New! Photograph of Oklahoma Bigfoot Hiding In Tree!
Oklahoma bigfoot researcher Kurt Stanley took this photograph of what he believes to be a bigfoot hiding in a tree. The photograph is currently being analyzed by local professionals.
Recently Kurt appeared on the Bigfoot Crossroads podcast, where he gave a detailed description of a bigfoot creature he witnessed for several minutes from just ten feet away. You can listen to that show here:
Peace!
ReplyDelete^ suck dick much ?
DeleteI am sure he doesn't feel the same way about you so move along> > > > >
DeleteYes, take your blue saggin baggins and go play on the freeway. Its about rush hour where you are.
Delete"I will try to describe what happened as briefly as possible; it was in the late spring or early summer and my boyfriend at the time, and 2 of my closest friends were driving through Cooks Mills ( this area has now been incorporated into part of Niagara Falls ). It was evening and it was a dark country road with a lot of fields and bush area. I wasn't paying attention to the road until I heard the others yelling about something. I looked through the windshield and saw what looked like a large wolf standing in the middle of the road...and by standing I mean upright or bi-pedal. This creature was framed in the car headlights and looked to me to have been in the process of running across the road. It stood perfectly still but slowly turned it's head to stare at us...after about 5 to 10 seconds, it turned it's head back and ran across the road and into the bush on the other side. It ran on it's hind legs only as if that were natural.
DeleteThe males in the car wanted to get out and chase it...while my girlfriend and I were looking the doors and rolling up the windows. We told them if they got out of the car we would drive off and leave them there...so we continued on to the falls.
1- the creature looked to be the size of an average wolf if it were standing upright...maybe a bit taller
2-although it made no aggressive move toward us...I had the distinct feeling that it was thinking about coming over and decided not to
3- the eyes were intelligent and they had an almost amused look in them...as if it knew we were scared and found it amusing
4- I had the impression it could see us in the car..even though it was dark and our headlights would have made it impossible to see in
5- I was extremely grateful that it decided not to investigate us"
http://psican.org/alpha/index.php?/Ontario-Cryptozoology/Ontario-Dogman.html
....Hey Joe..I think geneticists know which genes determine hair growth, color etc..In this case we would expect scientists to observe differences in the dna of homo sapiens sapiens and a hair covered higher primate...Enough differences to declare their dna is not the same... Now, from your posts this week concerning cro-magnons we learn that higher primates(humans in this case) can have significant differences in morphology even though dna is the same..We can observe this fact by looking at the wide variety of modern humans..So, I can see a little better how something like a bigfoot can have human dna..BUT as I said above the hair might be a big problem for that idea...Do you think the hair is a problem for human theory?..
DeleteNARGHHH!!!!! It doesn't matter. If something doesn't match up, I can simply create another type of bigfoot. Voila!!! Problem solved!!
Deleteneeded reposted
DeleteIktomijoeabholi, your only achievement is irritating people on a Bigfoot blog. In fact, for all your pompous posturing, absolutely nobody aside from a few blogs is aware of you at all. You are an obnoxious self important blowhard, and nothing more.
And also Iktomijoeabholi You need to know
DeleteThat I am in love with you. I can't help myself. I hate you and love you at the same time. Your attention is all I desire because I can't get you out of my little mind. I AM your biotch
DC
Hello 4:55 my friend!!!
DeleteYou may remember Dr. Curt Nelson, biologist from the University of Minnesota and Dr. Jeff Meldrum, arrived on the scene at Snelgrove Lodge with a camera crew in tow to inspect the outline of a bloody footprint on the “screw board” and of course, collect from it, small portions of foot tissue and blood for DNA sequencing. Blood, tissue and hair were found. Mitochondrial is the most accurate method known for species identification and it should be able to determine if a hair sample is that of a man or nonhuman primate. The hair sample looked human, (uncut) but human hair has a medulla, a spongy mass of material in the center of the hair’s core. Hair presumptive for Sasquatch looked human but did not have a medulla; the hair sample matched no known primate and no animal known to science, certainly not bear according to the program. This alone is not new to research.
The tissue and blood samples were first examined for DNA by Dr. Todd Disotel. He could find NO DNA and said he thought it had all been degraded. Then Dr. Nelson (a microbiologist) tried his hand at it, concluded that something was inhibiting the testing, and isolated out the galvanizing substance from the screws. Then he was able to obtain DNA and sequence it. His finding was for human, but with one variance that appears in chimpanzee, not human, DNA. Dr. Nelson said that he will perform additional tests over the next year, and that he thinks perhaps his results may show Bigfoot to be some sort of human. Meldrum was not quoted at all on the DNA results.
Regarding contamination: A DNA expert at Wayne State University analyzed Carter Farm hair several years ago and concluded that sasquatches may be some sort of humans. He also deliberately contaminated dog and cat hair with human DNA and the result still was positive for the source species (dog or cat), not for human. In other words, if there was any old DNA on the screws that was not human, perhaps bear, it should have shown up for Nelson if it wasn't completely degraded. Both Meldrum and Nelson remarked during the filming that the blood and tissue samples appeared easily still intact enough to yield DNA. You have to suspect that the DNA Nelson found came from the source species, not from contamination.
To summarise, I would agree with you, but the morphology of the hair is like a primate (humans are primates) but not like any known, described as though coming from a "wild human"... With controversial DNA results lending as much support as it remotely possible (whether you believe contamination, I don't because these samples continuously keep coming back as human). It is very difficult to know if earlier hominids, or earlier versions of us had hair covered bodies, because we have no example to study. In my opinion, we have two distinct types of Sasquatch.
A few years ago on the BFF, a poster named Marlboro totally destroyed Mulder regarding the Snelgrove Lodge incident. Marlboro demonstrated how ludicrous it was to believe that a bigfoot was involved in the incident:
Deletehttp://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/33198-bigfoot-research-–-still-no-evidence-but-plenty-of-excuses-to-explain-why-there’s-no-evidence/page-10
...Joe,.The Snelgrove episode was one of the better ones in my opinion, so I appreciate the details about the follow up in your response as well as general info about dna...It requires no belief one way or the other to speculate about what these things can be and it is fun to do so....Thanks very much...
DeleteYou're very welcome my friend. Good to see you post.
Delete6:10...
DeletePoint 1. Monsterquest is not scientific;
While I would agree that it's not the most notable of science sources, it has plenty of scientists in it, some of which totally opposed to the subject's authenticity. I wonder if they are equally as pigeon holed due to them being on such an "unscientific" source?
Point 2. Nelson's work is not trustworthy;
The author states that because of the medium, and because Nelson found something that others couldn't, that this is not trustworthy. Again, I wonder if the author would have as many qualms regarding those opinions who lend to more sceptical conclusions from the same source? One cannot state that the science one uses is untrustworthy because it yielded separate results to a favoured scientist; and one who matches that theory group to which is under preference of the subject matter. This is confirmation bias.
Point 3. Sasquatch can't open and close doors behind them;
Discounting a report because it has tangible signs of hoaxing is one thing, discounting a report because it doesn’t fit into your preconceived view of an unproven creature is not good investigative or observational skill and also not scientific. We don't know if Sasquatch have enough cognitive abilities to open doors (though I am very sure they do), but things can slam shut for sure. Have you ever kicked a door open, only for it to slam back and shut very loudly? We know that chimps have very advanced imaginations to be able to work out obstacles, an archaic type of human may have a way more advanced idea of how to negotiate such obstacles from considerable practice, to which might make sense in the apparent bold nature of the alleged Sasquatch that entered the property.
Point 4. No prints in the woodstove soot;
There was no Sasquatch prints, but there wasn't prints period. So even though there weren't any prints of even normal humans, someone still would have had to have been there to have made the mess. No prints of anyone does not dismiss the fact that anyone was there, because someone would have had to have been there to have caused the mess, possibly to merely have not been in stepping distance from the damage it might have afflicted from afar.
Point 5. There is a community near by;
That's fine, we have many, many Sasquatch reports from communities that are along side wilderness areas.
Point 6. The size estimation is too small, followed by the contradiction that Sasquatch would have been too big to access the building;
Sasquatch aren't born 9 feet tall, and in many instances of reports, it is the curiosity of juveniles that are the catalyst for encounters. Also, at the 5.5 feet range, this would have meant that the subject would have easily been able to access the cabin and be in proportion to open and close doors.
So it was a 5.5 inch tall bigfoot with gigantic feet as evidenced by the 18 inch bloody footprint on the screw board!? A bigfoot is not born 9 foot tall, but they are evidently born with the feet of a 9 foot tall bigfoot! Okay, it all makes perfect sense now!
Delete...Thanks Joe...Its good to be back. Interesting post at 12:30...
DeleteAlso, no one has said that there were no prints period. Suspiciously, the only print discussed was the "bloody screw board print." There was soot all over the floor, so by definition there were other prints (unless you believe in levitation). But the bigfoot believing people involved in the program conveniently did not show the other prints. If they were bigfoot prints, of course they would have flaunted them on the show. The only logical conclusion is that the other prints suggested a normal human presence and, because that would not fit into the insane bigfoot fairy tale, the other prints were ignored.
DeleteIn addition, the reason that the nearby human settlement is relevant is that it demonstrates that the producers and other people involved with the show (including Meldrum) outright lied to the audience in a dishonest attempt to add credibility to the absurd bigfoot story. In makes you wonder how many other times they lied, doesn't it?
DeleteFinally, I have no doubt that Iktomi knew about these glaring problems with the story before he posted the reply above and he chose to do so anyway in the hope that no one was familiar with the ridiculous story. Or it is possible that he didn't know about the obvious issues and that he is grossly incompetent in fact checking his comments. Either way, he has demonstrated that he is not to be trusted in providing truthful information.
Delete12:48... Can we at any stage rule out the possibility of a group of Sasquatch? There's pretty much innumerable reports of Sasquatch traveling like this. You would be aware of this, no? Or does this not fit into your idea of a "Bigfoot fairy tail"... A euphemism for "cherry picking on something you have an agenda against"?
Delete1:17... Don't you think that information about any prints in soot would have been disclosed? Or is it another case of the medium being "untrustworthy"? No, by no definition should there be tracks in the soot, merely by your version. There is no requirement for levitation, because by your assumption of what you would expect from the mess, you require tracks to be present. "But the Bigfoot believing people conveniently il didn't show the other prints"... Or maybe there were no prints? You cannot make assumptions and use this as the basis to denounce something; it's not very good logic. The fact is that the damage to the woodstove may have occurred out of perimeter of the people causing the damage. Saying that someone is withholding information because that "information must have been he case" is circular logic. You have no special right to be events over anyone else because you claim to.
1:27... Did Meldrum lie? I'm not so sure you can support that with anything concrete, can you?? "The largest town was over 100 miles away." This was agknowldged by the author as not being a lie... Was it not? "I would not be surprised if the lake that Slate Falls resides on is accessible to Snelgrove via just by boat with no land traversing. Unfortunately, the map resolution prevented me from confirming this." Unfortunately, the author "not being surprised" and no concrete data supporting his idea, doesn't support his premise very much now, does it?
2:17... You simply use circular logic, assumptions and shoddy data to support your stance on the matter. Your "glaring problems" not only have avenues of explanation outside of what you expect from your version of an unproven creature, but humorously, don't even begin to tackle the DNA sample in all this. Truthful information? Please stop trying so hard bro, anyone would think you're a little bitter I took your stuff apart.
Next?
Okay moron, I finally found one of your self-proclaimed amazing responses buried in an ancient thread! Because I am short on time and it is a yeoman's task to wade through your murky prose, I am only replying to the most outlandishly asinine point you attempted (and failed) to make.
DeleteEarlier in the thread, you conceded that, because the cabin was so small, it was a small juvenile bigfoot that broke into the cabin. But then when I informed you that it would be quite odd for a 5.5 foot tall bigfoot to have such gargantuan feet, you then went back to claiming that it must have been a group of bigfoots that included an adult with humongous feet!
Well dope, you're back to your original problem of how an adult bigfoot squeezed into the cabin that had such a tiny doorway and a low ceiling!!!! Talk about contradicting yourself! Wow!
If this response of yours is indicative of other times you left comments in old threads, then I must say that I am supremely unimpressed.
NARGHHHH!!!
Hey Bernie...it ME.
ReplyDeleteHey Elmo.
Delete^ Hey hey hey ...!!!
DeleteI`ll be a dinglebat...there`s somefin` blurry in dem trees.
ReplyDeleteThere are hundreds of unambiguous photos of gorillas. There are zero of bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteCheckmate footers.
Bigfoot is an ultra intelligent creature...that sees infra-red and can even see what footers are thinking...all this so as to disappear and confuse them.
DeleteEven though there are probably at least a few hundred thousand BF in North America, they do a fantastic job of hiding. You have to be "in tune" with them to see them. They can also bend light, that's why pictures are blury.
Delete^ Remember also the "portals" that bigfoot travel through.
DeleteThat's odd 4:11... I came across plenty here;
Deletehttp://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
http://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8
http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQ
http://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yI
http://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4
http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQ
http://youtu.be/cjEWDkcqjXI
... And we've check, you don't qualify. Based on the frequency of evidence, I wouldn't say they're all that awesome at hiding 100% of the time.
Where is Meldrums buddy MMG these days? Meldrum asked for a divorce as he was seeing Todd Standing behind MMGs back. Traitors!
ReplyDeleteThe professionals- as in Oklahoma basketball players ?
ReplyDeleteMost of the hiding bigfoot photos have similar facial features which makes me think it's legit
That would be consistent with Iktomi's racist Zana theory.
DeleteIktomi's real name is actually Joe Zana
DeleteIt rhymes with banana
Wow, you guys are all over Joe's dick. It's seriously sad.
DeleteWho's Joe?
DeleteNARGHHHHH!!!!! Just because I think that a sub-Saharan African was an "ape woman," that doesn't make me a racist!
DeleteVegasthedog - it's funny you mention that because Dick is Joe's middle name.
DeleteJoseph Richard Zana
still rhymes with Banana
Zana was in fact archaic West African, and for the life of me I can't get any of you clever trolls to find a skull equivalent with the same morphology of Zana's race and time??
DeleteToo easy.
Why oh why are bigfoots always hiding in trees?
ReplyDeleteJoe, you gonna have a meltdown there, sport? Glad I could help.
I'm really not sure what Joe is meant to have a meltdown over there pal?
DeleteMe neither, kiddo. We're just having fun talking about a pretend creature. Nothing to get worked up over.
DeleteFFS! Yes you tell what it is suck a detailed picture...FFS!
ReplyDelete1 question though: are there black bears withing 250 miles of where the video was taken? FFS!
"The photograph is currently being analyzed by local professionals."
ReplyDeleteYeah, two plumbers. One is his brother-in-law.