Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
david4121

Do bigfoots exist really?

532 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

PrisonerX
18 hours ago, stereologist said:

So far nothing of value supporting bigfoot has been posted.

Recently I learned that in addition to the dessication marks that have been misidentified as dermal ridges, another person has made castings that produce such marks due to the casting process itself.

A Matt Crowley produced a number of castings that all looked identical to the features that ave been called dermal ridges. In support of these being casting artifacts it has been learned that the Onion Mountain casts did not show dermal ridges, but these were seen in the cast suggesting clearly that the casting process did not reproduce the print that was cast.

The best part of being in the know, is that you don't feel obligated at all to prove anything to anybody. 

When people doubt and mock it just becomes all the more enjoyable.

Predictably you'll call this another empty post, and that will give me more joy than you could imagine. Because if you haven't yet figured it out, I'm not here to convince anybody at all.

I'm here solely to amuse myself at you and your ilks expense, while simply telling the truth - Sasquatch is real, and compartments within the government already know about it. 

FEj0.gif

 

 

Edited by PrisonerX
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Yes it is possible to eliminate such a situation. There are plenty of possibilities that can be eliminated and an 8 foot tall hominid that leaves no trace of itself is something that can be eliminated.

 

#1 saying "it leaves no trace of itself" is dubious unless you DEBUNK all the eyewitnesses.

#2 you cannot eliminate a large ape **without EVIDENCE** at least, and perhaps, proof.

But then again, you're the mighty you and you can do anything you want. Screw science!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
1 hour ago, PrisonerX said:

The best part of being in the know, is that you don't feel obligated at all to prove anything to anybody. 

When people doubt and mock it just becomes all the more enjoyable.

Predictably you'll call this another empty post, and that will give me more joy than you could imagine. Because if you haven't yet figured it out, I'm not here to convince anybody at all.

I'm here solely to amuse myself at you and your ilks expense, while simply telling the truth - Sasquatch is real, and compartments within the government already know about it. 

FEj0.gif

 

 

“I’m a pretty seasoned researcher, half a century of it, and I have never encountered the slightest evidence suggesting that any level of government knows anything about Sasquatch, let alone having whisked corpses away by helicopter. Nonsense. ~ John Green”

https://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/coverup/

From the Dept. of Interior, 1977:

https://www.fws.gov/news/Historic/NewsReleases/1977/19771221.pdf

The only Government/Bigfoot conspiracy is in the heads of the Tinfoil Hatters....Bigfoot has absolutely no bearing on National Security, is not a threat to the population at large if he exists. 

 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Patty Revisited

 

Just as an aside, I've been revisiting the Patterson Gimlin film and story. I also looked at the full video which had footage in it prior to the Patty sighting, and the camera was filming when Patty first appeared. I had read how wildly the horses reacted when Patty came into view and how Patterson had to try and dismount so he could continue filming. So I looked at the full video and sure enough, everything was just fine as he was videoing Gimlin and the woods and then suddenly, Patterson's horse went nuts.  And then, there was Patty.  Patterson's horse reacted wildly as Patterson tried to dismount, even though Patty was walking away from them. Gimlin's horse was wild, as well.

"Can we talk...?"  (Joan Rivers):huh: Who ever heard of a horse being fooled by a MIAMS? The horses reacting that strongly is decent evidence that Patty is a beast, not human.

Point 2. One of the many qualified critics that reviewed the PG film said he could detect Patty's eyelid move. Again, emphasizing that which I felt all along, the eye is REAL.

And I don't think it can be a MIAMS eye because a costume head would tend to sink the eyes, and make the eyes look smaller than one would expect because of the larger head as a result of the monkey suit head piece being obviously larger than the head it covers.

And lastly, Patty having hair is far more convincing than having fur. All monkey suits were made of fur. But Patty had hair.

Food for thought.

 

ps: Please try not to be too caustic. Thank you.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
On 11/7/2018 at 8:03 PM, Carnoferox said:

It refers to Sykes' DNA studies of Zana, which have never been published in a peer-reviewed paper. This is probably a wise choice on Sykes' part considering the debacle that was his yeti DNA paper. So again, nothing substantial or conclusive.

Brian Sykes has refused to publish any of his Zana work in a scientific format. In his book he rejects the Neanderthal theory but then sits on the fence as to whether Zana was human or not. He claims to still be investigating the DNA results, which is odd unless he does see something anomalous in them that he hasn't disclosed.

Khwit's skull has been examined by multiple anthropologists over the years with varying results. It was recently laser scanned and the research is continuing. The skull has also been DNA tested multiple times, and Dr. Igor Burtsev is pursuing further testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PrisonerX
53 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

“I’m a pretty seasoned researcher, half a century of it, and I have never encountered the slightest evidence suggesting that any level of government knows anything about Sasquatch, let alone having whisked corpses away by helicopter. Nonsense. ~ John Green”

https://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/coverup/

From the Dept. of Interior, 1977:

https://www.fws.gov/news/Historic/NewsReleases/1977/19771221.pdf

The only Government/Bigfoot conspiracy is in the heads of the Tinfoil Hatters....Bigfoot has absolutely no bearing on National Security, is not a threat to the population at large if he exists. 

 

He was wrong, but I respect John Green for his work and dedication nevertheless. 

BTW he was convinced of the creature's existence, and considered ardent non-believers to be ignorant folk - including those that doubted the PG film's authenticity. 

Edited by PrisonerX
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
18 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Patty Revisited

 

Just as an aside, I've been revisiting the Patterson Gimlin film and story. I also looked at the full video which had footage in it prior to the Patty sighting, and the camera was filming when Patty first appeared. I had read how wildly the horses reacted when Patty came into view and how Patterson had to try and dismount so he could continue filming. So I looked at the full video and sure enough, everything was just fine as he was videoing Gimlin and the woods and then suddenly, Patterson's horse went nuts.  And then, there was Patty.  Patterson's horse reacted wildly as Patterson tried to dismount, even though Patty was walking away from them. Gimlin's horse was wild, as well.

"Can we talk...?"  (Joan Rivers):huh: Who ever heard of a horse being fooled by a MIAMS? The horses reacting that strongly is decent evidence that Patty is a beast, not human.

Point 2. One of the many qualified critics that reviewed the PG film said he could detect Patty's eyelid move. Again, emphasizing that which I felt all along, the eye is REAL.

And I don't think it can be a MIAMS eye because a costume head would tend to sink the eyes, and make the eyes look smaller than one would expect because of the larger head as a result of the monkey suit head piece being obviously larger than the head it covers.

And lastly, Patty having hair is far more convincing than having fur. All monkey suits were made of fur. But Patty had hair.

Food for thought.

 

ps: Please try not to be too caustic. Thank you.

Maybe the reason you never found anything is that you are still arguing over a 50 year old hoax?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 minute ago, Razumov said:

Maybe the reason you never found anything is that you are still arguing over a 50 year old hoax?

 

Raz, seriously, if you don't like the topic, just walk away! You negative ones just can't resist taking shots, can you. In the meanwhile, you accomplished exactly *what*??

***

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Raz, seriously, if you don't like the topic, just walk away! You negative ones just can't resist taking shots, can you. In the meanwhile, you accomplished exactly *what*??

***

I've dug up clues in the Zana case that were sitting out in the open view for 50 years while you all were busy with your bigfoot soap operas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 minute ago, Razumov said:

I've dug up clues in the Zana case that were sitting out in the open view for 50 years while you all were busy with your bigfoot soap operas.

This is a BigFoot THREAD. Does somebody have to actually tell you this? WHy do you come into a thread that you don't even like, to **** on ppl?

a**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

This is a BigFoot THREAD. Does somebody have to actually tell you this? WHy do you come into a thread that you don't even like, to **** on ppl?

a**

I believe in the crypto-hominid, I just think it went extinct long ago and doubt that there were ever any in Northern California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
22 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If you choose not to believe that the 11 dimensions that physicists believe exist, then fine. But if you do believe they exist then what would stop *some* creatures of being able to transit them at will?

I am not saying I know this to be true for BF, I  thru it out there as a possibility. The BF has something going for it.

1) The 10 to 11 figure is based upon only one of the many multiverse/parallel universe hypotheses. Other fields of physics theory suggest different figures ranging from the infinite to “very small” (read: insignificant) universes.

2) But perhaps, more to the point:

The trouble is, virtually by definition we probably cannot ever visit these other universes to confirm that they exist. So the question is, can we devise other ways to test for the existence of entire universes that we cannot see or touch?

This scenario is called "eternal inflation". It suggests there are many, perhaps infinitely many, universes appearing and growing all the time. But we can never reach them, even if we travel at the speed of light forever, because they are receding too fast for us ever to catch up.

And that is the problem. An alternative universe is separate from our own. By definition, it is beyond reach and out of sight. On the whole, multiverse theories cannot be tested by looking for those other worlds.

(Emphases added)

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160318-why-there-might-be-many-more-universes-besides-our-own

Perhaps the application of a bit more science and a bit less science fiction would be of value.

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
3 minutes ago, Swede said:

1) The 10 to 11 figure is based upon only one of the many multiverse/parallel universe hypotheses. Other fields of physics theory suggest different figures ranging from the infinite to “very small” (read: insignificant) universes.

 

2) But perhaps, more to the point:

 

The trouble is, virtually by definition we probably cannot ever visit these other universes to confirm that they exist. So the question is, can we devise other ways to test for the existence of entire universes that we cannot see or touch?

 

This scenario is called "eternal inflation". It suggests there are many, perhaps infinitely many, universes appearing and growing all the time. But we can never reach them, even if we travel at the speed of light forever, because they are receding too fast for us ever to catch up.

 

And that is the problem. An alternative universe is separate from our own. By definition, it is beyond reach and out of sight. On the whole, multiverse theories cannot be tested by looking for those other worlds.

 

(Emphases added)

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160318-why-there-might-be-many-more-universes-besides-our-own

Perhaps the application of a bit more science and a bit less science fiction would be of value.

.

 

Yes there are/were many theories but 11 dimensions is now the one figure that works to their satisfaction of the majority. And you can call it science fiction, just go tell the physicists, not me.

Saying that we can never visit these other dimensions, now *that* is science fiction because it has never been proven and scientists think it is exactly opposite that.

 

Hey, and swede...? thanks for the insult! keep those "likes" coming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Does everybody that comes in here need an enema or something?? just such negativity. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Does everybody that comes in here need an enema or something?? just such negativity. :(

Not believing in hoax evidence isn't negativity.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 minute ago, Razumov said:

Not believing in hoax evidence isn't negativity.

 

Well why don't you find a thread to post in that is not so "hoaxy"?? Seriously.

Or do you aspire to be one of the morose many that sit in BF threads and DUMP all over every thread that ever opens? There's a thrill, eh? Really educational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
51 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 The horses reacting that strongly is decent evidence that Patty is a beast, not human.

You obviously know little about horses. Horses have quite variable personalities and responses and can "spook" for any number of reasons, including an unexpected "anything" that enters their peripheral vision. It is a well-ingrained survival trait. Have personally been thrown (hard) by a veteran mare that was surprised by a leaf blowing in from the side. Why do you think that draft horses, bred for their "stability", were/are provided with blinders?

Edit: Punctuation.

Edited by Swede
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Well why don't you find a thread to post in that is not so "hoaxy"?? Seriously.

Or do you aspire to be one of the morose many that sit in BF threads and DUMP all over every thread that ever opens? There's a thrill, eh? Really educational.

How are you ever going to find anything when you can't tell hoax evidence from real evidence?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
36 minutes ago, Razumov said:

Brian Sykes has refused to publish any of his Zana work in a scientific format. In his book he rejects the Neanderthal theory but then sits on the fence as to whether Zana was human or not. He claims to still be investigating the DNA results, which is odd unless he does see something anomalous in them that he hasn't disclosed.

Khwit's skull has been examined by multiple anthropologists over the years with varying results. It was recently laser scanned and the research is continuing. The skull has also been DNA tested multiple times, and Dr. Igor Burtsev is pursuing further testing.

Maybe Sykes won't publish it because it isn't good enough for peer review and he knows it will be rejected. Burtsev's results seem to be similarly unpublished, so you're bringing nothing to the discussion here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
1 minute ago, Carnoferox said:

Maybe Sykes won't publish it because it isn't good enough for peer review and he knows it will be rejected. Burtsev's results seem to be similarly unpublished, so you're bringing nothing to the discussion here.

If Sykes results are negative, how is that going to fail peer review?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Given the number of hunters in America, I would have expected a Biggie body to turn up by now. Shotveither by accident or on purpose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
1 hour ago, Razumov said:

If Sykes results are negative, how is that going to fail peer review?

After his yeti DNA paper and its flawed methodology and conclusions caught a lot of flak, I bet a lot of journals wouldn't publish his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razumov
1 minute ago, Carnoferox said:

After his yeti DNA paper and its flawed methodology and conclusions caught a lot of flak, I bet a lot of journals wouldn't publish his work.

You really wanted to burn him at the stake, didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The on

Hey Joc, you like blues! How the hell am I gonna hate ya? lol. Your a brother-from-another-mother.

peace love dove.

Don't know where you got that I like Blues.

The truth is...I love the blues!B)

Gotta love the family bro! Now clue up on reality and it's all good.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.