Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from
DWA IS CLUELESS
ReplyDeleteHow DARE you...
DeleteYou seem to be confusing evidence with proof. A common skeptic fallacy.
If you read the scientists who are doing their jobs you'd know that they agree with me.
I can't tell if this DWA poster is a useful idiot, a sock puppet for the BFF, or just a troll.
DeleteWho is DWA?
DeleteHe's the anti-skeptic mouthpiece of the BFF. A self-professed fountain of knowledge who has read everything about bigfoot, except it's painfully obvious he hasn't, his mission is to promote bigfoot by continually pointing out how mainstream science ignores bigfoot, and that skeptics can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist. He seems to assert that mantra on a daily basis, or at least he did when I was still active over there.
DeleteHe's very resistant to the scientific method, and relies heavily on anecdotes and eyewitness reports, because he believes that is the best evidence we have for the existence of bigfoot.
He continually asserts he's right and logically sound even though he's not. He's like the close-minded offspring of Beckjord without the wackadoodle paranormal theories.
He's a real fuck.
^ Lame
Delete^the politically correct term is differently abled
DeleteCan you believe that there are folks in this world that won't sleep tonight because they have read the recent postings of a staunch 'bleever' on a BF forum?
DeleteTime to get off your mom's laptop and do something else for a while. Anything.
MMG
MMG has just finished his daily watching of x creatures and is venting his rage on here
DeleteOne of DWA's major points is that bigfoots have not really been looked for yet... He holds that there have been few genuine, scientific attempts to locate one...
DeleteI would agree that there has never been, say, a 3 month expedition in the PNW run by a professor armed with grant money and graduate students...
The problem with this is that bigfoots are everywhere, so what is to prevent anyone from snapping a photo so long as they are simply in the woods...
Anyway, it is an interesting theory that is hard to put forth without insulting all the amateur groups..He is a very good writer and does a decent job of spinning out of that one...
TEAM HOMOS!
DeleteFirst, motherfuckers. Open wide for tradition, Joe.
ReplyDelete^fantastic crappy false first, congrats biotch!!
DeletePatterson's shady past has been brought up on the bff and yet again the bleevers are sweeping it under the rug.... AMAZING
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with the backstory, bitch.
DeleteI've met Bob Gimlin and he has a moustache. This is proof that the PGF shows a real creature, and not a guy in a suit.
These two flunkheads' posts here of course prove Patty is some glorious genius in a mythical magical mysterious mystical miraculous monkey man suit. The suit has to be all of those things in order to perform in that manner.
DeleteThanks guys and gals! You really helped us out here today!
Patterson's shady past doesn't exactly disprove the remarkable subject in the film he shot 46 years ago?
DeleteI can understand Skeps trying to unravel the back story and assassinate characters. I'd do the same if Patty wasn't so darn convincing.
It couldn't be real? Right guys? No...
MMG
if you think patty is convincing there is no hope for you in life
DeleteIf you have proof of Patty being a suit that will stand up to the scientific method I will give you $1,000. No lie, I will paypal it to you now. Show me the proof.
DeleteMMG
^I am with MMG.
DeleteIf you can show me irrefutable proof that Patty is fake I will add another $500 on top of that.
Shawn I just bbq'd some longanisa. U want some?
ReplyDeleteThis is what I think:
ReplyDelete.
nothing there, same as your penis right?
DeleteSame as Bigfoot's penis
Deleteyou and Bigfoot have that in common
DeleteDon't you believe in Bigfoot's penis? I bet you stay up at night wishing he'd bust down your door and have his way with your closeted ass
DeleteI've never quite understood the fervent reaction among the PGF proponents that one is not entitled to an opinion that the PGF is fake without doing rigorous study to explain how it was done. That is simply not necessary. It looks like an obvious fake to me. Why would I bother with spending any time trying to figure out how it was done? Where is the motivation for that for the average viewer? I look at it, think fake, then move on. As probably do most people. Why do proponents think someone would look, think fake, and then immediately think " and now I simply must figure out how this was done". That is not going to happen many times to be honest. I'm not interested in spending time and effort into deducing how a couple of cow boys faked a Bigfoot before I was even born. Why would I?
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of like when I watch a science-fiction movie. I know that I am not watching an actual star ship, but I am not in any way compelled to go out and figure out how it was done to prove to folks that is not an actual star ship. I know it is a special effect, I don't need to know how it was done or explain it to any one else. Why is the PGF so different?
Is Bigfoot from outer space now?
DeleteToo much reading
DeleteIt's a superficial judgement to cry fake without studying it, so your opinion carries the weight of superficiality.
DeleteIf you study the film you'll find some good evidence in it. That is the problem with a superficial verdict of fake. The problem with superficially calling it a fake is that there is good evidence in the film. Since your knowledge of it is superficial, you are unaware of this evidence.
It's compelling that all who have tried to prove it was a fake by duplicating Patty, have failed. Therefore, there are some aspects to Patty which are so far not fakeable. The 46 years of failure is compelling in favor of some evidence in the PGF.
Also you have to be careful in a superficial judgement because you apparently don't have anything to compare what a Sasquatch would appear like to except gorillas, gibbons, chimpanzees, and written descriptions and drawings of Sasquatch.
Without having a test sample to compare it to, it's hard to cry fake, because you are unfamiliar with what the test sample would look like. You wouldn't know anything about the walk, the turn of the head, the hair wear patterns and colors, the demeanor, or anything else other than the thing is supposed to be big and hairy and bipedal.
If you've never seen one, and the thing is part human, well what do you think it's going to look like? Some aspects are going to look human.
You can study the PGF to learn the evidence in it, or you can keep your knowledge of it superficial, and your opinion of it superficial.
It's my opinion that if your knowledge of it is superficial, you should have no opinion because you don't possess the information to base an opinion on.
Speaking of superficiality, here is a skeptard's site attempting to debunk everything under the sun. What is this skeptard's evidence? Hearsay. This skeptard says PGF a hoax because people involved came forward and said it was. He or she treats all the topics in the same way: someone came forward supposedly involved in the thing and said it was fake, so, it's fake. Hearsay.
Hearsay isn't evidence. It's the laziest most superficial way out of the skeptard's dilemma:
http://illuminutti.com/category/bigfoot/
^differently abled
DeleteExcellent post Anon 3:39.
DeleteTo claim something is a fake because 'I think it is' must rank as the worst Skep standpoint I've come across.
It rivals 'Got Monkey' and 'YGNALI' for sheer banality.
The 'Village Idiot' must even be facepalming just now.
The dead and gay Randi cannot be paying as well as he once did.
You pay peanuts you get...
MMG
jesus fucking Christ MMG... "Excellent post"... are you fucking serious? have you taken your meds today? wow.
DeleteRandi pwns the fucking shit out of you and has done more in life than a deluded monkey bleever like you could ever dream of. And that homophobic attitude of yours is fucking pathetic, get a grip dude.
What's compeling to me is a total lack of bigfoot. Ever.
DeleteNever encountered Randi. Simply because he is dead and gay.
DeleteI'm sure if he was alive he would like 'pwn' me. Rather hard no doubt.
I'm sorry if I've upset you little minion. Probs best if you log off and cry yourself to sleep.
No peace here my friend.
MMG
3:39 That was a nice post that contained an excellent point: how do you know its fake if there is nothing to compare it to..etc..Its rare to see a statement on this subject that has not been said a million times-kudos for that...
DeleteBut that is why provenance is paramount: all we have to go by is the result of the vetting. Moreover, once it is established that the source is rock solid there is nothing to discuss: There is in fact an undocumented primate...The end..
Recently, it was established by video that there is a giant species of big fin squid. We do not know if it is a new species or related to one of the 3 small specimens in collections, but it is a fact beyond dispute that giant big fins exist. Why is it a fact? Because the source of the footage is beyond reproach. The end..
With the PGF, not only is the source reproachable, what we do know of the back story is not good and in fact leans more towards hoax..We can safely dismiss it as a hoax, and if that is wrong, well, surely there will be others around to be filmed by a credible source....
You think this is good, you should see what he posted at handle MrSnuffaluffagusHunterExtraordinaire
ReplyDeleteAnyways, in regards to this Squatchmaster= Parabreakdown video....this breakdown is old news. From a year ago was it not?
ReplyDeleteWhat's next to rehash?
Squatchmaster tripping over the tree stump and claiming a bigfoot attacked him because he was too close?
So far this sasquatch season has been a disappointment for evidence and hoaxes.
Randi is not dead.
ReplyDeleteYour right,i looked on wikipedia,he's 84 and he is gay,but there's nothing wrong that,for every gay man there's a extra woman for straight men,plus gay men don't talk to my tits xx
ReplyDeleteNo one cares about these stupid breakdowns. Enough already.
ReplyDelete