paste. You're clearly incapable of original thought.

      Delete
    6. It's over a hundred... Six minute mark;

      http://youtu.be/79fEVN-_4hw

      Delete
    7. Could you break that down by state and date please? And then cross reference it with examples where the tracks lead to an actual bigfoot, oh...hehhe,what am I saying? Nevermind.

      Delete
    8. Hey Joe F, I still think this video(Lettuce Park) is a hoax, in my opinion of course. The one I think as I have said before that should be further analyzed is this one below and I know your probably tired of me posting it all the time..........

      https://thedavisreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/calgary-bigfoot-video-animation-cropped.gif

      Delete
    9. Deflecting on the premise, dear boy... The immediate focus here is the evidence for an unknown primate, not that a conclusive stage of research stemming from that has been reached.

      Delete
    10. 5:17... Considering you appear to have swallowed the delusion that I'm multiple posters, I find your "opinion" somewhat less appealing of late.

      Sorry.

      Delete
    11. Joe, you think the evidence is of an unknown primate. I think it is evidence of mistakes or hoaxes. As such, it remains inconclusive. Not evidence of an unknown primate, but inconclusive. Saying it is evidence of an unknown primate is reaching a conclusion.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. You think the evidence is mistakes and hoaxes, that's fine... Support that, test it. Once you do that, once you present data to reinforce your notion, then it'll be branded inconclusive, not before.

      No... Using the opinions of forensic experts & various, is referencing their conclusions.

      Delete
    14. I think you misconstrue what evidence is. If my fingerprints and DNA is found on a murder weapon, that is evidence. If BF leaves non-human fingerprints and DNA that is different from our species, that is evidence. You can argue all you want about it being inconclusive, like lawyers will try to discredit evidence in a court of law, but evidence is evidence.

      If you see a zipper on a suit, that is evidence. Evidence is not contingent on being conclusive.

      Delete
    15. ^^ You speak as if bigfoot dna has been confirmed.

      Delete
    16. I have evidence of BF that I think is conclusive; I saw it, heard it, smelled it. I believe that is evidence of one. I've reached a conclusion. To me its not inconclusive. To someone else who has a different bias it's inconclusive.

      Delete
    17. BF DNA has been confirmed in my opinion, multiple times.

      Delete
    18. Once there is a type species to match DNA to then perhaps you will agree it is conclusive. Putting the different evidences together I believe it is conclusive. We have our own perspectives and biases.

      Delete
  21. " To someone else who has a different bias it's inconclusive."

    No, it's a story,nothing more.

    Bigfoot DNA has never been confirmed. Regardless of your opinion. Fact is fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

      Delete
    2. Hey Dover! Great to see you drop in my friend! It's late in the UK so I'm off to bed... I'll be back in the morning to respond to anything left.

      Delete
    3. I'm just passing through, off to other ventures myself.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  22. It looks like the Disinformation Detail called a Code Red, and they scrambled every paid to post arshole that they had on the internet. The arsholes are coming out of the woodwork.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story