wvbig

Many Bigfoot/Sasquatch skeptics think those of us who believe in the existence of Bigfoot/Sasquatch, don't understand Occam's Razor. On the contrary, we understand it. We just think the existence of Bigfoot IS the simplest explanation for all the reports of sightings and circumstantial evidence found over the past 1,000 years. According to John Green's book "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us" Reports of Bigfoot/Sasquatch throwing rocks & sticks at people, date back to 1849, but it wasn't a known behavior of Great Apes until the 1960s I think the chances of people making up a behavior for a mythical ape that turned out to be a real behavior of real apes over 100 years later, are EXTREMELY small. As for my own sighting in 1997 in West Virginia, what I saw was walking on two legs, with broad shoulders and was completely black. Broad shoulders of course eliminates all quadrupeds, so we're left with two possibilities. 1) A person in a costume, trying to trick people or 2) A Bigfoot. Nobody knew I was going to be in that location. I didn't even know. It wasn't the original location I was Turkey hunting in that morning and I didn't report the sighting and to this day, nearly 26 years later, I know of no reports of Bigfoot sightings in that area. Someone trying to trick people, would've kept doing it until they got some attention

It has been determined that there isn't enough food in Loch Ness to support a breeding population of Plesiosaur type creatures, but what if they occasionally enter the lake via a submarine cavern, maybe for breeding/egg laying? I think "Nessi" sightings could be a combination of this and Eel sightings. I saw a video on YouTube of a boat on Loch Ness with what was obviously a large Eel swimming along side of it. I would estimate it to be approximately 10' (3 meters) long

For any scientists who are skeptics of Bigfoot. It's not that we don't understand Occam's Razor. We just disagree on what is more likely. Bigfoot exists or every single report in the past 200+ years is either a hoax or misidentification. Take into consideration that reports of Bigfoot throwing things at people, dates back to at least 1849, but it wasn't a known behavior of apes until the 1960s

I recently saw a documentary about a serial killer who claimed his stomach would be tied in knots and he'd be very fidgety until he killed someone. Is there any documented mental illness that causes such physical symptoms?

Why do you think some groups of people have progressed while others have remained in primative stages?

Are Whitetail does with antlers, shunned by the rest of the herd? I'm asking because yesterday, I saw an 8 point Whitetail all by itself. Twice. This time of year in my area, the bucks should all still be together, or chasing does

Thank you

I know water contaminated with raw sewage causes disease, but don't know exactly why. Human waste is made up of food & beverages we ingest & various enzymes that are already in our bodies. Where does the disease come in?

You're right, I don't understand what you're saying in any technical detail. But I believe you're saying there is a logical explanation for EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) Right? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Last night they mentioned that sometimes the source for a thermal vision hit is an animal inside a wall. I think a grief stricken mind can manifest things as well. Some noticeable only to the grief stricken person & some noticeable to others. Back in 1995, a friend of mine was killed in a car accident. For a couple months, I could occasionally smell her perfume & once in awhile, my door would slowly open, I would say "Close the door please Brenda" and it would slowly close. This happened in front of witnesses. The thing is, Brenda was never in my house. So there is no reason for her "spirit" or "ghost" to be there either. And after a couple months, everything stopped

Where are electromagnetic fields usually found? I mean around what natural features? Streams, rocks, etc...

You obviously haven't watched "Ghost Hunters" recently & didn't pay very close attention when you did watch. They generally are able to debunk about 90% of the so-called "Paranormal activity" But last season they repeatedly asked an alleged entity to adjust the room temperature by specific amounts in both directions & according to their temperature gauges, the temperature changed accordingly. They also now have something they call a K2 Meter that flashes when there is supposed to be a spirit in front of it. Time after time, they ask a spirit to light it up & it does

I haven't ignored anything. The fact that you don't like the form my references come in isn't my problem & the fact that you refer to my last link as a video only proves you didn't even have the courtesy to click on it. You people are ridiculous. I'm outta here!!!

Here is a history of attempts at debunking the Patterson/Gimlin film. Along with some interesting questions for the skeptics of it. http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/pgfdebunkings.asp

And how is one explanation suppose to account for hoaxes AND misidentifications? Two possible "logical" explanations that skeptics give to explain sightings & other evidence. And what is this "moving the goal post" BS you keep accusing me of? As far as hair samples are concerned, that was covered in the youtube videos I gave the links to. But obviously you didn't bother to watch them.

Obviously the lighting in this photo is too washed out to know what detail the foot does or doesn't have. So to say, based on it alone, that this foot has no arch & no toes is purely conjecture. A combination of proof of an elaborate conspiracy of hoaxes spreading over the entire continent for hundreds of years & definitive specific explanations for the unidentified vocalizations, hair & scat samples, and stick structures. It's not enough to say there must be a more logical explanation or explanations for these things.

1)Actually, if you check again, you'll see that I did respond to the youtube video links you posted alledging proof that the Patterson/Gimlin film is fake. 2)I never said I don't believe Bigfoot exists. I said I do believe but realize we have no conclusive proof & am willing to admit I may be wrong about it existing. 3)I also never said no scientists are looking. In fact I've listed several who have and/or still are investigating it. I merely said it would be nice to get more scientists involved. Having words put in my mouth is really getting old. One instance where scientists being part of a research party would be a big help would be if a biologist & an expert in outdoor acoustics was along & a vocalization was heard. The Biolodist could probably identify it & if not, the acoustics expert could likely determine the point of origin so it could be investigated for signs of people or animals.

Ok. Now the burden of proof is on you. Show proof that the film has been conclusively proven to be a hoax.

Again. We're not saying we have proof Bigfoot exists. Just that in our opinion, there is enough reason to warrant further investigation. I fully understand that a substantial unfragmeented DNA sample is needed. Either from hair, blood, or tissue. It would be nice however, to get more scientists involved who can more accurately analyze anything that we find. Recent conflicting test results of vocalizations & hair samples make me wonder if that is even possible though. Four alleged Bigfoot vocalization recordings were recently analyzed at Texas A&M University. They concluded one of these, called "The Tahoe scream", was an Elk. The problem with that is there are no Elk in the Sierra Nevadas. So it was sent to two other labs for analysis. Both labs said it definitely wasn't an Elk. One said it was probably a Gray Fox. In another case. A hair sample was sent to the Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C. They concluded it was "nearly" human. So it was sent to another lab that did a mineral analysis on it & concluded it was from an early human who ate no processed foods. only deer meat, grass roots, & clay. So the sample was then sent to a DNA lab in Denmark that concluded it was from either a domestic dog or a wolf. The problem with the dog possibility is of course the mineral analysis that determined that whatever it came from, had eaten no processed foods. I have 3 problems with that last article: 1)It makes an inaccurate statement:The Patterson/Gimlin film has been proven to be a hoax. 2)It quotes a well known & proven hoaxer:"Tom Biscardi" 3)It also includes a population estimate from someone who in my opinion, is very gullible. In fact, his gullibility is one reason I severed all ties with him several months ago.

Mooeypoo said: "The videos, by themselves, are not valid proof for a CLAIM. They are, however, making good points in breaking up the original video, which is supposed to be a proof. You skeptics always claim we consider the Patterson/Gimlin film to be proof of the existence of Bigfoot. No matter how many times or how loudly we say that we don't. Most of us don't even consider it the best evidence. I personally consider the hair samples & the dermal ridge evidence in the track casts to be more solid than the film. What questions have I not answered?

If you would please check the links I posted, you will see that in fact, only a small number of tracks have been proven fake. As for your UFO sighting. I too thought I saw a UFO in 1975. But when the government unveiled the stealth bomber in 1988 I believe, I instantly knew that was what I saw in 1975.

Let me see if I understand this. The Patterson/Gimlin film isn't evidence that Bigfoot exists. But these clips are proof or at least evidence, that the Patterson/Gimlin film is a hoax? No chance that the youtube poster digitally edited it to suit his/her agenda I guess?

The key words to my calling your bluff are "beyond eye witness reports" The second video only shows the area of the tree where some people claim to have seen it. I never claimed to be a scientist & there is no place on the registration form that asks applicants if they are scientists or not. Just because you say something isn't evidence, doesn't mean it isn't. And as for the youtube videos claiming to prove the Patterson/Gimlin film is fake. The difference at the back of the foot appearing to be much more drastic in the first video than in the second indicates it's partly because of the angle difference between the first & second videos. The lighting in the closeups on the first video is also really bad in black & white. It looks to me like part of the leg is washed out. And I am a formally trained photographer. But in the interest of fairness & open-mindedness, I will send these links to Dr. Meldrum for his opinion on them.

Actually I did answer his claim about the subject of the film having no toes. That's preposterous. Everybody else can see them plainly enough. And if he or any of the rest of you had bothered to read & watch the resources I posted the links to, you would all know that nobody is arguing the point of Bigfoot being flat-footed. Same old story. Science asks for evidence & then when it's presented to them, even by their own people, they choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit into their pre-conceived notions.

I meant to reply to this earlier. You don't even know what dermal ridges are do you? lol They are fingerprints, toe prints, etc... Links to videos & articles offering evidence beyond eye witness reports that leprechauns are real? I'm calling your bluff. Lets see them

I'm sorry. Try this one. It's a page with all 5 video segments on it:http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B09FB3C4EE6B3228 And here is a link to a page with all 5 video segments of a Monsterquest episode in which a hair & some tissue were collected from a screwboard: http://http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4499CEAEA405E46F Here is also a link to a page with articles written by scientists such as Dr. Meldrum, Dr. Fahrenbach & others. This page also contains links to other articles. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DTrapp/bigfoot.htm