Analysis Video Of Juvenile Bigfoot Watching
YouTuber Great North posted this analysis video showing what some believe to be a young juvenile bigfoot hiding in the dense cover watching the person taking the video. Do you agree? Take a look at the video and let us know.
Bigfoots stay elusive, they eats deer, hawgs, possum, and on occasion Bigfoot Researchers, hikers, campers and hunters!
ReplyDeletewhere an AK when you need it : )
DeleteWW3 Granted A Clear Path By Obama
ReplyDeletePresident creating conditions for nuclear war
DA NEW NORM
He had me fooled at first ! Can't believe I voted for the Anti-Christ
DeletePope is onit!
DeleteAbsolutely hilarious. Since humans are Apes and Bigfoot, if he existed, would be an Ape than it is logical to think that he would be observable. Well he is not. The evidence remains always out of reach. To fantasize that Bigfoot has some extraordinary whatever that enables him to hide in plain sight is to make an absurd assumption. It is logical to assume that if Bigfoot existed to assume he would be documentable in the same way other animals are. Since he seems to be a forever jealous phenomena, the likelihood is he does not exist.
ReplyDelete4:15... "Bigfoot" is observable in the physical, biological, audio and video evidence. He is very extraordinary but like all living, intelligent creatures, is susceptible to mistakes and curiosity... We wouldn't have the reports and accompanying evidence if it wasn't the case.
Delete"To fantasize that Bigfoot has some extraordinary whatever that enables him to hide in plain sight is to make an absurd assumption."
Is it really? Well based on the forensic evidence, it appears that it indeed does have such an ability... Ready for it?
"It is logical to ASSUME that if Bigfoot existed to ASSUME he would be documentable in the same way other animals are."
Let me explain something to you darling, condemning an educated assumption, void of awareness of the actual state of evidence and documentation, and replacing it with your own uneducated assumptions of a creature who's existence you don't find credible, is not good science. It's not good LOGIC.
"Since he seems to be a forever jealous phenomena, the likelihood is he does not exist."
It's unfortunate that ignorant, naive people like you are able to make such twonks of themselves before actually learning something about a topic they're trying to sound so clever about.
Didn't know shehe is Joe f ^
Deletehttp://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-are-humans-primates-97419056/
Deletegits sume hintin dawgs and traxs tham bigfoots downs thay shure will
ReplyDeleteBOBO needed to do a size comparison, BOBO being a Bigfoot GURU
ReplyDeleteBuddy got all that out of that worthless mess of pixels? Must be some good acid.
ReplyDeleteso the brothers bigfoot( crotchmaster and freddie kanney).. real life brothers by the way....hell it's ohio/va...50/50 odds there all related...are trying to help out ole jimhoaxtmberblur
DeleteHis results were challenged twice. Here and here. The second rebuttal prompted a defensive (and rather ignorant) response from Sykes regarding molecular taxonomy. Not only does he continue to dismiss application of statistical methods to DNA, but now he’s accused of making up an institute. It’s catching the attention of other professionals in the community and they are not amused.
ReplyDeleteScientist savaged for Bigfoot claim ouch lots more to come
A GENETICIST at Oxford University whose new book claims to offer “the first scientific evidence on the survival ” of apemen such as the yeti and Bigfoot, has been attacked by colleagues who say the claims are nonsense and his research institute does not exist
DeleteDoes the London Times routinely publish crackpot pseudoscience with no fact checking at all? I’ve just read their latest piece on the notorious Bryan Sykes, Bigfoot Hunter, and it’s the kind of gullible tosh I’d expect from a Murdoch tabloid. It’s got one paragraph that mentions that other scientists doubt his findings, but otherwise it’s a fluff piece for Sykes’ new book about an ape-woman…which is not only inane, but distressingly racist.
Deletet’s total crap. Right from the beginning: Now an academic geneticist claims to have found the most promising evidence yet that Homo sapiens may not be entirely alone in its genus. That sentence is a marvel. It’s literally true: Sykes is an academic geneticist, and he does make those claims, but the question we have to ask, that a journalist ought to ask, is whether those claims are valid. Our brave reporter does not. He swallows Sykes’ PR and regurgitates it in a reportedly prestigious medium.
DeleteLook at what he’s claiming. An African woman was enslaved by 19th century racists, and she left some descendants. Sykes has analyzed DNA from people in that region and found evidence of an infusion of West African DNA into the population: you should be feeling zero surprise. A person lived, had children, died, and her descendants carry traces of her genome. That’s basic biology.
But then it goes off the rails. Sykes unquestioningly accepts the accounts of 19th century racists who regarded this woman as an animal to say that the evidence of West African ancestry somehow supports his contention that she was an ‘ape woman’ who was descended from some relic population of a Homo sub-species that had been hiding in the Caucasus Mountains for millennia, giving rise to legends of yetis and bigfoot and other beast-men in the wilderness.
That makes no sense. His own DNA analysis says she was 100 per cent African. You know “African” is not a synonym for “pre-human”, right? But he has written a whole book titled The Nature of the Beast (horrid title that also manages to suggest that an enslaved African woman was less than human), in which he advances this ludicrous theory, and the Times has obligingly fluffed it for him. At least it’ll appeal to all the UKIP voters.
I’m not even going to accept his genetic analysis. Here are a couple of papers by Gutiérrez and Pine and Edwards and Barnett that show that Sykes can’t do molecular genetics at all — his analysis of a purported Himalayan yeti hair that claimed it was a Himalayan polar bear wasn’t competently done, and is almost certainly a hair from a more reasonable species of bear.
But then, what else can you expect from someone who deplores…math? Take a look at the prominent pull quote.
Professor Sykes criticized modern genetics for its lack of ambition and its fixation on mathematics. I’m afraid the golden years are over, he said. It is a field now dominated by the arrogance of bioinformatics and, as such, has lost it’s way.
That is utterly baffling. He doesn’t like that genetics is fixated on mathematics? But genetics has relied heavily on math since Mendel! If he actually analyzed Zana’s descendants and compared them to extant human populations, he was using the principles of bioinformatics! What he seems to be saying is that he wants to ignore the data to give greater credence to the bigoted legends of Zana, the Russian ape-woman.
It is also dismaying that the London Times and their reporter, Oliver Moody, have given this garbage so much space and so little critical analysis — it’s looking a lot like The Daily Mail. Is this the state of science reporting in the south of England nowadays
Is it only now you're coming across this? This ad hominem junk was first posted here;
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/heres-entertaining-interview-with-jim.html
... On the 9th of April of this year, and you will find I've taken it apart in the link provided. Oh... And if Sykes is such a racist, go find a skull from the time that Zana lived that had the same ancient morphology in line with what a whole community described her as.
Oops! I did it again!
no brittant it was posted this month be right back with the rest you lose you dope.....tick tock lmao
Deletebrittany*
DeleteYes, yes, yes, open the link and have a little looksy at the reality of the situation. Notice how not one of your posts addresses Sykes' work outside of his bear findings? Lucky Sykes' expertise is in human genetics, right? Ha! At least try and find something that actually counters his work and not use scummy accusations against his character... When you haven't got the goods to attack the work, remember you don't need b*lls to attack the character.
DeleteOld news, boring!!
... Oh, and I've just realised what you called yourself at 3:38! That's too cringey to even laugh...
Delete(Pffffffft!!)
@4:20 ..you finaly learned that you can't debate!
DeleteSchooled!! Ha ha ha ha ha!
^ didn't know humans are primates, or that the character he's portraying has theorised that a subspecies of homo sapiens left West Africa 100,000 years ago, smashing apart his own argument... Ironically.
DeleteApparently I'm the poor debater.
(Sigh)
The latest episode of MonsterTalk features Sykes as the guest. No extraordinary claims are made by Sykes. He posits an individual who migrated from Africa at some point in the past, but makes no definitive statement about her being a relict honinoid. Yes, the descriptions of Zana are recounted, no Sykes does not make any sensational announcements.
Delete"Sykes has published a book, The Nature of the Beast, in which he writes that Zana's ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago and lived for many generations in the remote Caucasus region. Zana had at least four children, fathered by local men, and some of her descendants reportedly still live in the area. Sykes says he conducted DNA tests on saliva from six of her living descendants and on a tooth from one of her sons. He has also done further research on Zana since writing the book.
Delete"They will be published in the regular scientific press so I can't be more specific," he said.
Sykes, however, remains adamant that "anomalous primates" could exist in remote regions of the world, and that dozens of witness accounts convince him there is "something out there."
Think she knows more about Kathy Strain, then Kathy Strain knows about Kathy Strain.
Delete