Dan Shirley May Have Found a Bigfoot Trail


Dan Shirley has been a way for a couple of months since he had to take care of more important matters in life. As always his videos as super interesting, and this latest video shows what he believes to be a sasquatch trail where the creatures may be using for travel.




Comments

  1. if you believe in bigfoot and are our hunting[lol] for ths monster why not have cameras around your neck

    all you have is another "story" otherwise which we all know is either a lie or a bear

    the pics we do see look like barney and not the muscle bound 9ft 800pd giant monters we hear of in the stories

    nonsense ,sadly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we can't believe these modern day stories then why should we put any stock in old newspaper stories and hand me down tales among native peoples (the worst form of "evidence" in my opinion)? Every culture has it's made up monsters - we just feel a need for them. Many people lie, exaggerate and embellish - they always have and always will. No story will ever prove the existence of such a creature as Bigfoot and with the evidence produced so far I believe the probability of it's existence is getting weaker.

      Delete
    2. Indeed but here's the rub - what some may call valid evidence other's discard it as unproven. Yes, the Bigfoot community has members of the scientific community in it's ranks who espouse the validity of such evidence. They are however but a small percentage of the scientific community most who still do not recognize Bigfoot as a living creature. The most recent example which comes to mind is Dr. Ketchum (although I personally do not consider her a scientist) who presented evidence which was promptly torn apart by the scientific community. Now you have Dr. Sykes preparing a paper which we are still waiting for. It will be interesting reading for sure but remember his conclusion that some hair samples came from an extinct species of polar bear was found to be untrue. I suppose evidence is in the eye of the beholder but to be universally accepted it must pass muster and the evidence for Bigfoot has not done that yet.

      Delete
    3. for iktomi fala of course^

      Delete
    4. patty is a retarded lndian suffering from hypertrichosis ,with a tumor on her pituitary gland, I'M SO SMART!

      Joe.

      Delete
    5. 1:32 YES.YES. Confirms on all points !
      as the odds of filming (a non blob squatch for approx 40sec) Bigfoot are
      1 in 5,000,000,000,000.
      however a retarded hoopa lndian suffering from pituitary gigantism and
      hypertrichosis is Way more plausible,
      to the extant of 1in 70,000,000,

      NO MORE DEBATE ! SOMEONE PROVE ME WRONG !!
      or its a suit!

      Delete
    6. Lay on the ground, I want to walk on you with my high heels on!

      Delete
    7. "what some may call valid evidence other's discard it as unproven."
      ... That's ok then Curious, then you'll have no problem in sourcing a valid reason to not consider such evidence, right? What the physical evidence proves, is that there is a bipedal primate, twice the size of normal human primates, roaming the wilderness of the United States; what that entails is something very profound indeed. It really doesn't matter if scientists, who are not even aware of the evidence, claim that the evidence isn't what it is... I don't need to explain to you how backward an approach that is. Nearly every single scientific breakthrough you can think of was made by this "small percentage of the scientific community... They're called pioneers. The moment Sykes came out with the hybrid bear stuff, it was jumped all over. Hybrid bears are nothing new... It's I'd fortunate that Sykes' expertise is in human genetics however.

      "but to be universally accepted it must pass muster and the evidence for Bigfoot has not done that yet."
      ... I beg to differ Mr Curious, what has yet to happen is the evidence has not been explained away, and like all "great science" these days, if something is not explored to a "comfortable" conclusion, then it cannot be found to suit popular ideals and therefore isn't worth investigating any further.
      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

      Delete
    8. ^what are you about it "PUNK"?

      Delete
    9. I'm gonna snatch away your self esteem on the subject matter like a hemirrhoid pillow, that's what.

      Delete
    10. Iktomi- are you familiar with the US Any Corps of Engineers 96 page pamphlet published in 1975? Not the Washington Atlas, mind you. It is on page 2 of the campsite destroyed thread on BFF.

      Delete
    11. No... I would bloody love to check it out. Thanks AGAIN for the best head's up!

      Delete
    12. 3:31 Its spelled "HEMORRHOIDS"
      Lil miss self esteem!!
      ha ha haaaa lol!

      Delete
    13. I actually typed it out "hemerrhoids", checked on the Internet to see how it was spelled properly, but then still managed to do a typo.

      Don't get stiffy, chump... You didn't know humans are primates.

      Delete
    14. Don't worry IK- he knows his name lol!

      Delete
    15. ^ didnt know humans are primates?
      how weak?

      Delete
    16. Probably not valid in your eyes but after a quick rudimentary search here are some reasons why I think mainstream scientists are dismissive of the existence of Bigfoot. Lets take the dermal ridges in the footprints first:

      http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence/

      Now lets go with Bigfoot DNA:

      http://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2014/jul/02/genetics-evolution-dna-analysis-yeti-sasquatch-bigfoot-zoology-primates

      Of course all video and pictures are suspect but here is an overall view of why mainstream science is skeptical although I'm sure you have heard these a million times before:

      http://news.discovery.com/animals/endangered-species/10-reasons-why-bigfoots-a-bust-140526.htm

      Now as for scientific breakthroughs done by "pioneers", this may be but they still needed their observations to be validated by the review process which to my knowledge has not happened with Bigfoot.

      Hybrid bears may be nothing new but one with an ancient extinct polar bear certainly is!

      I'm all for scientists investigating if they choose but I certainly don't condemn them for not wanting to waste their time in light of the "evidence" so far presented.

      I read your link where Randy Schekman makes his accusations and I also read the journal's rebuttals. Do you know of other winners who have sided with him?

      I would be delighted if Bigfoot was proven to be real but science needs something physical to recognize it's existence - you know it and I know it. That has not happened yet (at least by universal acceptance). Your certainly entitled to your beliefs and I was once there with you but sadly I can no longer maintain the faith.

      Delete
    17. 8:21, what about the 65,000 yr old clovis siberian mongoloid culture that existed here in N America CALLED TURTLE ISLAND??? Schooled Numpty!!
      Joe

      Delete
    18. AS an addendum ,thier is a youtube channel that PROVES ...I AINT NO KOOK !! tree peckers..yea check it out ,IF YOU DARE!!
      Joe

      Delete
    19. Curious... Did you just use the CSICOP stuff? Oh sweet me... Ok, allow me to put that rubbish to bed sir. Jimmy Chulcutt, the forensic expert out of him and Crowley we just remember, is very adamant about the prints that he has verified, and though they are from different locations, they still have the same texture and ridge flow pattern, like a humans however twice the size. Chilcutt stated as plain as day that even Crowley (who's far more enthusiastic than what psuedosceptics would prefer) has stated that even he feels that Walla Walla casts are genuine (25mins in the link below). "He's made me think of being more careful", is all that Chilcutt states, I'm not sure of any source where Chilcutt states that the casting process can accidentally accurately make what are considered convincing biological dermals. On the 36mins, Chilcutt explains that the faked dermals that Crowley sent him 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.
      http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/03/

      The following have all verified forensic physical evidence of an unclassified bipedal primate; Tatyana Gladkova, Dermatoglyphics expert at the USSR Institute of Anthropology. Mikhail Urisson and Vladimir Volkov-Dubrovin (Deputy Director of the Institute) agrees with her opinion. Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 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. 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. Edward Palma, Fingerprint examiner for the Laramie County Sheriff's Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Benny Kling, Instructor, Law Enforcement Academy, Douglas, Wyoming. Jimmy Chilcutt, fingerprint technician at the Conroe Police Department, highly regarded by agents of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and state and local law enforcement agencies for his innovative techniques and ability to find fingerprints where others fail.

      Elk Wallow casts are dissimilar to the wrinkle foot casts which was what Crowley analysed;
      http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/02/08/dermal-ridges-updated-review-material/
      ... Artificial desiccation has it's own uniform style that does not match one school of alleged Sasquatch traits;
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/2490-dermatoglyphics-casting-artifacts/
      My emphasis of dermal ridges 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.

      Delete
    20. Now... In science and by the standards required of such a discipline, you must find a conclusive means to not consider the collective opinion of experts excelled from all others in their respected fields. This is exactly the same as what we adhere to in the peer review process, is it not? You may have shoddy standards, but me myself; I require a solid means of scientific testing to show that a source does not stand up... For that I always consider the opinions of the experts, not some one like Crowley, I'm afraid. And now to your DNA claims;

      "Headlines such as "DNA Debunks Bigfoot Myth" and "Genetic Testing Shows That Bigfoot Is Not Real" are completely false and misleading. The only thing the DNA tests proved were that none of the hair samples used came from an unknown primate such as a bigfoot or a yeti. Does that mean they do not exist? If the study had been about dogs living in the wild, but none of the test results matched a domesticated canine, would that mean no dogs live in the wild? It simply means the test samples did not come from the sources they were believed to have possibly come from. Mark Evans and Justin Smeja during BBC Documentary
      Another misleading matter in this whole thing is just about that. Where the test samples came from. I've read various articles that claim a little less than half of the samples came directly from bigfoot sightings. Really? How so? Because someone reported a sighting in a general area, and the hairs were found in that same general area? Did someone pluck the hair directly from a bigfoot creature, or see a clump fall out as it ran away? I'm fairly certain you could find all kinds of hairs in my front yard, that doesn't mean they came from the rabbit I saw out there. This is exactly what happened during the documentary about the Sykes study where Justin Smeja was interviewed about his claim to have shot and killed at least one bigfoot. It was well known within the community that Justin submitted a tissue sample to Sykes that was believed to be that of a bear. This was known information before hand. Yet when the documentary was released, it was edited to make it sound like Smeja claimed to have acquired the tissue sample directly from the bigfoot itself. This was not only misleading, it was an outright lie. Regardless of how you feel about Smeja, or what your opinion is on his claim, he was in fact misrepresented and lied about during this documentary. That is a fact."
      - Matt K
      The only known researchers that I can find who submitted samples were Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja and Derek Randles. The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples.

      Now then... Are you aware of Sykes' latest analysis regarding DNA? What increasingly likely, is that Sasquatch share our modern DNA. This would be in line with ancient versions of us (Cro-Magnon) that had longer limbs, far more physically robust, taller (according to some scientists)... In short, these ancient versions of us had morphological and anatomical differences, but there is no genetic difference in regard to DNA. Let's take a look at Sykes' latest book;

      Delete
    21. "1) In an unnumbered chapter after Chapter 27, entitled “Postscript,” Sykes details an intriguing finding from a hair sample from Dr. Henner Fahrenbach. It had a result that Sykes is still pondering, and we may hear about in the future. The DNA sample of a “Sasquatch” from Walla Walla matched that of a feral “individual from Uzbekistan,” Sykes exclaims (page 282).
      (2) Sykes’ verdict on Zana, an alleged almasty captured in the 1850s on the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains, is a nod to the labor of the Russian hominologists during four decades of the Snowman Commission at Moscow’s Darwin Museum. The mainstream media has completely misinterpreted what Sykes’ book has to say about this, and talk of Zana being an “escaped African slave” demeans what appears to be the genetic realities behind the case. You must read Sykes’ Chapter 29, to fully appreciate what he has discovered.
      “Part-human, part-ape with dark skin (Zana means ‘black’ in Abkhaz) she was covered with long, reddish-brown hair which formed a mane down her back. She was large, about 6’6″ tall, and extremely muscular with exaggerated, hairless buttocks and large breasts. Her face was wide with high cheekbones and a broad nose,” notes Sykes (page 296).
      Zana was no slave from Africa, but an individual with genetics who tells us much more about the population from which she sprang. As Bryan Sykes hints, “Zana’s ancestors could have left Africa before the Laran exodus of 100,000 year ago” and “they might well be still there [in the Caucasus Mountains] to this day, living as they have for millennia somewhere in the wild valleys that radiate from the eternal snows of Elbrus,” (page 306).
      (3) There is one more revelation in this book that caused me great astonishment. I have written an entirely separate article about it. Few seem to have read the book closely enough to realize that part of the DNA testing that Sykes did gives a complete revision to the status of the Pangboche finger findings of only four years ago, when it was dismissed as merely “human.” Read here for the big reveal that Sykes shares on that case. Please see, “Pangboche Finger’s ‘Human’ Verdict Clarified By Bryan Sykes DNA Finding.” The fact is, the Pangboche hand may yet be an important artifact to re-study and re-test, regarding a piece of the puzzle to solve the mystery of the Yeti."
      - Loren Coleman
      Link to Sykes on Pangboche finger write up here;
      http://www.cryptozoonews.com/pangboche-sykes/

      Delete
    22. Here's also the present analysis on hairs samples that were verified by two camps of primatologists to be of an unknown primate, that three government employees sourced via a sighting they had where tracks were also accumulated;

      "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".

      And to your cherished peer review process. Why would anyone want to adhere to something so easily falsified, right? Aren't these your standards (that don't even hold up to what they allegedly are)? The peer review process has been shown to be faulty for many reasons, not just by the gentleman I sourced up top. It's been used to lie and manipulate the scientific community's opinion on things... Here is a paper Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Royal Society of Medicine Press
      Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals by Richard Smith;

      CONCLUSION
      So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

      ... This is a pretty damming read, I would take the one to read it sir. I could have sourced any one of a number of instances where this process is falling short of the mark.

      "would be delighted if Bigfoot was proven to be real but science needs something physical to recognize it's existence - you know it and I know it. That has not happened yet (at least by universal acceptance). Your certainly entitled to your beliefs and I was once there with you but sadly I can no longer maintain the faith."

      ... Here's what I would say to that;
      "Science is founded on the premise that we exist in a rational reality and from this premise it follows that every scientific belief can and should be based on evidence, otherwise it is not science. To be completely clear as to what is science it can be defined in one simple sentence; science is the unbiased effort to understand reality based on the observable physical evidence."
      ... And we have reliable, physical evidence in mounds, to which some of the best forensic experts state is impossible to hoax. One has little requirement for mere faith in this instance.

      Delete
    23. I enjoy this and would very much like to continue however the reality of responsibility and earning a living takes the forefront. I did want to give you the courtesy of a reply and hope to delve more into this subject this winter (US) when I have more time for such things. You bring up some interesting points and for what it's worth I sincerely hope you are right however after all these years I have much doubt. I will say that when I do continue the conversation it will be a little more stimulating than "turds" or any of the other childish insults you see here. I will try to pop in from time to time to keep abreast of current events. Good luck in your endeavors.

      Delete
    24. Mr Curious... I genuinely enjoy our exchanges. And wish you all the very best until we talk again, good sir.

      Delete
  2. Shirley he can't be serious ?
    I'm sorry, I couldn't help but throw in that old line from airplane which everyone loves. I do appreciate his work in the field though

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the classic line from the movie Airplane !
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2K7sV-K74

      Joe

      Delete
    2. Ahhh i get 60% of it but there's only a 10% chance of that :) xx

      Delete
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wli8xcjBUQI

      xx

      Delete
  3. Man who jumps through screen door likely to strain himself.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

The Clearest Photo Of Bigfoot Since Patterson-Gimlin Released By Melissa Hovey?