We've Been Waiting For Cliff Barackman To Endorse SquatchIt!


If you've been holding back your support for SquatchIt!, perhaps Cliff Barackman can change your mind. After you watch this interesting endorsement by Cliff Barackman, go check out SquatchIt's Kickstarter page here.



Comments

  1. Replies
    1. The Band is considered Canadian.

      Delete
    2. And Levon Helm is considered Arkansan. Look if I give them to you I want Neal Young and two musicians to be named later.

      Delete
    3. SMU hell yes, 12:25. I don't want you to wake up and get your hockey sticks in a bundle so let me just briefly state this about Arkansans. During the Civil War, people from Southern Missouri were so drunken, violent and apolitical that they did not know who to fight. There were two reactions. Instantly declare against Arkansas and Kansas (educated) and shoot your neighbor with a squirrel rifle and pray for his recovery ( my ancestors). If there's one thing I know it's Arkansans. Billy Bob, Slick Willy, Johnny Cash, and yes, Levon Helm.

      Delete
    4. Joe. I have a message for The Band is Canadian Group. Tell them if they want The Band, and all it's rich musical history they have to take every other Arkansan by birth as well. They've got plenty of room and resources. Then Texas can have that small private duck hunting club on our North Eastern border we so dearly covet. You will recognize me Joe, I'll be in Camo blowing that Squatchit, which of course works effectively on Mallards and BIGFOOTs.

      Delete
    5. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

      Peace, HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

      Delete
    6. This is a serious researcher? I wonder how much he got paid for the promotion. These guys are really selling out.

      Delete
    7. By pretty much all accounts Cliff is as serious of a researcher as they come. The problem is he also seems to be a very genuine nice guy. They don't view themselves as celebrities, these types of good people, so somebody asks them to do a promotional bit, they have trouble saying no. The next time a woman asks me if she's fat I have to remember to be creative "not in that outfit" :). I guess my point is that some questions are hard to answer in the negative.

      Delete
    8. True dat.True dat.

      Delete
  2. Just checking in waiting for more delusional comments from joe

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLrgaRcW1Fw

    MAN CLAIMS TO HAVE TAKEN A SHOT AT A BIGFOOT!

    WHILE IT ESCAPED, THE BEAST RIPPED IT'S TOENAILS OFF!

    HAS THE TOENAILS TO PROVE IT!!

    CHECK IT OUT!

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPDOY08bS8k

    NEW BIGFOOT TRACKS VIDEO! (IN THE SNOW)

    COULD BE SIGNIFICANT!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The pgf was debunked by Chris packham. What else do footers have for thinking such a creature could exist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Packham did nothing of the sort and had to edit a really laughable, really bad program; got monkey suit?

      In actually fact... Have a go yourself, it'll be better than Packham's claim at least. It says it all that skeptics have to attain the same reassurance from a children's presenter's efforts to eradicate the fear of the boogey man, eh?

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. Goebbels would have had Packham shot in shame.

      Peace.

      Delete
    3. Got monkey suit you ask? Well yes there are many examples. There is nothing extraordinary about the pgf to think it is anything but a suit.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, it's sooooooo average that it can't be replicated 46 years later, right? Paste me a link to a suit as good please?

      Peace.

      Delete
    5. Bill Munns made the most realistic recreation of Patty this past spring. Bill is a real professional, just take a look at the suit.

      Delete
    6. Oh dear. It looks nowhere near as good and he was trying to prove a point...

      (Sigh)

      Peace.

      Delete
    7. Joe what do you mean by replicate? Its a one off suit that roger tailored. It would be impossible to recreate exactly even if we had the details. Its a poor argument that you know all too well does not prove such a creature exists.

      Can anyone outside of coca cola exactly replicate their product? No. That doesn't mean we should jumps to some other crazy solution like coca cola was created by aliens.

      Delete
    8. Yes he was trying to prove a point.

      Bill said he would fail at building a Patty suit and Bill failed brilliantly at building his Patty suit.

      Bill blames BobH's description of the suit for his failure.

      BobH described the suit to Greg Long TEN years ago in a book.

      Bill could not be bothered to talk to BobH directly.

      Instead Professional Bill of Integrity built his suit verbatim from a decade old second hand account.

      Then Bill blamed BobH for his failure.

      Delete
    9. Anon 5:40...

      You can comp,are Patty to all the products you can trump up; we should be able to replicate, especially as Roger was a rookie. broke film maker... according to you guys.

      Anon 5:43...

      A short list of just some Bob Heironimus' contradictions:

      Did you feel comfortable and natural walking in the suit?; Oh yeah it was easy. Very simple: I had to practice it several times to get it the way Roger wanted it.

      The legs felt like hip boots, wading boots they went up to the waist.; They were irrigation boots about up to the knees.; Wading boots they came straight up to the hips.

      I think the feet were made out of old house slippers.; They weren't no slippers.
      I was walking in my stocking feet inside the costume.; I was wearing shoes.

      No metal parts.; It had a zipper.
      I had to wiggle into it kinda like a t-shirt.; It had a zipper up the back.

      There were numerous more contradictions , also about the location I couldn't be bothered to dig up. Any wonder why Bill didn't want to talk to him? Isn't Bob H a drunk now or something??

      Peace

      Delete
    10. All you have proved is a lot of shady characters that were all involved together (photo proof) had a lot of shady things to say.

      Thats your first hint.

      The lengths bleevers go to defend the film is incredible.

      Delete
    11. Hey Joe,

      When I met Bob G. in 2003 he said Patty could have been a person in a suit.

      Then when I met him in 2009 he said there's no way it could have been a person in a suit.

      Also Bob G. couldn't remember the exact location. So there were buses bringing people down to the site that wasn't even the real site.

      Peace.

      Delete
    12. Hip boots, wading boots and irrigation boots are not as dissimilar to each other as you may think.

      BobH's contradictions can be cherrypicked til the cows come home. P n G have even more contradictions in their version of events.

      Fuck, BobG couldn't even find the film site when they took him that.

      The point is Bill Munns is giving paid presentations of a suit. He claims this suit was built according to the description of BobH. Yet Bill deliberately chose not to speak or confer with BobH before indirectly attaching BobH's name to his work and profits.

      Tel me how that is not sketchy.

      Delete
    13. Everything surrounding the pgf is sketchy. Including the crazies that defend it.

      Delete
    14. Anon 6:00...

      The 'shady' stories and hearsay skeptics cling to as opposed to actually explaining the footage.

      Anon 6:13, my friendly adversary...

      Bob G's getting on a bit now bless him, and if he stated to you once that the creature may have been a man in a suit, wouldn't that indicate some degree of healthy skepticism that a lot eye witnesses have? Kind of shows he has nothing to hide really??

      Bluff Creek is a tourist location and like all tourist locations; there's money to be made.

      Anon 6:17...

      And what P&G contradictions would they be? The timeline?? HA HA HA HA HA!!

      Like I said; Bob H is a drunk these days and I'm sure if he got supposed suit proportions off a drunk and put them in his presentations, you'd have enough to say.

      Peace.

      Delete
    15. Dickhead:

      You can't ignore the timeline. If you ignore the timeline you're a fuck and bigfoot hates you.

      The bent stirrup thing. Rog says it happened BobG says it didn't.

      The issue of how far they tracked the fucker (1/4 mile vs 3.5 miles)

      Who held the camera for footage of Roger when BobG swore he's never operated a camera in his life? They steal his Yakima Indian soul, you see.

      Why does DeAtley believe the whole thing was a hoax? Why didn't BobG assure him it was on the level? He was supposedly there.

      Don't worry about BobH's drinking habits. Rog and Bob were known drunks, carousers and whoremongers.

      You really suck, Joe Fitzgerald.

      Delete
    16. Hackham & Hilarious both flunked in approximating the PGF. Not only did they not debunk squatch, they didn't debunk squat.

      Anon 5:40 Coca Cola boy: You are confusing the arguments. There is the claim that PGF is a hoax. That is a separate argument from the one about Sasquatch existing or not.

      The requirement to replicate Patty is in reply to PGF is a hoax, not in reply to there is no Sasquatch.

      You have to keep those separate in order to keep your mind clear and focused.

      What you allege is a poor argument, you don't even understand and so you are disqualified from making that judgment.

      Obviously the demand is to duplicate, replicate, Patty, the PGF, roughly, while restricting yourself to 1967 tools and what budget was available.

      This Bob Hilarious stuff about hip waders, I'm choking with laughter on the floor: The moving muscle and flesh in the right thigh during the stumble, Judas Priest, you aren't going to get that from rubber boots. What a joke. This is an insulting joke. Wake up for God's sake.

      Get your arguments straight, realize that there are at least two different arguments here, and that yes 46 years of failure in attempting to credibly duplicate Patty means skeptards are out of the game.

      There is no suit or costume which has credibly replicated Patty. Get over it and move on to something else.

      Delete
    17. Anon 1:27... The timeline...

      Friday, October 20, 1967

      At approximately 1:30PM, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin begin filming a hairy bipedal subject walking away from them, up Bluff Creek.
      59.5 seconds later (assuming 16 FPS film speed), the role of film runs out.
      Gimlin pursues the film subject up the creek on horseback for approximately 300 yards before returning to Patterson.
      The pair spend about 15 minutes rounding up Patterson's horse.
      Patterson changes the film in his camera under a poncho at the film site.
      They return on horseback to Gimlin's truck (at Louse Camp?) for casting materials.
      Upon returning to the film site, Patterson and Gimlin attempt to track the film subject. Gimlin follows sign for approximately 200' up the mountain before stopping due to the terrain.
      Two casts are made - one of a left foot impression and one of a right foot impression. Patterson chooses the most perfect, foot-shaped imprints he can find.
      Patterson documents the trackway on a second roll of film. This film is subsequently lost.
      Patterson and Gimlin leave Bluff Creek and drive to Eureka, CA, to send the film via airplane to Yakima, WA, to be processed. Note that according to Daniel Perez, John Green's recollection is they drove to Arcata, CA, although all other sources say they went to Eureka. The two towns are only 8 miles apart.
      While in Eureka, they call Patterson's brother-in-law Al DeAtley, Albert Hodgson of Willow Creek, CA, and the British Columbia Museum in Victoria, BC, requesting dogs and scientists be sent to the film site. While the museum sends no one, they do call John Green who in turn notifies Rene Dahinden.
      Patterson calls the Yakima Times-Standard and is interviewed by an unknown reporter.
      Patterson and Gimlin return to Willow Creek, CA, and speak to Al Hodgson and Sylvester McCoy before returning to Louse Camp.


      Delete
    18. Saturday, October 21, 1967

      At approximately 2:00AM, the pair fall asleep at their camp.
      At approximately 5:00AM, Gimlin is awakened by the sound of rain.
      Gimlin returns to the film site to cover the uncast tracks with bark.
      The intensity of the rain cause Patterson and Gimlin to strike camp and return to Yakima.
      The Yakima Times-Standard runs a front page story under the headline "Mrs. Bigfoot is Filmed!" without a byline.

      Sunday, October 22, 1967

      Patterson, Green, Dahinden, and Jim McClarin view the film at DeAtley's home in Yakima. This appears to be the first time anyone other than DeAtley views the film.

      Monday, October 23, 1967

      Lyle Laverty, stationed at a camp at Notice Creek as part of a timber preparation crew, comes upon the film site with his marking crew and takes three photographs (slides) of uncast tracks. (From an interview with Roger Knights and an article in Bigfoot Times, June/July 2005, p. 4, col. 2.) Follow-up: Did LL hear of the filming and look for the site or did he happen upon it by chance?

      Tuesday, October 24, 1967

      Walt Kurshman, upon hearing of the tracks from Lyle Laverty, goes to the site to see them. (Need reference.)

      Thursday, October 26, 1967

      The film is shown to zoologists and anthropologists in a hotel room in Vancouver, BC. They are unimpressed.

      Approximately Sunday, October 29, 1967

      Note: This date is based on a letter Bob Titmus wrote to John Green where he discusses first seeing the tracks at the film site "9 or 10" days after they were made.

      Bob Titmus arrives at Bluff Creek to investigate the film site.
      Titmus spends the entire day walking the creek looking for the tracks. He finds ample sign of Patterson and Gimlin's horses, but he does not find the film site.

      Monday, October 30, 1967

      Titmus finds the film site on the morning of his second day at Bluff Creek.
      He tracks the film subject to a position 125-150 yards away from the film site, 80-90 feet up the mountainside, where he believes the film subject "sat down" in an area shaded from view but with a clear line of sight to where the film was shot below.
      While he finds indication that the subject went up the mountain after stopping, he decides not to track it further.
      Titmus makes casts of ten consecutive prints that demonstrate, in his words, "vast difference in each imprint, such as toe placement, toe gripping force, pressure ridges and breaks, weight shifts, weight distribution, depth, etc."
      Titmus' sister Allene and brother-in-law Harry arrive in the evening and camp with him that night.

      Tuesday, October 31, 1967

      Titmus departs Bluff Creek.

      Delete
    19. Anon 1:27...

      Got monkey suit?

      You have been schooled, and you are welcmome.

      Peace.

      Delete
    20. Oh... and for further reading (If you have the attention span that is of course)...

      "Patterson and Gimlin leave Bluff Creek and drive to Eureka, CA, to send the film via airplane to Yakima, WA, to be processed."

      If the film was delivered by late Friday evening and If the processing machine in Yakima was already running there would have been no need to "fire it up" on Saturday. This would leave right through to early hours of Saturday morning, Saturday day & night and some off Sunday to develop the film. They had one of the greatest discoveries in modern times so the effort for this would not have been an issue. Possibly DeAtely had an arrangement with this "friend" to develop any film Roger came up with "under the table".

      Roger expected this film to make him a millionaire. There was no time for a copyright and he might have been concerned about unauthorized copying. Using a tech after hours might have been added insurance - the guy wouldn't risk losing his job for a copy, would he?

      Got monkey suit?

      Schooled.

      Peace.

      Delete
    21. No live or dead bigfoot body to match tracks to.

      No live or dead bigfoot body to match hairs to.

      No live or dead bigfoot body to match DNA to.

      No live or dead bigfoot body to match scat to.

      No live or dead bigfoot body to match Patty to.

      No live bigfoot to match sound recordings to.

      No live or dead bigfoot body to match peoples sightings or legends to.

      Delete
    22. Check out some Jim Vieira and weep.

      Peace.

      Delete
  6. "I'm gonna have fun. You're gonna have fun. We're gonna have so much F---in fun we'll need plastic surgery to remove our GD smiles...we'll be whistling Zippity Do Dah out of our A$$holes! I'm on a quest to see a moose. PRAISE MARTY MOOSE! Holy Shit."

    Clark W. Griswold

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My girlfriend keeps calling me a stalker.. well.. shes not exactly my girlfriend.... yet!!

      Racer. R. X

      Delete
    2. I think he's gonna pork her, Dad.



      Rusty Griswold

      Delete
    3. He's NOT gonna pork her, Rust.

      Delete
    4. Screw you Dad.He's gonna pork her.


      Rusty Griswold

      Delete
    5. Get to your room, Mr. Papagiorgio.

      Kids. They grow up so fast. You know Rusty, sometimes I look at you and Audry and I don't even recognize the two of you anymore.

      Delete
    6. What's up with the girl in the Ferrari Dad?Did you and Mom hook up with her?

      Rusty Griswold

      Delete
  7. I just never expected to see Nick Papagiorgio of Yuma, Arizona and Herr Goebbels in the same post....impressive

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just goes to show you never know where the evidence will lead you. It's a fucking mystery.

      Delete
    2. True dat,True dat.

      Delete
  8. http://randyfilipovic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/breaking-news-randy-filipovic-racer-x.html?showComment=1374671050958#c2113948862651482089

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone is about to be sued for Libel.

      Delete
    2. Long Live Mucklegrunt
      Long Live Poop In A Jar Guy
      Long Live Taterholes & Cuntpunches

      LONG LIVE BIGFOOT EVIDENCE!!!!!!!

      Delete
    3. LONG LIVE MUCKLEGRUNT!!!
      LONG LIVE POOP IN A JAR GUY!!!
      LONG LIVE ANONY!!!
      LONG LIVE BIGFOOT EVIDENCE!!!

      ALL HAIL TROLLANDIA!!!

      Delete
    4. AnonymousWednesday, July 24, 2013 at 6:07:00 AM PDT

      Not if its true!!

      Delete
    5. Considering where it came from,it's just another lie from Rick.Unless he posts a rap sheet from a reliable site,it's useless.Did he post a rap sheet from a reliable site?C'mon,he has attacked everyone and their momma.Including his own members.Rick is pulling a 2008 hoax and the money from this one is drying up.Hence,the garage sale.Selling his kids clothes along with other things.If he had all these millions of HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS why would he need to sell them?Why not donate them to the HOMELESS?Remember,he is a humanitarian that just likes to pull his little pecker out on film to pee on a book.Maybe he needs to pee on his foot with gout.I hear from a 'reliable source' that it cures the gout within a week. ;)

      Delete
  9. Nonetheless, a section of the boot was excised and given to Sykes. The results of his analysis have been obtained by OTL,S!:Once again: it’s BEAR. The DNA of the blood stain on Smeja’s boot was determined to be BEAR.The Sierra animals were bears. Whether they were mangy or otherwise strange in appearance, and whether Smeja knew it, we will probably never know for sure. But we can be sure that they were not bigfoots. They were bears.End of story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Link please or you're just a troll.
      Which is it?

      Delete
    2. Its all here:

      http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/

      Delete
    3. "Through a 'confidential source' connected to the Sykes study, Over the Line, Smokey! has learned the results of DNA testing on the blood stains on Justin Smeja’s boots.

      I guess they use the same source as Robert Lindsay.

      Although you gave a link,take it with a grain of salt.If you believe everything from a 'confidential source',you must be a Platinum Memeber of Team Taterhole.

      Delete
    4. I don't expect Sykes to find anything unknown on the boots of an avid hunter and fisherman...Maybe he'll find trout or raccoon dna....

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story