Thursday, April 19, 2012

Bigfoot Just Got a Big 5 Endorsement



The Bigfoot industry is booming.

Here's why we think Bigfoot is heading towards mainstream: The number of TV shows currently in production this year tells us that our interests in Bigfoot is sharply increasing and will continue to rise for many years to come. Also, we've been reporting on a number of Bigfoot films/documentaries this year and there's at least two productions that's filming this month.

Not only is the Bigfoot industry booming, so is the sporting goods industry. According to experts, the economy is improving, employment is up, the winter has been unseasonably warm, and summer is fast approaching. It's a fine time to plan that long overdue fishing trip with the guys or take the family out Bigfooting-- which is why Big 5 is now jumping into the fray.

Big 5's idea of Bigfooting is that "Bigfoot isn't coming to you!", so that means it's time to pack up your bags and head out into the wilderness. They're currently showcasing the latest and greatest camping gear and equipment at some prices lower than Walmart's. Generally, it's the same stuff you can get at other places, but at Big 5, their prices are probably 30% less.

You can check out their "Bigfoot" camping, hunting, and fishing deals here.

49 comments:

  1. The economy is not improving, employment is not up, and my heating bills were the same this winter as last winter. Stop listening to Obama's lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, dig hole insert head.
      Per US Bureau of Labor, unemployment peaked at 10% in Oct. 2009 and has been steadily dropping to todays 8.2%.
      The economy as looked at by Wallstreet shows the stock market Dow Jones Industrial Average at just under 13,000 which is about 6,000 better than the low of 7,000 in 2009. Gee, better come out into the light of day once in awhile.

      Delete
    2. plus my heating bill was down $300.00

      Delete
    3. The economy is not improving. The unemployment numbers have dropped because once a person uses up their unemployment, they are not counted anymore. It does not mean they are working, it just means they are not collecting unemployment. Look what happened last time the stock market hit 13k and fuel was pushing $5 a gallon. We are all going to need sleeping bags and tents at this rate. Oh, and my electric bill came yesterday and it was up 25kw from last year. Those of us in the PNW are still cold.

      Delete
    4. Your'e right, 2007 and it nose dived to the worst since the 30's. Maybe some more tax cuts will fix it. Or another war. Or reducing funding of education, environmental protections, Social Security and Medicare. I know making abortion totally illegal will help, along with promoting creationism and Global Climate Change Skepticism.

      Delete
    5. For every dollar Obama spends only 50c comes into the coffers from taxes. The rest is borrowed or created by Bernanke. What happens when the credit card runs out and the world stops believing the US can honour it's crazy growing $15T debt. Time for a reality check because the greatest Ponzi scheme in history will fall over at some stage. Then you can put your head between your knees and kiss the world you knew goodbye. BF has it better than us poor tax paying smucks. The whole world is linked at the hip as it was in 1929 only far worse this time. The violins on the Titanic will stop playing any time soon.

      Delete
    6. I suppose we could eliminate a large part of that debt if we'd stop killing dark-skinned people all over the world...

      Delete
    7. For all intents and purposes, the unemployment situation is not better.

      If you had job making, let's say, $50,000 a year and now you are working for $8 - $10 an hour, yeah, you are employed, but does that mean you are earning a livable wage, especially if you have a family to support? Hardly. This type of scenario is exactly what has happended to tens of millions of Americans.

      Delete
    8. Ok kids, enough is enough. Stop fighting.

      Delete
    9. @AnonymousApr 19, 2012 03:45 PM

      #1.Maybe some more tax cuts will fix it. (Yes it will! What you commies do not seem to realize is that this is not "Taxing the rich" for their own benefit. This is what creates jobs! If companies are not turning profit, then they cannot hire more people. Likeswise, if Joe-shmo millionaire is having to pay higher taxes then he will not buy that yacht that the Yacht Maker makes.. so his business is declined, therefor he must lay off his workers... And here we are. What really gets to me is how everyone who still supports Obama tries to say "He inherited these problems from Bush" when the fact is that Bush inherited them from Clinton. It was Clinton that did this before and how convenient that everyone forgets when bush came into office we had a high unemployment rate because Clinton's taxes forced U.S. Companies to outsource or just up and move to China, Mexico and India/)

      2.Or another war. (Yep what do you think pulled us out of the Depression? The bigger the war, the better it helps the economy. But do not confuse "War" with police action. Iraq was a war and it was a justified war. But as soon as we toppled the Government, we should not have stayed (This is where I disagree with Bush) Afghanistan was a police action.

      2.Or reducing funding of education(Lottos do just fine)

      3.Or environmental protections (Hell yes!!! Biggest waste of tax payer money EVER! There is not need for Federal taxes to be paid for crap like the EPA which doesn't really "protect" anything. States can regulate them selves far more efficient. I do not give a rats-ass about the mating habbits of the Alaskan Carabu and how drilling the untapped oil reserves "might" disturb them when I must pay $6 a gallon for gas no more than you Hippies cared about the atrocities that Saddam Husein was committing on his own people.)

      4.Social Security and Medicare. (Medicare is a joke and gee with no jobs exactly what tax-money is going into Social Security anyway?)

      5.I know making abortion totally illegal will help.(hmmm Okay I am stumped on this one. See I think abortion is murder and think it should only be an option if the mothers life is at stake or if the child has some sort of defect that it could not live long after it was to be born... However, considering that it is only commie hippies that are for this then you are sort of killing your selves... I am at a loss.)

      6.along with promoting creationism (Creationism makes more sense to me than the idea that all matter in the universe with no beginning nor end was clumped together in a huge dense mass then suddenly one day decided to explode and created the universe. You can pick this eternal mass that always existed, or you can pick a being that always existed. Now you are weighing to impossibilities to human understanding.... I think I will choose the Being.)

      7.and Global Climate Change Skepticism.(Did you mean "Global Warming" or Climate change? There is a difference. Global Warming was your Hippie theory you were trying to pass off as fact that greenhouse gases produced by factories and motor vehicles were shooting up into the Ozone layer and preventing heat from leaving the earth.. Mostly CO2... Do any mountain climbing? I doubt it, but I have. The higher up you go, the thinner the air gets... Oxygen becomes scarce. You know what gass is heavier than Oxygen? CO2!!!! So if Oxygen can't make it to the Ozone layer, how the hell does CO2? And I can look out my window and see something that did more destruction to the environment in five minutes, than L.A. did in it's whole history... Mt.Saint Hellens. Now if you are talking about "Climate Change", that is a scientifically proven fact.. Our Poles are shifting and we can see it.)

      Delete
  2. If retailers are really going to suggest that people go out and mimic Finding Bigfoot, I suggest we point the finger at THEM when some idiot gets hurt... If this is where outdoor/sporting goods marketing is headed, I see a great potential for trouble. That's just my opinion.
    David from the PAC/NW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^To avoid any confusion^ I meant THEM as in the retailers.
      David from the PAC/NW

      Delete
    2. I take it you haven't yet purchased your Finding Bigfoot Field Guide(tm) sold to the big boxes?

      Delete
  3. still doesnt make it real though

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, if it's true, and there are thousands more people going out into the woods looking for Bigfoot and three years from now there STILL are no decent videos or photographs. Will all of you be willing to admit there is no Bigfoot? I am surely willing to change my opinion if presented with solid evidence! Isn't it only fair for it to go the other way too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How the f*ck would those of us who have SEEN IT WITH OUR OWN EYES ever be "willing to admit there is no Bigfoot"?

      You have never seen a photo of video of me, and I can assure you I exist. You have never seen a photo or video of my entire family, yet we all exist.

      Your argument is pure bullsh!t.
      F*ck off and die.


      R

      Delete
    2. Nick, if Bigfoot exist, and I believe they do, don't you think adding more humans to the mix might just make Bigfoot that much more elusive?
      The retailers could care less about Sasquatch,it's all about selling their wares.
      I'm willing to bet that Bigfoot will just be a fad amongst the average person, much like the Pet Rock and Chia Pet were years ago.
      I also agree with David that this could be a recipe for disaster for inexperienced people who rarely venture outdoors.

      Delete
    3. Nope, the more we look for something the more often we find it.

      Take the mountain gorilla everyone talks about as "evidence" that large animals can go undiscovered. The problem with this (and most other large mammal discoveries in recent times)is that as soon as we went looking for them, we found them. There wasn't 50 years of crashing through the forest only to be left holding an empty bag. We found these animals as soon as we looked for them.

      Heck wolverine's are very very scarce, yet we find them all the time.

      The more people look, the more people have cameras available at all times , and the more we live in previously wild habitats, the more often there should be sightings with credible visual evidence. It's not like we are talking something in the deep ocean here.

      And to the anon above who had nothing more to add than a personal attack. Grow up.

      Delete
    4. Nick there is no place for logic here. Big footers just don't want to hear it.

      Delete
    5. All I can say is,just because you havent seen something does not mean that it doesnt exist! I have seen this creature along with another witness,this creature was only about 100ft from us out in the open,so skeptics dont be so skeptic!

      Delete
    6. The plural of anecdote isn't evidence. You claim to have seen something. I don't know you, so for all I know your are either a liar or crazy. (note I am not asserting that you are either).Remember, people claim to see alien UFO's too and the odds of that being true are so remote as to not even bear mention.

      Collected physical evidence is the only way to prove a remarkable claim such as bigfoot. If i say there is a new frog, I need either super clear close photo's AND DNA or a body, even to get my foot in the door to publish as much. Bigfoot shoul not be any different.

      Delete
    7. Paul, telling people not to be skeptical is to tell people to take everything they hear as the truth. That sir, is religion.

      Delete
    8. You need only DNA to prove a unique species. You do not need photos. After all we do not have a photo of Neanderthal. If we have DNA we do NOT need a body either. You may need one but science does NOT. There are other states of mind than blind faith or total skepticism. Being open minded is one. When you strip away all the emotional claptrap, is this not all about answering a question. Do you just call everyone who has seen one a liar. A prejudice one way or the other is not a solution to a question. You infer above that there are no aliens so no one could have seen one. You KNOW this HOW exactly? That Sir, is blind prejudice. It certainly is not science.

      Delete
    9. @ Anon 709

      We don't have DNA evidence of bigfoot. Also, how do we have neanderthal DNA? The fossil evidence. Which we don't have for bigfoot either.

      Also, people claim to see angels, leprechauns, pteradons, and many other mythological or extinct creatures. But without any corroborating evidence, it's not reasonable to take such claims at face value.

      Just to demonstrate: say Person X claims to have seen bigfoot while camping in Yosemite. Ok, well I can claim that I observed Person X observing what he thought was bigfoot, but was actually a bear. I have literally as much to back up my claim as Person X. This is why personal anecdotes are not useful as evidence of a creature.

      Also, new species are found ALL THE TIME. Including large bipedal apes (the Bili ape is the most recent.) It's a normal part of science. What isn't a normal part of science is taking every person's unverifiable claims as proof.

      Delete
    10. Rene Dahinden, who spent many years and a great deal of time and effort searching for Sasquatch said himself that the longer we go without a discovery, the less likely it exists. I happen to agree.

      Delete
    11. Nick, when you suggest that the more "WE" look for something, the more we find it, you aren't suggesting that you or I or the old lady that lives next door go looking, right? You mean massive, highly funded biological efforts that span years, right? And when you talk about "clear, close up photos", you don't mean cell phones cameras and point-and-shoot, "kodak-lame-pics" style cameras, but professional, telephoto, SLR photography that is highly uncommon for your average hiker/camper, right? A bunch of noobs in the woods isn't going to prove ANYTHING! On that, I feel we would agree.

      Also, I keep wanting to bring up that there is a huge difference between being skeptical and being argumentative. I am a proponent of the existence of Sasquatch, yet skeptical of many claims and purported evidences... That doesn't mean I think that those things are lies or wrong, I just find them "interesting, yet inconclusive" and wait for further corroboration or differing/damning information to become "accepted as fact". You know... patience (see- Higgs Bozon... yeah, I find that interesting/compelling too). I feel too many people use the word "skeptic" to replace the word "opponent". An opponent builds a case against the claimant. A skeptic says, "I can't accept that without corroboration", or in my case... "I would love to accept that, but I need corroberation".
      [end rant - sorry, its been a long week...]
      David from the PAC/NW

      Delete
    12. Nobody would be happier than I for a Bigfoot carcass to get drug into the Univ. of Oregon and dropped on the Primatology Dept's doorstep. But one must agree, that right now, there is no evidence to back up the existence of Bigfoot. The idea that DNA is all that's needed is a falsity. If you have no type specimen (finger bone, tooth, fossil...etc) to compare the DNA too, all you have is either an unknown species or something not yet in genbank(which could be DNA from any number of sources).

      If you are describing a new frog, well, we know frogs exist, you are just saying "hey, here's a new one!" so you can get away with some good photos to start the ball rolling. Eventually a type specimen will be collected though. That's how this stuff works.

      This is why the Ketchum paper will not be some bombshell. Without a type specimen it can ,AT BEST describe an unknown creature. If the prelim. data that the Mitochondrial DNA is modern human turns out to be true, AND the rumor that they created their own primers for the study (especially if they claim said primers are patented and unable to be used for comparison ) The paper is dead in the water and useless as evidence. If another scientist cannot verify the results, it becomes nothing more than speculative. But hopefully this turns out not to be the case.

      I would like to ask why so many bleevers feel the need to attack me personally in such a cowardly fashion. Grow a pair and stand behind your comments you weenies.

      Delete
    13. Oh and to the anon above who made the silly comment that I said I "knew" aliens don't exist, I never said that. I can state with a certainty bordering on 100% that due to the vast distances involved that no creatures from another planet have visited the earth. If you have a claim that they have. I would be more than happy to view said evidence. But without evidence, claims are worth about the paper they are written on.

      Delete
    14. Nick is just looking for an argument.

      Delete
    15. Umm, I think it's obvious to anyone with some semblance of reading comprehension skills that I'm not trolling for an argument. You haven't seen me baiting or getting personal have you? I state my opinion and and you people can choose to think of it what you want. But just hand waving facts away isn't a good way to state your case.

      Delete
    16. I agree that it will take more than the Dr. Ketchum's study to prove the existance of Sasquatch, but it is my hope that it is, at least, compelling to legitimate anthropologists and they finally come in and investigate the subject. THAT would be compelling...
      David from the PAC/NW

      Delete
    17. Again we witness the incredible amount of energy socalled skeptics spend on this subject, why are some people spending so much time on this coming here telling others - witnesses even - that something doesn't exist because they haven't seen the proof themselves. I think these people are perhaps even more worthy of study than bigfoot.

      Nick de Brick's also wrong on DNA, it is essentially a body and proof of one. You want to be a skeptic beyond that scientific point, fine but that is the religion you speak of then.

      Delete
    18. No it isn't, lol. You don't anything about the requirements of science. DNA without a type specimen can only give an unknown. It's not like we are talking about a sub species or new species of frog or fish here....

      You will not be proving Bigfoot without a type specimen. That doesn't mean a full body, but it DOES mean a bone ,fossil or similar.

      I am interested in this subject as most of you are, however, I choose to wait until their is evidence rather than blindly latching on to every rumor or grainy blobsquatch pic that comes along.

      You don't require evidence Mr Coward hiding under Anonymous? That's your business, but that requires no critical thinking and THAT is religion sir.

      Delete
    19. Nick you are not "Stating your Opinion" when you keep using words like "That is religion".. That is serious baiting. This is not blind faith. There is more evidence out there to suggest that Sasquatch exists than there is for God. (I my self am a Christian, but it is true.)

      But to out right deny the existence of something in-spite of evidence is also religion.

      You wrote earlier, and I quote: "Take the mountain gorilla everyone talks about as "evidence" that large animals can go undiscovered. The problem with this (and most other large mammal discoveries in recent times)is that as soon as we went looking for them, we found them. "<----- Were you really trying to use this as a case? lol. I suggest you read the history of that. It took over a hundred years for the gorilla to be confirmed to science. Most of what was "Found" and being toured turned out to not be gorillas at all but chimps and other then unknown apes. One European university was claiming the discovery only to have another dispute it. The gorilla was not accepted to all mainstream science until the early 20th century. So mid 1700's to early 1900's.. Yeah we just went right out and found it fast didn't we? lol

      As for the DNA. If it is DNA from a known Hominid such as Homo Heidelbergensis, then that would be proof enough. (If we have that DNA)

      Delete
  5. And Fatso coughing, hacking sweaty Fasano is back on youtube. All 700+ videos

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All 700 are back? Yippee! I didn't notice because I was too focused on his moobs.

      Delete
  6. Hope you guys get a nice kickback for posting this ad for them on your blog. And they don't even sell FLIR gear! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Honestly, I liked it better when Jack Links was sucking on BF's teat for publicity than a sporting good store. The last thing BF would want is a bunch of unwelcome house guests. Let's not encourage the knuckleheads.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I heard a rumor that Ted Nugent was interested in trying to hunt a bigfoot with a bow and arrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope he tries. Every minute he's out there and surely failing, he ain't available to guide another $5,500 "Majestic Buffalo Hunt" on his puny (by majestic buffalo standards) 340-acre spread called Sunrize Acres.

      Delete
    2. Where did you hear that Ted rumor? Isn't that redneck hated enough already, besides for the 1000th time this species is a humanoid not some wild beast. Teddy would be facing murder charges and more than likely a price on his own head.

      Delete
  9. Squatch shows are the new "ghost hunting" shows. In the 90's in was UFOs, in the 2000's in was ghosts, and now it's bigfoot. In my opinion, this is going to make any chance of discovering bigfoot worse, as it's only going to add more noise to the field. More bogus reports, more misidentified animals, more hoaxes, etc...

    By the way, how many UFOs and ghosts were verifiably discovered in the last 20 years? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? History channel, Animal Planet, &Discovery channel all have loads of each. Most started in the '70's and have moved in and out of popularity. But now EVERYTHING paranormal is hot. Weird how everything comes back around. Look at clothes and hair styles. As for verifiably discovered ufos and ghosts there have been many. Of the thousands of ufos reported 99% are fake or natural. But the 1% that can't be disproved have to be real. But skeptics refuse to accept the fact that strange things fly around us. Look at how many pilots have come forward and have radar images with pictures of what ever was flying with them. Or people who take pics from ground and get radar confirmation. Happens a lot but we don't hear of it as media passes the people off as kooks. Now ghosts are hard to prove due to their short appearances. But I have seen too many strange things to say either one does not exist. And I don't drink much, do any drugs and am not too nuts. I think very soon we will know more than we want to about ufos, ghosts, and bigfoot.

      Delete
  10. Wouldn't it be surreal if bigfoot's existence was proven to the world when a sasquatch became Mitt Romney's running mate?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hearn the Nugent has a couple bigfoot locked up in a shack on his preserve. A steady dose of heavy metal and "cat scratch fever" have apparently driven the squatches wild. The "Nuge" is planning on turning them loose and excepting money from the highest bidder to "hunt the shadow beast". All of this will be live for the viewing audience out there in TV land to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Its called 'Commercialization'. Unfortunately, it too may have a negative side we don't yet understand.

    ReplyDelete