BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Robert Lindsay: Images Of Bigfoot Stealing Pancakes


According to some researchers who have successfully interacted with and even filmed Bigfoot, it is clear that Bigfoot loves pancakes. One prominent researcher named Dennis Pfohl has stated that they don't mind McDonalds pancakes and they like them smothered in syrup. How does he know this about Bigfoot?

A few years ago, owners of a property in Crittenden, Kentucky (later sold to Adrian Erickson for the Erickson Project) actually caught one on tape, stealing pancakes:

Release of Kentucky Pancake Video stills. We are going to release some stills from the Kentucky Pancake Video shot by the owners of the Crittenden, Kentucky property that Adrian Erickson bought as part of his Erickson Project. The video, which is very poor quality, was shot at night.

There was a lawsuit preventing its release on the Internet, so copies were pulled from the Net. However, I found it on the Net repeatedly over the past year or so. It was not easy to find at all. On my most recent search thought, I could not find it.

The stills have already been released on the Crypto Crew’s Facebook page, so I figure there’s low risk of my releasing this stuff.

The movie is shot at night in thermal vision. The owner of the house, the wife, is standing on a table with her back to the pancakes on the edge of the table. The baby Bigfoot rapidly approaches, grabs the pancakes and leaves in a hurry.

Quality is very poor, but one thing you can notice is that it has a huge head. Reports indicate that baby Bigfoots have gigantic heads, way out of proportion to their bodies.

When Ken Walker spoke to Smeja when he first reported the shooting on Taxidermy.net, Smeja told Walker that the baby Bigfoot had a gigantic head, as big as a 5-10 gallon bucket. Walker said that that was when he knew that Smeja was telling the truth because almost no one knows that the babies have huge heads, and Smeja knew nothing at all about Bigfoots before the Sierra Kills.

The huge head was widely cited as a reason why the video must be a fake. Skeptics said it looked like a turban.



[via robertlindsay.wordpress.com]

89 comments:

  1. Wow, this is the Erickson stuff from Kentucky we are supposed to do somersaults over? LMFAO, I knew this shit was going to be as hilariously bad as everything else out there. What an absolute joke.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unfortunately another blobsquatch. Sigh.
    BTW, human toddlers have large heads compared to their bodies, too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This field has to be the most pathetic of all the fantasy creatures...you Bleevers live for laughable shit like this...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently you do not have enough information about the particular subject of which you are putting down. You, sir, are not qualified to be a skeptic.
      You would change your tune if you yourself encountered one of these beings, as I have.
      And don't hide behind your keyboard; it makes you look like a coward.

      Delete
    2. Well said, Darin, well said indeed. Using anon as a name is someone with no courage to stand on the truth or strength of their convictions, regardless of the subject being discussed.

      Delete
    3. mr. skeptic a-hole. i think you are now a bleever(as you say)because you love comming to this site. watching these video's and still pics. just own up to what you say you don't believe. funny how your not a beleever? when you stop past every f-ing day lose-ziod! you secretly believe but your just not girl enough to admit it! blog-talk to you tomorrow a-hole.

      Delete
    4. Most trolls are actually closet bigfooters afraid to say so. They know the species is real and some even ordered to troll public forums, lots of loggers and religious freaks and officials many of them. If they're against the idea of this species you basically know it's trolling.

      Delete
    5. Everyone is a troll on here. That would include the three responders above me. People post under annonomys because we can. Why should I sign up for a google acct or word press acct when the anon option is there. Hide behind a keyboard. Hello this is the Internet you freak, how else could anyone voice an opinion other than behind a keyboard. Maybe if I'm lucky someday I will be gifted with a 1 and a billion chance if seeing Bigfoot out in the woods and maybe after i would be as knowledgable as you guys. Let me guess you just got in from out in the field right before you read article.

      Delete
    6. The difference is that you aren't even being a skeptic. You came on with the intent to piss people off: "This field has to be the most pathetic of all the fantasy creatures...you Bleevers live for laughable @#$%! like this..."

      That makes you a troll. There are true skeptics here who have screen names. They state why they do not believe but they do not blurt out insults. You couldn't even do that much

      Delete
    7. Ok. I am a believer not a bleever. I am not the same anon troll as you would say who posted the original reply. Regardless, I have no intent to blurt or piss people off, just making a point that the so called educated people in this field are not educated enough to just read and move on. Instead these educated researchers/believers such as yourself have to resort to name calling and whatever else on apost to an annonomys person. Seems you should just pack and prepare for the next star trek convention.

      Delete
    8. you obviously feast on eating poopy. This explains why you can't spell.

      Delete
    9. Yeah from your wife's bum.

      Delete
  4. How the hell is that a bigfoot? It's blurry, but it looks more like an alien wearing pyjamas to me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's not bigfoot that's ET! He prefers Reeces Pieces to pancakes...

    ReplyDelete
  6. They shoulda put tranquilizers in the pancakes. Knock that little bugger out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but in this case they'd be knocking out someone in a ridiculous bigfoot suit.

      Delete
    2. It would have to be a 7 or 8 year old child if that were the case. That's no ordinary man in a suit.

      Delete
  7. thats fucking sasquatch on the moon if i have seen it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. see the rising sun on his back. hairs stand up on the back of my neck damn. hoax better next time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I love this blog,and the stories i believe in bigfoot, but a lot of this is horse shit.But please keep it up. cool stuff

    ReplyDelete
  10. these images have been around for years, gggGGGreat Scoop Robby!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not everyone has seen them genius AND he also explained why he was releasing them. Told the whole story. I bet you'd suck RL though.

      Delete
    2. Nothing new. I couldn't create a more blobby imagae if I tried.

      Delete
    3. People may have read(Cryptomundo?) about Erickson buying this footage, and pulling it off net. When I read about this, I tried to find an image if not the video. No luck.

      Delete
    4. Isaw the pancake vid in I think 2009 on the net, it was up for over a week. At the time youtube had a 280p resolution, and it was bad. But, it is possible the original is much better and these old grabs resurfacing tied to that 280p.

      Delete
    5. Thats all I've seen or read about this until today; less than flattering reviews. I guess the original is better, you cant tell that is a lady. Before reading the article I thought the lady on the table(?) was supposed to be the squatch.

      Delete
  11. im conealed to the gills shaun.

    ReplyDelete
  12. come on guys thats bobo on a hango taking a piss outside the tent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lolololololololololol!

      Delete
  13. So, where are the ones of them making them?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just curious why the wife would be standing on the table, unfortunately these frame caps do not contribute anything, oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The arm doesn't appear to be very long, even with the blur

    ReplyDelete
  16. Shawn, got a brainstorm. Lets open a IHOP right in the middle of bigfoot country!

    ReplyDelete
  17. This has to be a repeatable experiment for me to believe. Try this in Tennessee or W.Virginia, with and without syrup, and filmed with/without potatoe. Also, sit with your back to test area wearing a camo clown suit and then naked. Does subject prefer pancakes or maybe french toast? Where is the Science?
    "If there is a new way...I'll be the first in line...but it better work this time" Megadeth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what we read, they tried everything
      "why do you think I'm broke,huh?" Megadeath

      Delete
    2. can you put a price on peace?

      Delete
    3. Peace sells but who's buying

      Delete
    4. What do you mean I cant get to work on time? Got nothin' better to do!

      Delete
  18. Replies
    1. More video than you've ever gotten Ed "all talk no action" Smith.

      Where's that documentary you've been promising for so long ? Maybe you should just film Dark Wing eating some pancakes. It would be much easier.

      Delete
    2. Another adoring fan who should be committed....... To the loony Bin.

      No great loss.

      Delete
  19. Put another notch on the Let Down Meter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's amazing that these repeat hoaxers think that anyone will buy this. Apparently some do. Apparently some people are easily fooled.

      Delete
  20. Why does Lindsay get any credibility after more than one hoax? This is laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If the blood and saliva that remained with the glass shards on the plate test to be 'Bigfoot DNA' then these might be the supporting provenance. But all those samples were givien to Dr. Ketchum. Don't think they have results for those yet. Without that this is, as everyone notes, a bust.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The results are in on the blood and tissue from the glass shards on the plate. They tested presumptive for Bigfoot.

      Delete
    2. So a baseline, then it's bigfoot! But oops, we DON'T have a body OR anything, but it's bigfoot?

      Delete
    3. Dear RL, I thought you reported awhile back the young researchers attached to the project obtained the dna backed footage. You said this pancake nonsense had been around until purchased and pulled from the net and that it was shot by the homeowners. They too have dna evidence?
      Signed,
      Confused

      Delete
    4. RL doesn't understand what he's talking about. This isn't the Erickson project video. Was shot before Erickson was even involved. Perhaps Lindsay should learn to do his research.

      Delete
    5. Pancakes schmancakes - I like cookies!

      - Matilda

      Delete
    6. The homeowners are not the ones who obtained the DNA evidence. The Erickson Project did. The homeowners did shoot much of the footage, including this footage. This footage is Erickson Project footage because I believe he bought this video. Also, I believe that this video is in the documentary.

      Delete
    7. I like banan pancake!

      - Matilda

      Delete
    8. Thanks RL. That means the little bigfoot in this vid is not necessarily the source of any dna, and so this footage is as worthless as these stills indicate. You said "most" of the footage comes from the homeowners, and we all know that Munns gave some of it the thumbs down, did project members get anything good?

      Delete
    9. That's not really correct. The owners shot 4-5 videos which looked pretty good. Erickson looked them over and he thoughts one of them was fake. That was the first one they shot. He sent it out to some folks, including Munns, and had them look at it since he was suspicious. Munns said it was hoaxed and Erickson refused to buy it. There were 4 other videos that were very good that they thought were real. Erickson shopped them around to various experts and they all thought they were not hoaxed.

      Pfohl and Hadj-Chikh also shot a lot of footage of these animals as I understand it, but the best footage is from the owners.

      The DNA from this site is certainly not from this baby.

      Delete
    10. Mr. Lindsay has just highlighted the serious problem with this Kentucky stuff. If the owners produced a fake video, why would we accept any of the rest? If they really had giant hairy hominids on their property, why fake the first video? I seem to recall a few years ago that Donlon guy that ran a blog claimed to have watched the footage and visited the site. I think he said that he had some serious doubts about the footage. It sounds more and more like Erickson has some major problems with credulity.
      This reminds me a of a discussion of cryptomundo some time ago about the inclusion of known fake tracks in some of Prof. Meldrum's data sets. If some of your accepted "evidence" turns out to be fake (even if its not through your own duplicity), it calls the entire body of work into question. If you can't delineate fakes when you have them, the rest of your evidence is worthless.

      Delete
  22. But Bobo said bacon is the real deal.So who's right?Enquiring minds want to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pigs in a blanket just to play it safe.

      Delete
  23. No blaming fagboy Lindsay on this one. The video was out a few years back and was piss-poor fake. Woolheater at Cryptomundo was threatened to be sued by Moneymaker.

    http://bigfootsightings.org/bigfoot-sighting-leads-to-litigation/

    ReplyDelete
  24. not impressed...sorry the PGF kills this junk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah..professional hoaxers, not amateurs, made PGF. Give me a break.

      Delete
  25. Ok is it just me or does this look like Lord Tywin the midget from "Game Of Thrones" or at the very least an ewok?
    Or maybe its just the little kid that wants his McDonalds Happy Meal back from the hoaxers that stole it?
    Also the one at the beginning was that a bigfoot also? Or was it John Binderbagel

    ReplyDelete
  26. Replies
    1. This is what I do not know! I don't know who or what the baby Bigfoot is. Maybe it is Matilda's baby. I guess it would have to be.

      Delete
  27. maybe the star-child skull is a baby bigfoot?

    ReplyDelete
  28. This kind of shite is so old. Why put something out there that could be anything?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Skeptics will not be convinced until they are raped by a Sasquatch...

    ReplyDelete
  30. You might have better luck with Reese's Pieces with that creature instead of pancakes.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The wife looks more like a bigfoot than the thing grabbing the pancakes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which one is "the wife?"

      Delete
    2. The wife is standing on the table with her back turned to the baby Bigfoot.

      Delete
    3. He means his own wife looks more like Bigfoot. That's rough, brother!

      Delete
  32. As I recall, Roger Patterson mentioned missing flapjacks up at Bluff Creek back in '67. I'm suprised this has not been discussed here.

    ReplyDelete
  33. BF, blurry vision, and stacks 'o pancakes - the story of my life

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sounds like Erickson is wanting and being sucessful at cornering all the sasquatch 'rights' in film, picture, and science. Are they going to change the Big Guys name to Eric, parade him around like a circus sideshow charging top dollar for all to see ? I wouldnt be so worried about the quality of a video posted here, I would take a look the intentions of a high dollar corporation wanting to have everything sasquatch in their name. Something about that whole corporate profile bothers me, makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Adult, jacket with shoulder pads and a kid with a jacket on. Too much of a clean cut line between arm and hand. The back of kid too smooth. No hair.
    Fake.

    ReplyDelete