Fascinating book about people around the world disappearing in mysterious ways in parks...

[Field Marshall Bradley]

It must get might cold in them woods

And it's weird and stupid that just because we (black people) are perceived as being gangster or from the city, we're not supposed to be interested in anything but rap and drugs. That's a big, often ignored stereotype concerning black people. Another way of trying to call us low information.

Excellent point.... New nikkas love white co-signature so much that we will abandon our biggest proven natural weapon/leverage against white supremacy(divinity,spirituality,religion)

We are absolutely fascinated by all things spiritual or paranormal... we have an innate talent for it for a reason

 

[infamousred]

Believe in Bigfoot bruhs.

Apparently you've never saw the patterson/gimlin footage?
It wasn't even possible to fake something like that back in 1967. Actual swinging breasts and muscles/tendons moving and showing? Good luck with that when the planet of the apes suits(same year), didn't look half as good and they had traveled 25 miles into the woods to catch it on film. Highly respected scientists have meticulously reviewed the footage and concluded that it's impossible to fake.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

I think its clear logic mean nothing to some of the posters in this thread

this author is clearly a hustler and he found a new hustle

Logic aint clear tho... off the rip, if hypothermia is a logical conclusion for some of these findings, why wasn't the night temps mentioned to fortify his stance.... He talks about omission of info but leaves that detail out?

 

[Poetical Poltergeist]

Apparently you've never saw the patterson/gimlin footage?
It wasn't even possible to fake something like that back in 1967. Actual swinging breasts and muscles/tendons moving and showing? Good luck with that when the planet of the apes suits(same year), didn't look half as good and they had traveled 25 miles into the woods to catch it on film. Highly respected scientists have meticulously reviewed the footage and concluded that it's impossible to fake.

Believe in Bigfoot bruhs.

 

[ChiefQueen]

Idk if these stories are true. I just came across an article debunking the author in question's theories.

 

[Slangtonomo]

Idk if these stories are true. I just came across an article debunking the author in question's theories.

Have you listened to any of the 411 interviews?

 

[Leasy]

Bible covers alot of the questions and weird happenings people have,its a dope book and spiritual guide

When you peep ancient people showing depictions of ufos,the knowledge we had of space,god,advanced technology....safe to say we once had a connection with the plug

Even in the book of enoch he gets taken on a world tour,describes earth from the perspective of looking down on it,describes being in space and seing "fountains"(black holes) and the "angels" telling him what they black holes are..

I dont think people had to find ufo's laying around,and if they did they would be so advanced whoever found it wouldnt be able to use it,just like they still cant really understand the full use and capability of the pyramids

But its already prophecized that humans are supposed to be inspired by dwelling spirits here on earth,in the book of Enoch angels came down on earth to teach us sorcery,how to build the weapons of that era too. People need to understand the thoughts that you come up with arent always yours.....so you have to understand that when you see things in movies,when you see crazy technology,it may not neccesarily be that hollywood has special access to knowledge they found in a temple somewhere.....but the fact is spirits will use people to get they message accross....only spiritual people will catch it and understand it for what it really is past the surface level shyt.


not saying its not possible,but i think it would be unnecessesary because spirits would have inspired people to make cell phones in order to advance us towards the end of the story....this interest group no matter how they gained access to the knowledge to make this "advancements",dont realize its been given to them in order to advance them straight to hell in a hand basket

True indeed we were spiritually connected in ancient times and were able to tap into the energies of the world. If you notice the most spiritual locations or ideologies are related to geometric shape. These shapes and objects contain energies whic we can tap into which is why the Kemetians wrote in symbols and West Africans use symbolism. Most successful individuals on this earth receive their ideas from dreams or visions and remember there are spirits all around us.

we need a paranormal/occult sub forum @Brooklynzson

Asked him last year dude said ball @Brooklynzson and he suppose to be my man.

Believe in Bigfoot bruhs.

Ape killed in Amazon in 1920s walked upright and had 32 teeth unlike any monkey/ape in that area.

 

[Poetical Poltergeist]

True indeed we were spiritually connected in ancient times and were able to tap into the energies of the world. If you notice the most spiritual locations or ideologies are related to geometric shape. These shapes and objects contain energies whic we can tap into which is why the Kemetians wrote in symbols and West Africans use symbolism. Most successful individuals on this earth receive their ideas from dreams or visions and remember there are spirits all around us.




Asked him last year dude said ball @Brooklynzson and he suppose to be my man.

Ape killed in Amazon in 1920s walked upright and had 32 teeth unlike any monkey/ape in that area.

That is most likely a hoax.

 

[Earnings]

Starting to read through the thread now. Can someone post more of the unusual instances from the book? Looking for instances where ppl are found and had weird explanations etc.

Right... No disrespect but I skipped the 1st post thinking I was gon come back after reading the thread and be spooked but now I'm like

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I love conspiracy theorists.

"Bigfoot is real! There's no way someone could have faked blurry, distant footage of a man in a monkey suit in the late 1960s!"

"The moon landing is fake! It's all a bunch of clear, precise, fake footage of a spacecraft landing on the moon in a low-gravity environment...in the late 1960s."

The very fact that there are sightings from not only every state, but every continent, in itself should tell you something. My contention is there are indeed tens of thousands.

Name ONE large animal (hell, even small animal) that lives in every state and every continent, and yet has managed to avoid detection for hundreds of years.

EVERY widespread large animal in the world was already discovered by science hundreds of years ago. The only new ones that keep being found are either only found in some remote area (like a single mountain range or remote jungle where scientists rarely traveled) or are very small.

You can't name a single new large animal in America that's suddenly been discovered anytime in the last hundred years...hell, any time in the last 200 years probably. Somehow there's this ONE animal that is gigantic, lives everywhere, yet no one can get a clear picture of a body.

And the sightings have become FEWER since everyone started carrying cellphone cams around with them everywhere.

Paulides didn't spend years trying to orove bigfoot exist. And he was not the interest behind the Ketchum paper,

You appear poorly informed.

"In his pursuit of the cryptid known as Bigfoot or Sasquatch, Paulides self-published two Bigfoot related books[2][3] and created the research group[4] called "North America Bigfoot Search"[5] for which he serves as director.[6]"

"Paulides stated that the goal of his North America Bigfoot Search group was to prove that Bigfoot exists, and, despite the criticism from the scientific community, he feels they have done so."

These are Paulides exact words:

"The world needs to understand that North America Bigfoot Search was the organizer of the study. We orchestrated the search that led to picking Dr. Ketchum to conduct a study of bigfoot DNA."

And he was not the interest behind the Ketchum paper, which mainstream science laughed at. Though they laughed at it...they never could deny the science. At most they could claim the infamous "contaminated samples".

What do you mean they "could not deny the science"? They ALL denied the science. It was a crock of shyt. The paper was published by a woman who calls herself "Dr. Ketchem" even though her degree is in veterinary science and she never even did a Ph.D. She put Tom Biscardi in charge of collecting DNA samples, the same guy who was associated with the ridiculous "Bigfoot in a freezer!" hoax that turned out to just be a monkey suit filled with roadkilled animals. Her "genetics lab" has an F rating from the Better Business Bureau and has been involved in lawsuits and shady financial claims from years before this Bigfoot paper even came out. She published the paper in a fake journal that had never been published before and only contained ONE paper...this one. She's a classic conwoman.

And this is what actual scientists had to say:

"The few experienced geneticists who viewed the paper reported a dismal opinion of it, noting it made little sense. The DNA sequences did indeed contain matches to human chromosome 11, a lot of undetermined DNA, and some that, in part, matched to other animals. Thus, the whole sequences do not resemble any known animal and are contradictory with evolutionary biology."

"As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn’t. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you’d expect when the reaction didn’t amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn’t. All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant."



If you don't understand that, when you do a DNA test and amplify the DNA, the reaction causes the DNA to naturally amplify itself. You start with a few double-stranded DNA and end up with a lot. But when you have contamination, then the unrelated strands DON'T connect, single strands stay single mixed in with the double-strands, and you end up with a mess. No creature's DNA could work that way - it wouldn't be able to grow or reproduce or even live if it's DNA didn't copy correctly.

The samples were just human DNA contaminated with bits and pieces of other stuff. It's like if you took a DNA sample from someone, then dropped in a chicken bone, and said, "Look! The results show that it's not 100% human! Must be a new species!"

The non-human DNA in the samples was obviously contamination from other stuff.


So someone got Ketchem to agree to let him test the samples in a real lab....and this is what they found:

"So I agreed to be an intermediary between Ketchum and a highly reputable geneticist in Texas, whom I trusted and knew personally. I also knew that this geneticist was first and foremost a scientist, and if there was even a 1 percent chance the Bigfoot evidence was real, he’d want check out the story. I asked, and he was willing to approach the evidence with an open mind.

(Why am I maintaining my source’s anonymity? Because some of his peers would question his engagement on such a topic, believing it unworthy of valuable research time. But make no mistake, he is a top-notch scientist at the top of his field.)

The deal was this: I would hold off writing anything until this geneticist had his lab test the DNA samples obtained by Ketchum that were purportedly a novel and non-human species. If the evidence backed up Ketchum’s claims, I had a blockbuster story. My geneticist source would have a hand in making the scientific discovery of the decade, or perhaps the century. Ketchum would be vindicated.

In short, we would all have been winners.

Alas, I met my geneticist friend this past week and I asked about the Bigfoot DNA. It was, he told me, a mix of opossum and other species. No find of the century."

I had the ‘Bigfoot DNA’ tested in a highly reputable lab. Here’s what I found.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Apparently you've never saw the patterson/gimlin footage?
It wasn't even possible to fake something like that back in 1967. Actual swinging breasts and muscles/tendons moving and showing? Good luck with that when the planet of the apes suits(same year), didn't look half as good and they had traveled 25 miles into the woods to catch it on film. Highly respected scientists have meticulously reviewed the footage and concluded that it's impossible to fake.

Let's follow the timeline:

1966: Roger Patterson puts out a self-published book "Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?"

May 1967: Patterson goes out in the woods to make a "Docu-drama" about about cowboys being led by an old miner and a "wise Indian tracker" on a hunt for Bigfoot. In order to fake the bigfoot scenes, Patterson acquires a fake Bigfoot suit from Phillip Morris of "Morris Costumes".

October 1967: Patterson goes out to a place where "Bigfoot footprints" had been found (Later, Ray Wallace's family admitted that he had faked the footprints to please Patterson). While out in the woods in broad daylight, a "real Bigfoot" just happens to run by.

Just happens to run by the very man who already had self-published a book on Bigfoot, made a movie on Bigfoot, and owned a Bigfoot suit.

And you believe this shyt.

And in the next 50 years, when everyone and their mama has a camera on them by now, no one can get better footage.



Here is the Patterson footage, when Bigfoot just happened to walk by his already set-up movie camera:




And of course, that blurry shyt of a man in a monkey costume would have been impossible to fake in the late 1960s.

It's not like 2001: A Space Odessy didn't come out that same year or anything.





The words of the guy who made the suit himself:

The Bigfoot researchers say that no human can walk that way in the film. Oh, yes they can! When you're wearing long clown's feet, you can't place the ball of your foot down first. You have to put your foot down flat. Otherwise, you'll stumble. Another thing, when you put on the gorilla head, you can only turn your head maybe a quarter of the way. And to look behind you, you've got to turn your head and your shoulders and your hips. Plus, the shoulder pads in the suit are in the way of the jaw. That's why the Bigfoot turns and looks the way he does in the film. He has to twist his entire upper body.

 

[The Jewnited States]

Let's follow the timeline:

1966: Roger Patterson puts out a self-published book "Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?"

May 1967: Patterson goes out in the woods to make a "Docu-drama" about about cowboys being led by an old miner and a "wise Indian tracker" on a hunt for Bigfoot. In order to fake the bigfoot scenes, Patterson acquires a fake Bigfoot suit from Phillip Morris of "Morris Costumes".

October 1967: Patterson goes out to a place where "Bigfoot footprints" had been found (Later, Ray Wallace's family admitted that he had faked the footprints to please Patterson). While out in the woods in broad daylight, a "real Bigfoot" just happens to run by.

Just happens to run by the very man who already had self-published a book on Bigfoot, made a movie on Bigfoot, and owned a Bigfoot suit.

And you believe this shyt.

And in the next 50 years, when everyone and their mama has a camera on them by now, no one can get better footage.



Here is the Patterson footage, when Bigfoot just happened to walk by his already set-up movie camera:




And of course, that blurry shyt of a man in a monkey costume would have been impossible to fake in the late 1960s.

It's not like 2001: A Space Odessy didn't come out that same year or anything.





The words of the guy who made the suit himself:

i don't really believe in bigfoot but it's interesting nonetheless

we also thought the giant squid was a bullshyt myth until one washed up on a beach

 

[Professor Emeritus]

i don't really believe in bigfoot but it's interesting nonetheless

I can't watch from here, but people believe what they want to believe and then exaggerate accordingly.

Does he explain why the suit has hairy breasts, something no primate in the entire world has?

Does he explain why the creature has a big ass but no ass crack?

Does he explain why the creature has light footpads but dark handpads, something no primate in the entire world has?

Does he explain why the hip is so off, like it's loose or something?

Does he explain why the waistline moves separately like two parts of something are attached there?


Whoever made the suit messed up basic shyt like that.

Here's an exposure on Bill Munns himself:

http://mrdarksnasty.blogspot.in/2016/02/the-bill-munns-bigfoot-report-exposed.html

we also thought the giant squid was a bullshyt myth until one washed up on a beach

First off, the giant squid lives on the bottom of the ocean. In other words, a place people of the time never, ever went.

Second, it was written up in the scientific community as a squid in the early 1700s and was conclusively proven and published in the mid-1800s.

And that's for something on the bottom of the ocean.


We ain't talking about the bottom of the ocean here. We're talking about Shaq-sized beasts that supposedly live on every continent and in every state, but still manage to never get clearly photographed, never get shot, never get hit by a car, never leave a body lying around....nothing.

300,000,000 people in America, and NONE of them can come across a single body of these things, even though there's tens of thousands of them, they're enormous, and then live in every state.


Name the last American animal to be discovered that was bigger than a rodent. I bet you it hasn't happened in 200 years. Yet we're gonna pretend that something HUGE which can be found EVERYWHERE still hasn't been discovered yet?

 

[The Jewnited States]

I can't watch from here, but people believe what they want to believe and then exaggerate accordingly.

Does he explain why the suit has hairy breasts, something no primate in the entire world has?

Does he explain why the creature has a big ass but no ass crack?

Does he explain why the creature has light footpads but dark handpads, something no primate in the entire world has?

Does he explain why the hip is so off, like it's loose or something?

Does he explain why the waistline moves separately like two parts of something are attached there?


Whoever made the suit messed up basic shyt like that.

Here's an exposure on Bill Munns himself:

http://mrdarksnasty.blogspot.in/2016/02/the-bill-munns-bigfoot-report-exposed.html








First off, the giant squid lives on the bottom of the ocean. In other words, a place people of the time never, ever went.

Second, it was written up in the scientific community as a squid in the early 1700s and was conclusively proven and published in the mid-1800s.

And that's for something on the bottom of the ocean.


We ain't talking about the bottom of the ocean here. We're talking about Shaq-sized beasts that supposedly live on every continent and in every state, but still manage to never get clearly photographed, never get shot, never get hit by a car, never leave a body lying around....nothing.

300,000,000 people in America, and NONE of them can come across a single body of these things, even though there's tens of thousands of them, they're enormous, and then live in every state.


Name the last American animal to be discovered that was bigger than a rodent. I bet you it hasn't happened in 200 years. Yet we're gonna pretend that something HUGE which can be found EVERYWHERE still hasn't been discovered yet?

the reasons you stated are the reasons why i don't really believe in bigfoot. at the same time, there is that <1% chance it does exist. maybe not the same thing described by all these sightings but some sort of bipedal primate.

the video i posted goes into the proportions of a human vs the proportions of the "bigfoot" in the video. hip to leg ratio, upper thigh to lower leg ratio, arm ratio etc etc.


also, good point on the giant squid, ocean vs land animals is an important distinction. we are far less likely to see something that lives in the ocean depths since we aren't aquatic animals ourselves. speaking of the giant squid you got me to look it up on wikipedia:

Aristotle, who lived in the fourth century BC, described a large squid, which he called teuthus, distinguishing it from the smaller squid, the teuthis. He mentions, "of the calamaries, the so-called teuthus is much bigger than the teuthis; for teuthi [plural of teuthus] have been found as much as five ells long."[29]

Pliny the Elder, living in the first century AD, also described a gigantic squid in his Natural History, with the head "as big as a cask", arms 30 ft (9.1 m) long, and carcass weighing 700 lb (320 kg).[30][31][32]



so they were talked about a looooooooooooooooong time ago. interesting thing is that they weren't photographed in the wild until 2004 and they weren't filmed on video until 2006 or so, best footage coming in 2012. i wonder what kind of shyt is still out there that we haven't found. they say it's impossible for something like the megalodon to still be alive since it would have to be close enough to the surface to eat enough food to allow it to grow to its theorized size and to sustain it. and if it was that close to the surface, it was bound to be seen at this point. if it lived in the depths, it wouldn't have enough food

i suppose it's a similar situation with the bigfoot, to grow that big, it would need a lot of food, to get that much food it would have to go to similar food sources as other the other big animals in the same area. if that was so, a skeleton or live specimen would have to have been found by now. also, there would need to be enough of them to procreate if they are to be seen over multiple generations.









in relation to the thread, idk why people are even talking about bigfoot, reading the book and listening to some of his interviews, he never theorizes that it's a bigfoot thats snatching these people.

just strictly based on the facts presented, these cases are very unusual and there doesn't seem to be any logical explanation for many of them. i have googled different cases presented in the book just to see if the articles i find corroborate the book or not. they are factual for sure. he's not just making shyt up for the book. makes it all the more crazy to me IMO

 

[Professor Emeritus]

in relation to the thread, idk why people are even talking about bigfoot, reading the book and listening to some of his interviews, he never theorizes that it's a bigfoot thats snatching these people.

just strictly based on the facts presented, these cases are very unusual and there doesn't seem to be any logical explanation for many of them. i have googled different cases presented in the book just to see if the articles i find corroborate the book or not. they are factual for sure. he's not just making shyt up for the book. makes it all the more crazy to me IMO

First, it's relevant because it speaks to his credibility. He has no special information with missing persons, no special experience. There are tens of thousands of Americans who know a lot more about these cases then he does. He's just the kind of guy who self-publishes books with wild theories and makes wild claims in order to bring attention to himself.

Yeah, when a person goes missing, it's creepy. We have a natural tendency to want things to be solved, to want to know what happened. But the world is a BIG place. These are BIG pieces of wilderness. shyt happens. People disappear. Sometimes it's foul play and sometimes it's an accident and sometimes it's someone who wandered off and didn't want to be found.


Second, he clearly is trying to tie the two things together. On the surface, there's an obvious discrepancy in logic that doesn't make sense. How can he claim that tens of thousands of Bigfoot live in America and non one EVER finds them, but then be surprised that a person goes missing in the same wilderness here and there? If the forest is big enough to hide tens of thousands of Bigfoot without any scientists ever being able to find them, then it's obviously big enough for a person to get lost, or killed, and not be found.

But the Bigfoot connection is clear if you look at what he does. I've

1. His map of "missing persons clusters" is very suggestive (It matches the "Bigfoot sightings map")
2. He ignores the many missing persons cases that occur in cities and on water, instead only discusses the ones in the forest (because that's where Bigfoot supposedly is)
3. He claims that "dogs with owners" are involved in many of the disappearances. (because people have claimed elsewhere that Bigfoot doesn't like dogs)
4. He claims that tracking dogs "refuse to track" the missing person (suggesting that they're scared of sometime...like a Bigfoot)
5. He claims that major storms often develop after the disapparance (elsewhere, people claim Bigfoot can control local weather)
6. He claims the disappearances often happen near swampy or very brushy areas, or near boulderfields. (all places he claims in his other books that Bigfoot can hide)
7. He claims clothing was taken off of many victims. (Implying that an outside thing, like Bigfoot, did something to them)
8. He claims that berries were present in many cases (elsewhere, he claims that berries are a favorite food of Bigfoot).


I mean, seriously, berries?


NO ONE in their right mind actually thinks that there is some special correlation between "missing persons" and "berries", other than the fact that the woods are full of berries and people sometimes go into the woods to pick them.

The ONLY reason that David Paulides is making up a ridiculous correlation between berries and missing people, and all those other cherry-picked correlations, is because he wants to suggest that Bigfoot has something to do with it.

But he doesn't "say Bigfoot" straight up because he knows that would turn off 50% of his audience, and because he wants to pretend to be "objective" and "scientific".