Leaderboard

Where is the difference? We have hoaxers producing fake bigfoot which leave no real bigfoot in the wake of the hoax and we have said to be genuine bigfoot encounters that leave behind the same wake of no real bigfoot. The bottom line is no real bigfoot in the equation after the hoax has been outed and after the said to be genuine reportage has been made. If there is such a thing as a government shill, Crow, on this forum, I am convinced that you are not one. I perceive the government to be more competent.

Crowlogic: Nerve? Hardly. I'm as dispassionate as one can be about a subject on which I've no personal stake. You, on the other paw, seem to have some kind of personal crusade going on. You might want to get a grip my friend. But yeah, I resent character-bashing of all kinds, and especially when it is put forth as a rebuttal of evidence by someone who appears to lack the chops to do it in a more reasoned and intelligent way. I spell that: T-R-O-L-L. Stick to the scientific discussion and leave this kind of garbage out of it, how about? So, aside from the fact you can't/don't/won't acknowledge any possibility for existence, what is it that brings you to the conclusion the thesis of this research is invalid? Address that, or just reveal yourself for the troll you are and be gone, I say.

You like your warriors far more humble? More bad news. Being humble is NOT a characteristic of those who just happen to be the 1% of the 1%. That's so far removed from the brutal reality, it's comical to even consider. In this day, many folks feel entitled to project their own feelings of entitlement, but that's la-la land. Some things are just what they are. As to the "silly campaign against science." I stated "Ape" wasn't a scientific toxonomy term. Some took exception. Norse was kind enough to give the proper taxonomy list for humans. Proper scientific terminology. Sure enough, the English word "ape" was not part of the proper scientific toxonomy. Which was precisely my point. So somehow in your world, this constitutes a campaign against science? Whatever, dude. All this Neanderthal DNA work assumes that BF is Neanderthal - otherwise, the entire argument is moot. Science is at war with itself - they certainly don't need my help.

Crow Do you remember writing this off that thread that JKH posted. This is a bold statement, all though I agree with you on the hoaxing part, I cannot agree with you that what witnesses have seen are wrong to what they have seen. Which is a living flesh and blood breathing entity that has some how survived and lives in the wild of our National Forest through out North America. Although Hoaxers try to copy them there are distinct differences that cannot be copied. It is up to you to prove to your self these distinct differences that have been reported. This distinct difference is the difference between a hoax and the real deal.

It works out. I disregard them as they have zero impact on me, and other than the name Meldrum, I am unaware of them too. Do any of you actually give a flying flop what they think? Incorrigible, you seem to place a lot of faith in academia. The "entire scientific community, movers, shakers, Ph.D's, and professors emeritus." I hope you don't vapor-lock at the fact that most of these "experts" learn by rote, and in turn, teach by rote. They don't make the discoveries - non-academia make most of the ground-shaking discoveries. Both highly trained scientists and laymen use one of two approaches to discovery. Hypothesis generation and hypothesis evaluation. Your "scientists" are often tainted by what they consider as facts - and it frequently turns them away from discovery as they've already concluded, as has their particular discipline within their sliver of science - that to even take a look at this is a waste of time. Fortunately, the lay person has no such restrictions, and can look at a problem/data pile from a fresh perspective - and is often more faithful to the scientific process than the scientists themselves. Our very presence on computers here at this site at this time, is not due to "the entire scientific community, movers, shakers, Ph.D's and professors emeritus." We're here today because of college drop-outs, many self-taught technicians, and just clever every day folks. If you want to be a physicist, an endeavor that demands lots of math and precision, you'll be taught (James Clerk) Maxwell's Equations. Problem is, those are not Maxwell's Equations - they've been dummied down and altered to only address transverse electromagnetic understandings. They're getting HALF of what's possible. But that's what the professors learned, and that's what they teach, so we ignore fully half of the electromagnetic world - as students are completely unaware of the other half. That's your professors emeritus. And one other thing. I don't know why you have a weed up your crease, and resort to pitiful little snipes at me, suggesting I'm a self-proclaimed warrior, and then throwing in the extra bit about tilting windmills. I get it. You didn't serve in the military - maybe you did, but were a supply clerk or nurses aide. That's not my fault. You chose your path, and I chose mine. You enjoy your popcorn, as that's probably what you were busy doing while some of us were doing some hard things - things you have no idea of. That too, is not my fault. You don't like the military - I get it. You especially don't like those who served in combat - because clearly you didn't. I get it. You don't like references made from experience in the field - which you can't comment on because you have none. I get it. Just a friendly suggestion. Grow up.

Dna is simply not woo. Any taxonomy being done on a BF specimen would be consistent with what the Dna says it is. The two have to match and align with evolutionary theory or it will not publish, Or become any kind of fact. This is what makes Dna alone as good as a specimen, so long as it's not human which is the only primate Dna we get or have ever had from a sample. Anything ape other than human would be far easier to publish, no cover ups, or hiding the truth required.science would have no reason to look the other way. That's why they show no interest in BF. They know the craziness would get swept away with something they could prove was not human.

I'm going to disagree with that. As the report reader I expect you recall earlier DNA tests done on samples that were believed to have been handled properly regarding gathering forensic evidence, yet were tested and dismissed when first round of testing suggested they were contaminated with human DNA so testing was suspended and the samples discarded / disposed of. (I wish I had an example I could cite right off the top of my head rather than just providing what might be scoffed-aside as a vague reference. Apologies in advance.) It's not a huge reason, it's not proven, but one should suspect the possibility those weren't contamination at all. Perhaps it is not MUCH, but it is more than zero. If I had a sample that I was truly convinced was bigfoot, at this point, I'd push forward whether it appeared to be contaminated or not. I don't think "them is us", but if there is hybridization, the markers examined for first pass might be similar, we might have to go into more in-depth testing to find the differences. Cost being what it is though, I'd have to have collected the sample myself, handled only myself, and seen it, whatever it was, left behind by the bigfoot, so the bar has to be set pretty high before I ever start. MIB

These same movers, shaker, PHD's, and the professors emeritus have not been able to get any closer to solving what is living in North America either. We are suppose to trust their judgment because they carry these titles. But they are real good at discounting what is flesh and blood living in our back yards. The only reason that I can come up with is that they would have to change the way they think about history, proving their theory's wrong . Science has been proven wrong on many occasion and though it might not be easy for some to accept it, it happens. I am not worried about tilting the wind mill, since it is the wind that moves the vanes. This wind is what works this wind mill and we have no control over the wind. The woodshed is just a storage are and if you feel that science is being placed there, then you are going to need that tub of pop-corn. I might even suggest a silo of pop-corn if you are placing science in a wood shed, with the entire science community. Is this a bold enough statement about Bigfoot, because science is not going to move forward there. Education is about learning and the higher ups know this, what happens is that these higher ups have been placed in a spot of higher awareness. So they are at a point that they believe that they know all there is to know and shut down what does not fit their beliefs or should I say knowledge. So if we do not have a PHD or a Dr in front of our name we are nothing but a lower life form to them. So go ahead and share in you large tub of pop corn while others under stand the true meaning of discovery. You want to call us warriors of truth well I am fine with that and consider it not an insult. Because we spoke up while others stayed silent.

Not if we're using proper taxonomy. After all, scientists are supposed to be scientific, use scientific terms, and especially terminology they themselves create. Otherwise, I'd likewise disregard them.

Being disregarded by scientists sort of goes with the territory of the purpose of this forum. But sometimes it is good to be on the bad side of science because it can be wrong.

In spite of tenuous evidence of government knowledge of bigfoot, I still simply cannot believe that the federal government is so incompetent that it is unaware of them.

There was a similar thread last year, it's unclear why the op wouldn't continue that one. It's just plain trolling, can't see why anyone would take it seriously. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51302-bigfoot-is-nearly-everywhere-is-an-untenable-pretense/

Syncing the sounds is easy but would be tedious. Not sure what recording medium you have in your studio but if you use some type of computer program to record with you should be able to add tracks the way a guitarist would when recording multiple takes of the same riff so to fatten up that guitar riff..... The problem is when you cut out the segments in whatever program you use to listen to bigfoot audio. You need to cut the segments from each audio containing that sound you recorded, and make sure to cut each one at the very same time stamp or it won't line up correctly when you are ready to bring them in to your music recording program... Then just open the tracks in your recording program each on a different track and then play them back and see how they sound... I've done this in years past but problems occur and generally they don't line up together correctly due to numerous reasons.. One of the main reason is depending on how far apart your audio recorders are there will be a distance problem that will cause phasing and delay between the three recorders. Only thing I can liken it too is when you hear a gunshot a long distance off, you're just hearing the delayed report of the gunshot so the farther off recorder won't get the sound as fast as the other two recorders... We triangulate our three recorders in a quarter mile spread. It's a good distance, but we place them where if you hear a yote howl or something else you can hear it in all three recorders. We put them in open areas that aren't blocked by hills and ravines, ect.. So there's not much to block the sound from one recorder to anther one. We do put recorders in tight places but we only use one recorder in those places where it's not feasible to use the three recorder method.. I and pretty much everyone that does work in the woods gets those same feelings you're talking about... I just think it's more that I'm already thinking I'm gonna be stressed out before we even get there, so I get startled by anything when I'm in certain places.. Since I'm already tripping out, I just think the feelings I get once we get there is already in my mind to begin with and I'm already on edge... For instance, I'll be walking down a path and hear something behind me and in a split second I've already got my hands on both 1911's and I turn around expecting to see bigfoot about to grab me and it's a squirrel that just jumped off a tree into the crunchy leaves lol.. But I'm always alert because I don't play around in some areas and I never go alone because I'm one of those that thinks bigfoot is an opportunist and will grab whatever he can if hungry.. I can tell you the outlaws will say if you're doing calls at all, to do them like bigfoot would. As a mimic and not truly trying to sound like the animal you want to mimic.. Make it sound off from say an owl, or a yote instead of just like one.. The outlaws also have some secret bigfoot calls no one hears, but they got calls that was used just last weekend and they called a group to within yards of my buddy I listen to audio for, and just a few other people. Bigfoot can't exactly sound like the animals they are trying to mimic so why would a bigfoot be interested in someone trying to sound like a yote or owl... This is why we can sometimes tell it's not a real yote or owl because bigfoot can only mimic so much and they certainly don't do it perfectly... So far there's absolutely no evidence of bigfoot being able to hit falsetto or any other range. A yote can get pretty high up in vocal range, bigfoot can't. And bigfoot has a different vocal range as can be seen by using a spectrograph when you compare yotes ranges to supposed bigfoot sounds. Of course a spectrograph isn't proving anything but it lets us know more about bigfoots vocal ranges. And for those of us living in the real world, getting audio and trying to capture video and doing this stuff is all we got to do so I use everything I can to learn more about bigfoot....

I have always thought our opinion on what is sapien, or not, is informed much more by our own self-serving criteria than anything else. Do winners get to write the history? Well, in all probability we sure did. So, the definition of all non-sapiens as "anything not us" is a handy but completely useless classification, in my book. The first casualty of a BF confirmation is going to be this idea. We can't help it though. We do it by classification of our own superficial racial characteristics and convince ourselves such a division is meaningful. I suppose it makes us feel some better, on some level, but it sure gets in the way of seeing things clearly.