Monday, August 5, 2013

Our Friend Greg Just Trolled Dr. Ketchum, LOL


Recently, Bigfoot habituator/DNA expert Dr. Melba Ketchum mentioned a very productive meeting with a news reporter who expressed interest in checking out her habitation site. Ketchum seemed hopeful that a reporter would actually set foot at one of her locations. It has been a week, and it now looks like no one's coming after all. Ketchum posted this somber status message on Facebook:

The media talks big but doesn't follow through. Haven't heard from the media person that was so anxious to come and see one. That's a dozen offers or so with no takers even though almost all said they would come. Doesn't that seem just a little odd?

As of this writing, Ketchum's status has caught the attention of two followers on Facebook, including WhoFortedBlog's Greg Newkirk. We know our friend Greg isn't really trying to be serious here. He's obviously trolling her for kicks:


[Update] Greg says he was serious when he asked Ketchum, "What were they going to come see, Melba?". He posted this response on Facebook:
Haha, oh no.. I was totally serious!! I was going to tell her that I'm a writer and I would definitely take her up on the offer to come and check whatever it is out, but I have a feeling she isn't interested in anything less than Dateline, which kind of sucks.

There's plenty of people who would love to see what she has to show off, but she never seems to invite anyone who can actually appreciate it outside of the mainstream media, who, let's be honest here, only want to snicker at her.

203 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. yay you're the first to suck a chump

      Delete
    2. wow....good insult....

      Delete
    3. ^ the chump he sucked

      Delete
    4. he obviously wants to get sucked by chumps, not do the sucking haha

      Delete
  2. HAHAHA, I WAS SERIOUS! I was going to tell her that I'm a writer and I'd take her up on the offer to come check it out, but I have a feeling she wouldn't be interested in anything less than Dateline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg, get a life.. you really are a troll!

      Delete
    2. You make the trollers of this blog proud. I say everyone joins forces and we hit Dr. Moobs Johnson next, stop for a brunch, then hit the red eye to Wales and wake Joe up with a bucket of Luke warm haggis.

      Delete
    3. 'HAHAHA, I WAS SERIOUS! I was going to tell her that I'm a writer and I'd take her up......' The ass.

      Delete
    4. 'HAHAHA, I WAS SERIOUS! I was going to tell her that I'm a writer and I'd take her up on the offer to come....'in her pants.

      Delete
    5. I would fly there and pretend to be a reporter just to see how many men walking around in wookiee costumes there are. That post seems like an open invitation, did she respond to you or no?

      Delete
    6. Greg, tell her you have a web show that is watched by the producers of Dateline...When you score the interview, ask her why she fired Sally Ramey please...Her project went downhill after that fatal move...

      Delete
    7. She was not fired. She quit. And you can't fire a volunteer, anyway.

      Delete
  3. My Friend Peter likes masterbating

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prove it. Produce the playboy and wadded up kleenex used as a "catchers mitt".

      Delete
    2. Plot twist: Peter lost both arms in the Iraq war.

      Delete
    3. its like an m night shamalalalayan movie! haha

      Delete
    4. Poor Pete and he was such a nice guy. Can anybody lend him a hand?

      Delete
  4. The PGF was a money making hoax concocted by Patterson and his brother-in-law Al DeAtley.

    Do you really think that Al is going to put up money for Roger to find nothing? Of course Roger would find a "bigfoot." It was all part of the plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rent a camera.

      Go to the woods to film a bigfoot.

      Film a bigfoot.

      ^seems legit

      Delete
    2. I'm skeptical myself, but let us not forget in Rogers' time most people HAD to rent a camera. Marty Stouffer had to rent his camera stuff for a while too.

      And just because you went looking for something and found it doesn't necessarily mean fake. Tell that to my freezer full of venison backstraps.

      Delete
    3. Many people look for bigfoot for years and never have a sighting. Patterson and Gimlin go across two states to look for and a film a bigfoot, and lo and behold, they find a bigfoot and film it. Sounds very suspect.

      Delete
    4. Doesn't make it any less true. How many explorers and sea voyagers went in search of something too find it?

      You were either lucky, skilled, or hoaxed.

      Just because things fall into place doesn't mean fake.

      Delete
    5. Stop fucking reaching^ its a hoax. Its obviously a hoax. As clear as fuckin day.

      Delete
    6. And we reach this point, I'm highly skeptical but there is absolutely nothing to legitimately call hoax. Sure, odds are it's fake...but only a true fool goes around calling fake without being able to prove it without a shadow of a doubt. I mean, at least when James Randi called hoax, he ACTUALLY proves such and recreated hoaxes

      Delete
    7. If it was clear as day, why hasn't anyone spent $50 on the camera and film, and even got a decent recreation of it?

      Just because you say it's a custom 'one-off' suit doesn't mean out of 6 billion people, not one can even come close.

      Delete
    8. Have 6 billion people tried?

      Nope.

      Noone cares.

      They look at the film see its a bloke in a monkey suit and then not care about it.

      Delete
    9. A LOT of people have tried, including those with BBC funding and 1,000 people on YouTube. Not one has even come close.

      Just because YOU THINK you see something doesn't mean that's what is truly there. That's why I leave the figurative door open for the PGF to be an organic creature.

      Delete
    10. Anon 5:06, forget about the figurative door being open. It is your back door we want left open.

      Delete
    11. The Roger Patterson ad hominem argument is strong support for the PGF being a hoax.

      Delete
    12. Distraction attempts are futile against someone whom is already skeptical of BF's existence. Seems you just live in a shallow world of negatives, breh.

      Delete
    13. The great debate over here lmao

      the pgf trolling argument is tired and old. you cant prove it is a fake just as much as someone cannot prove it isnt. So stop acting like everyone knows its fake cause most people believe that is flesh and blood, i do.

      Delete
    14. Noone ACTUALLY thinks its real. People say they do because they want their monkey man fantasy to be real.

      Also saying that you cant prove its a fake just as much as someone cannot prove it isnt is NOT a statement with equal terms. Footers can infact prove its real by producing a matching specimen. Until that happens there is NO reason to think its a real animal. None. No matter how much you cry about it.

      Delete
    15. There are a lot of people who believe it's 100% authentic.

      The way I see it, it's fairly equal observations because the film is so ambiguous, so if you know Uncle Al or whomever has the suit, what's a little B&E to rub the suit in the faces of thousands, if not millions of bleevers?

      I mean, nerds are constantly looking and searching for the Squatch, so why not break into the dudes house and take the suit? Surely the outcome would be worth it to a debunker. Probation for a lifetime of I told ya so?

      You're call, honcho.

      Delete
    16. Your * call....damnit.

      Delete
    17. this grammar stuff is getting old haha

      Delete
    18. My friend Patty likes Masterbating

      Delete
    19. "If it was clear as day, why hasn't anyone spent $50 on the camera and film, and even got a decent recreation of it?"........

      Because no one cares. Unless I can get a good return on my money why would I waste it to prove to idiots they are idiots? Samsquach is not real and never will be.

      Delete
    20. All the trolling assholes in this thread that pretend the PGF is a hoax are c*cks*ckers from the CIA. BFE = CIA. Probably have a nice little office somewhere in the back of the Pentagon, next to the BFRO desk. Ouch!

      Delete
    21. 1:23, you're more delusional than I originally thought.

      I'm flattered you believe we're CIA disinformation assets, but unfortunately for me, I'm not in cahoots with the CIA. Can't say that about the rest of the anons, but I highly doubt disinforming footers is really low on the CIA's list of things to do today.

      Delete
    22. highly doubt it's at the top of their list of things to do today*

      Delete
    23. I think that we've clearly established that the PGF is a hoax and that only people blinded by their own wishful thinking will try to impose the idea that the PGF shows a real bigfoot.

      Delete
    24. You've not established that at all, quite the opposite. The more you say what you do the more people will doubt it and start thinking for themselves, that there's no human way to make a Patty suit or we'd seen it many times before and many times since then. We've only seen crap suits many times before and we've only seen crap suits many times since then. All that's been shown and proven many times now so stop fooling the public and insulting their intelligence with your commissioned trolling and ape myth building. Believe it or not folks, Bigfoot falls under national security because it's literally an alien being.

      Delete
    25. 2:22, originally thought? How would you know me unless you are what I suspect? ;) Snowden's your age he worked there too. Guys, grow some guts and do the right thing like he did the world has a right to know.

      Delete
  5. The matilda footage is the real deal backed up by a PUBLISHED peer reviewed paper.

    Skeptics like Joe Fitzgerald will claim its fake. Yet remarkably neither Joe or anyone else has recreated the suit and breath rate. It simply can not be done. Joe knows this but his scofftic nature prevents him from taking an open minded look at the footage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Published and peer review are very loose terms when dealing with Matilda/Ketchum, but from the ambiguous film itself, it no more proves Patty than disproves her.

      Both could be fake, both could be real...both are too ambiguous to say, but at least Matilda isn't grainy and at a distance.

      Joe hates life and reality.

      Delete
    2. I think that Joe left this site after he realized that by not being able to produce the Matilda suit that his PGF "got monkey suit" argument collapsed.

      Delete
    3. ^^ nah, he's too thick to admit when he's wrong. maybe he actually took anon advice and joined BFF

      Delete
    4. You seem to have stopped lying for the most part, so I'd say that you took an anons advice at some point, chuck

      Delete
    5. I could give a shit less about what an anon thinks, especially a troll like you.

      I would love to know how many different people you pretend to be on here. I would guess as many as possible. Might have something to do with a personality disorder I have seen on here called ITPD.

      Delete
    6. Nah, I only have two characters under my belt. Rodfather and smart-ass anon. I use Rodfather for raggin' on debunkers and anon to light up bleevers.

      Other people, idk, but I can tell you there is a minimum of 8 different anons here today alone!

      Delete
    7. Btw, awesome medical diagnosis, Dr. House...I thought I was a gone'r!

      Delete
    8. I would also maybe consider DID/MPD as possible diagnoses.

      No need to thank me that's what I am here for, saving lives.

      Delete
    9. Better be careful with SIDS, Chuck, I hear all it takes is a little baby shaking and a cold blanket.

      Delete
    10. Oh boy, now you gone done it troll. *rolls eyes* I dont worry about SIDS my baby has been able to lift her head for weeks. I am smart enough to not put my baby on her stomach at night. Im sure when your parents tried to suffocate you their mental illness may have gotten in the way of achieving their goal. Its ok you resent them and any parents now, but I would suggest seeing a therapist.

      When your were sexually and physically abused as a child it did some worse damage than we thought. I may have misdiagnosed you also, lets add APD to the list of your issues.

      Delete
    11. How about OPP? You know I'm down with OPP.

      Delete
    12. no, you don't know me.

      Delete
    13. Get em "Charlie"! And joe doesn't have to tell em nothing and they're gonna like it!

      Delete
    14. OP. Your pathetic and lame attempts at reverse psychology are terrible.

      What else you got?

      MMG

      Delete
    15. Just a video of you and your boyfriend snowballing, MMG. Found it on a torrent site being peddled by Melba Ketchum and Steve Kulls.

      Delete
    16. Anon ? And Charles Bronson isn't an alias, huh?

      Delete
    17. Its not about it being an alias, I am someone you can confront when I post. You cannot confront someone when there anonymous and nobody to hold accountable for their trolling.

      Do you understand that? huh?

      Delete
    18. Hey Charles Bronson, your acting sucks and so do your comments.

      Delete
    19. Is that thee Charles Bronson posting on this site? I liked your part in The Great Escape. Sorry to say, everything else pretty much stunk.

      Delete
    20. It's not him it's some anon.

      Delete
  6. A facebook post stating "buckle up" followed by the complete and utter implosion on the bff. Footers yet again looking deluded, their godess just got them pwned. A glorious day on the jref and many laughs were shared. Mulder shamelessly trying to defend it. And then the follow up reveal of the private facebook messages, incredible.

    Those were the glory days of footery. Im not sure that can ever be topped. We can hope but the bar has been set incredibly high. Thank you melba. We couldn't have written this any better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot about Sykes, who was most likely pushed into doing the study by that hot tramp Dr Anna Nekaris.

      Filming the British Monsterquest but if you listen to Joe's 5th hand information, he's already isolated Squatch DNA!

      Delete
    2. I like the purple stipe in her hair.

      Delete
    3. Curiously, I've only seen the red stripe in her hair on that round table about bigfoot. In fact, camera placement for that show made her look way better than she normally does. She's usually quite homely, not Melba homely, but homely nonetheless.

      Delete
    4. Well your right that regard. But I would still let her Chumpsuck me.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for being my wingman on the spelling much appreciated.

      Delete
    6. Americans misuse so many words, it's become second nature to correct 'yinz'

      Delete
    7. Goddess? If you mean Sharon Shill, your description is a bit off. The last we heard she was rippingly owned in the comments section of her Huff 'n' Stuff 'n' Puff blog.

      Delete
  7. Gentlemen, we are missing a prime opportunity here. Go to the first few posts and you will find evidence of a new primate species. The Chumpanzee.

    ReplyDelete
  8. All you people claiming bigfoot is a human hybrid are idiots!!

    It is nothing more than a dumb ape. Still manages to outwit most of you footers though.

    Treat it like a dumb ape and youll get your monkey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking for a dump ape worked so well for Grover krantz, Ian Redman, and Renee daffodil.

      Delete
    2. Taterholin for a reason lol

      Delete
    3. 4:58 is a dumb BFE employee thinking thousands of giant apes roam around that just can't be found, what a tart.

      Delete
    4. bfe empolyee??

      Tell us more haha

      Delete
  9. The American James Bond prefers his women Shaven, and not Furred.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Breaking News! Check out the new bat species from Mozambique. They named it the Chewbacca and it does look like Chewbacca. Its can be seen on CNN news online.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not impressed. Matilda is clearly a real bigfoot

      Delete
    2. Cool name and all but it just looks like a normal bat to me.

      Delete
    3. That's the same thing you said about black people too, chuck.

      Delete
    4. Not even remotely funny, Rodfather.

      Try again.

      Delete
  11. Gosh I really don't see any recent posts by Joe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's been busy with his ALT accounts.

      Delete
    2. What would you do without him? He completes you trolls.

      Delete
    3. Just migrate to a new whipping boy like you, fozzy, bitch lips, etc.

      Joe's just flavor of the month.

      Delete
    4. Just because you were sexually abused by your Father doesn't mean the rest of us are into your gay shenanigans. You will never taste my flavor!

      Delete
    5. Hello everyone!

      I've been on a two day bender because I actually have a social life; unlike you desperate, pathetic, parasitic dirty little trolls that are so obsessed with me it's unreal. I should be flattered by this obsession but d'you know something? I've gotten so used to schooling you silly obsessive trolls that I take it in my stride now.

      Matilda is fake. I don't have to recreate it because Bill Munns has already suggested to you how easy it is to do so. Furthermore, it's an embracing comparison, not even a close run thing. Matilda is not even as debatable as Patty, because unless you haven't seen Star Wars, then you cannot say she doesn't look like a Wookie. The camparison is desperate. If you could at least turn around and have something that looks similar to Patty, then you would have a point... But you can't and in that moment, I have you by your short & curley's... And it's really important to me that you know how much I love that. It makes me smile... Even as I'm writing this comment. (Aaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhh sweet satisfaction)

      http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bill-munns-matilda/

      Now... For you people who keep trying to claim my logic is inaccurate... if Patty isn't real what is it? It's a suit, yes? Ok... Your turn to show me at least one expert that could explain away it's realism.

      Got monkey suit?

      Peace.

      Delete
    6. Game fur, hip waders, liquid filled muscle sacks, taxidermy equipment, artistic vision, and a whole lot of time.

      Half of "what you see" in the film, including pixel restoration (they just add what the program thinks should be there) versions are just false, artifacts, and distortion, which leads you to assume its scars, blinking, injuries, and muscle movements when it's really not.

      This isn't about bill munns or what he says, it's about your claims and logic. You claim patty is real, provide your side, then demand a suit. By your logic, we show you our side about patty being a hoax (to which you can't comprehend) and then we demand a faithful recreation of an equally ambiguous film. You then skirt te subject or demand it's not necessary...therein lies the truth, it's not necessary to recreate either.

      Delete
    7. Joe you must see the new bat species from Mozambique. NO shit it really is named the Chewbacca bat. So if there can be a chewbacca bat which is so named because of it's resemblence to Chewbacca then clearly it is possible for some other animal "Primate" to also resemble Chewbacca. Plus has it been verified that the photos Munns claims are Matilda are actually from the original film? J.D.

      Delete
    8. Pgf is fake. I dont have to recreate it cus I say so.

      Delete
    9. nothing about matilda has been confirmed really, it is all just speculation based on leaked photos of a wookie mask and a rug/airpump. The two may not not be from the same source for all we know.

      No matter, wherever the photos are from they are 100% fake. They are of a wookie mask if you cannot see that in the side by side comparison you need glasses.

      7:09, your statements are just your opinion just like joe has his. You obviously do not agree, but one is not more right than the other. Neither side can be PROVEN at this point about PGF

      Delete
    10. Anon 7:20 you are correct about those photos being a wookie mask. The question we need the owners of the Matilda footage to answer is if these are actual shots from the film. Some people who claim to have seen the film state it is real. So Erickson Project, SHOW US THE FILM ALREADY. J.D.

      Delete
    11. Anon 7:09...

      Pixel restoration has nothing to do with it, you can see muscle movement I'm the original footage that is stabilised.

      "... We show you our side about patty being a hoax (to which you can't comprehend) and then we demand a faithful recreation of an equally ambiguous film..."

      Ok, show me 'your side' of it being a hoax. You haven't done that yet and by stating anything else is side tracking from the biggest obstacle you have regarding the film and that is my ace card regarding this subject. Convince me, please... Prove to me that your version of Patty could be achieved. I have shown you bath rugs and wookie masks, you can't even point to one example of a Patty mask to even start to explain the proportions of it. So no... You haven't shown me 'your side'. You cannot show me one example of anything that looks as good... Your argument would hold weight if we enthusiasts didn't have an expert in costume to back up our claim; you have nothing except for trying to pick holes in me supplying you with an explanation of how Matilda was made and that eats you up, doesn't it?

      Look at it from my point of view, just for a second right? Patty - nothing has come close in 46 years, not even with a BBC budget and the proportions are out of that of a human's. Matilda- looks like a Chewie mask, end of. If I had of turned round and told you people that Matilda was real, you would have had a field day, showing me wookie masks left right and centre... You cannot do the same with Patty and it breaks you.

      My logic would be inaccurate if It didn't look like wookie. It's a wookie mask deal with it, you can't so you pester me... You lose.

      Got monkey suit?

      JD...

      Matt Moneymaker stated that the footage is real. I've seen the Chewie bat just now after your recommendation and it looks like an extra ugly bat. I'm suggesting that if it didn't have that beautiful brown it would just look like another bat, no?
      What is your stance on this Matilda then JD... Do you actually think it could be real?

      Peace JD.

      Delete
    12. Joe you are deluded if you think the bbc put a lot of time and money into their suit. Its just some off the shelf monkey suit. The funny thing is even that isn't far off. The proportions are there just make the suit a bit more simplistic with bear hides, film at distance with a shaky film camera and your there.

      Joe its rude of you to say roger wasnt capable of making a suit. The guy put a lot of time and effort into it only to be made fun of by people like you.
      The pgf was 1 of a long line of bigfoot promotions by entrepreneur roger.

      Delete
    13. I would like to see what Matt Moneymaker apparently saw. That would be helpful to this debate.

      Delete
    14. 8:05, you have some budget report of the BBC doc? How do you know they didnt put a lot of time and money into it?

      Off the shelf monkey suit? Show us one, ANYONE from that time that is remotely close.
      Then please account for the proportions of the body not being that of a human. The toes? You can see the toe on Patty lift in step. Suits dont do that. Muscle flex doesnt happen when you put on a suit and stuff it up with padding. You can see her calves, back, quads, biceps, forearms all flex in motion. That is not pixel distortion that is really there.

      Have you ever seen someone take a cheap suit and modify the hair? How would someone even do that it doesnt make any sense. All the hair would look different if that were the case.

      He wasnt shaking the camera, he was running after the subject. If it were fake and nobody had filmed or talked about BF why wouldnt he just film the money shot? No need to distort what is being seen if he is SO CAPABLE of making a suit.

      Your points are garbage.

      Delete
    15. The BBC put the budget forward to recreate a Patty suit; deal with it, not twist it to how you would prefer it to be.

      Hang on... Did you actually just suggest I am 'rude' for claiming Roger couldn't make a suit? (WTF is that supposed to mean?) Anyway, in your eyes; a broke, rookie film maker had made a fake Bigfoot suit using materials that were not even available to people in the late 60's? And you want to pick holes in my logic that a wookie mask and bath rug (that looks nothing... nothing... NOTHING like animal, primate or anything like real hair of fur) looks nothing like what Bigfoot faces have been reported about for thousands of years?

      D'you know, I'm sorry for the people who come on this blog and have to see my comments day after day, talking about this embarrassing comparison, but I'm sorry, it is just too easy to shoot fish in a barrel.

      AND... To the person who suggested further up this blog page that Matilda has been peer reviewed; wrong. Matilda's DNA had been peer reviewed, not the footage and if you think that I don't support Melba's work then you know nothing about what my stance is on the subject. Adrian Erickson was hoaxed with the footage by the land owners after it was determined that Adrian had found red Bigfoot hair, a hair that Melba successfully sequenced. If Adrian at the time thought the footage to be legitimate in giving Melba the hair, then why would Melba question Adrian?

      Now, I understand this is hearsay and rumor, but let's look at this objectively a second; You have legitimately sequenced DNA on one hand, and a wookie mask on the other... Do we need to call in Sherlock Holmes?

      Peace.

      Delete
    16. this is a blog, its all about rumors and hearsay not REAL news.

      Delete
    17. Hi Joe I cannot take a stance on it because the asshole Erickson won't show us the entire film. It seems as if anyone involved in bigfooting is just looking for a big payday out of it and that in and of itself drops the credibility. But I still want to see the film because of all the ballyhoo that led up to it. But like the Patterson film there is a backstory and it is much more compelling in a negative sense than PGF. How much money do you figure the guy that filmed the Bili Ape recieved? I'm sure money was the last thing on their minds. Hopefully the Sykes data comes out in a format that costs nothing more than any other discovery would. I got to see bili ape footrage on TV for free so why should Bigfoot be any differant? The bat looks different than most. I've actually held a bat in my hands. Many differences in bat facial structure. Bats in the USA are declining at an unprecidented rate due to a fungus called white nose that grows on them when they are hibernating in caves. But looking at the face it is easy to see why they named it what they did. J.D.

      Delete
    18. The way I see it Erickson either found out his footage was fake or got caught in some way and decided not to release it OR there is some sort of a disagreement about ownership and/or distribution and the profits that could potentially be had. If there were some sort of a battle of ownership, someone probably wants to be paid to let the other have it and vice versa.

      What is crazy is that if they released REAL footage of a BF then they would be famous and not make money of the film per say but make it via interviews, books, documentaries, etc. The first step is getting the footage out for people to see if it is even worth looking at.

      Then again, it could just be another Dyer-type fiasco.

      Delete
    19. To me, the fact that Erickson will not show the footage and has gone a-wall says it all. Listen, I'd want nothing more than the Matilda footage to be real, but I would not be true to myself or anyone if I thought otherwise. There are reports of baboon faced Bigfoot; not very often but once in a while... I did for a second consider this when I first looked at the Matilda footage, but then I realized that it only looks like one thing.

      Peace JD bro.

      Delete
    20. It has a dog nose, that is the most telling part of the photo.

      Wookiees had most the features of a BF except for the nose. It is not a human nose on a Wookiee its more of a dog nose. Ever seen Space Balls? Barf is modeled after a dog(he is a Mog, half dog half man, his own best friend!) and he has the same nose as Chewie. The reason being, chewie resembles a large shiatsu with the long groomed hair/color and his nose makes him look like a dog.

      Bigfoot is not reported to have anything BUT a hooded or human like nose. The strangest images people create have ape noses, again nothing like a dog. Not a small black nose that is darker in color from the rest of the face.

      Delete
    21. Wow anon 7:09 and 8:05, lost soul(s).

      After reading 7:09, now that I've managed to pull myself up off the floor after choking in hysterics, this genius tells us that Patty's moving muscle, sinew and flesh were "water filled sacks." Oh God. God help this person. It's a pathetic, desperate reach, a last gasp.

      8:05 tells us authoritatively that the BBC did not put whatever budget Hackham required behind his Strutting Orange Stick Man attempt. 8:05 tells us that Strutting Orange Stick Man's proportions are close to Patty's. It's safe to say that the BBC supported what Hackham was doing, and it's painfully obvious that his BBC budget was greater than Roger Patterson's budget. Hackham's resources were astronomical compared to Patterson's. Yet looks at the BBC result. It's game set match on this pathetic skeptard.

      You'll notice these skeptards constantly use the words deluded and delusional. You'll find that word ad nauseum on all the skeptoid blogs and forums and sites.

      It makes you wonder, they must be experts on delusions, via first hand experience.

      This is a joke. The Disinformation Bureau is really on its knees today. Wow this is bad.

      Delete
    22. Can't agree with you more and love the reference to Space Balls, Ha!

      Peace.

      Delete
    23. So because the bbc made a suit that looks different means bigfoot is real? Wow you footers are fucking deluded.

      Delete
    24. Back At You 7 09 8 05...

      I can't agree more with you bro... It's laughable that these people are trying to call flaws on my logic when they are comparing Patty with Matilda. Like I said, if I had come out initially and claimed I thought Matilda was real; they would be posting all the links they can find on Chewie masks... In all their trolling, they really can't see that I actually don't have to produce a Matilda suit... It is what it is. Patty... Same; it is what is it.

      Peace.

      Delete
    25. Nobody said that you illiterate troll. Stop trying to spin this and put words in peoples mouths its useless you are always going to sound dumb doing it.

      Delete
    26. Back at you, you said everything that wasnt already covered. Game, Set, Match.

      Delete
    27. Charles you talking to joe?

      Delete
    28. forgot to add this too:

      LOVE THE SPACEBALLS REFERENCE!

      Delete
    29. No, I was talking to anon 9:14, I wouldnt call Joe a troll by any stretch.

      Delete
    30. Anon 9:14...

      Oh dear... It means that even with the budget available by the BBC, they didn't come close... So how is a broke rookie film maker in the late 60's supposed to trump that with materials that weren't even available then?

      Peace.

      Delete
    31. Hello Charles, not said hello to you today yet bro. Hope all is well bro.

      Peace.

      Delete
    32. All is good Joe, just a slow work day so I get to enjoy the BFE for all its glory! lol Glad to see you survived your bender this weekend !

      Delete
    33. The bbcs suit looked better in my eyes. No static diaper butt there.

      Delete
    34. Joe unless you can reproduce the bbc suit then according to your argument it must be real. As we know it was a suit we can also know that the pgf is a suit.

      Delete
    35. HA HA HA HA!!! No dumb arss!! Oh dear you guys are getting worse and worse!! HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

      Oh dear, keep it coming it's hilarious!!!

      Peace.

      Delete
    36. You say the pgf looks better I say the bbc suit looks better. So what? Both are suits.

      What there isn't however is a bigfoot. Not ever.

      Delete
    37. That statement would have a little baring if it wasn't outwardly cynical and without any basis in fact.

      1. The BBC suit looks embarrassingly bad in comparison.

      2. You have to show me something as good as Patty before you can make a safe claim both are suits. You cannot seriously compare the two and then claim they are both suits. It's childish.

      3. There are Bigfoot and the fact that you cannot prove that Patty isn't real enforces that claim... Does not prove it, but enforces it. Do you have anything to enforce your claim? No... So let's say I'm winning.

      Peace.

      Delete
    38. 1. The pgf suit looks embarrassingly bad in comparison.

      2. You have to show me something as good as the bbc suit before you can make a safe claim both are suits. You cannot seriously compare the two and then claim they are both suits. Its childish.

      3. There are bigfoot and the fact that you cannot prove that the bbc suit isn't real enforces that claim. . Does not prove it, but enforces it. Do you have anything to enforce your claim? No.. so let's say I'm winning.

      Peace.

      Delete
    39. 1. Childish.

      2. Cynical.

      3. Defeated.

      4. Peace.

      Delete
    40. It's like shooting fish in a barrel Joe.

      On the subject of the PGF Joe I'm off to the Czech Rep next week to hopefully catch up with Michaela Kocis.

      I feel a schooling come on....

      http://rense.com/RenseInterviews.html

      MMG

      Delete
    41. Big Black C0cks are my joy in life Joe.


      MMG

      Delete
    42. Rense??????

      You are deluded.

      Delete
    43. No Rense is deluded and possibly quite ill.

      The ideal place to find backing for Greg Long, Michaela Kocis and Kal Korff.

      MMG

      Delete
    44. Ok, I didn't read or skim 90% of this wall of text because I'm pretty sure it's the same reasons and excuses that Joe has been using for months in frustration that in over 200 years of American colonization there has never been anything more than myth and legend surrounding Sasquatch. Not only America, but in the history of the WORLD, there has never been anything close to conclusive proof as to the existence of a relic/hybrid hominin/ape EVER.

      Joe, I know in your flat, wherever you are in that rain soaked country, you just loooovee the American way of life and our myths...but they are just that...myths..legends...spooky stories to keep the youngins from wandering off to do the dirty deed.

      I can at least understand where you're coming from because trust me, I was EXACTLY where you are now. I've defended this and that, people who aren't even in the game or alive anymore. After years and years of digging for the truth, I found it...

      Bigfoot doesn't exist. No more than the Jersey Devil, Dogman, Mothman, or death worm.

      If bigfoot does exist, it's an extra terrestrial form that will never be found, trapped, killed, or otherwise documented.

      If you would actually come to America and put your money where your mouth is, you'd find most of your internet buddies have been blowing smoke up your ass this whole time.

      IF bigfoot is found to exist, great, GRAND, epic...now you won't be the complete laughing stock of mainstream media and science. I will GLADLY serve up some crow and eat it.

      Until then...footers have absolutely nothing.

      Even IF PGF is an organic creature, it's doesn't prove jack squat other than Patterson and Gimlin are the two luckiest men in 50+ years of modern footing.

      Otherwise, I don't buy any of it for a second. What really kills patty for me is the damn hip wader on the right leg when she's around her looking back phase.

      I don't see distinct muscle movement, blinking, injuries, or scar tissues. I see suit flaws.

      Delete
    45. After all that you write;

      "IF bigfoot is found to exist, great, GRAND, epic...now you won't be the complete laughing stock of mainstream media and science. I will GLADLY serve up some crow and eat it."

      Hmmmmmm, now... If I'm, not mistaken, to put something like that half way through your comment that tries to denounce Bigfoot, is a little bit of an acknowledgment that the creature could exist which would suggest a contradiction of your claim not seconds before? If you have come to conclusion after all these years that the creature is not real, it is because the research field has been looking for a gorilla that isn't there. Listen, I really, really don't want to sound like an ignorant bastard, especially to someone who has obviously been into this subject longer than me, but why in all this time has science not debunked this subject? True... we have yet to prove it, but science is asking the questions. You cannot deny that.

      "Even IF PGF is an organic creature, it's doesn't prove jack squat other than Patterson and Gimlin are the two luckiest men in 50+ years of modern footing."

      Well, forgive me if I'm not correct... But if the PGF was proven to be real, then that would mean Bigfoot are real... would it not?

      Look, I don't want to come across condescending or rude to you... But your comment comes across like you have are still not sure what to think to be honest...

      "If bigfoot does exist, it's an extra terrestrial form that will never be found, trapped, killed, or otherwise documented."

      What a statement that was! Listen, if I had said something like that, I would have been shot to pieces, but d'you know what? I agree with you. There is that possibility and for all you condemning the way I think, it turns out we are not that much different at all.

      Peace.

      Delete
    46. Do you know how many years researchers have been looking for a hybrid whatever as a possible candidate and not a gorilla type ape?

      They've been searching both avenues for 20 years.

      Hell, you even have the cloakers/paranormal/UFO people out looking for it.

      So that's over 3 different active avenues.

      Yes, Joe, there is always a chance that it's real...just as there is many cryptids. I don't necessarily believe in the deity of religions but it's plausible that a higher being exists.

      I'd say there's a .001% chance that bigfoot as we know it exists.

      You want to know why science hasn't debunked it?

      Because you can't debunk a negative, Joe. You cannot prove what was never there.

      Bigfoot is to cryptids as the Higgs Bonson particle is to physicists. It fills that void where they think something occurs, something exists but they aren't sure if it's just an artifact or if it actually exists. Bigfoot being the "missing link" in the evolutionary chain and the Higgs Bonson as the missing particle at the collider.

      It could mean that Al set up Bob and Roger, it could be real, it could be an alien, it could be fake...whatever it is doesn't prove jack squat.

      I was being mostly sarcastic in my last statement about bigfoot aliens.

      Look, I'm skeptic, there's a small percentage that I'm wrong and I always hold that position. Unless you can show me hard evidence and a body in front of me, it doesn't exist no matter how hard you pray at night. There's a chance anything in this universe could exists so it's completely ignorant to say with 100% authority that bigfoot doesn't exist but I'm...

      99.999999998% positive bigfoot does not exist as a relic hominin or a hybrid human.

      Delete
    47. 'Debunking a negative' is the most cynical of things I have ever heard. You need to prove that Bigfoot is a negative before you can claim that, and the fact that you haven't, renders it an empty statement. No; science has not debunked it cause it can't or it would have; easily.

      You cannot cynically deny that footprints and DNA are not evidence, it doesn't work like that and it is not the nature of science to deny something without bringing an equivalent to the table to back your claim.

      How will you receive one of the most credible people in modern science? Will you deny it, will you embrace it? What would be your view if Sykes states that his research has determined a living hominid?

      If some of your loosely suggested theories like your extraterrestrial Bigfoot theory was true (something I'm picking up on as a repetitive theme in your comments), then we will never have a body and quite contradictingly, you have answered your own statement that there is a chance that this creature could be real with an avenue like that.

      I respect your opinion, but in mine, this creature cannot be mere fantasy and in that 1% that you are willing to admit you could be wrong, you agree with me and I am not so keen to even compromise that much.

      "It could mean that Al set up Bob and Roger, it could be real, it could be an alien, it could be fake...whatever it is doesn't prove jack squat."

      ... I really don't understand this comment people maintain; it means everything and has a major baring on the existence of this creature. If the creature in that footage is real, then Bigfoot is real? Plain and simple.

      Peace.

      Delete
    48. It is proving a negative, Joe, because nobody has even come close to proving that sasquatch exist, thus it's not a positive.

      I know it sucks to hear, but the best put forward is a grainy old film, the story of a redneck who was out drinking and roadhunting, and a completely whack-job veterinarian.

      You're right, I am cynical. I'm cynical and demand actual proof that something such as a 9 foot tall, 800 lb, half human is walking the woods of North America. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

      Out of every conspiracy and cryptid in existence, the one with by FAR the possibility to be real is extra-terrestrial life, by the sheer vast amount of space there is the in universe.

      I just made a sarcastic, half-hearted joke about bigfoot being an alien. I don't really think bigfoot is an ET, so you can drop that line.

      Everything in life with me has .1%, Joe. God, Bigfoot, Champ, Mothman, etc. just because I leave an opening doesn't mean it's still not a fantasy.

      If Sykes does come back with information, it is what it is. Science will have to peer review and recreate his established theory and timeline, just as had to be done with Ketchum and every other paper looking to be published. Even then, good luck getting it through without a type specimen.



      Delete
    49. It's real, joe we know and the trolls know it too it's actually their whole reason for creating this blog to mock it. The reason Patty's butt to some would seem not to move, MK Davis showed it does move, is because she's all muscles. She's actually in a physical sense many more times the man that these trolling weaklings, they're all wimps.

      Delete
    50. Science hasn't recognized the species no, but you cannot claim that Bigfoot has not been proven anymore than we claim that it has, therefore you using it 'proving a negative' isn't substantial, because you are over assuming you are right on the grand scheme of things.

      Ok then... let's look at it like this, as like you, I have a massive interest in extraterrestrial life and have no question that it is out there. Now then... Would you agree that there is a substantial cover-up with ET's by the government?

      Peace.

      Delete
    51. Wow a lot of opinionated trolls with no real argument. What else is new.

      Delete
    52. Anon 1:38,2:01, how about you shut yer trap about trolling, as far as I can see the only active posters on this topic are Joe and I, who are having a discussion, and you harping off about trolls this and support joe that. How about YOU provide something for once.

      Joe, I don't know nor do I care if the government is involved in a giant cover up regarding ET's. I have only so much spare time and worrying about what the government could be covering isn't one of the things I dwell on. Fact is, modern governments are all about secrecy and cover ups, so would it surprise me if they did/do? No. But I'd worry more about the homeland stuff kept under wraps than ET's visiting earth.

      And you verbally wrote my point "Science haven't proven bigfoot as a species no," there it is. You can't prove jack squat about it until a species is proven and we have a type specimen. Science doesn't revolve around "but you can't prove it doesn't exist!" That's middle school logic.

      Delete
    53. Science hasn't proven Bigfoot as a species, no... but the evidence we have has not been disproven either, and considering the dogma involved with this topic from the wider scientific world, the statement about false negatives cannot be utilized to full effect until you have categorically put our evidence to bed. Yes, you can use it in fleeting comments on a blog, stating the obvious about the acceptance of such a topic, but you must have a proven basis to claim that Bigfoot is not real before you claim it is a negative. In the context of not proving a negative... it is a negative to you and the wider scientific world that has tried it's best to ridicule the subject and is therefore of no worth to enthusiasts, some of require no scientific recognition of such a creature... if that makes sense?

      You cannot compare this subject to mainstream accumulative research because mainstream science has done it's best to censor and ridicule even the suggestion of wild people residing in the deep wilderness areas of the world... Which leads me perfectly to my next point. I have posted these examples before, but I will again to prove a point, forgive me if you have read them before;

      William Jevning stated that in 1995 two of his fellow investigators came across a series of tracks near Mount St Helens in Washington State. In temporarily leaving the tracks in order to fetch Jevning, they came across a forest service supervisor and in their excitement, told the supervisor of these tracks thinking nothing of it. By the time these two gentleman, this time accompanied with Jevning got to the site (some four hours later); the tracks had been deliberately destroyed; sprayed with water with the earth re-arranged to look like they had never been there.

      Wildlife consultant john miedzinski when working for the fish and game in the State of Wyoming had his job threatened because of his involvement into an investigation into Bigfoot prints and an encounter. He had to remain silent for 30 years and is now a researcher and adviser to Jeff Meldrum.

      You see sir, this is what enthusiasts and researchers are up against and we're still getting no closer to being debunked. The logging industry is too precious an economy for habitat to be set aside. Now then... If you are willing to accept that ET's are quite possibly being kept under wraps, is it at all possible that the same could be happening here to secure a precious part of the economy?

      Peace.

      Delete
    54. Hey MMG, are you really visiting the Czech Rep?

      Peace.

      Delete
    55. Do the Welsh have their own version of Bozo the Clown?

      Delete
    56. What evidence, Joe? Legitimate evidence. The DNA has been bunk so far, there are no more clearer or detailed films than PGF 46 years ago, hoaxes have skyrocketed, no one can prove a Sasquatch built any type of "stick structure" anywhere, and for every step the field takes it then cedes back 3 steps.

      Nobody is out to haunt your dreams over bigfoot. Science isn't out to get the bigfoot field and to really "show them." Even so, your evidence should stand up to scientific scrutiny before you even submit it for review.

      Until very recently the bigfoot researchers have been forensic amateurs and many still are. Let me put this a way some of you old heads may understand; If you are buying LSD from somebody and they physically touch whatever it's on, you know they don't know what they're doing and you don't buy it. LSD is very absorbent and it soaks in through the epidermis, so the more it's handled the weaker it will be.

      The more all this actual DNA evidence is handled, the more it breaks down, the more contaminated the sample gets. It turns out useless or worse, misleading to naive "genome researchers."

      As for the rest of your post (forgive me if this sounds rude)

      It doesn't matter who stated what to whom, what story or account, documentation anyone has. Since you like UFO stuff so much, you know how many internal documents have been released over the years and those official federal documents do not prove the existence of alien life.

      You have to face it, bud, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

      Delete
    57. The DNA has been 'bunk' because it was sequenced by someone of the very little credibility of Melba Ketchum. What chance did she have? Especially after she embarrassed the Bigfoot world with her claims afterwards. She did do something right however; she managed to get the attention of other researchers, people with more credibility than her who will make people listen. Even if Sykes' findings do get scoffed at, it'll cause other independent research groups to try and replicate the study and hey presto; repetitive sequenced results that science demands we present as 'evidence'.

      Listen I am not stupid. I understand that it's gonna take a body; but what the DNA study will promote, is a wider understanding that the idea is not in the realms of fantasy anymore and this is the start of any scientific journey to a major discovery.

      Stick structures, though to me are interesting, especially when you find these 40-50 miles in to the interior of wilderness areas, are explained by many researchers as nothing special.

      Hoaxes have sky rocketed yes, but this is in a effort to make videos on YouTube channels go viral and the introduction of this subject into popular culture is kind of expected... You could argue that people are merely becoming more open to 'wackier' subjects; things that require people to think outside the box... The pre-90's UFO skeptics eroded in the same manner I do believe, though it be without the internet of course.

      'Leaping Russian Yeti' on YouTube; the MK Davis version. I know I preach about this but we have yet to debunk it.

      Delete
    58. Science has done it's best to ridicule this subject sir and to state otherwise is not being honest. There is too much evidence and too much reason for this to happen, just look at the 411 situation by David Paulides; you cannot look at that and not think that there is something very odd going on. That, is the same level of cover-up as any of the UFO situations in recent decades.

      Now, as far as your LSD example is concerned; this is a convenient excuse and for many who are concerned with what this creature actually is; the fact that the results are coming out part human is not a surprise to them. The fact that these results did come out as part human were the reason why her work was scrutinized even from within her own field, because there are too many enthusiasts even who still consider this creature an ape (though I understand humans are apes); a type of bipedal gorilla. This is something I'm glad to say is turning. This I feel due to the research and experiences opening up and being shared due to the link of the world wide web. We have thousands of years of Native Culture that have always stood by the same claim that these creatures are just another tribe of humans.

      Those internal documents have not proven anything with regards to aliens because you have governments without comment about them and a conditioning by the same governments of people so that their effect on the general public is a slow, drip feeding process. You have much more people that believe in the prospect of aliens these days than you did 20 years ago, and people mostly shrug their shoulders and except that these things are probably very real; ask anyone with half a brain and they'll tell you the government probably know everything about ET's, it's snot such a surprise to people anymore and therefore these released documents don't have much of an impact... that's unless you have a fascination with the subject; those people still being a smaller minority in comparison.

      Well... in 20 years time, Bigfoot will be the same, maybe less if we can get the ball rolling faster, which is likely with research fields being linked as easier as it has been in recent years.

      It's the early hours in the UK now, so I will probably call it a night sir. I very, very much enjoyed talking with you, this being the reason I visit such blogs for the hope of such stimulating discussion. Please leave your response and I will respond accordingly tomorrow morning.

      Peace.

      Delete
    59. Layoff the XFiles reruns, Joe, it's rotting your brain.

      Delete
    60. Hey! No one answered my question as to whether or not the Welsh have their own version of Bozo the Clown.

      Delete
    61. Are you referring to Joe the Fitzgerald?

      Delete
    62. Obviously, he's trying to be funny... And being as successful as a brain hemorrhage.

      Peace.

      Delete
  12. Some tough guys trolled Ketchum. Big deal. Go hoax Smeja and get a 25.06 up your ace monkey suitors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/dna-study-update-david-h-swenson-phd.html?m=1

      Trolls mean nothing. Trolls are attracted to things that bother their way of seeing the world. Parasites. Their fear of the unknown won't go away anytime soon, it'll only get worse as Sykes' work becomes more apparently positive for the enthusiasts. Just remember that the more the trolls post, the more they unconsciously express their fear of what's coming.

      Peace to Footers.

      Delete
    2. Joe, I will give you 500 Internet points if Sykes study comes up with anything showing a relic or hybrid bi-pedal ape or unknown primate (is he even testing Nu DNA?) in the wilds of NA.

      I legitimately believe he will scientifically come up with nothing relating to bigfoot.

      He already extended his study, like Ketchum, who also came up scientifically short

      Delete
    3. He finsihed what he set out to do, but apparently he has isolated something and wants to go further with more samples or something to try and find a match to it. we wont know till he is done, which wont be as long as ketchum took, He actually knows what he is doing.

      Delete
    4. But on this blog there is a love hate relationship between the trolls and bleevers that is symbiotic. Bleevers need somebody to convince and Non Bleevers need someone to disprove. And a person can believe some things and vehemently oppose others. It is not an all or nothing equation.Me I will look at both sides of the coin to keep myself occupied until Sykes hopefully publishes positive results. Try to switch sides temporarily and look at it from the opposite direction and you could discover validity to opposing arguements and as strange as it may sound something that reinforces your original belief that you could not see unless you looked the opposite direction occasionally.J.D.

      Delete
    5. I am withholding judgement till he releases his info. Nothing you can say until then that isnt just speculation.

      Delete
    6. 7:23, I dont come here for a need to respond to trolls. Most times I dont even comment when I am but many here seem to enjoy the back and fourth. Trolling just gets on peoples nerves no matter what the subject matter.

      Delete
    7. The statement that he isolated the DNA and is waiting for another sample is an outright lie and hearsay. Nobody with a brain would accept it as fact without proper evidence.

      Delete
    8. Sorry Bronson I sort of lumped troll in with disbelivers as that is what I was called when I questioned ketchums validity 2 years ago. J.D.

      Delete
    9. Ok... Let's forget a second that Dr Sykes, in necessarily having to contact Justin Smeja about his DNA results, didn't happen... Let's forget about that a minute, forget Ro ever said it on a Podcast.

      Let's look at Sykes' stance in the last year. He's become an active member of Bigfootology and visited two Bigfoot research sites. Why would he extend his research? If his findings didn't come up with squat; he would have just stated so, yes? What would make someone like him give himself an extension... Is he on to something or is he enjoying wasting his time. It's not like he's got nothing better to do, right?

      Peace.

      Delete
    10. 7:30, it is all hearsay until he releases his info. Nobody is accepting anything as fact, they are saying this is the current speculation until he releases his work. You claiming it is a lie is you creating your own rumors on the subject you have no more info than anyone else speculating. Just taking shots in the dark, all of us and everyone understands that. We will see what happens when he is done.

      Delete
    11. No worries JD I get that trolls get lumped in with the bunch because they are almost always on the side of the skeptic here. Trolls on most websites are just trying to poke at what will cause the most disruption.

      Delete
    12. And that's the purpose of the troll... Parasitic desperate for attention sad cases.

      Peace.

      Delete
    13. i agree I get posting silly comments and all when you're bored. But trolling just to TRY and upset random people and make personal attacks after specific people to make yourself feel better is just ridiculous. it really is deserving of being called a mental illness

      Delete
    14. First of all, Joe, which podcast and at what location did he make the statement about Sykes isolating the DNA?

      Second, just because Ro is friends with Justin doesn't mean his information is anymore correct than the information which we have.

      Third, he could have extended his program for a plethora of reasons. Some of these include "looking for bigfoot," which Ketchum was guilty of, or he found a new subspecies of a known animal from all of the samples.

      Were all of his samples based from NA solely, or were they worldwide samples that include areas of Asia and Russia?

      He may have found something from a different part of the world, of any known subspecies.

      He may have found nothing and doesn't like it after he heard a NA animal in the wild.

      But it is nothing but pure speculation and hearsay to keep repeating that he has already isolated the DNA of a sasquatch. Was it male or female?

      Don't forget if he wants to get his work verified as fact then he must go through rigorous peer reviewing and replicable testing/samples.

      Don't hate skeptics just because your ball team can't even score a double. A few times it has looked like you may have hit an in-the-park homerun only to get all players on base tagged out.

      Delete
    15. Firstly, here is where Ro Sahebi says about Sykes...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VApv_wyANuo

      Look, I understand it's all hearsay, but coming from someone like Ro Sahebi who is more in the lime light than I am, has more to lose than I have, I take it for what it is... A suggestion that Sykes is on to something, and then when I way it all up; Sykes' movements that is... I think BINGO! Our scenario looks better than what the skeptics would prefer happen. I don't hate skeptics... What people don't see on this blog are the things I am skeptical of, purely because every time I go on this blog, there are commented waiting for me about Patty.

      You are right about some of the samples Sykes has however; he apparently have a lot of samples from Russia.

      Peace.

      Delete
    16. Oh and the part you need to look at is on 29mins.

      Peace.

      Delete
    17. Where specifically does he make the statement, Joe? I'm not sitting here through an hour of these potheads musings just to hear one statement.

      Second, Ro has nothing but speculation and hearsay from another individual who may or may not be clued in as to the findings of the first stage of a genome isolation project.

      It's all well and good, because on the complete off chance that Sykes does come up with anything remotely Sasquatch then we still need a type specimen before science will even acknowledge it.

      Delete
    18. @29 minutes, thanks for the update on time.

      Delete
    19. D'you know something? I think you're sweating... Your comments about '... sitting here through an hour of these potheads musings just to hear one statement...' made me laugh.

      Peace.

      Delete
    20. I can't audibly listen to these people for an hour, Joe. I can keep a tab open in Safari so I can look at BFE and see responses but I can't in good conscious sit here and listen to an hour of these people.

      Ro's not bad but the whole podcast sucks donkey balls. It's amateur hour.

      Delete
    21. Ha! I understand if it's not your thing... the statement is on 29 minutes though.

      Peace.

      Delete
    22. As much as I like Dr. Sykes, he is part of mainstream science and they are whether we like to hear it or not in on the cover-up along with media press and authorities. So I predict he'll conclude something inconclusive so the mystery can continue, after all people will still have their sightings so to flatout say nothing is there they won't do. It'll likely be the same old business as usual, we wasted a lot of time building up expectations in the last few years and land right back at square one. Why, because Dr. Ketchum came close but got jammed by the powers hiding a discovery of a new manlike primate (whether man or beast or something else) that would have profound implications on world history including religion. This is not just some primate for the Americas its proven existence would impact everywhere, whether it resides there too or not. That's why we still haven't found them and why we won't for a while, keep in mind these beings whatever they are don't want contact in case we forgot so discovery will actually have to come about with their okay and only then.

      Delete
    23. ^ anything to back your large claims your making there bud? Or are you passing off your opinion as fact?

      damn trolls.

      Delete
    24. where did you get 500 internet points???

      Oh shit you stole mine?
      Those aren't yours to give, not yours to give!

      Delete
    25. 2:05 troll, common sense is backing it. More people should try it sometime they'd realize this BF thing is not what we've been blastered with.

      Delete
  13. Err.. I don't know how to say this but the main reason I come to this website is to read the comments as most of the material here is so poor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The comments on this site are the best part.

      Some of the comments are so hilariously funny that you can't help but pee your pants while your eyes are watering due to excessive laughter.

      Delete
  14. Joe will believe anything it seems

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So why do I not believe the Matilda footage real?

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. nice logic Anon 8:09 haha

      Delete
    3. Well Joe, probably because you perfectly recreated the Matilda suit.

      Delete
    4. Well that's not accurate is it? Bill Munns suggested how Matilda was made, which means I don't have to. Considering he has 30 years more experience in costume than you and me; that's pretty conclusive.

      Peace.

      Delete
  15. Anything but God and Matilda.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that you Paula Deen? I didn't know ya'll were interested in bigfoot.

      Delete
    2. Shawn, why do you let hate post stay. You should be ashamed that you support such comments. Isn't their enough division in the world?

      Delete
    3. Just because he doesn't delete it doesn't mean he supports it. Your logic is Christian totalitarianism an is what's wrong with America.

      Delete