Sunday, July 14, 2013

These Photos Are The Reason Why I'll Never Going Into The Woods Alone


Check out these terrifying photographs of a possible Bigfoot that was recently posted on Facebook by Paranormal Distraction, a paranormal research team. These series of photographs were taken by an undisclosed person on July 4th at Table Rock Lake In Kimberling City, Montana and sent to the group for analysis. Though the team hasn't concluded anything yet, ParaBreakdown's Phil Poling has already put in his two cents:

Para Breakdown: This goes against just about everything that we have come to believe about a North American Bi-pedal primate. 1. It stays around for the photographer to snap away instead of disappearing into the woods. 2. It seems to be oblivious to the photographer as if it has no idea of it's surroundings. 3. Neck too long. 4. Head out of proportion for a Bigfoot. 5. Baggy skin with no muscle definition. 6. It looks like a person wearing a costume.
[...]
Para Breakdown: Another red flag is that for anyone who is a real researcher, the source of the photographs needs to be vetted. The source is crucial here. Without this, why should we believe his/her story?





216 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. That guy must be a CEO somewhere becuase that is a good looking suit,
      I think I see a Hilfiger tie also.
      Squatch Nuts

      Delete
  2. No matter who your bigfoot groups consist of, no matter how much hard evidence you bring forth, you will never be the ones to reveal the existence of Sasquatch. Not you, not FB, not anyone. Don't go into the woods looking for answers, because you will only find more questions. Just because he exists, doesn't mean you should spend your valuable time on something you cannot grasp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More like Melba, or any number of earnest researchers who thought they might be the one. Guilty here of that as well, just quieter about it. Above ANON comment is spot on. If you desire being a pariah in society and among BFers simply share your observations. If you want acceptance and a place in society keep your mouth shut.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. I know, right? Hundreds of articles, videos, audio clips, thermal images and tons of other evidence, yet no proof has surfaced. While I believe he exists, I think everyone should quit looking. Sometimes what you're looking for is staring you right in the face. Then again, just because you're looking for something, does not mean you'll find it. If everyone put as much time into trying to save the forests, as they do collecting scat, cast samples and armchair researching, this world would be a much better place. Have fun discussing flaky evidence for another year before another Melba comes along looking to prove you all right. Again.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you to some extent, like the Native Americans say; looking to prove the existence of this creature i 'bad medicine'.

      It comes down to the clash of ideals in that the habituators (who require no more proof that the creature exists) are now trying to bridge the social gap in acknowledgment of the creatures intelligence... where as the traditional researchers are utilizing the best means of modern technology to find the holey grail of proof for the skeptics. Technology has not rendered us any closer to doing that in all this time so what's next? Does this mean habituation is the natural progression to attaining more understanding?? I'm not agreeing with either means of research, just kicking off conversation...

      Peace.

      Delete
    3. In the absence of proof yes, habituation yields a great deal of understanding for the researcher. Just about the time they get in deep they clam up, for many reasons. The non believing Bfers are just a small part of the issue, more importantly is the realization there is no middle way for the two species to exist with knowledge. Humans will work to eradicate because BFs are a threat to many individuals. No mixing society will allow, and BFs won't accept a lesser role than total freedom.

      Delete
    4. I'm on 2 environmental groups. ( non radical) and we preserve recreational land and condervational easements. Keeping land protected from urban sprawl and open for logging and recreation . I also plant close to a 10000 trees/year myself as a reforestation pogram on burned or land to be reclaimed. I got into bigfooting because of people I trust who I've known who are avid outdoorsman and work in forestry. You may click all day anon 3:04 on your computer so I'm not sure why your telling others to do something productive? I do. It comes with the territory for me and I also work a full time job when I'm not volunteering or on a fire crew ( protecting forests and property) .

      Delete
    5. ^ or replanting areas. ( conservation- darn auto correct!)

      Delete
    6. love the reforestation projects on the ground, thanks!

      Delete
    7. Anon 5:30...

      I think Anon 3:04 made a fair point and if there were more people like you sir then people like him would not have to voice their concerns. Great to know there are people like you about, keep up the good work buddy, there are countless people who warm to such an effort and realize how important it is.

      Peace.

      Delete
    8. No problem Joe Much appreciative. Keep up the good fight!

      Delete
  4. There's something in this !!

    ReplyDelete
  5. haven't been here for 3 mnths. thought id drop in to see what new evidence film/pic. shit this has to the leanest time ever im guessing the haxers are on their summer vacation reduced to showing a guy in a suit igle pic in different rea. lol,the usual question.why single ht. wee u following it and just took what shot s it posed. the suit isn't even a good one.its a typical of the rack monkey job.zzzzzzzzzzz. surely even u guys have t say there is no magic monkey. you were wrong.no digrace in that, you thought there wa something but you now realise there isn't a shred of evidence
    Ketchum report- I wont even bother
    Ericksson report- where's matilda standing up. I guess it was just a carpet with a foot pump. well im shocked that was the outcome.
    smeja shooting- where is the serie kills evidence. ont tell me this was another cowboy trying to ake a buck of the big guy. where have we sen that

    move on. i'llbe back in 3 months, to see if u have

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Anon 3:14...

      Your assumption on the grasp of enthusiast understanding of so called 'evidence' is a flawed one, but one I have come to expect from people like you. Just because these Bigfoot 'research' groups endorse laughable rubbish like Matilda, it does not mean the wider enthusiast field are tarred with the same brush. There are in fact more enthusiasts I know that have called out that crap than skeptics, and this is something people need to understand.

      These pictures, that are so obviously hoaxed, aren't trying to be sold as 'evidence', it's a Bigfoot blog that posts various articles that are meant to stimulate comments from enthusiasts. There are plenty of enthusiasts that would call these pictures nothing but a very embarrassing attempt at publicity, so don't get to thinking that these type of articles are the best enthusiasts have got to offer as evidence, cause your three monthly visits are really not grasping the mindset of us.

      Ketchum's study, regardless of the way she conducted herself, never had a chance. She simply didn't have the big name credibility to take this idea straight to the wider scientific world without it getting scoffed at. What she has managed to do, is get the attention of people like Sykes; who has the big name credibility (literally wrote the book on mitochondrial DNA), who has become an active member of Bigfootology in recent months, has had an 'experience' in that time whilst visiting a well known research site, whilst he has visited Smeja's kill site in very recent times also.

      Smeja failed because he went weeks after the alleged shooting (by which time the dead Bigfoot were taken, convenient I know but consistent with the theory that these creatures are intelligent enough to share social values that are based on intimate relationships with each other; the same way we would not want a friend/family member left dead to the elements) and the blood hound he was using came across the remains of a bear. There was several feet of snow on returning to the site also that probably rendered the search a pointless one, whilst the site was a well used hunting area with the possibility of a few different remains of wilderness creatures still around.

      Move on... see you in three months for a little more schooling if you wish.

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. so many excuses joe, typical footer tripe trying to excuse the complete and utter failure

      Delete
    3. typical denial skeptic bored comment person lacking any flair or creativity, just a depressing person, it's all bad for skeptics

      Delete
    4. Those are facts sir, not excuses. We have the far harder job in claiming this species is a reality, whereas you sit on the sidelines like vultures picking at the scraps whenever a hurdle comes about. Science HAS recognized the need to ask questions; that's the start. Why is it that as science is evolving and bettering itself all the time, you are no closer to disproving Bigfoot yet?

      Peace.

      Delete
    5. ^Spoken like a pro! Good Job Joe!

      Delete
    6. Overruled. Nobody has to DISprove anything.

      The burden of proof is on the footers.

      And you better quit failing so spectacularly.

      Delete
    7. The burden is for you to provide at least one piece of professional expert analysis to back up your claim compared to our many, many sources. We have the experts, you just have... you... oh, and your 'burden' crap.

      Peace.

      Delete
    8. Wrong again you delusional idiot. Prove bigfoot exists. We'll be waiting forever apparently.

      Delete
    9. You don't have to wait too long... take a look at Patty; there's your Bigfoot you half-wit! Ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    10. It is so easy for Anons to make these horrible arguments. You speak from behind your curtain with that little of an argument, nobody will ever care.

      Nice to see Joe doing his job around here and setting the record strait for skeptics with either no argument or a flawed one based on their own personal feelings or lack of belief not facts. Pointing out what some people have done wrong does not prove or disprove the existence of BF. PGF still stands the test of time.

      If all you can do is post about things you do not believe with such certainty, based on so little, I am worried to see what kind of things you say about what you DO believe.

      Delete
    11. I will check back later to see who else Joe has served.

      Delete
  6. It's DWA wearing a fur coat and no knickers. What a plonker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gotta read, no see, Cervelo's posts in BFF. He can only post ripped off kitsch, weird guy. All of them are.

      Delete
  7. I say footers and jREF trolls band together for a day and give this site no traffic. Hit Shawn where it hurts the most!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a footer an I like this site, comments aside, because it does expose the nonsense. Well, some of the comments are priceless too.

      Delete
    2. Why would either want to 'hit Shawn where it hurts'?

      If you perceive Shawn or BE to be your enemy then please browse elsewhere.

      MMG

      Delete
    3. Priceless? The comments aren't just priceless, they're the best reason to come to this site.

      Delete
    4. True dat.True dat.

      Delete
    5. Aren't you the two boys that's been whackin in my tool shed? Ain't never seen two boys do so much whackin....

      Mr. Anderson

      Delete
    6. They're like a couple of dang spider monkeys. What the hell was that?

      Must have been one of those damn buzzard hawks

      Delete
  8. Shit! Am I going to have to put down my iPad and catch this son of a bitch myself?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely, you will make a difference.

      Delete
  9. DWA says there is more evidence for bigfoot than there is for black holes.

    WOW JUST WOW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be a hard one to demonstrate with physical evidence, but try, please.

      Delete
    2. He's obviously not seen my black hole plaster cast.

      MMG

      Delete
    3. No but he's seen your taterhole plastercast. DWA, what a jerk.

      Delete
    4. Obsessed by a man/boy he has never met. You need to get off your moms computer.

      Delete
    5. I will. After I've got off your moms snatch

      Delete
    6. DWA is the most wrong person on the internet

      Delete
  10. Joe Fitzgerald certainly is full of himself. Seems to be a footer trait.

    Mr. Fitzgerald- what would YOU (Joe Fitzgerald, pompous ass) estimate the population of bigfoots to be in North America? And what is their range?

    Lay your cards on the table.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ how do you estimate And then lay your cards on the table? Makes no sense! What's the wager dip shit? Your star wars collection and a bottle of lube? That all you got?

      Delete
    2. Anon 5:53 your confusing Pompous With smart! You're a coward And douche in my mind VS Joe who body slams you each day! Why don't you estimate the mosquito population around the world and get back with that number prick! Lay your F*CKING hand down you arrogant waste of life!

      Delete
    3. Well, Joe's main argument that he uses over and over is that no one can produce or recreate the Patty costume. Therefore, the Patterson creature is a real bigfoot and bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    4. Anyone with any objectivity knows that Patterson was a man with a dubious reputation. He was exactly the type of guy who would hoax a bigfoot film to make money (which he did with his famous footage).

      Patterson tried to make money with bigfoot BEFORE the 1967 PGF with a low budget FICTITIOUS bigfoot movie that never got off the ground. He also created a self-made book on the subject.

      There is no reason to believe that the PGF was nothing more than yet another attempt to make money with bigfoot.

      Delete
    5. ^ ah no . He used tons of other stuff to point out it's real. The village idiot just keeps bringing up the suit and changes the subject at hand to Patty on every article.

      Delete
    6. ... And what is wrong with that exactly? You cannot counter IT whenever YOU bring up PGF, so it makes sense that I use it??

      I would like nothing more than to move on with newer forms of debate, but it's down to people LIKE YOU bringing the PGF up everyday on this blog that requires me to respond. If the PGF is real, which I maintain it is, then Bigfoot is real. The species couldn't have become extinct in 46 years because there is too much evidence of it still being alive now.

      Peace.

      Delete
    7. Joe, can you recreate the Harry and the Henderson's bigfoot costume? If not, Harry must be a real bigfoot and bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    8. ^ one exists and it can be.

      Delete
    9. LOL. Touche. Now, let's sit back and wait for Joe's 1,000 word reply. Patterson is conning people like Joe over 40 years after his death.

      Delete
    10. Yeah, Hary looks bettr than Patty and so do some other bigfoot movie cretures.

      Delete
    11. Joe Fitzgerald is afraid to share his intellect with the unwashed? I thought so. Hiding behind generalities is par for the avid footer.

      50? 100? 1000? 5000? Man up Joe.

      Delete
    12. Anon 6:15...

      "Patterson tried to make money with bigfoot BEFORE the 1967 PGF with a low budget FICTITIOUS bigfoot movie that never got off the ground. He also created a self-made book on the subject."

      Ok... here we go again...

      Even if you COULD prove your claim leading up to 1967 was true, you still cannot explain how Patterson managed to make a suit that cannot be replicated with modern technology 46 years after the footage was captured. It's a futile source of debate which has no basis other than here-say and rumor. How is a rookie film maker meant to get the materials that were not even available then, to do that? The fact that Patterson had an interest in Bigfoot and made a 'self-made book' (whatever that means?) means nothing but follow the same pattern in which all researchers move from library research to active wilderness research.

      We have footage of physical evidence that cannot be explained away as a 'suit', yet the skeptics use a means of here-say and rumor to back up a claim that is irrelevant to disproving the footage as authentic... AND THEN, claim that we have 'nothing' and play down something they cannot explain?

      It's laughable the logic you people use and how much you point fingers and scoff, when you have nothing, it's so contradictive. Find a suit that's equivalent the creatures realism... or your claim has no basis in truth.

      Peace.

      Delete
    13. Some people search for bigfoot for years and never have a sighting. Patterson and Gimlin go across two states to find and film a bigfoot and lo and behold they run into one and film it. Yeah right.

      Delete
    14. We have nothing? You have a film snippet that's 46 years old. Hardly convincing. Oh, and a bunch of children's stories.

      Delete
    15. That's a pretty obvious thing to state and doesn't really matter. There are countless people who stumble across these creatures, that does not prove that they have not seen what they have seen because other experienced wilderness people haven't done that... It's a futile argument. I could state that there are countless amounts of people who have spent years searching for Bigfoot and HAVE come across them. I'm not sure if you are aware... Bob & Roger were avid outdoors men, and probably spent more time in the wilderness than you have on your Playstation... which is a lot.

      Peace.

      Delete
    16. Anon 6:38...

      Ok, pretend a second that we don't have so much more evidence... you still need to prove PGF fake, or the eye-witness accounts have evidence to back it up, don't they?

      We have so much more evidence than just that footage, I spend half my time drawing the attention like people like you to it... you are obviously new around here.

      Peace.

      Delete
    17. Have nothing? Anon 6:38 been around people in the last 46 years? Tons of evidence. Too much for your little mind to wrap around.

      Delete
    18. Anon 6:20...

      Another ridiculously bad argument! Harry of the Henderson's looks nowhere near as realistic as Patty, and yes... gimme a budget and a highly experienced costume expert (not a rookie film maker) and I'll give you another Harry.

      Peace.

      Delete
    19. Biggest "Bluff" of the century filmed at "Bluff Creek" These good ole boys were smarter than you think, PJ. You seem like a very logical guy, so why not think logically about this one?

      Delete
    20. Yep, and they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

      Delete
    21. Joe, sometimes I feel like "why waste your breathe?" and then I get to the end of your back and fourth and am just overjoyed with the read. Thank you for doing what you do. I could never deal with the folks on here like that and they dont expect anyone to handle it like you either. They are just trying to poke and poke, no real argument ever existed on their end. There are so many overly credible eye witnesses involved in law enforcement, wildlife, etc that come out and say what they saw. I would be fine with just that, but PGF puts the majority of skeptics to bed.

      Delete
    22. Thank you Bronson. I must say I look forward to your postings often.

      Thank you my friend... I always try to keep in mind the people who have dedicated their lives to researching this subject, along with the people left traumatized by their experiences. Commenting on this blog is one thing, but I would not have the drive if it were not for the credible and honest work at uncovering the truth that these heroes have put into this subject. Though I understand the requirement of humor and skepticism, and not taking myself too seriously, I feel that if the comment quality was better on this blog; people would speak of their experiences more as opposed to worrying about being ridiculed and that is my aim because I depend on this experiences to help get a better understanding... I cannot access wilderness areas where wild people reside due to living in the UK. I may never get there with regards to eradicating the ridicule, but at least I can put a few ignorant people straight in the process.

      Thank you Bronson, you have a friend in me sir and your kind words give me more drive and I will never be far.

      Much respect.

      Joe.

      Delete
  11. So anon 6:20 you're comparing costume making today to re-create Harry from the movie today VS 46 years ago? What a Moron. Easy to create today VS back then. What's your valid argument Mr Logic? Failed again. Plus your asking Joe to recreate it whereas he just wants you to produce the so called suit you claim exists. Do you think Joe is a costume maker? Harry's by the way was not all mask. It was partly makeup Dork! Why don't you with your hands recreate the Aliens monster!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ and make the alien costume using only 1960's technology and materials! Tell us how that turns out for you Einstein!

      Delete
    2. LOL. Who is Mr Logic? That Harry argument is just as valid as Joe's Patty argument. Joe doesn't just say to produce the actual suit used in the PGF. He keeps telling skeptics to recreate the Patty suit and uses the fact that skeptics don't do it as an argument that Patty is an actual bigfoot.

      Recreating the Harry suit argument is the exact same type of fallacious argument that Joe uses. If Joe isn't able to recreate the Harry suit, then Harry must be a real bigfoot, right? Of course, not. Then why does Patty therefore have to be a real bigfoot?

      Delete
    3. Another ridiculously bad argument! Harry of the Henderson's looks nowhere near as realistic as Patty, and yes... gimme a budget and a highly experienced costume expert (not a rookie film maker) and I'll give you another Harry.

      Peace.

      Delete
    4. Anon 6:43...

      It's really simple. We can prove Harry is fake, we know he is fake bless him... He is nowhere near the realism of Patty yet Patty was made 30 years prior?

      Oh dear...

      Peace.

      Delete
    5. Okay, I gotta jump in here on this one. It is not a "ridiculously bad argument" Joe You don't seem to understand that your reasoning is faulty when you keep telling people to recreate the Patty suit and use that proof of bigfoot. That was the point of the Harry suit argument, not whether or not Patty looks more realistic.

      Delete
    6. ^ you're not jumping in! You're the same douche!

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Anon 6:55...

      "Joe, can you recreate the Harry and the Henderson's bigfoot costume? If not, Harry must be a real bigfoot and bigfoot exists."

      ... gimme a budget and a highly experienced costume expert (not a rookie film maker) and I'll give you another Harry.

      Me making the same effort at a Harry costume today would be the same level of expertise in Patterson attempting the Patty suit in 1946... I couldn't do it without a major budget and expertise... neither could Patterson with the non-existent materials and an intermediate understanding and budget of supposed 'film making'. Now, with all the here-say and rumor that you skeptics appear to know an awful lot about... Dis Patterson attain any help from a major budgeted film studio prior to capturing the footage in 1967? If anything; the question posed to me backs up my argument... not yours.

      You are the ones claiming it's not real. Prove it.

      Peace.

      Delete
  12. It no use. You can argu all you want, footers will see what thy want to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really?! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

      YOU ARE CLAIMING IT'S FAKE, SO PROVE IT!!!! Forget our opinion, back up your claim.

      Peace

      Delete
    2. The burden of proof is on those claiming that there are thousands of 8-12 feet tall 800 lb bipedal primates roaming around North America, not on those who believe otherwise.

      Delete
    3. ^ the burden is also on the person claiming there isn't one! Don't you know anything about law? More evidence could be presented that's its real VS what? Your opinion? Court sides with the defense! Case closed!

      Delete
    4. We have our evidence, in the form of footprints & dermals, DNA, a transcribed complex language, at least two un-debunk-able videos, 100 years of printed media in libraries up and down the States, thousands of years of native American awareness, thousands of eye witness testimony many multiple person, a recognition by science in Dr Sykes and Oxford University... And like in any scientific debate, it is down to you to bring the experts to counter ours... Oh I forgot, you can't. Hope the burden isn't too heavy.

      Peace.

      Delete
    5. Oh my god these people are getting dumber and dumber...

      Delete
    6. ^ Don't forget recorded sounds .

      Delete
    7. And I forgot to mention the most credible and celebrated forensic artist in the country.

      Peace.

      Delete
    8. Oh yes... anymore? I am actually working and blogging at the same time believe it or not! Ha!

      Peace.

      Delete
    9. LOL. Read off your long list again Joe. Not one of those items is proof for the existence of bigfoot. Not only that, they have all been discounted by other experts.

      Delete
    10. What experts? Journalists? Sceptics?

      Delete
    11. Anon 7:33...

      You reel off some experts to counter ours then?

      Peace.

      Delete
    12. Skeptics think they dont need to prove their argument. Guess what, you have no argument if you cannot back it. Period.

      Delete
  13. Anon 6:34 is still stupid. Can't recreate the costume using 1960's tech. Read the F*CKING comment you dumb ass!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You also don't seem to grasp the point; it's the fallacious reasoning in Joe's repeatedly used argument.

      Delete
    2. We all grasp that your argument is flawed anon 6:58. Third grader can see that your argument is invalid .

      Delete
    3. Anon 6:58...

      Ask me anything you want, see if I contradict myself once... please??? You do not grasp the fundamentals of modern debate sir and I am embarrassed if this is your idea of such. Regardless of what we are claiming (which we can back up with expert opinion & analysis) you must do the same with your claims or they remain just that in comparison.

      Peace.

      Delete
    4. Joe still doesn't get it.

      Delete
    5. Nope. It's going right past him.

      Delete
    6. What... because I can't recreate Harry, it doesn't mean Patty is real? Ha! Is that your logic??

      Peace.

      Delete
    7. No, you don't get the argument.

      I'll bet that you'll still continue to use your "oh yeah, then recreate the Patty costume" argument even though it's BS.

      Delete
    8. Bob H can't even recreate Patty.

      Delete
    9. ^ if nobody gets it what does that tell you? Moron.

      Delete
    10. "Joe, can you recreate the Harry and the Henderson's bigfoot costume? If not, Harry must be a real bigfoot and bigfoot exists."

      ... gimme a budget and a highly experienced costume expert (not a rookie film maker) and I'll give you another Harry.

      Me making the same effort at a Harry costume today would be the same level of expertise in Patterson attempting the Patty suit in 1946... I couldn't do it without a major budget and expertise... neither could Patterson with the non-existent materials and an intermediate understanding and budget of supposed 'film making'. Now, with all the here-say and rumor that you skeptics appear to know an awful lot about... Dis Patterson attain any help from a major budgeted film studio prior to capturing the footage in 1967? If anything; the question posed to me backs up my argument... not yours.

      You are the ones claiming it's not real. Prove it.

      Peace.

      Delete
    11. I've been reading this back and forth for the last few minutes. I'm chiming in here to say that I get it. Joe should stop using the recreate the Patty suit argument. It's maybe one notch above worthless.

      Delete
    12. "He's just a boy...he don't know no better."

      Bizzzkits-n-mustard..MmmmmmmHmmmmm



      Carl

      Delete
    13. Shut anon 7:51! Stop pretending to be someone else. you're the same Moron he is going back and forth with. Pathetic if you resort to those tactics.

      Delete
    14. That was not HIS argument from the get go. That was what he was challenged with by skeptics. He just stands by it because its true. Nobody has ever done it. It has been attempted by people who have been making costumes for movies for decades and they failed to accurately recreate the "suit"

      Delete
    15. Loving the village idiot trying to back up his own 'argument' by posting an agreement to everything he posts.

      Transparent and pathetic.

      This idiot won't leave the PGF alone then trots out the 'burden of proof' crap once he gets his ass handed to him yet again.

      Top posting Joe. You don't give these clowns an inch. I can see the village idiot developing more of an interest in ghosts and ufo's over the coming weeks.

      The daily pounding cannot be good for his self esteem or mental wellbeing.

      MMG

      Delete
  14. So much evidence! Yet none of our resident genius' want to estimate density or range. Are they, as Mr. Moneymaker would have us believe, abundant in all of the lower 48, Canada and Alaska?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are anywhere where there is wilderness... I am basing that statement on many researchers with hundreds of years of hunting experience between them. There are certainly more sightings in the Pacific North West which would lead most to assume there is a greater population in that region.

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. Why don't you quote experts in their fields like Bindernagle and Moisinski? Moneymaker -WTF! Mr Hollywood. They have given estimates, range, and Density butt F*ck. Try estimating a cougars range Einstein. They show up in places they are never supposed to be. You must never get away from your computer screen.

      Delete
    3. Moisinski? That's a new one. Why don't you give me their expertise, since you all apparently have none of your own.

      They live 'in the wilderness'.

      No estimates on population.

      Let's start with lower hanging fruit. What is the best footage from the 21st century?

      Delete
    4. Leaping Russian Yeti -- YouTube, MK Davis version.

      Peace.

      Delete
    5. Moisinski Worked in Wyoming for Fish and Game. He did a lot of game counting ( big horn sheep )He works also with Meldrum and they have overlaid maps with sightings and when food is available . Direct correlation when berries are ripe each year and sightings. When those food sources are gone they follow elk herds. That's in their region. Real work and research. Maybe you should do a little research into the Bigfoot world instead of relying on this site. I'm sure a few others on here can fill u in on his work as well.

      Delete
    6. He also had his job threatened for pursuing an encounter that took him 30 years voice after he retired.

      Peace.

      Delete
    7. Leaping Russian Yeti again. What about North America? We know the approximate time and location for them eating berries apparently.

      The only pictures we ever get are indescriminate. By design? The reason there are no clear pictures is because there are none, the clear mind believes.

      Delete
    8. What good would a picture do when the picture could always be a 'man in a suit'? Also, if you came across one of these, the last thing you are gonna be thinking of is pulling your iPhone out...

      Peace.

      Delete
    9. And... The reason I use Leaping Russian Yeti is because it is still to be debunked, just like Patty.

      Peace.

      Delete
    10. I'll bet you're a lot of fun around campfires. Might I suggest you leave it there.

      Delete
    11. Might I suggest you learn a little from my comments. And actually, I'm hell of a boy when it comes to camping.

      Peace.

      Delete
    12. They are an anywhere where there is wilderness people.

      Delete
  15. Village idiot got burned again on his Harry and the Hendersons crap!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You still don't get it either.

      Delete
    2. If nobody gets it maybe you don't have anything . You must have never been on debate team. Lol!

      Delete
    3. Skeptic - "Because you cannot reproduce Harry it means Patty isn't real..."

      Oh dear...

      Peace.

      Delete
    4. Joe, your repeated argument that because no one is recreating the Patty suit is evidence that Patty is a real bigfoot is a bad argument.

      It's like saying that, because Joe can't create the Harry suit, Harry must be a real bigfoot. Of course Harry is not a real bigfoot. We all know that. But saying that because no one has created the Patty suit DOES NOT mean that, therefore, this is proof that Patty is a real bigfoot.

      Delete
    5. "Joe, can you recreate the Harry and the Henderson's bigfoot costume? If not, Harry must be a real bigfoot and bigfoot exists."

      ... gimme a budget and a highly experienced costume expert (not a rookie film maker) and I'll give you another Harry.

      Me making the same effort at a Harry costume today would be the same level of expertise in Patterson attempting the Patty suit in 1946... I couldn't do it without a major budget and expertise... neither could Patterson with the non-existent materials and an intermediate understanding and budget of supposed 'film making'. Now, with all the here-say and rumor that you skeptics appear to know an awful lot about... Dis Patterson attain any help from a major budgeted film studio prior to capturing the footage in 1967? If anything; the question posed to me backs up my argument... not yours.

      You are the ones claiming it's not real. Prove it.

      Peace.

      Delete
    6. It's often been said that Patterson and Gimlin were just some yokels who were too dumb to pull off such a hoax. Really? How does anyone know this? Patterson was a leather worker who worked in rodeos. Not only did he have the skills to modify a gorilla suit to create a convincing costume, he had a complete set of professional tools to do it.

      Delete
    7. Exactly Joe. we don't claim it's real because it is. There is no way without any large studio backing it was even feasible. If it was a hoax someone would have come clean or let the cat out of the bag. What fun is a hoax or a prank if eventually you don't say " I gottcha"? Murderers are not even that silent. Patterson and Gimlin have never wavered!

      Delete
    8. Ok... Does a 'leather worker' have the credentials to make something like Patty? We have all sort of wonderful tools today... still no Patty closeness.

      Peace.

      Delete
    9. I'd bet that if you took 100 peopl and put them for feet away from Harry from the Hendersons and the same peopl for feet away from Patty as it was in the film, 100 out of 100 would say that Harry looks more realistic.

      Delete
    10. Avg leatherworker can out do Hollywood and stymie modern technology to view the film over 40 years later? If he was that good of a leatherworker why was he broke? Another unlikely low IQ attempt to grasp at straws.

      Delete
    11. Give it up you folks that are arguing with Joe. He's got an excuse for everything. Gimlin himself could tell Joe that Patty was a hoax and Joe would tell Gimlin to prove it.

      Delete
    12. Anon 8:04 that statement just made you sound Stupid.

      Delete
    13. Other than the spelling and grammar, why does that make him/her sound stupid? It's probably true.

      Delete
    14. Anon 8:07...

      It's not that I've got an answer for everything, I can just pick holes in your logic... which are numerous.

      Peace.

      Delete
    15. Give it up folks? It's just you arguing with him. Don't speak for the rest of us. I'm not siding with an idiot like you and your dumb reasoning. Joe makes intelligent remarks. You- opinions and flawed crap!

      Delete
    16. Stymied Hollywood? That's laughable. Many bigfoot and other creatures that appeared in movies look more realistic than grainy film, static diaper butt, shoulder pad Patty.

      Delete
    17. I'll bet that Joe is the type of guy who will never admit when he's wrong. I feel sorry for his wife.

      Delete
    18. Look... I can and have been wrong. And it is not beneath me to apologize when I have stepped out of line. I am susceptible to hoaxing like we all are and I am willing to admit I have looked at stuff in the past and had to change my mind when more information has surfaced... But I also know when something compelling is there plain to see for all and I'm just waiting for someone to bring me some PROPER evidence to back up the claim that Patty is fake.

      Peace.

      Delete
    19. ^ actually that sounds like your resume Anon 8:14. Trying to make yourself feel better ? At least Joe has a life and a wife. He actually doesn't always claim to always be right. Just more intelligent in debate. Yours is childish.

      Delete
    20. My wife loves me very much too. Thanks too Anon 8:25 bro.

      Peace.

      Delete
    21. Joe is jut one of the many connd by Pattrson.

      Delete
    22. Lack of a suit, means lack of a con.

      Peace.

      Delete
    23. LOL. Lack of suit means bigfoot exists?

      Delete
    24. Lack of suit means Patty is real... Bigfoot exists by so many other means of evidence. You need to keep up with the subject matter of debate in this comment column I think.

      Peace.

      Delete
    25. What other means of evidence? All "evidence" can be and has been discounted by experts.

      Delete
    26. Pseudo-Joe: The Roswell autopsy video shows a real alien. Prove that it's not.

      Delete
    27. Yup. That's how Joe argues.

      Delete
    28. LOL Pseudo-Joe. That's funny right there.

      Yeah, chupacabra, the Loch Ness Monster, aliens, and a host of cryptids all have evidence and all exist because you can't prove that they don't.

      Delete
    29. I have worked with leather before, I could not make a better than hollywood quality bigfoot suit. That is just ludicrous for someone to say lmao

      Delete
    30. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    31. Well I know that the Michigan Dogman is real because I saw it on film and no one can produce the suit.

      Delete
    32. *DERMAL RIDGES CONSISTENT OVER DECADES FROM OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE COUNTRY ANALYSED BY THE ONLY PRINT AND PRIMATE PRINT SPECIALIST IN THE WESTERN WORLD IN JIMMY CHILCUTT
      *DNA THAT IS NOW BEING REPETITIVELY SEQUENCED, EVEN BY OXFORD UNIVERSITY
      *THE BEST FORENSIC ARTIST IN THE STATES IN HARVEY PRATT SKETCHING ACCOUNT UPON ACCOUNT
      *100 YEARS OF PRINTED MEDIA IN LIBRARIES ACROSS THE STATES
      *AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT'S ACCOUNT OF A BIGFOOT IN TEDDY ROOSEVELT
      *THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE
      *VIDEO FOOTAGE THAT YOU CAN'T DEBUNK IN PATTY AND RUSSIAN YETI
      *A CELEBRATED CRYPTOLINGUIST'S TRANSCRIPTION IN SCOTT NELSON
      *THE SUPPORT OF A WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST WHO WAS AN ADVISER TO THE UN JOHN BINDENAGLE
      *THOUSANDS OF EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY SOMETIMES MULTIPLE PERSON
      *A SCIENTIFIC RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIES IN DR BRYAN SYKES

      ... There are the other means of evidence backed by experts and professionals. Where are your lists of experts? I'll be waiting.

      Peace.

      Delete
    33. Hey Charles Bronson (AKA Matthew Johnson), no one said that the Patty suit was made out of leather only that Patterson had skills with leather work and tools to make a costume.

      Delete
    34. Actually, someone did imply that Pattterson's skills with leather may have meant he was skilled enough to make a suit that can't be topped 46 years later...

      Hey Bronson... I left you a message about half way up the blog page.

      Peace.

      Delete
    35. All the above I have listed are sources of expert analysis to accumulate into a means of proving our case. Forget everything else like boogey men and stuff; try and disprove those sources with expert opinion or you lose... Plain and simple. It's the fundamentals of any scientific debate... I think this is news to you.

      I'm still waiting?

      Peace.

      Delete
    36. Hey Joe, everyone of your points have already been explained away by people who disagree with your position.

      Jimmy Chilcutt compared prints a few hundred miles away, not across the country. Renowned primatologist Dr. Esteban Sarmiento has already demonstrated on television exactly how bigfoot prints with dermal ridges can be created, and he discounted the Chilcutt evidence. Perhaps compelling, the dermal ridges do not prove the existence of bigfoot.

      Bigfoot DNA sequencing has proven nothing to date and has been discounted by many experts. Also, how many "bigfoot hairs" have undergone DNA testing and found to be elk hair, coyote hair, goat hair, bear hair, etc. etc.

      Sketching means nothing. People have a pre-conceived idea as to what bigfoot should look like. Why do many people who claim to have seen aliens describe them in the same way (we all know what aliens are supposed to look like).

      100 years of stories in libraries doesn't mean that they are true. For instance, the whole Jacko story is believed to have been falsified to help sell newspapers. Sensationalized faux stories were often written to sell papers.

      The Teddy Roosevelt story could just as well be a piece of folklore as a true story. There were many tall tales going back before Roosevelt about different types of dangerous creatures living in the wild.

      Native American culture also included such things as the thunderbird, a creature with supernatural powers and strength. Do you believe that a humungous bird with supernatural powers and abilities actually exists?

      Plenty of people believe (most) that the film footage shows people in costumes. If the films were irrefutable, then everyone would believe that bigfoot exists.

      Cryptolinguist? No one who doesn't already believe that bigfoot exists is going to take this seriously.

      Plenty of wildlife biologists (most) do not believe that bigfoot is an actual creature.

      Thousands of eyewitness accounts and zero proof. Again, people seeing something and not knowing with certainty what it is fill in the gaps in their mind with what a bigfoot should look like. Many people will look you in the eye and tell you that they have seen aliens (and some will say that they were abducted). Are they telling the truth? Aren't these eyewitness accounts? Does the Loch Ness Monster exist because there are eyewitness accounts? Also, we all know that many (many!) stories and accounts of bigfoot are intentional hoaxes.

      There are educated people who will tell you that man never went to the moon. Just because one (or many for that matter) scientist advocates the existence of bigfoot does not mean that it's true.

      When it comes to bigfoot people see what they want to see. Those who believe that bigfoot exists will try to make evidence fit. Those who don't will dismiss it. The truth is that there is zero irrefutable evidence for the existence of bigfoot. If the evidence was irrefutable, everyone would believe that bigfoot exists. Does the lack of irrefutable evidence mean that bigfoot does not exist? No, but there is no evidence that can be interpreted as absolute proof.

      Delete
    37. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    38. As for Harvey Pratt; he is not just an illustrator or artist, but the best forensic artist in the country and his opinion sends people to prison for a long time. Credible?

      EDUCATION
      Saint Patrick's Indian Mission, Anadarko, Oklahoma
      Graduate - High School

      Central State University, Edmond, Oklahoma

      University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

      Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
      Associates Degree - Police Science

      MILITARY EXPERIENCE
      United States Marine Corps 1962 – 1965
      Served in Vietnam, Air Rescue and Da Nang Air Base Security

      EXPERIENCE
      Midwest City Police Department 1965 - 1972
      Patrol Division, Investigative Division

      Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation 1972 - Present
      Agent I to Assistant Director and Interim Director: Narcotics; Criminal Investigations; Administration; and Criminal Records and Information Divisions

      SPECIAL TRAINING
      Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy – 1981

      Southwestern School of Polygraph, Houston, Texas

      U.S. Secret Service Dignitary Protection

      Kobetz’s Dignitary Protection

      U.S. Secret Service Questioned Document School

      Federal Task Force

      Advanced Law Enforcement Certification

      HIGH PROFILE INVESTIGATIONS
      Sirloin Stockade Murders – Roger Dale Stafford, Verna Stafford & Harold Stafford case

      Oklahoma Girl Scout Murders – Gene Leroy Hart case

      Green River Killer – Gary Ridgeway, serial murderer

      BTK (Bind, Torture and Kill) Killer – Dennis Rader, serial murderer

      I-5 (Interstate 5) Killer – Randall Woodfield, serial murderer

      Bobby Joe Long – serial murderer

      Oklahoma State Fair Abducted Girls – Roy Russell Long case

      Ted Bundy – serial murderer

      Joe Fischer – serial murderer

      World Trade Center 1993 Bombings – investigation

      Oklahoma City Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building – investigation

      Randolph Dial – fugitive

      Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole – serial murderers

      Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot – murder case

      Roger Wheeler Murder – Winter Hill Gang case – James J. "Whitey" Bulger, Stephen Flemmi and Johnny Martorano

      Osama Bin Laden – terrorist (photo alteration)

      Tommy Lynn Sells – serial murderer

      Donald Eugene Webb – FBI Top Ten Fugitive list

      The Weather Underground Organization

      BOARDS, ASSOCIATIONS AND MEMBERSHIPS - PAST AND PRESENT
      Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Hall of Fame – Inductee

      Oklahoma Law Enforcement Hall of Fame – Board Member

      Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes Judicial Commission

      Red Earth Festival’s “2005 Honored One”

      Oklahoma Creativity Project – Board Member

      Regional Organized Crime Information Center (ROCIC) – Chairman

      Oklahoma Arts Council – Board Member

      Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribal College Board of Education – Board of Regents

      Oklahoma Native American Law Enforcement Association – President

      District Attorney’s Council

      OSBI Retired Agents Association - Secretary/Treasurer

      Oklahoma Sheriff and Peace Officer's Association

      Oklahoma Sheriff’s Association

      Oklahoma Indian Commission – Coordinator

      Oklahoma Historical Society – Native American Advisory Board

      Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU)

      Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy

      Cheyenne Cultural Center - Cheyenne Justice Committee

      Seminole Junior College - Law Enforcement Advisory Board

      Oklahoma Women In Law Enforcement – Honorary Lifetime Member

      Native American Cultural & Education Authority – Advisory Committee

      Delete
    39. Thousands of years of Native American culture? Yes sir! Thousands... wall paintings some 8 feet tall true to size and if you know anything about indigenous culture, you would know that ceremonies, dances, utensil designs like baskets, all these things indigenous people do to pass down historical events, identity and culture because they have no other means. I believe the Congolese followed such a process for a very long time before the Bili ape got any acknowledgement by Western science. There is an easily attainable timeline of Native American culture by the determining the age of settlement sites. Burnt wood and other means have been used to carbon date areas where indigenous peoples who maintain the Bigfoot culture have resided.

      Scott Nelson? Don't make me laugh... He discovered a lost Russian dialect and served for the military in the cold war and is very celebrated. His process and means of identifying languages has been used for decades and has contributed to winning wars and he has his impeccable CV.

      Delete
    40. Just try and debunk consistent news media; Sensationalized stories were not written to sell papers during Victorian times, in fact the first tabloids were not even seen until the WW1.

      Delete
    41. "Plenty of people believe (most) that the film footage shows people in costumes. If the films were irrefutable, then everyone would believe that bigfoot exists."

      Oh there we are then, case closed! Don't think that stating the obvious proves anything regarding PGF... Prove it's a suit or the creature is organic and therefore real, end of. Also, try and have a go at debunking the Russian Yeti; I dare you sir.

      Delete
    42. "Plenty of wildlife biologists (most) do not believe that bigfoot is an actual creature."

      Again; stating the obvious to use a source of evidence against mine which really doesn't work I'm afraid... We are talking about Bigfoot here so Bindenagle is going to be outspoken, and I don't know of one wildlife biologist who has given the subject time, let alone invest some real analysis into it... The ones that have, have all come to the same conclusion; that it's real.

      Delete
    43. "The Teddy Roosevelt story could just as well be a piece of folklore as a true story. There were many tall tales going back before Roosevelt about different types of dangerous creatures living in the wild."

      Really? Are you gonna sit there on your laptop and dismiss the likes of him?? What do you do for a living??

      Delete
    44. What's your credibility? Why should I believe you over old Teddy??

      Delete
    45. "Just because one (or many for that matter) scientist advocates the existence of bigfoot does not mean that it's true."

      ... Ok, at what sequence of events did the discovery of the Panda just pop out of the earth? If it wasn't for one or two persistent people, the creature would have been dismissed and 60 years would have probably turned into near enough a 100. All scientific and anthropological studies have started off with one or two people... It's a very natural process that gathers momentum, and don't state the time line since PGF, just look at my panda example.

      Delete
    46. Bill Munns' Patty expertise - the plain and simple truth is there are few people with his lengthy career and his judgement and thorough analysis on the footage is unmatched and stands before anyone until his level of analysis is countered. Anyone who has ever looked into the 'suit', has come to the same conclusion. How could have a rookie film maker, come up with a 'suit' that cannot be replicated 46 years later with such significant advances in technology? The materials required to make such realism were not available to the general public in the late 60's, and not sure they were even available, full stop.

      Delete
    47. The truth is sir, is that people actually sometimes see what they claim to have seen and thousands of eye-witness accounts, a lot of them multiple person eye witness testimony cannot be explained away as miss-identification. I value eye witness testimony and have a hatred of the dogma associated with it; it's pure ignorance and nothing more.

      I am about to paste (for the eleventh time) a comment that a gentleman posted four weeks ago regarding giant skeleton cover ups...

      "... I live in N. Utah, am an equipment operator, and have signed a total of of 5 non-disclosure agreements concerning the large hairy dude. LOL
      Can't say much more than that, until I retire in '18.
      Believe me or don't, I dont care. But mining and oil companies FOR SURE take this stuff seriously.
      Hang in there."

      If the biological evidence was to be let known to the general public then suddenly you have physical evidence to back up the eye witnesses don't you?

      Peace.

      Delete
    48. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    49. Your first point about Chilcutt; lies... Any one who has spent ten minutes looking at numerous casts can see that there are many, many first time prints that have a similarity in style of dermal ridging in the same way that two sets of finger prints from opposite sides of the country would look similar in style at first, regardless of apparent uniqueness under analysis. These casts cannot be explained away with desiccation because they have scar tissue and toe bending that many people who have done proper analysis have sited as the creature gripping into earth. There is a clear difference between desiccation marks and complex dermal markings. You can look for yourself on any image search engine. Some casts that have been made poorly by amateur casters (these are mostly untrained civilian researchers, not perfectionists)outlining the wider picture of the sometimes difficult process it is to extract such prints. What a one in a billion lottery win chance that would be to somehow get the same pattern decades apart from opposite sides of the country? Explain casts that are attained 40 miles into the interior of wilderness areas? The hoaxers would have to be either psychic or mind controllers to predict to the exact yard where the researchers are going to be to the exact moment eh?

      Melba Ketchum successfully sequenced DNA, regardless of her condemnation and the FACT that Oxford University are doing the same now would suggest a sequence of repetitive events of the process that science requires for repetitive evidence. Sykes and his credibility are on to something, you are looking at the gentleman who literally wrote the book on mitochondrial DNA and people will listen.

      Delete
    50. Forgive my initial posting... there may have been some nasty bits in there that were meant for earlier debates... I have removed them for the relevance of your gentlemanly manner sir and I mean everything with the most sincere of respect.

      Peace.

      Delete
    51. Oh my goodness Joe. You just don't give up. The long reply responded to every one of your points with common sense and reality. Your responses to him/her are just more of the same, perspectives from people who already believe that bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    52. Joe wrote, "Sensationalized stories were not written to sell papers during Victorian times..."

      What? The 19th century was full of bunkum. Ever hear of PT Barnum?

      Here is an article with some information on hoaxed 19th century news stories:

      http://listverse.com/2013/02/03/10-great-hoaxes-of-the-19th-century/


      Even bigfoot believers have dismissed the Jacko story as being a work of fiction:

      http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/jacko.html

      Delete
    53. The Teddy Roosevelt story could just as well be a piece of folklore as a true story.

      How can anyone deny this statement? Roosevelt himself heard the story third hand. Just because Roosevelt repeats it in one of his writings doesn't make it any more or less credible.

      Delete
    54. Nobody is buying the Melba Ketchum DNA study. It's been largely dismissed by those in and out of the bigfoot world.

      Delete
    55. That bit about 5 non-disclosure agreements is yet more unsubstantiated bigfoot bologna. If you buy that as credible, you are gullible.

      Delete
    56. Bill Munns may believe that bigfoot is real, that doesn't make it so.

      Multiple Academy Award winner the late Hollywood costume and special effects legend Stan Winston said this about the Patterson footage:

      "It's a guy in a fur suit, sorry."

      Of course, we dismiss the conclusions of the experts that we disagree with, right Joe?

      Delete
    57. The dermal ridges can be faked by people with too much time on their hands. This is not irrefutable proof.

      Delete
    58. Try and have a go at debunking the Russian Yeti; I dare you sir?

      Are you referring to that footage that was taken at a Russian primate sanctuary?

      Delete
    59. He's probably referring to what is known as the leaping Yeti video. You can find it on Youtube.

      It's a person. If you watch the part over a few times of when the "bigfoot" first jumps out you can see the white shirt and the different color pants.

      Delete
  16. Yeah woods alone and whatnot. Pffft.

    Term skeptic allows for a chance that this is real.

    Come on you hoaxers do better.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A little birdie told me that Bigfoot will be proven to exist in the next few days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm? I've only heard that a thousand times or so in the last 40 years.

      Delete
    2. A little birdie told me you'll get nothing and like it. He was right.

      Delete
    3. Has that little birdie talked to Joe?

      Delete
  18. Village Idiot is pwnd again!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Still no monkey? Date: July 14 2013

    ReplyDelete