A dried flower gift from sasquatch?
Bigfoots have been known to trade with humans. According to some reports, a Bigfoot would leave some sort of relic such as twisted branches, mice wrapped in leaves and sometime even a Native American arrowhead. Last week, Connie I. and friends were surprised when they discovered a beautiful bouquet of dried flowers on a fence. It's possible someone (a person) may have left it there, but Connie and her friends could not contain their excitement.
Mornin`
ReplyDeleteMornin, all of you fish eyed f*cks!!!!!!
DeleteSo the idiots in this forum believe this stuff - But they won't believe some of the better researchers out there like Sasquatch Ontario and others. You People make me sick, those guys are right - us Americans are idiots and the guy who runs this forum is a complete fool with no experience or logic. Complete FOOLS!
Deletemore from the Religion of PEACE !!!!
DeleteAustralian, police have arrested 15 people allegedly linked to the Islamic State ISIS, some who plotted a public beheading.
Police said the planned attack was to be “random.” The killers were to behead a victim and then drape the body in the black Islamic State flag.
ans HILLARY knows nothing about Benghazi !!!
DeleteRUINS OF ANCIENT CITY DISCOVERED IN AUSTRALIAN DESERT
ReplyDelete“This was certainly the capital of a vast empire, that practised some sort of international trade” says Mr Reese. “The fact that we have discovered some bodies of various origins suggests that this state could have been a very influential throughout the Pacific islands and Southeast Asia. We have found many objects on the site that were obviously imported from other regions, like rice, flax or lacquer.”
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/ruins-of-ancient-city-discovered-in-australian-desert/
this is getting really daft
ReplyDeleteI drop in from time to time over theyears to look for interesting phitos etc
I don't believe theres thousands of 20ft 800pd pe families ambling about North Americas nat parks ,avoiding ever being filmed caught, hurt/deranged ones found wandering about ,satellite/trail cams.HD films etc etc forever
now we are tod bigfoots are such spiritual thinking animals that they understand making flowers onto a posy is a gift humans give each other
wtf. I seriously think the people who run this site are mentally unstable
who wouldnyt want there to be such creatures. we all want to believe in this world something like this exists.
If theres is no EVIDENCE apart from contradictory eye wotness and film/phto accounts its time [50years ago] to say theres nor such a creatyre
surely the bioggest believer must find ot very odd that there is no evidence in this high tec age
I guess it gives people like joe fitz something in their life. these people seem to comment at length on every blog
i guess your viewpoint is not wanted here as is evidenced by the blanking out of your post..whoever said censorship didn`t exist here ?
DeleteCensored bc he said f*t* in his last paragraph.
DeleteAnd this guy is right. Not only is he right but this repost isn't even 3 days old.
Cheap faggotry.
^ Oops! Ha ha ha ha ha!!
DeleteNot only can nobody understand a single word he's trying to say, but he's not getting much luck with the old white out!
; )
Let's not forget that white outs and verified names were introduced because Joe got smoked so hard he had to cry to the admin. Everything I see a white it is a reminder of the absolutely smoking Joe got and continues to get.
DeleteI am 4:08 but certainly not the OP.
DeleteI was whited out for typing f"gg0+ry. OP said an abbreviation of your last name.
6:24... Yes, yes, yes, we've heard it aaaaaaaaaaaall before.
DeletePlease keep crying about it, it makes me so happy inside.
; )
Well, if bigfoot was made "real" by Patterson's exclusive film of the monster, and the lack of anything even remotely interesting since that time has made bigfoot less than real, it seems to be a pretty simple and very small leap to conclude that bigfoot will "die" without something more interesting than the standard 21st century fare being served up. Maybe not die out completely, but for all intents and purposes die out as any sort of mainstream interest, and definitely as any sort of seriously considered nonsense.
ReplyDeleteFor bigfoot to survive the cheap, ludicrous, insane stuff that it has evolved into, something decent has to happen. I fully believe that the PGF was a hoax, of that I have no doubt. And it spawned a huge following and industry, which for a time tried to maintain some level of respectability for the subject. That respectability is now gone. It's a laughable topic now. Bigfoots that hop rides on trains, that can morph into logs and trees, or cloak, or use mental telepathy on people, or keep coyotes or wolves as pets, or run equally well on all fours as they do on two feet. It's become a pathetic mess, with apparently nobody within the club willing to do any housekeeping, to weed out the nonsense and bring back a sense of respectability. None of the top tier personalities seem interested in fixing this problem. They all seem to be more interested in getting their own star on the sidewalk before it all goes under.
For example, Meldrum is like Teflon; he has one of the most resilient reputations, even though he associates with known hoaxers like Standing and hack researchers like Munns. What he should be doing is ditching Standing and contract with another "researcher" who is less obviously a hoaxer as Standing is. Team up with that respected guy and advertise some new methods of research. Then, ditch the "I can't make a good bigfoot suit" Mr. Munns and get with someone who actually CAN make a good bigfoot suit. Do the AmWay thing, duplicate success. Patterson produced the most enduring bigfoot hoax of all time, and that is the template Meldrum and Team should copy. Come up with footage that rivals Patterson's film, and the whole subject will have an infusion of interest. That ought to stimulate the influx of fresh research grants which can then be squandered on nonsensical projects (hopefully not as blatantly ridiculous as the Munns painted nude ladies thing), a good portion of which would be direct personal income.
Seems pretty simple to me. Such golden opportunities being passed up by those guys. Instead, we get the white spoof at night. Oh well.
^ feel free to believe what you want to...it doesn`t make you right though...No,not at all.
DeleteFeel free to believe in non existent monkeys ^ it's doesnt make you right.
Delete"Well, if bigfoot was made "real" by Patterson's exclusive film of the monster, and the lack of anything even remotely interesting since that time has made bigfoot less than real, it seems to be a pretty simple and very small leap to conclude that bigfoot will "die" without something more interesting than the standard 21st century fare being served up."
DeleteYou see, this is another angle psuedoskeptics will use to promote the idea that Sasquatch related interest was spawned by "Patterson hoaxing footage" in the late 60's, suggesting the whole field started from an alleged questionable source... When in fact, if they just spend five minutes researching, there is ridiculous amounts of evidence to support the facts that knowledge of an unknown primate was circulating prior to anything of the sort of time frame.
"In 1932, Ellis Wright found human tracks in the gypsum rock at White Sands, New Mexico. His discovery was later backed up by Fred Arthur, Supervisor of the Lincoln National Park and others who reported that each footprint was 22 inches long and from 8 to 10 inches wide. They were certain the prints were human in origin due to the outline of the perfect prints coupled with a readily apparent instep."
In the next link provided, Al Hodgson who was a resident at Willow creek either side of the war, States that when he returned from serving in the army, that the community were well aware of giant hairy humanoids in the area;
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/watch-this-2005-interview-with-al.html?m=0
What do we have since the Patterson Gimlin film was captured? Well we have more footage of matching specimens for a start. And why aren't these sources agknowledged? Because to the psuedoskeptic, it shatters their main source of argument to which they can base their already faltering claims upon. By ignoring sources of evidence, they don't have to merely contend with the awkward obstacle of supporting their stance on the PGF (one that they've been getting away with or far too long), but they also don't have to be cornered into a situation where they have to try and answer questions that can't be answered in any favourable means for their level of required reasurance. Simply put; when they're pointed out how to think in a properly skeptical manner, their arguments can't stand... How ironic? Further to this, we don't just have more footage, we have physical evidence in tracks, we have biological evidence in hair samples, audio, thermal, more footage, and we have tens of thousands of reports, much of which has a basis in professional reports from reliable people from all walks of life, not to mention relevant to various scientific fields.
"Maybe not die out completely, but for all intents and purposes die out as any sort of mainstream interest, and definitely as any sort of seriously considered nonsense."
DeleteWell for someone who 'understands' mainstream interests so well, they sure don't understand the current state of pop culture, nor the mainstream scientific acknowledgement this field has been gathering and continues to gather since the development of the Internet.
"There is a prominent view in epistemology (the study of knowledge) that “belief” and “evidence” go hand-in-hand. They say that evidence provides the support for belief, and that without evidence, there is no good reason to have a belief. In philosophy, this perspective is called “evidentialism” – the view that a belief is only rational if it is well-supported by evidence."
More and more people are becoming open to the idea of this subject being legitimate and this is evidence of people becoming more open to more progressive and open minded thinking processes. The UFO field went through this, now it's basically common knowledge and seen as backward to not consider in a positive light that we have been and are being visited by life froms that could have millions and millions of evolutionary advances on us. Also... I wonder if Dr Sykes would be so invested in a field that's so obviously nonsense? Why would someone so famous for challenging scientific paradigms invest his own time and money into something his peers would no doubt ironically clap him for should he debunk such an 'obvious load of nonsense'? Eh?? It's not like he's even theorising and letting the community know that he hoped to find relict hominids now, is he?
(Sarcasm)
And for your information, you can't get any more mainstream science than the very best geneticist in the world.
"For bigfoot to survive the cheap, ludicrous, insane stuff that it has evolved into, something decent has to happen."
Rhetorical diarrhoea. These people will celebrate science like it's some free thinking ruling body and forget that it's a tool that's been applied to identifying various sources of evidence in this field. They'll contradictingly celebrate relevant fields as if it's passed judgment, lie about these fields of study that have allegedly deemed this subject fruitless... And ultimately not understand that some of the very best in those fields have endorsed the subject's legitimacy. You cannot get any more profound. This can only be the case if something 'decent has happened'... And this would be the physical and biological trace there is to back up so many reports.
Delete"I fully believe that the PGF was a hoax, of that I have no doubt. And it spawned a huge following and industry, which for a time tried to maintain some level of respectability for the subject. That respectability is now gone. It's a laughable topic now."
Wrong. Ok, let's look at it like this... If there was to be one of the greatest discoveries in history, let's say sea serpants filmed on camera, would it not be natural for people to start putting a considerable effort into being the first person to find a type specimen? We know people enjoy the sea considerably, wouldn't it be a natural progression of investigation to start putting more time and effort into those areas to conduct research? It's lies and mere cynicism for lack of anything else to spew that merely an industry was spawned when you have had so many scientists since 1967 invest their time and research into studying, that have in turn yielded mounds of accessible research that has always stood up. Whats more is if you've attained footage in an area to which had in turn gone internationally famous, then it's a very natural step for a community to embrace that, Sasquatch as a product is free to use and communities having an identity is very common.
Also... If the respectibility is now gone, then why does the source still provide no means of explaining away from your theory group? I love this... You've yet to provide a means of reinforcing your position, and it's to the detriment of the source being legitmate? How hilarious. You see, as the years role by and you still cannot provide a means of adequately testing it, then that's as significant as ever. I think you'll also find that the source is ever gathering some of the very best scientists in fields such as wildlife biology, conservation and primotology; a fact that kind of obliterates any notion that it's losing respectibility really, eh?
"Bigfoots that hop rides on trains, that can morph into logs and trees, or cloak, or use mental telepathy on people, or keep coyotes or wolves as pets, or run equally well on all fours as they do on two feet. It's become a pathetic mess, with apparently nobody within the club willing to do any housekeeping, to weed out the nonsense and bring back a sense of respectability."
DeleteHmmmm, we now turn to baiting? I've not heard of any instance where Sasquatch have taken train rides, and I very much doubt anyone with an enthusiastic stance would invest any faith in such a claim either. Also... You'll find the largest amount of cynicism for cloaking within this very field, whilst people have been debating the authenticity of psychic abilities for generations (I would go and have a look at how much the US spent on remote viewing during the Cold War). We also have footage that backs up eyewitness' claims to this creature achieving quadrupedal motion. Video sources from New York, Prince Edward Island and even Russia show subjects that far exceed any normal human ability to achieve such motion in such awkward terrain, so effortlessly and so quickly. Also... If you're a wild human, would you not naturally at least consider living in sync with other natural predators? Canines have naturally come to humans over time for very obvious reasons remember. It's not a matter of weeding out nonsense, it's a matter of theorising based on the data that's available. If you have something that has evaded so well, you are naturally going to get people suggesting all sorts of seemingly sensational but forward thinking notions, that's a very natural process of thinking to which requires considerable amounts of imagination. The concept is whacky enough, why not? It's widely accepted by far more people who invest belief in aliens (compared to this subject) that they would have highly evolved advantageous attributes on us... Why wouldn't Sasquatch have these attributes if they have the same evolutionary upper hand? Science is starting to get far more crazier than any paranormal subject you can think of, with things like string theory and quantum entanglement, you'd no doubt lean to an open stance should any of those be presented to you on Discovery.
"None of the top tier personalities seem interested in fixing this problem. They all seem to be more interested in getting their own star on the sidewalk before it all goes under."
It's simple... Most of those are far more busy in conducting their own research to bother with it. I don't provide hoaxes with any attention because that's what they seek to exist... I guess most of these researchers, who are largely trying to play it safe for credibility, having some level of healthy skepticism, are tying to do the very same thing. You have to remember this field is wide open to theorising and people are going to invest time and money into what they feel is going to work so they can make that history making breakthrough.
"For example, Meldrum is like Teflon; he has one of the most resilient reputations, even though he associates with known hoaxers like Standing and hack researchers like Munns."
DeleteCorrection; regardless of my stance on Standing, there is no evidence what so ever that Meldrum promotes Standing's photographs. There is however evidence that he promotes the first hand experiences that Standing also provided Les Stroud; one of the most experienced outdoorsmen and credible personalities around. Also... Munns' premise is that a costume expert's research (his own, which he is) indicates that a normal human's proportions cannot fit that of the subject in the PGF, whilst the suggested organic tissue cannot be replicated by modern suit manufacturing means. Now then... You cannot prove or disprove the legitimacy of that research without testing it... How would one do that? Evidence doesn't 'stop existing' because you have a preconceived default position that can't be supported, that's as anti-scientific as you can get, not true skepticism and in fact simple denial. The only hack's are those without a scientific ace card. That's right... Got monkey suit?
"What he should be doing is ditching Standing and contract with another "researcher" who is less obviously a hoaxer as Standing is. Team up with that respected guy and advertise some new methods of research. Then, ditch the "I can't make a good bigfoot suit" Mr. Munns and get with someone who actually CAN make a good bigfoot suit."
Are you aware of how many scientists Meldrum is affiliated with, not to mention other researchers? He has none other than the very best conservationst in the world putting forewords in his books, and you want more credentials? I've really not decided yet if the author of this stuff is just naive or being rhetorical. Secondly, you have some of the very best primatologists and wildlife biologists endorsing the source that is the PGF, not to mention one of the best pioneering cosmetic surgeons in the world pointing to real organic tissue on the subject in that footage.
"Do the AmWay thing, duplicate success. Patterson produced the most enduring bigfoot hoax of all time, and that is the template Meldrum and Team should copy."
And it is here where we finally understand the real stance of the author, one that is very typical in those that in fact ignore facts (not naive) and try to be as rhetorically minded as possible. Not once in this whole mess has the author provided a source to back up his fundemtal basis of argument. Cynicism doesn't cut it, treating data like a taboo doesn't cut it, it's time people like this author manned up and actually put in the effort that he so audaciously claims others should put. I think he should get out from behind his desktop and start providing the means to reinforce his stance that so many in his theory group have either failed or avoided persuing (because they can't). You need to test science, or the default position is that the science stands up.
"Come up with footage that rivals Patterson's film, and the whole subject will have an infusion of interest. That ought to stimulate the influx of fresh research grants which can then be squandered on nonsensical projects (hopefully not as blatantly ridiculous as the Munns painted nude ladies thing), a good portion of which would be direct personal income."
DeleteWell based on the evidence there is, someone of the stature of Sykes has and is currently providing a means of fresh research. Someone as rhetorical as the author should be reminded that whatever will be presented as video evidence will always be deemed to be a man in a suit... You'll get genetics instead and like it. There is nothing more stimulating to a research field than the best in that field rallying around for more samples to test, stating quite clearly that there is way more to come.
"Seems pretty simple to me. Such golden opportunities being passed up by those guys. Instead, we get the white spoof at night. Oh well."
I think those guys are still very much invested and committed to their research, and from the general approach of folk from this Pseudoskeptical theory group who regularly have to skip around facts and data that inevitably damns them, I really don't see such guys panicking any time soon.
Meltdown achieved
DeleteYour schooling ain't anybody else's meltdown bro.
Delete; )
I didn't read all that. I'm betting no one did.
DeletePut up the actual bigfoot or shut up.
I'm betting you're either too scared, or don't have the literacy to read it.
DeletePlenty found;
http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
... None caught.
No I just can't be bothered with your droning copy paste splerglord ramblings.
DeleteYou want to convince me then show me an actual bigfoot.
Can't be bothered? You've been shown multiple Bigfoot bro, your rhetorics are bordering on lunacy.
DeleteStep away from the laptop and go and have a nice cup of tea.
It took 18 swipes of my thumb to scroll past all that garb. Dang right I didn't read a single post. Already know exactly what he said anyway, the same thing he's been clogging up my iPhone screen with since he arrived here.
DeleteI challenge all of those who post here to come on to the BFF if they want real dialogue, not the same topics beat to death and childish antics.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, stop with the drama blog and bring me a counter argument for once.
DeleteZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
www.bigfootforums.com
DeleteJoe is already banned that's why he's here unfortunately for us
DeleteI'd rather talk directly to or be in conversation with the likes of Munns, Kit, Ketchum, DWA, and actual researchers and habituaters than be childish enough to mock and bash them on a blog comment section.
DeleteHas any researcher here besides Kelly Shaw done anything? A lot of big talkers and spooky stories but I'm serious.
Good for you bro, why don't you trot on back to where you can feel all important and stuff?
DeleteI'm too busy following the Joe F. doctrine; Do and say the exact opposite of whomever you converse with unless said person can provide you with something you desire.
DeleteI think you're just a little upset the argument up top got ripped apart, if I'm honest.
DeleteWhy pay me the attention otherwise?
; )
Why not? Wife went to work, already beat my dick, and it's storming outside.
DeleteIf you think I'm 6:26 then you are mistaken.
7:26. Yes. Yes they have. When you note that a certain blonde researcher with CC Deville pants and a slight AFRIN problem has found some physical evidence to back up his spooky stories that often leve him escared I would prefer you respond like this DSA: "WHAT? Why you cheap drunk!" That way I'll know you are addressing me. :)
DeleteOr you could say " Mike...Mike....MIKE!" And I'll go "Yes Necrophilia...." And you say. " FLOWER?" This will work as well.
Deletejoe, I read all that you posted above. I am now exhausted, but more informed on this subject.... thank you.
DeleteGod bless ya pal!
DeleteYou don't have to lie to him, anon.
DeleteGW GODs WILL
Deletejoe`s not here today.. rocking and sobbing into a half pint of lager down the local "tap"
ReplyDeleteNargh, just busy with work... You'll always get educated and like it in due course, surely you know the drill by now?
DeleteHe was on yesterday as anon and still got smoked. Then MMG came along and the delusion went through the roof.
ReplyDelete^ mentally scarred for life sees me everywhere, poor fella.
DeleteI also must have missed that when both MMG and myself were clearing up the vomit as usual.
Not only do you delude yourself about bigfoots existence you delude yourself about "clearing up".
DeleteThe threads don't lie... Oh, and keep seeing that therapist, it's a far better means of reassurance than seeking it out around here as long as I'm around.
Delete; )
Got meltdown?
DeleteThreads are not a sentient being, therefore they cannot do or act in a certain way. A thread cannot lie, as it were.
DeleteBut your perceptions can be skewed very easily. This is an underlying cause of Paradolia.
7:17... No thanks, I'm in my element showing people like you up.
Delete7:21... Anyone who tries being funny around figures of speech tends to be around the 16-20 age group, and needs to do a little growing up, certainly requiring another angle at humor at the very least.
Are you a statistician now?
DeletePerhaps all those top Uni classes you claim to have attended did not truly pay off?
For an Englishman, you do not have a good grasp on the language. This leads one to believe you grew up without the money for a top notch education and carouse with the lowest social rung.
Quite a feat for someone who makes so much money.
If I'm such a statician, then why would that have any baring on how successful my university classes were? I think you're a little long term butthurt and confused.
DeleteWell you'd be wrong, because in my country education isn't paid for.
And I'm not English.
*Statistician
DeleteYeah, humans at a public park don't pick flowers and stick them in a fence at all.... these people are way delusional. Dolts.
ReplyDeleteBigfoot.... Lol.
ReplyDeleteSmoked!!!!!
ReplyDeleteJoe thinks there are giant Indians roaming the forests!
I'm not even joking. He actually thinks that. Oh and he thinks patty is a 100% modern human native Indian.
If you're a tribe of Indians somewhere in the US, way before Europeans settled there, who had been living next to a group of hairy hominids that had language, culture, social and family structure, with human faces, hands, feet, etc... With the exceptions being that they are rather tall, hairy, longer arms, and have animalistic sensory attenuates, and you've known nothing else but this other group of people always being around, the you would refer to them as another tribe of humans. This is true of nearly every single tribe in North America. There have even been burial mounds to which have been shared between smaller and giant Indian tribes all over the US.
DeleteOk... Now look at these digital versions of a hairless Patty;
http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-human-side-of-bigfoot-comparing.html?m=1
... Notice the forensic drawings of encounters by Harvey Pratt? That's right, it's very human looking.
This is how I can make the claim that Sasquatch are native to the US, and another group/tribe of humans and considering they share similar cultural traditions with smaller native tribes, I can refer to them in the same respect as all native Americans always have done;
As another tribe of Indians.
You have to prove they exist before you can make any claims about them.
DeleteWelcome to reality.
When DNA sequences come back as modern human, then we could have proved it long ago without realizing should Sasquatch share the same DNA as us.
DeletePlenty found;
http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
... None caught; reality.
Again.
DeleteYou have to prove they exist first.
You have not done that.
Meldrum has not done that.
No one has done that.
This is really basic stuff.
"Sasquatch share the same DNA as us"
Well thats convenient isn't it:)
Again;
DeleteYou have to test the evidence presented to determine whether said source contributes towards proving anything.
You have not done that.
Meldrum is waiting for you to do that.
The field is waiting for you to do that.
This isn't basic stuff, it's in fact a fallacy that's been bread into you for the sake of reassurance against the boogeyman.
We also know ancient versions of us share the exact DNA as us.
It's only as convenient as a theory that can be backed with facts regarding our own ancient lineages.
: p
The level of quality biological evidence being presented is extremely low. When you do get a decent biological sample to submit for testing, it always comes back as an extant animal or to degraded for proper analysis. There is also an incredible amount of contamination of evidence as a result of unabashed amateurs playing tree knock in the woods.
DeleteDefault position: Sasquatch does not exist. There is no properly accredited evidence to prove it's existence.
Argument: Sasquatch exists.
Therefore the ultimate burden of proof, that goes against the grain, falls upon the shoulders of the argument holder (the argument of existence). Reality of this explains the arguer must provide proper and acceptable evidence as to their argument, not complain that the figurative bar of quality and acceptable evidence is just to high for the arguer to achieve because of supernatural elements.
If your theory is bigfoot has human DNA then testing something which returns human DNA does not therefore mean its bigfoot.
Delete"We also know ancient versions of us share the exact DNA as us."
DeleteThis is patently false. Stop spreading misinformation. Early cro Magnon man does not have the exact same DNA as Miguel, my half Mexican half Filipino gardener.
6:48...
Delete"The level of quality biological evidence being presented is extremely low. When you do get a decent biological sample to submit for testing, it always comes back as an extant animal or to degraded for proper analysis."
That would be for testing for DNA and classifying, but when you have multiple hair samples being tested and in turn identitied to having consistent traits of an unknown primate, you still have that little headache called 'facts'. Hey! Don't take my word for it, take a look at the actual comparisons;
http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg
Burden of proof used by psuedoskeptics is a way out of testing evidence presented, which in science must be. It's a way out of agknowledging something that inevitably has no counter argument or an exchange that does not conclude to a preferenced idea. This is in fact evidence of denial and limited argument. Burdens? That's seriously rich when every source presented is teated as taboo. What rhetorical people love doing, is maintaining sources of evidence are not there, regardless of being presented by them numerous times.
There is in fact biological evidence that points to an unknown primate being in the US. If an unknown primate is seen multiple times in an area, to which there is in turn mutiple examples of physical and even biological sign of them, then Occam's razor says there's an unknown primate in that area.
7:09... Not necessarily, but when you have a sighting by professionals and physical evidence in tracks to accompany the source, then you have to be in serious denial.
7:12...
"A complete anatomically modern male skeleton was discovered in 1823 in a cave burial in Gower, South Wales, United Kingdom. It was the first human fossil to have been found anywhere in the world. At 33,000 years old, it is still the oldest ceremonial burial of a modern human ever discovered anywhere in Western Europe. Associated finds were red ochre anointing, a mammoth skull, and personal decorations suggesting shamanism or other religious practice. Numerous tools were with the skeleton as grave goods. Genetic analysis of mtDNA yielded the Haplogroup H, the most common group in Europe.
In human mitochondrial genetics, Haplogroup H is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup that likely originated in Southwest Asia 20,000-25,000 YBP."
"A Cro-Magnon DNA sequence 28,000 years old was obtained from fossil bones discoverd in the Paglicci cave, in Italy. The results show that the DNA is identical to the DNA sequences of certain modern Europeans."
What does this tell us? Early archaic peoples can had (maybe have) the exact same DNA as modern Homo sapiens.
You honestly never attended a post mandatory school biology class, have you?
DeleteYou assume so much it can boggle a man's mind.
Didn't you just get your ass handed to you with easily attainable information?
DeleteBro... I really wouldn't uphold the charade of being condescending, you wouldn't be getting out done by a two second Internet search if you were that clever, ha ha ha!!
Joe, what evidence is waiting to be tested? And how would this evidence be tested using the scientific method?
DeleteThere's none waiting to be tested, it's been tested already and it points straight to an unknown primate leaving it.
DeleteYou can't test said evidence with scientific method, you apply it against hearistical conclusions, for example... If you have anecdotal, physical and biological evidence (rangers, tracks, hair), then these don't stop being the case because you have no type specimen, because simply, you merely may not have reached that conclusive research yet.
You did not answer my question: what is the evidence and how would it be tested?
Deletehearistical is not a word.
You said that Meldrum and " the field" are waiting for us ( whoever that may be) to test the evidence presented.
DeleteWhat evidence still requires testing, and how would you propose it be tested?
No, heuristical is though... And it still stands for you're approach. I don't have the leisure of spell check like you... Funny you should allude to that and maintain the same rhetorical fallacies I've highlighted through this thread.
DeleteYou've got questions? Read my comments, the answers are within.
If you expect people to test something, then surely you must have an opinion on what it is that requires testing and how one would test it.
DeleteStart with a popular piece of bigfoot "evidence"--the anecdote. How would one test and anecdote, Joe.
Meldrum's still researching and in a position to accept evidence like casts, and now samples to sequence for DNA. As is Sykes...This accounts for an entire field that is now pointing towards finding DNA. This is what the field has developed towards.
DeleteLastly, you would have to test these sources (whether it be through methods from fields like wildlife biology, genetics) like any other to determine the legitimacy of those sources.
There is currently no scientific method of measuring anecdotes, but they're used every day in the court of law. And in that setting anecdotes are gaged on witness credibility and background... When accompanied with physical and biological evidence from the exact same instance...
DeleteAnd people never lie under oath, do they?
DeleteYou still have not answered my question. You stated that Meldrum and The Field ( build it and bigfoot will come) were waiting for us ( presumably skeptics ) to test the evidence offered. What evidence, and how should we test it? I understand that Meldrum is currently accepting samples for DNA analysis. That's great. Sykes is still accepting samples, albeit with a processing fee. So where is this backlog of evidence that awaits scientific analysis by skeptics that you were talking about?
Delete"And it still stands for you're approach. I don't have the leisure of spell check like you... "
DeleteIf you use an iPhone like you claim, then you do have spell check. Unless you're a dunce and turned it off. You can't even lie right.
If you are in a court of law and your defense rests solely on character witness then you have failed by 9/10 ways possible.
Not when they have evidence to back up their anecdotes.
DeleteFor Don's comment at 12:34... All baiting nonsense, and I've answered you, if it's difficult for you, ask someone for help (it wouldn't have been the first time).
Delete12:38... Guess you answered your own question, but I find it rich you should suggest I'm a dunce when you clearly any read what relevant. The situation in comparison does not apply, because I'm not referring to a situation where the defense rests solely on eyewitness testimony.
*can't (any)
DeleteHrmmmm
DeleteSo you openly lie, exaggerate claims of an evidence backlog, posture in a defensive position when asked what evidence needs examined and what method you suggest...
Quite the average footer at play here boys, no wonder he doesn't come play at the BFF.
What I figured: all hot air. You can't even answer a simple question that speaks to your blowhard claims.
DeleteYou're a waste of time.
All the answers are there, silly boys! I know when I'm getting trolled!
DeleteHa ha ha!! Adios!!
You had three chances to construct a salient response. You failed miserably. Cackling like an idiot does not improve your position.
DeleteOh... And if you require listing to the amount of evidence concerning anecdotes and physical evidence like tracks, then keep doing your 'skeptical' BFF crew proud, ha ha ha ha!!
DeleteRhetorical twonks.
Don, ask an adult for help.
Delete; )
They have names for people like Joe in the front lines; cowards.
DeleteTalk the talk but when the time is upon us, you can't walk the walk. Tell us more about your Oxford education, lucrative at-home career, and the depth of your email contacts!
Ha ha ha ha!! Don't take it so personally bro, learn from it and come back next time.
DeletePoor confused, Joe. It must be hard to struggle through life being as dumb as you are. I really feel bad sometimes for you. You're the laughing stock of the bigfoot community. Think about that--the bigfoot community. That is so pathetic that it's really not even funny. Kind of sad.
Delete"COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Scientists are using a new DNA matching process to determine whether tufts of hair, recovered in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington state in August, could belong to the beast known as Bigfoot.
DeleteThe two tufts of hair, each consisting of about a dozen strands, were sent to Ohio State University. These samples have the best possibility of being real, said Paul Fuerst, OSU associate professor of molecular genetics. Fuerst and a graduate student, Jamie Austin, are using a DNA testing procedure being developed by the FBI for analysis of hair strands that lack the roots normally needed for identification.
Austin, a forensic scientist, is using the samples as well as human and chimpanzee hair to do an independent genetic evaluation of the procedure. The technique should be able to determine whether the hair came from a human or another known primate, Austin said.
Tests, which are being done for the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, so far suggest the hair did not come from a known primate, Fuerst said. Final results are expected later this month, November 1995.
"Oregon has a large number of samples, all of which they treat with great skepticism," he said. The creatures reportedly were seen at a distance of about 100 feet in a dense, dark forest. "It was a sighting by forest rangers," said Dr. Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's Department of Anthropology. They picked up hair from the site, as well as footprints and knuckle prints after the creatures left.
Wes Sumerlin, a Walla Walla man who was part of the group that found the hair samples last summer, said he hopes the DNA research proves the existence of Bigfoot. "There's no doubt in my mind I saw one," he said Sunday. Hundreds of observers have described Bigfoot as being a furry, muscular primate standing 6 feet to 10 feet tall."
"On August 5, 1995, two separate sets of hair samples were collected by three persons (P. Freeman, B. Laughery, and W. Sumerlin) in the Blue Mountains east of Walla Walla, Washington. The group first tracked three sets of fresh foot prints, then found freshly twisted-off trees with hair caught in them, and within a short time later observed a sasquatch at less than 100 feet with binoculars. The hair was sent to Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach (Beaverton, Oregon), who determined microscopically that the hair appeared to have come from two individuals of the same species, that it differed in color, length and hair growth cycle between the two sets, had not been not cut, and was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion.
Hence, DNA analysis suggested itself as the only methodology of promise. Through a nation-wide search of pertinent laboratories and some fortuitous contacts, W.H.F. located an investigator (Dr. P. Fuerst) in the Department of Molecular Genetics of Ohio State University, who had a specific interest in DNA analysis of Wildman and sasquatch hair. The hair underwent lengthy and concerted analytical study by Dr. Fuerst and a graduate student, J. A. Poe, both with extensive experience in hair DNA analysis.
Although the ultimate results have not generated a diagnostic sequence of a mitochondrial gene, which might have yielded information on the relationship of the sasquatch to other primates.
After lengthy deliberation, we (W. H. Fahrenbach, J. A. Poe, and P. Fuerst), co-authors of the intended article on the Eastern Washington hair found in August, 1995, have decided to withhold submission of the manuscript of the analysis until more DNA from tissue, preferably with attached hair, is obtained. Our studies have not yielded a sequenced mitochondrial gene fragment to determine the phylogenetic affiliation of the creature."
Poor Don, he takes things so personally some times.
DeleteNo hard feelings Don.
; )
Was copy/paste your best subject at the "special school"?
DeleteDid you win a shiny medal for it?
WTF, Joe? In response you paste an article about hair analysis that was inconclusive? Are you retarded? Seriously? Just a little bit, maybe?
DeletePoor, confused Joe. Sad little man, living a sad little life.
DeleteA nonexistence animal that isn't even rumored to exist in his part of the world is his obsession.
DeleteHey Joe, spend less on Twinkies and more on therapy maybe?
Wow!! Meltdown achieved!
Delete(Pfffft)
Chill out Don, you'll do yourself a mischief! Again... Your answers are all there.
Night!
Breath, read the process of verification, go and have a glass of wine.
DeleteSpeak soon Don, take care.
I'm convinced by the evidence gathered here today to conclude that Joe has a mild form of schizophrenia, or was dropped on his head by the Nun at the orphanage.
DeleteStop on by the BFF with these arguments and copy/pastes and see how long before even the staunchest supporters raucously laugh you out of town!
Didn't you just get b-slapped?
DeleteLaters!
; )
Morphological tests are not conclusive, even for extant animals. Many known animals have insulating outer hair unable to be properly identified, many lacking a medulla.
DeleteNot much for biology class are you?
Learn to read... Look who analysed the hair. Nobody is pointing to a conclusive result, you're trying too hard.
DeleteA sighting by professional source = tracks = unknown primate hair.
Now I really have to go, science boys!
Oh... And I'll leave you with this (for the second time);
Deletehttp://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg
Peace.
^Doesn't have the leisure of spellcheck but has the leisure of pounding out War and Peace every other thread.
DeleteTrue dat!
DeleteI sure know how to clear up though, eh?
DeleteChi-Ching!
Freaking obliterated.
ReplyDeleteMulder in the dark territory.
MMG had a flash back to packham yesterday that haunts his dreams.
"Nooo no packham, please don't recreate patty or interview Bob... Noooo... Noooooo"
He thinks it ruined his career? In reality about 5 footers got butthurt by it and decades later he still works on prime time BBC shows.
MMG what a bellend.
Springwatch on BBC 2 sees around 3-4 million viewers. This destroys MMG.
DeleteWhy would anyone in their right minds be remotely haunted by anything as remotely pathetic as this;
Deletehttp://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp
Ha ha ha ha ha!!! MMG makes light work of people like you.
Packham doesn't have a PhD either, what type of person would allow someone of the sort to reassure them about the existence of Sasquatch, even with one of the most embarrassing efforts at editing/ propaganda you've ever seen?
That's right... People like 3:46.
; )
Propaganda?
DeleteOh boy this guy has lost the plot.
1st fail: linking to the bfro
Delete2nd fail: saying that bigfoot is real because an off the shelf monkey suit doesn't look like the patty suit
You can't make up that kind of delusion.
5:36... This is is the level of militant skeptardia that's being resorted to, not my bad.
Delete5:50...
1st fallacy: forgetting I could have used ANY comparison shot of the two subjects, the frickin' photograph doesn't lie, ha!
2nd fallacy: a BBC budget with modern materials unavailable to a broke cowboy in the 60's, should be putting together something that at least resembles what we see in the footage.
; )
"Should".
DeleteWat.
Why should they? They used an off the shelf monkey suit because its cheap and they care little about the subject of bigfoot because it is nonsense to start with.
Again, bigfoot is not real because 2 suits look different. This is basic stuff.
Hang on now... Are you suggesting that Packham cared little about replicating the suit? Can you please answer this question and think very carefully about how you answer it because you WILL be taken apart.
DeleteConsidering the source in question, Bigfoot is looking increasingly likely to be real because all efforts at replicating a suit have failed, even with new materials unavailable in the 60's. One effort took ten years to make (Blevins) and it's an embarrassment, are you going to tell me Blevins wasn't trying??
Man... For someone who alludes to 'basic stuff', you sure do move the goal posts.
(Pffft)
Blevins tried yes.
DeletePackham was just a presenter who had nothing to do with the suit.
The BBC bought an off the shelf suit.
If the attempt was a recreation, not just an example, why not go to the actual film site and why not use the same color hair, etc. as Patty?
DeleteThat should be a dead give away it wasn't an exact recreation of the PGF and it's subject.
But I expect you'll condescendingly make up some response for the opposite.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete7:11... The BBC had a budget to throw at replicating a suit... Period.
Delete7:36... The things you list are simply elements that show how embarrassingly bad the attempt at replicating the suit was, and are in favour of my argument, not yours. If he'd had the muscle tone, proportions, then who would have cared about the colour of the hair? If you're trying to debunk something, then you run the risk looking very stupid for your efforts should you fail, this is why Packham had to sensationalize an interview from Bob Gimlin for damage control, because the money he was no doubt given (considering he was the best children's TV presenter of the day) and his efforts at organising a replica suit failed so, so badly.
7:11, you've been caught in this lie before. So why do you repeat it? You insistently consistently misrepresent what your own hero, Hackham, did. Christ, in the BBC special, he says they will "recreate the action at Bluff Creek to the inch." The suit likely came from the workshop of the guy interviewed just before the famous "to the inch" quote.
DeleteIt's not believable that the BBC would go for an off the rack costume while attempting to "recreate the action at Bluff Creek." It's long past time you admit defeat on this point.
Watch the God damned clip yourself on YT and shut your ridiculous face.
Why not go to the film site then? They did contractually have Gimlin.
DeleteI think you have a crush on the man.
Irrelavent, you test the notion that it's organic by showing it can be duplicated with materials.
DeleteDistraction.
DeleteIf it was an academic replication, you would go to the exact filming location, use the same path the subject uses, and not use an off the rack prison jumpsuit orange suit.
You sound a bit desperate for closure on this, Joe.
Correction.
DeleteThat would help towards achieving the height of the subject that way (along with the actual lense details), not the organic tissue that's the imediate focus here.
Desperate? Check the threads bro.
The BBC don't cut back on pennies helping kids sleep better at night. Orange jumpsuit is a perfect description of that epic fail though.
I think the greys visited my house last night. I had a fresh chocolate cream pie in my refrigerator when I went to bed last night. This morning when I was getting milk out I noticed the pie had "Scoop" marks all over it. I showed my wife and kids and they were really freaked out about it. Are the greys trying to extract DNA from my Chocolate cream pie?
ReplyDeleteGRAYs work as part of a hive
DeleteGRAYs take U DNA and make hybrids like BIGFOOTs
All Brian Brown is doing is embellishing mundane occurrences to transform them in extraordinary and mysterious events. Stains on a rock? bigfoot blood. A noise in the woods? bigfoot is watching us. A broken tree? bigfoot did it, etc, etc...It's called storytelling in marketing. It's a trick used to interest your target audience and bring it to buy your product. The N A W A C/Field Study Discussion thread at the BFF is a great example of this basic technique. It worked for more than a year. The NAWAC "Marketing and Communications Coordinator" does a good job to keep his organization at the front of the bigfootery stage.
ReplyDeleteYou morons Bigfoot was invented in 67,they're not real,I can't believe there are sites about this nonsense.
ReplyDelete^ genius.
Delete5:51 welcome to the circus show. Stick around. It is HILARIOUS.
Delete^ says Doink.
DeleteScotland will vote independance so they don't have to subsidize those lazy welshmen that sit around trolling bigfoot evidence all day.
DeleteI earn more money than you bro, I promise you that.
DeleteChi-ching!!
Let's see. How much?
DeleteSuuuurre.
DeleteBecause if you did I bet you'd be arse deep in your contacts habituation hot spots, not cold calling people about vacuum cleaners.
I remember when you kept bashing a certain poster here over his wealth, private plane, yachts, and private BF collection.
THAT worked out well for you, didn't it?
Sup Rushfer!
Sup 7:45!!
Delete7:45... Let's ask Rush if that was the case whilst he's about, eh? I'm sure he can put that all straight.
DeleteYou've been at this baiting lark before, you're too dumb to provide anything else, thoug aren't you?
I have no problem with Joe. Sup Joe!! I won't get in the middle of this though. Good day!
DeleteHey Rush.
DeleteJoe, send me an email, I have lost your address.
DeleteTo me the ridicule that comes with believing is not justified. If anyone wants to act like an idiot mKe stuff up . Then go ahead. The real skill is seeing the 1% truth. That's correct . Only 1% of this subject matter is actually true. It's buried deep in the blur that is so called research.joe does make some sound arguments. There are truths in his facts that no one can argue with. Sykes actually really wants to discover something fantastic. We shouldn't judge yet....
ReplyDeleteMe thinks, 1% estimate is way to high!
Delete9:36... Much respect.
Deletelike global climate disruption
DeleteAL GORE said we US are running out of time
I have learned more about the PGF film from joe F's schooling of trolls than anywhere else.
DeleteOne of the only reasons I visit this site anymore is because of joe's constant troll/skeptard pwnage.
You didn't search very hard then did ya?
Deletewhy,you cheap punk !
DeleteThis is beautiful, but I still refer fresh flowers than dried.
ReplyDelete