Monday, July 29, 2013

Bigfoot Attack Caught On Video?


We can tell you right now that this footage is probably fake. The dead giveaway is that it clearly shows an attack and we all know Bigfoots do not attack people.



109 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. So where and who are these 'countless' linguistics experts who back Scott Nelson's hypothesis about the Sierra Sounds?

      Delete
    2. i have a belly button

      Delete
    3. i have a picture of Scott Nelson's ass, got a Roy Orbison tattoo on the left cheek.

      Delete
    4. Scott Nelson is a national treasure or hero or something like that

      Delete
    5. YOU WILL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT ANONS!






      ALL CAPS

      Delete
    6. DAMMIT!! WE HAVE AN IMPOSTER!! ^^





      THE REAL ALL CAPS GUY

      Delete
    7. Still waiting on this massive list of linguistics experts who have backed Nelson's conclusion on the Sierra Sounds...

      I can't find a single linguistics expert who have even listened to the recordings, let alone bck Nelson's hypothesis...

      Delete
    8. Still waiting on the epic list, Chuck.

      Delete
    9. Don't you mean Scotty Moore, Elvis's lead guitar player during the 50's..?

      Delete
    10. Is Nelson qualified to determine whether or not the sounds are outside the human range? Isn't it possible the sounds express communication but are none the less a hoax?...dont know....

      Delete
    11. What the fuck are you idiots talking about, why should Nelson be analyzing this garbage? It's clearly added sound. It's not a terrible fake clip, well-made suit though likely just some effects dudes having fun.

      Delete
    12. SCOTT NELSON IS ELVIS!






      THE REAL REAL ALL CAPS GUY!

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. AND GALS WOMANHATER!!

      Delete
    2. Are you related to Yellow?

      Delete
    3. Hey Bronson!

      I'm locked in debate with this clown on the 'Team Squatchin USA' page cause he's got a bee in his bonnet about Scott Nelson! He's comparing his work to astrophysics and all sorts of hilarious comparisons of accumulative research... He's got a problem with what you said about loads of linguistics experts.

      If there was anyone as equally as qualified to counter his opinion on such a profound topic; they would have by now. It is what it is... It took Scott seconds to come to the realization that the sounds are language, that's without implementing his various techniques over a long period of time. Now if anyone else who is as qualified would have come to any other conclusion; they would have by now in seconds, wouldn't they?

      Anon 1:52 is a researcher himself and is basically really bitter. You see, if you don't want to accept what your ears take in, that's denial. Something that you sir resonate in your comments. You can claim this and that but you are merely trying over complicate one of our fundemental senses; listening. You listen to Scott's transcriptions and they exist for what they are and laughably; you don't need an expert in linguistics to argue with that. Unless, like I stated before, you are in denial sir.

      Delete
    4. Anon 4:28...

      Quite a sophisticated accomplishment if someone was to hoax an entire complex dialect consitstant over a series of verbal exchanges and then put it out twice the speed of human deliverance, eh?

      Peace.

      Delete
    5. According to Matthew Johnson's (quack) website, Scott Nelson got excited at listening to his audio and said it was definitely sasquatch speech.
      Funny how it could be anything. There's no clear vocals on that page anywhere except for the quack doc's own words.

      Delete
    6. Scott Nelson -

      "Retired from the U.S. Navy as a Crypto-Linguist with over 30 years experience in Foreign Language and Linguistics, including the collection, transcription, analysis and reporting of voice communications.
      He is a two time graduate of the U.S. Navy Cryptologic Voice Transcription School (Russian and Spanish) and has logged thousands of hours of voice transcription in his target languages as well as in Persian. He is currently teaching Russian, Spanish, Persian, Philosophy and Comparative Religions at Wentworth College in Missouri."

      Cryptolingusitics- "basically it is one of the hardest jobs in the military to learn depending on how you score on the DLAB (Defense Language Aptitude Battery) you will be assigned at the DLI (Defense Language Institute) a language in the category that you score. I believe it goes Category I = 90 Category II = 100 Category III = 105 and Category IV = 110, you can look that up, Im not sure about that, I just know for sure that IV = 110 or higher the category is based on how similar the language is to english so I's are Spanish French Italian... IIIs are stuff like Farsi, Polish, and Japanese and the IVs are the hardest to learn: Chinese Korean and Arabic you go to DLI for a length of time depending on the language you're assigned, it's usually about 1 year then you go to cryptology school for about half a year during that time you will become completely fluent in the language both written and oral. Be warned, the washout rate is roughly 75% at DLI. it's a great job to have, a lot of people get picked up for diplomatic jobs or work for the CIA afterwards, plus with the Army it comes with a $40,000 enlistment bonus

      Good luck, maybe I will see you at DLI in a few months

      USAF Cryptologic Linguist"

      ... Yep! If Scott get's excited about something, he's entitled to be.

      Peace.


      Delete
    7. Profound? It's been dormant since the 70's and is now all of a sudden profund?

      Anon above just put another stick in the pig.

      The process is simple (btw, never have I indicated that I'm a researcher, bc it's not true)

      Chuck stated as fact that countless linguistics experts have listened too and concluded that Nelson's hypothesis is correct.

      I have searched and searched for these experts and despite the fact that peace joe loves to list experts and their resumes, he has yet to post one single linguistics expert that can verify Nelson's claims.

      Now you still think that because nobody has even listened to the tapes, Nelson is the Messiah of Audio and everything he claims is without a doubt fact.

      You egg debunkers to put forth a credible replica of patty/PGF...well, joe, since you think Matilda is fake...prove it. Recreate it faithfully.

      Delete
    8. Oh and I find it a massive contradiction that anyone can claim that Scott requires an equally professional opinion to back his research up, when there are people on this blog that openely condemn his work In the same sentence on the basis of their unqualified opinion?

      Peace.

      Delete
    9. I have never agreed with Bronson's statement though, I have merely reacted to people condemning Scott's work. And yes, the Sierra Sounds ARE profound now because it has taken this long to get them verified by an expert... (Duh?)

      Scott's work is what it is and to listen to it and deny it is what it is; denial. You haven't had anyone speak out about it with equal expertise because it's brutally obvious, you only have to listen to his transcription. Do it and then question it; you won't do that successfully because you hear exactly what Scott is claiming to be there... (Sigh)

      I don't have to prove Patty is real because we have clear footage that displays unquestionable detail that you people cannot prove is fake after 46 years. Comparing the detail of Patty to Matilda is cheap and embarrassing because it's a shot of someone breathing under a 70's bath rug... A great comparison eh?

      (Sigh with complete disbelief)

      Peace.

      Delete
    10. Dude, you're a dumbass. In the entire exchange, you can't find a goddamn place where I said his work wasn't correct or he isn't/wasn't a capable person in his field.

      You are so farking quick to argue like a jerkoff with someone who even remotely questions anything you spend your days surfing online.

      It's like you create scenarios in your head and mentally high five yourself after every post saying 'u really got him good, joe!'

      Chuck stated countless linguistics experts have listened to and analyzed the tapes, I simply ask who and when.

      I'm sorry you feel one person is enough to convince anyone who has doubts on bigfoot existing.

      As for your assertions that I'm a researcher? Laughable. I'm skeptical of its existence.

      Delete
    11. I don't know, Matilda looks pretty organic to me, Joe. Plus the DNA evidence supporting her having red hair and being a female.

      It looks real to me, Joe, you gotta prove it's a fake. It's clearer and has more actual evidence supporting her existence than the PGF has.

      Delete
    12. Oh and Bronson, just cause I haven't agreed with your comment about multiple linguists, doesn't mean I don't agree with everything you say buddy... Much respect!

      Peace.

      Delete
    13. If Matilda is a man breathing under a shag carpet, explain how the person only breathes 6 times a minute.

      Recreate it, Joe.

      Delete
    14. A comment posted last week...

      "Joe, I live in the county adjacent to the south of Crittenden, Ky, where Matilda was said to be filmed. After researching everything I could find on the matter, I've come to the conclusion that Erickson was hoaxed for financial gain by the original owners of the Mann Road habituation site." - Anon

      "4:19, I think 4:29 is right and answers your question..I believe that Erickson made a sincere effort to prove existence and document the discovery..Unfortunately, he was defrauded by hoaxers(the homeowners), betrayed by people he drafted for the project(Phols, Brisson and\or Standing probably hoaxed Matilda) and robbed blind by Ketchum" - Anon

      "Joe, at one point the photos of Matilda were attributed to Dr. Leila Hadj-Chikh Phd. evolutionary biology. Princeton University. I believe she works with the Erickson progect. Check their website and see if you can contact her regarding this. In other words I'm too lazy so please run the trapline." - Anon

      "Could it be that the samples she attained were accurate but the video was a hoax? (which is clearly is)" - Me

      "If she was told by Adrian Erickson (who believed the video to be authentic),that the samples came from Matilda; would she have any reason to doubt him?" - Me

      ... Matilda is a bath rug. Patty is a walking biped you cannot explain in 46 years of technological advances.

      Schooled.

      Peace.

      Delete
    15. Sounds like a bunch of hogwash, just like the timeline and back stories of PGF.

      There's DNA evidence, HD video, and the 6 breathes a minute. It looks natural to me, joe.

      Recreate it, Joe,

      While your doing that, call up Charlie and have him send me the list of linguistics experts too...

      Delete
    16. Anon 6:16's comments over the past few days...

      "My nieces have their own language between each other too, but it's nothing but gibberish."

      "... the fact that we have no other Sasquatch works that sound like The language spoken in the Sierra Sounds nor the fact that it hasn't even been deemed worthy enough for any active and reputable linguists to decipher the tape."

      "It doesn't matter if you are the President, Albert Einstein, Scott Nelson, The Duke of Earle, or Joe Fitzgerald...when you look too deep into things that just isn't there you are grasping at straws..."

      "Everyone is quick to smack down Sasquatch Ontario...well the Sierra Sounds isn't much better."

      "My grandfather is a highly decorated WW2 between but that doesn't cover the fact he still hears German troops during random times of the day and has Ike speeches constantly looping in his head."

      ... And now today...

      "Dude, you're a dumbass. In the entire exchange, you can't find a goddamn place where I said his work wasn't correct or he isn't/wasn't a capable person in his field."

      ... Do you even know what you are on about?? OH AND CHECK OUT WHAT HE SAID THE OTHER DAY TOO!

      "And Joe, this is all coming from someone who has had a prior unexplainable experience, 20 consecutive years of hunting and fishing, and wants to believe this creature exists as described."

      ... Hmmm, either you are confused or trying damnedest to win a debate in the most contradictory of fashions...

      I have just mentally high-five'd myself after that schooling, saying 'you really got him good, Joe!'

      Peace.

      Delete
    17. Anon 6:50...

      The timeline YOU maintain is accurate; I blew out of the water sonny. The timeline is something you people use to cast doubt on the whole Patty subject, no one else (another inaccuracy and contradiction).

      http://www.wayfair.com/red-flokati-rug-th.html

      Here's a link for your bath rugs that you require as replicates. Just save up your semen you protrude for your posters of Joe Rogan; splash that all over it, hide under it in the woods like a pervert and hey presto; Matilda!

      Peace.

      Delete
    18. Your turn with Patty... I own't hold my breath.

      Peace.

      Delete
    19. Agree. With Nelson's resume it shouldn't be hard for him to find one other person with a credible resume to come forward and back up his theories. And so far we have no names to back him only his word that other people do. As with anything new in science you need to have theories backed up by other credible individuals in the field.

      Delete
    20. ..So, its established that because its twice the speed of normal human deliverance it is not human or man made? I don't know about that..I think expertise in 2 different areas is required to make any claims -audio and language, and the former is more important:

      Lets assume Nelson never heard anyone speak, say, Greek..If we play him a sped up tape of 2 people talking Greek he would be able to say "it is a language"...That does not mean the participants are undocumented primates..

      I'm just trying to say its more important to establish if these Sierra Sounds are in fact the vocalizations of an undocumented primate. ...It may not even be possible to make that kind of determination...

      Delete
    21. I cannot agree more that Scott needs backing but you could argue the same about any of the sources of evidence & research enthusiasts have and with the level of dogma associated with this subject, it's really not realistic. The fact that nobody has questioned it yet if anything could be used to support my claim that his work stands up, because like I stated previously, if at least one linguistics expert out of the tens of thousands, maybe millions of people who have heard the Sierra Sounds would have disagreed with him, they would have by now because it took Scott seconds to recognize that it was a language; anyone with the same expertise would have done the same, would they not have? Scott did mention in one of his presentations a couple of years ago, that he would be consulting his mentor in his cryptolingistics field about his findings; but I have not had the time today to go back through that presentation to attain that person's name and cannot find anything on the internet that confirms this meeting has taken place.

      I understand what people are saying and understand what people are suggesting should happen, but this is Bigfoot territory and experts are few and far between. That fact doesn't make them less credible but makes them pioneers to the people with positive agendas and though I respect that there has to be some degree of healthy skepticism, it puts responsibility on enthusiasts to support, promote & celebrate his research and not expect scrutinizing evaluations of it, especially when it simply should have happened by now if possible to do so.

      If you slow 'ape chatter' down to 50% and get a complex dialect; you could argue you don't really need anyone with half the background as Nelson to challenge it; if it's plain for all to see. That's unless you still think Bigfoot are dumb animals.

      Furthermore, though I can't explain the process in too much detail (purely because I don't understand it totally), there are areas of cryptolinguistics that require slowing down of languages and then heightening their prominence in the recording in order to transcribe it sufficiently; so these areas Anon 9:12 was talking about does cover what Scott's expertise is qualified to do.

      "The existence of the Sasquatch Being is hereby assumed, since any Being must exist before his language."

      - Scott Nelson.

      Peace.

      Delete
    22. "Since the Sasquatch Being has the ability to produce utterance at frequencies above and below those of human ability, he must also be capable of producing utterance within the limits of human ability. Consequently, utterances that fall within human levels, while evidencing characteristics of unknown language, remain useful in comparison studies of Sasquatch Language."

      - Scott Nelson

      Peace.

      Delete
    23. Last quote...

      "If a recorded utterance is not Human (i.e. exceeds human ability in Frequency, Pitch, Prosody, Resonance, etc.), and,
      If the utterance demonstrates language, then the subject producing the utterance is deduced to be the Sasquatch Being, any alternative conclusion being absurd (i.e. extraterrestrials, demons, angels, etc. in contrast to an undocumented species native to this planet)."

      - Scott Nelson.

      ... Though not suggested in the above quote, Scott is also drawing on the fact of where the recordings were attained; in the middle of pristine wilderness, miles and miles in the Sierra's where no other homo sapiens would have been at that time, or at least extremely little to no chance of so. I know that is a question of faith, but when you hear & read Ron Morehead's accounts, you have to be cynical or outwardly dismissive to not consider them compelling.

      Peace.

      Delete
    24. Just a thought but maybe no one has questioned it because, let's be honest, the only people who really pay close attention to bigfoot news are those interested in it. Since it is far from mainstream or given serious thought maybe other linguistics experts haven't payed it one bit of attention. The absence of others questioning it really doesn't make it more credible in this case.

      Delete
    25. I am quite willing to consider the possibility of that, especially from a gentle, articulated lady such as yourself but we must look at how much the Sierra Sounds were scrutinized prior to Scott coming along, which has only been very recently. The same level of attention & scrutiny would not diminish over the past couple of years surely? The Sierra Sounds being that of some of the most profound Bigfoot Evidence enthusiasts have and therefore in the firing line more. It remains that if something is not yet questioned or double opinionated; it comes down to whether your glass is half empty, or half full.

      All means of Bigfoot evidence is yet to be doubled up or condemned with expert equivalent opinion; but that's not gonna stop me from fighting the corner of researchers that dedicate their precious time to allocating their expertise to something I for one; know is real

      Peace Jill.

      Delete
    26. Also Jill, I would highly recommend you check out some Scott Nelson on YouTube if you haven't already seen anything by him.

      Peace.

      Delete
    27. I'm not saying bigfoots aren't real by any stretch, why else would I even be here. I am saying that if Mr. Nelson would bring forward someone else in his field to agree with his theories it would lend credibility to his work rather than the general "other people agree" talk. How many times have we heard that statement from people in the bigfoot community and then it turns out to be a pile of camel plop? You know as well as I do it happens more than we would like. I am not scrutinizing or refuting his ideas because I know nothing about his field of work. However he has the oppurtunity to make this a very credible piece of evidence if he can get it verified or agreed with by someone else in his field and so far that has been very vague.

      Delete
    28. Holy cow did I miss a lot. I just swooped in for a first and this is what resulted haha. I like how one comment I make gets stretched into some ridiculous statement I did not make. I said "countless" sorry if I mispoke. I have seen multiple linguists both on television docs, read of online, and chatted with online. Some were REAL experts some werent. I have spoken to Alex MW many times about the subject despite many dont think of him as an expert he is a well qualified researcher in my opinion. I dont have an enormous list of linguists, sorry to disapoint.

      Hey Joe, always good to see you on here doing your thang. Thanks for keeping the debate alive brother. Its hard with the anonymous clowns who post here getting away with empty statements all day. Theres just nobody to confront on the matter because they are too scared to create a username. It doesnt have to be your REAL name guys, if you want to have a good debate be someone who can be addressed otherwise most your comments or replies get lost in the retard shuffle.

      peas.

      Delete
    29. Charles, no one else is reading this... too many replies, thoughts, and words for most here. I like the idea of everyone using names even if it's a muppet.

      Delete
    30. Well Jill, you read it! thats what matters most to me. ;) Thanks for agreeing about the names, it would be great for the debates and keep the riff raff out. I go to plenty of other blogs/websites that require login without being a full fledged forum. Not sure why this one isnt, it would be better respected.

      Delete
    31. Yeah it would be a good idea. I think it comes down to the owner just caring about clicks. But then again I am also part of the problem by playing the "first" game hehe. If your idea catches on I am changing my name to Gonzo..I call it :)

      Delete
    32. Hey Jill...

      I was by no way shape or form referring to you in the statement I made and in a parts I agree with you. Scott has said on two occasions that he is trying to got his work reviewed by the people who mentored him in his field (who better) and it would certainly be a help to people like me who reference him regularly. I have seen your comments in the past and it is very obvious of your open mindedness regarding this subject. If you haven't seen any of his work, I highly recommend it.

      This all came about from Joe Rogan's documentary the other day in which this anonymous poster (the guy I have schooled today) suggested that Scott made an idiot of himself. I have conducted interviews on many occasions in front and off of camera. If you put someone on edge by coming across cynical; then you can make pretty much anyone mumble, trip and look foolish. The crafty thing about editing processes is that this then hides this and gives the whole process on camera a very fluid feel. I have seen many an interview and presentation with Scott and it is not in his nature to look like that; he is a very respectable, confident person and comes across impeccably at the worst of times; this is how I know he was put on edge through the interviewer's technique. The debate then snowballed into an argument over Scott's credibility, which I will defend to my last day.

      Bronson bro!

      Don't worry about pip-squeeks like him, he soon capitulated and ran off when I showed him how much of an opinionated, contradictive person he was. I am glad you posted a response about your comment however and I hope that has in some way cleared it all up. Scott's work stands up for what it is and I think the problem is that not even that many enthusiasts have checked him out, purely because Bigfoot to them is still a bipedal gorilla and incapable of speech. This is in complete conflict with thousands of years of Native American culture; the people we need to listen to the most regarding this subject.

      Peace both!

      Delete
    33. I have taken the time to look over some of his stuff and I am not sayin he is a crazy, only that validity would help. I do not think he is crazy or eating fruit loops for his 3 daily meals. Everyone has theories it is how science progresses. I didn't watch the show because Joe Rogan annoys me and I wouldn't care if he was talking about my dead grandma I still wouldn't tune in. And I agree that when being interviewed the tone of the person doing the interview can make others appear in either a good or bad light, unless the person being interviewed is extremely witty of course.

      Delete
    34. Validity sometimes comes with the requirement of a little faith and various consistencies to draw from and this is where I am coming from in this respect. I just can't stand some people on here today, condemning him for not having expert backing, and passing their own unqualified opinion on him as a basis in fact that he is not credible? The guy clearly knows what he's doing. I'm gonna try my best to get all this cleared up however and will continue to reference him at the first opportunity in the mean time, as I always have.

      Cool Jill... Gotta go and pick a fight in the newer blog pages now (though I always keep an eye on previous ones).

      Peace sis!

      Delete
    35. Speaking of Joe Rogan, here is my take on that show

      I didnt like the way Joe conducted himself. He acted like a skeptic, when we know he isnt and he is truly interested in the topic. It came off a bit like some of the posters here who are in denial of the existence but are just waiting for the day someone proves it so they can get off too!

      I was surprised with his reaction to the sounds also. anyone who has a remote interest in bigfoot has come across the sierra sounds or something like it at one point on their search via the web. And if so, you end up down the rabbit hole hearing everything on youtube related to vocalizations. The man has a show about bigfoot and doesnt know of the subject matter even a little bit?

      Maybe Joe considers himself knowledgeable about things because he has a podcast and speaks with real intelligent people sometimes and thinks of himself as like minded, but he isnt.
      He is an decent actor, good talker(radio, tv host, commentator), and atleast he cares about BF enough to do this. But the guy is no expert in the matter. His interview seemed cocky, like he does sometimes. I was not impressed and probably wont tune in again.

      Also the name of the episode struck me as odd, Bigfoot Human Hybrid or whatever just not what anyone who takes it seriously would ever have titled it. Seems like he was going to high rating not high quality. Im not even going to mention the field work attempt. The only good part about it was the funny banter between him and his friend. I laughed.

      Delete
    36. Can't agree more bro... Good post!

      Peace bro.

      Delete
    37. Typical, I wake up to Joe's million words including cut and paste jobs of my postings..

      And I've yet to see where I have trashed Scott Nelson's skills, specifically me saying he is incapable.

      If you notice the whole time, all I ask for is a second professional opinion to verify his claims, that's all.

      And yeah, I've had an unexplainable experience, doesn't mean I think bigfoot is 100% fact. It means I had an unexplainable experience. Doesn't mean I'm a researcher, doesn't mean I go out looking for it.

      Simple. A claim was made, I just asked who and when? Apparently that was enough to set you up for a red faced day.

      Delete
    38. Red faced? You were the one that resorted to name calling no one else. No hard feelings.

      Peace.

      Delete
    39. Look at you, thousands of words over a scenario you created in your head.

      You said I claimed Scott was a fraud and wasn't adept in his field. That was a lie.

      All I asked is who and when these countless linguistics experts examined the sounds and verified Scott's claims.

      It's common fact that one lone person can't verify something without having his own work verified. He can claim something, and it's not a knock on his skills, it's science. You must be peer reviewed.

      You claimed I was a researcher, which is false again.

      The whole argument is a scenario made up in your head just so you can 'debate.'

      All I want is what is claimed.

      Now using your own PGF logic, you cannot stand up to the scrutiny, Joe. Matilda looks as real to me as PGF. She even has DNA evidence backing and HD video.

      You claimed it's a man under a rug. Explain the 6 breathes a minute.

      You claim this and that about the backstory and situation surrounding Matilda is bunk...well, that's no different than the JrEF kids claims about Patterson and the PGF background.

      Face it, you got all hot and bothered over nothing then proceeded to put words in my mouth.

      You were in the wrong, Joe, just say so.

      Delete
    40. Here we go again...

      To claim that I said that you said he was a 'fraud' is a lie... You claimed that Scott was a hack; anyone looking at your past comments can see that and to imply anything else... Is a lie.

      You snaked in between confronting Bronson about his statement and making those suggestions and that is why I responded... to deny this; is a lie.

      Like I have stated above; laughably, you do not have to be a linguistics expert to listen to what is in front, you do however have to be a cryptolinguist to have the necessary tools to transcribe it. Out of the tens of thousands, MAYBE MILLIONS of people to have heard these sounds, it would have taken someone with the equivalent expertise as Scott, seconds to come to a counter claim if it was the case. Though I agree that in an ideal world all sources of Bigfoot evidence should be peer reviewed and backed up with a second opinion, it is not realistic to the few people willing to put their reputations on the line; hence the reason why so many researchers apply their expertise after their retirements. With the dogma surrounding this subject, along with the wider negative agendas (like you have sir) you cannot perceive Scott as a pioneer as opposed to a loan theorist. You obviously have not listened to his work, but I don't expect you to and even if you did, I wouldn't expect you to deliver an honest evaluation of it because you are more concerned with having the last work with me.

      I say bollocks to your peer reviewing. We have seen the 'peer review' of Melba's work and seen how far that got her. No mainstream science would give this subject the first bit of legitimate time so keep your peer reviews to yourself. It's a clever attempt at keeping honest research in check; you know this subject can't get recognition from dogmatic science yet you question why it is not peer reviewed? Cheap and obvious. I would rather stay in the realms of 'pseudo-science' until Sykes delivers and sticks two finger up to your dogmatic, ignorant view of the subject.

      Delete
    41. You implied that you were working on a hoax in a previous comments; but because you did not explain yourself properly, I came to that conclusion... I would suggest you explain yourself a little better and people would not fall to false conclusions...

      "Honestly, just to prove how naive and quick to jump to conclusion the footery world is, I've been working on a hoax for almost 2 months now and it won't be stopping anything soon, I'd say I have another 8 months of solid work to put in and then the paper will be written around it."

      ... Does that mean you are uncovering a hoax? Or trying to perpetuate one?? You can understand if I drew a conclusion that you were doing so for the positives and therefore a 'researcher' because you claimed to have had an experience yourself... quite contradictingly in hindsight I might add?

      Now... Anyone with half a brain can see that Matilda is a rubber mask, it's teeth are made of rubber and move and like it was stated previously; the land owners of the Erickson project habituation area had hoaxed Adrian with the footage in an effort to make money, to which had a baring on the real DNA sample story handed to Melba. She would not know any different and red hair is what is commonly attained as Bigfoot hair samples. I really don't think you read my comments do you? I think you just keep repeating yourself don't you? I've come across some very contradictive people on this blog but you sir are the pick of the bunch. Patty has full motion that doesn't fit human proportions, a head shot that does not fit human proportions, arm and leg length that doesn't fit human proportions, extended toes and foot shape that doesn't and muscle and skin fold detail you cannot replicate. To compare this to Matilda is so desperate and laughable I'm sorry; it really outlines how desperate you have come doesn't it? And, in your effort to try and dismiss my logic, you forget that I can actually show you a thousand Chewie masks and 70's bath rugs and you cannot bring me a Patty suit... (Sigh, this is getting too easy) The six breathes a minute can easily be explained with a foot pump and the way it bloats, would outline this further.

      The timeline that Patty suit enthusiasts use is not legitimate and this was my sentiment, however the issues regarding the Erickson project have one major difference; we have legitimate sequenced DNA and an obvious hoaxed video; this is why I can draw major differences between the two cases; something that in your cynicism you forget. I see people like drawing so many comparisons between Patty and Matilda and it's laughable and I actually quite enjoy outlining how stupid you all are, in your pursuit to try and make logic twisted to your preferred version.

      No sir... You snaked in and out of calling Scott a hack and then avoided me schooling you until you could do no more and now sir; I have schooled you again. Please, please, please respond... I can go all year and really enjoy outlining how much of a typical contradictive, desperate skeptic you are.

      Peace.

      Delete
  3. How many of you footers are also young earth creationists that will shamelessly defend the noahs ark story?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many JREFers don't believe in anything? All.

      Delete
    2. Well, true philosophical skepticism holds that ultimately "truths" are unknowable. One can only deduce such and such is more likely than this or that..As was pointed out in ancient Greece, this stance is in itself dogmatic...

      For a great, readable book on western philosophy check out Bertrand Russel's "A History of Western Philosophy"...He is a liberal atheist( he protested the Vietnam War with Joan Baez )but he is also a logician and a clear, entertaining writer. He was surprisingly fair to the Christian philosophers and even expressed admiration for St. Augustine ...

      Delete
    3. Typical that a skeptic should compare anything that they cannot explain to things like creationism; cheap and laughable and a very common thing these people do. In actuall fact, to consider the Bigfoot species is to embrace all the theories of anthropological evolution. You have a creature equal to us in mental capacity, but has evolved animalistic physical and sensory aspects to survive in it's terrain and environment.

      Peace.

      Delete
    4. I personally dont think BF is equal to us in mental capacity. I think they are way more advanced than us in many other ways just like we are to them. Just a difference of intelligence.

      Its funny last night I was reading about brain activity and how some people can do things that others cannot. When brains on these people are scanned while performing certain tasks it is clear they use their brain more than the average human. I started this after watching a Stan Lees Super Humans for the first time, there was a man who could speak 400+ words per min, which is faster than any auctioneer or annoucner. He can process, think, read, speak 400+ words per minute and when his brain was scanned doing so it was because he used more than 2x the amount of brain power than the average person.

      Anyway, my point is I am sure there are many less intelligent BFs out there and on the other side of the coin, many VERY intelligent and capable ones also. They avoid us to live, that in itself is highly intelligent. Dolphins arent even smart enough to avoid us they will come right up a boat for capture.

      Delete
    5. Good post. It is in fact a myth about dolphins being so approachable however.

      Peace.

      Delete
    6. I really liked your post though and am not challenging you at all.

      Peace.

      Delete
    7. SOME dolphins are approachable. In FL some will get in the intracoastal and will follow boats in. The other day we were out on the boat and dolphins showed up at the bar we were at on the intracoastal, not anywhere near the ocean the port is miles one way and the inlet is the other direction even further. They actually were a family of 3, including a baby. They wanted to play and be fed believe it or not. They then followed us home until we got to the speed zone where we took off and didnt see them again.

      Delete
    8. And if you have seen The Cove you will see a horrible method of herding these animals in by using pipes and banging them to trap them all in a cove to be slaughtered. Worth the watch, a little too activst-y for me. Yea I made that word up.

      Delete
  4. not one comment about this compelling attack footage?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Probably fake? Um, try, obviously fake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously someone having fun with a suit and camera. But I think the jury's still out on whether Bigfoot attacks people. As an apex predator, I'd say he'd eat your liver if he thought he could get away with it.

      Delete
  6. If you throw a stick straight up, you'll be using a "Bigfoot Boomerang"

    Bigfoot are so smRt they can make a boomerang out of anything when they throw things straight up!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I heard a rumor that the Sykes dna tests include a rape test kit from a woman who claimed she was raped by a bigfoot in the early 90's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No,Melba got involved with Bigfoot later on the the 2000's

      Delete
  8. Edited by admin3: It would seem that some people will try and preach what does not belong. Creation and Evolution do not go together. And there are several reasons for it.1) It totally denies God's power of creation.2) It applies time that is not recorded in even one verse of scripture.3) It make Evolution cross over to being a religion, because a Creator becomes part of the picture.Threads like these are only made to start arguements, not debates. And this one started out just like the one before we got hacked with the old forum. And now we are being e-mailed to death which makes it look even more like these people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nelson has his own agenda and is far from being any expert regarding sasquatch vocalizations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ?!

      Scott Nelson -

      "Retired from the U.S. Navy as a Crypto-Linguist with over 30 years experience in Foreign Language and Linguistics, including the collection, transcription, analysis and reporting of voice communications.
      He is a two time graduate of the U.S. Navy Cryptologic Voice Transcription School (Russian and Spanish) and has logged thousands of hours of voice transcription in his target languages as well as in Persian. He is currently teaching Russian, Spanish, Persian, Philosophy and Comparative Religions at Wentworth College in Missouri."

      Cryptolingusitics- "basically it is one of the hardest jobs in the military to learn depending on how you score on the DLAB (Defense Language Aptitude Battery) you will be assigned at the DLI (Defense Language Institute) a language in the category that you score. I believe it goes Category I = 90 Category II = 100 Category III = 105 and Category IV = 110, you can look that up, Im not sure about that, I just know for sure that IV = 110 or higher the category is based on how similar the language is to english so I's are Spanish French Italian... IIIs are stuff like Farsi, Polish, and Japanese and the IVs are the hardest to learn: Chinese Korean and Arabic you go to DLI for a length of time depending on the language you're assigned, it's usually about 1 year then you go to cryptology school for about half a year during that time you will become completely fluent in the language both written and oral. Be warned, the washout rate is roughly 75% at DLI. it's a great job to have, a lot of people get picked up for diplomatic jobs or work for the CIA afterwards, plus with the Army it comes with a $40,000 enlistment bonus

      Good luck, maybe I will see you at DLI in a few months

      USAF Cryptologic Linguist"

      ... Far from being an expert on Sasquatch vocals?? Says the anonymous poster with a qualification in flipping burgers...

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. Thats quite a bit of info there Joe! Good HW! A+ 100% haha nice.

      Lets see if anyone can even try to argue you on that. I doubt it...

      Delete
  10. Nelson has his own agenda and is far from being any expert regarding sasquatch vocalizations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ssnorrrre, ssnorrrre, sssorrrre

      Delete
  11. Joe still cant produce the matilda suit and magic air pump. He thinks matilda is fake yet cannot replicate it. Got monkey suit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you settle for Austin Powers Swedish penus enlargement pump?

      Delete
    2. I can show you a million 70's psychadelic bath rugs online; you can't replicate Patty.

      Peace.

      Delete
    3. Wrong joe. You cannot produce the muscle tone, fur density, body proportions, or even come close to the movement and realism of the breath rate. Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    4. It's such an embarrassing comparison, this is really getting desperate for you guys isn't it?

      I don't have to point out your various exaggerations in that comment and even comparing the Matilda footage to Patty sums up how far you've fallen.

      http://www.wayfair.com/red-flokati-rug-th.html

      Here's a link for your bath rugs that you require as replicates for Matilda. Just save up your semen you protrude for your bookmarks on BBW porn; splash that all over it, hide under it in the woods like a pervert and hey presto; Matilda!

      Your turn with Patty... Got monkey suit?

      Peace.

      Delete
    5. Still no matilda suit huh?

      You simply have not and can not recreate the matilda suit. You know it. I know it. It simply can not be done even with modern day materials.

      You simply dont wish to confront the evidence that is right infront of your eyes. Matilda is a living breathing creature.

      If you think its a suit show us how it was done. No one has successfully reproduced the video because it simply cant be done.

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    6. http://www.wayfair.com/red-flokati-rug-th.html

      There's your Matilda. You people are hilarious... It's genuinely come down to you guys comparing our demand for a replicant of Patty, with you demanding the same of a rug. You're really doing your theory group proud guys... Keep up the good work eh?

      Got your Matilda, got magic pre-modern technology monkey suit?

      Schooled.

      Delete
    7. Matilda was filmed by a Phd. Patty was filmed by a shyster.

      Delete
    8. Skeptic -

      "I can't explain the Patty footage so in a desperate attempt at trying to claw back the slightest piece of breathing space, I'll compare the manner in which enthusiasts school me, to a piece of film that isn't even remotely acceptable as legitimate footage and try and draw comparisons with me not being able to replicate something as organic in Patty; with that of a rug. It helps me avoid explaining my flawed logic."

      Joe -

      Oh dear... Has it really some to this? Sigh... If you think comparing the two pieces of film exposes our demand for you to produce a suit as flawed and unrealistic; you really are as dumb and as desperate as we think you are.

      I have shown you how easy it is to replicate Matilda... Now you need to replicate Patty.

      Got monkey suit?

      Peace.

      Delete
    9. Haha joe that guy pwned you with your own argument

      Delete
    10. So Matilda is a rug ape?

      Delete
    11. 'Pwned Guy' needs to learn how to read properly I think.

      Delete
    12. Matilda was filmed by a habituator that sold the footage to Erickson. He was fooled and thats how this all started. He wont admit it, but that is what happened. You all will never hear from him again, mostly because he was hoaxed and made into a liar and then basically robbed of his money for fake footage. He could legitimately sue them if there is a good contract for the sale of this item, which there probably isnt.

      Delete
  12. Big monkey, that funky monkey.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What's with the hokey lump on the back of the suit? Also, the face that "jumps" them at the end of the video does seem to match the one of the subject at the beginning. Doesnt seem to match normal facial descriptions of N.American encounters.
    How about more info on where the video came from? By the jibber jabber it sounds like an Oriental Asian language, so was this in E.Asia, can anyone tell by the Flora? Was the vid found on an abandoned cam, or did the victims survive.
    Bigfoots dont attack people? I guess you haven't read the books by Green and others. Ape Canyon. The beaver trapper who came back from collecting traps and found partner dead at campsite. People who've been grabbed at. Rocks and sticks thrown.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ButchyKid really is getting quite good.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The best part of squatching with a bunch of women is The Mud, The Blood, and The Beer, and More Mud.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Terrific film editing, lousy costuming, elephant gurgling attempted to be passed off as Bigfoot growling. And then despite all the mayhem, the victim/japanese actor suspiciously gets the camera on the supposed attackers face, in his last moment on this earth. Where did the escape music come from in that forest? Do wood gnomes play in a band too?It's a 21st century remake of Godzilla Attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So between Patty and Matilda who is the hottest female squatch in America???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends on which one passes out drunk first.

      Delete
  18. Once a jolly footer spied a sleeping she squatch, under the shade of an old oak tree. And he sang as he slipped his wally in her taterhole, you'll come a waltzing Matilda with me. Waltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda you'll come a waltzing Matilda with me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I took a few screenshots of this video....
    Used Wisdom-soft ScreenHunter 5.1 2 in between the trees and two (one turned out blurry-go figure) when IT attacked.....I do see fangs and teeth so this is a very good fake....Would need more information (who filmed this, what do they say, who sent the video, where was this filmed, has anyone checked the area out etc.)All in all a VERY good hoax IMHO.

    I'd guess (I am no expert mind you) that its CGI but very well done. MORE INFO SHAWN!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am sure if this video was real, these people would be dead. End of their story or maybe not.Story at 11?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah it's fake--but your assuming bigfoot kills -when it can easily just maim or fake charge and move on.

      Delete
    2. Great point, but it sure looked really pissed off. When cornered, even an old dog will bite.

      Delete
    3. It will lick it's balls too.

      Delete
  21. somewhere out there bigfoot is creating human attack film hoaxes with the camera it took after killing a footer in the woods

    ReplyDelete