BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Does Phil Believe In Bigfoot?


Rictor Riolo, host of After Hours with Rictor, posed a question yesterday asking Bigfooters about the existence of Bigfoot. On Facebook, Rictor asked the following of ParaBreakdown's Phil Poling, who's typically skeptical of everything: "Do you think Bigfoot is real? If so, why? And what is it? Is it a wild cave man? A Gigantopithicus off shoot? Or a giant lemur?"

Below is Phil's answer:

Based upon the evidence, There is a likelyhood that a large, hairy, bi-pedal primate roams free in North American and other places in the world. As far as my belief; I do think it exists. I don't KNOW for certain what it is specifically and we won't until we catch one but I think it is simply another primate that falls somewhere within the ever expanding bush that is our family tree.

Within the past year, Phil has taken a skeptical approach to analyzing video of purported Bigfoot evidence. His best work includes the Sierra Kills thermal footage breakdown, and this enhancement of the "Bigfoot Screams at Clipper Mills":



129 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Rictor Riolo asking if anyone believes in bigfoot. That's classic. He himself doesn't believe. All he wants is to take advantage of all the lonely closeted bigfooters and have him a butt buffet.

      Delete
    2. google has been updating their google maps street views and the streetviews for this place is april 2012 and this happened in early July.

      Delete
  2. I may have been first, but I find it hard to believe that Phil believes in anything!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anonymous dont no nothing

      fact stater

      Delete
    2. Phil's a star and anyone with an open mind and who is not willing to ignore the facts can see there is something to this subject.

      Keep up the good work Phil... Your work is appreciated by all.

      Peace.

      Delete
    3. Hey joe hows the matilda recreation going

      Delete
    4. Jeez that's even older and staler than the Hoax Munkey BS.

      Nice to Joe is still getting under your skin however.

      MMG

      Delete
    5. Hey MMG!

      2:16...

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

      ... Your turn with Patty!

      Peace.

      Delete
    6. Couple of smoked footers right there^

      Pwned by patterson every single day.

      Delete
    7. Does this mean you have a magic, miraculous, hearsay based, contradictive, clutching at straws, pretty desperate and sad monkey suit?

      You bring nothing to the table, you never back up your theories with anything but the same stories you claim Footers use... and you are schooled. Everyday you get schooled... Give it up bro, your self esteem has taken a battering.

      Peace.

      Delete
    8. Theories what theories?

      Got monkey?

      Delete
    9. The theory that you expect people to believe that there is a magic, miraculous, hearsay based, contradictive, clutching at straws, pretty desperate and sad monkey suit... You see, if you can't back that up... In all your sillinous, you can't see that there's your Bigfoot.

      Totally schooled and too easy.

      Delete
    10. Oh and no monkeys... Just giant hairy people.

      Peace.

      Delete
    11. What's so magic about patty? Just a bloke in a suit.

      Schooled with what bigfoot exactly?

      Delete
    12. Got m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-monkey suit????

      Peace.

      Delete
    13. Hey joe I now lots of people across the pond were are u located? Newcastle, scottland, etc

      Delete
    14. How come someone with a skeptical, but open minded approach to the subject gets constantly harassed and labeled a "skeptard" by the likes of Joe and MMG?

      Delete
    15. Nice try....

      You will find that only the 'usual suspect' trolls attract any heat.

      Scepticism is healthy, especially in the murky world of Bigfoot. Let's use someone like MJA as an example of a sceptic with a healthy open mind. We can then point to someone like Mike Honcho who had another agenda completely...

      You will find all footers are pretty sceptical. We have to be given the crap we get fed on a daily basis right?

      MMG

      Delete
    16. Skeptard around here means "denier" or "debunker" and insults are intended for them probably...Don't take it personal...We should identify ourselves by the probability we assign. For example.."I am a tenth of a percenter..."...lol...BTW, that is 1 in 1000 which is not terribly long when compared to the lottery...

      Delete
    17. We distinguish between sceptics and sceptards and other scepfoolery.

      Sceptards embrace scepticism as a belief system, and turn it into a cult.

      Sceptics will accept reasonable evidence.

      Delete
  3. "Skeptic" has never been 100% synonymous with "Unbeliever" and just because someone harbours a reserve of skepticism on any subject doesn't mean that they refuse to be open to compelling evidence or even that they don't want to be convinced. Oftentimes it just means that they have a much higher set of expectations when it comes to evidence. Skeptics such as myself would be genuinely thrilled to see absolutely compelling, undeniable evidence of Bigfoot's existence.

    If someone is a 100% skeptic then they're being just as dogmatic as someone who's a 100% believer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An excellent post.

      You will be hard pushed to find BF 'believers' who do not harbour at least some degree of scepticism.

      Any 'footer' who doesn't question the latest slew of evidence with a critical eye cannot fail to be disappointed and disenchanted when the enhanced breakdown reveals foul play.

      Excellent point about the blind sceptics being just as blinkered as the 'bleevers' they pursue.

      Would like to think your post would encourage some to think before they flame but hey this is BFE right!

      MMG

      Delete
    2. BOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM!! I'll second that!!!

      "Simply denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism ... or denial," Mann told LiveScience.

      Instead, true skeptics are open to scientific evidence and are willing to evenly assess it.

      "All scientists should be skeptics. True skepticism is, as [Carl] Sagan described it, the 'self-correcting machinery' of science," Mann said.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words&page=2

      Peace.

      Delete
    3. This has to be one of the best anonymous posts i have seen in a while

      Delete
    4. And MJA? It takes a true skeptic to shut the trolls up.

      Peace.

      Delete
    5. Cool story guys but that don't mean bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    6. Stories? Like the 'suit in the office' type stories you use? You have nothing to back up your theories but the exact thing you claim we mutter away at... Stories and hearsay. You have nothing except your requirement for attention and you contribute nothing to propelling your silly little ways, because nobody cares.

      Schooled.

      Delete
    7. There is no need to prove ANYTHING apart from that bigfoot exists. Which you fail to do. Every single time.

      Delete
    8. You see; the theory that you expect people to believe that there is a magic, miraculous, hearsay based, contradictive, clutching at straws, pretty desperate and sad monkey suit... You see, if you can't back that up... In all your sillinous, you can't see that there's your Bigfoot.

      Totally schooled and too easy.

      Delete
    9. Matching specimen? Get an eyeful of this and enjoy!

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

      ... Let me guess? "Man in a suit that I don't have to explain at all because I am too stupid!"

      You are indeed that... And schooled.

      Peace.

      Delete
    10. There is no need to prove ANYTHING apart from that bigfoot exists

      you are wrong here
      prove they dont exist.
      oh thats right you cant
      i have already posted links to numerous films and dna research and dont bring up your ars technica or what ever its called shits.
      they have a job advert on there site
      science editor
      requirements are "must be creative" last time i checked science wasnt creative it was based on facts
      also high school English.
      the site is a pile of bullshit

      Delete
    11. i think its the same troll every day joe. he seems to have the same argument every day

      Delete
    12. well its not very hard. its those ones that post about 12 hours ago that come up with all the bullshit on here

      Delete
    13. Heeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyy, cool Avatar MJA! He/she one of yours?

      Peace.

      Delete
    14. "Prove they don't exist"

      What an absolute facepalm.

      You can't prove a negative.

      Delete
    15. you can prove anything with the right evidence

      Delete
    16. prove the suit exists then. and with more than your childish claims with proper evidence

      Delete
    17. Ok then... Let's just forget for a minute the countless amounts of times you have failed to debunk the two sources of video evidence, and put the shoe on the other foot. How about you prove that Bigfoot do not exist?

      How about you prove that Patty isn't real? How about you prove that the Leaping Russian Yeti isn't real? How about you provide me with one expert that can counter those claims even?? If you can do that, then Bigfoot is BS and you win and I'll go back to doing what I was doing prior to handing you your arss every day on this blog.

      To suggest that Bigfoot is a 'negative' is to outwardly assume you are right in the face of something that has substantial evidence against that notion... Bigfoot is not a negative, because you would have to prove it is a negative first, and to overlook that simple point shows your low IQ.

      You can't jump to suggesting anything is a negative, because it is merely dodging the obstacles and a baby's way out... Something I have come to expect from you.

      You can bang on the door all you like and keep saying that those video sources are worthless, yet, and importantly... You never provide anything other than merely that statement to show your opinion has weight.

      I'll reword it for you... Prove Bigfoot is a 'negative'.

      Peace.

      Delete
    18. That's not what "You can't prove a negative" means, which is what Anon 4:19 was referring to. It's an argument used in inductive reasoning to assert that the absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence. "How about you prove that Patty isn't real?" is, logically, an unanswerable question.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

      No one can definitively prove that Bigfoot isn't real, at best they can only assign probabilities as to its likely realness.

      Delete
    19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSmKQcPnVgk

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSY2r993Mw

      films


      wait for it


      http://dnadiagnostics.com/press.html

      DNA evidence

      Delete
    20. But the 'absence of evidence' is a dogmatic view of the sources enthusiasts have to make a serious claim that this creature is real. There is a branch of wildlife biology now that identifies new species' by the tracks they leave... For example.

      Peace.

      Delete
    21. Thank you^

      And with that in mind combined with a complete lack of a bigfoot anywhere ever its pretty conclusive that bigfoot don't exist.

      Delete
    22. The thank you was directed at 4:44

      Delete
    23. The flipside to "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is summed up in the analogy known as "Russell's Teapot" where the philosopher Bertrand Russell argues that the burden of proof lies on the person making the unfalsifiable scientific claim.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

      Bigfoot may exist but the anecdotal evidence could also have many other explanations: spirit beings, interdimensional beings, hoaxers, etc etc.. Without testable repeatable documented scientific evidence we have to rely on other methods on determining which explanation is the likeliest. In situations such as these we have to fall back on the principle of parsimony (sometimes called Occam's razor) which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. The task then is to determine which of the possible explanations is the least unlikely.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

      Delete
    24. You off to buy a monkey suit?

      Delete
    25. "MJ ATuesday, September 24, 2013 at 4:48:00 AM PDT

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSmKQcPnVgk

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSY2r993Mw

      films


      wait for it


      http://dnadiagnostics.com/press.html

      DNA evidence"

      None of those sources are confirmed or testable. Ketchum's study has been rejected an all sorts of grounds by others in her field and by her own team. The videos could be faked, either by using people in costumes or by using CGI techniques.

      Delete
    26. "You can't prove a negative"[edit source]

      In 1992 during a presentation at Caltech, skeptic James Randi uses the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer). [8]
      Philosopher Steven Hales points out that typically one can logically be as confident with the negation of an affirmation.[9]
      Hales says that if one's standards of certainty leads them to say "there is never 'proof' of non-existence", then they must also say that "there is never 'proof' of existence either".[9] Hales argues that there are many cases where we may be able to prove something does not exist with as much certainty as proving something does exist.[9]

      Copied from Anon 444

      He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward

      Hales argues that there are many cases where we may be able to prove something does not exist with as much certainty as proving something does exist.

      Delete
    27. This article's factual accuracy is disputed.

      Copied from Anon 444

      Thats the link by the way

      Delete
    28. anon 4.56
      prove it back your claims up

      Delete
    29. "joe fitzgeraldTuesday, September 24, 2013 at 4:49:00 AM PDT

      But the 'absence of evidence' is a dogmatic view of the sources enthusiasts have to make a serious claim that this creature is real."
      No, enthusiasts don't have to make a serious claim that the creature is real. They can claim that it's likely if they like but they have no grounds to demand that others accept their opinions, all they can ask is that people look at their evidence and make up their own minds.
      It all comes back to whether the evidence is convincing and there's been way too many fakes for the skeptics to accept blurry videos and wacky plaster casts of footprints without asking hard questions.

      "There is a branch of wildlife biology now that identifies new species' by the tracks they leave... For example."
      You'll have to post a few links before I can evaluate that claim.
      In the specific case of Bigfoot, there's decades of reports of people faking footprints so it'll take more than that to make a convincing case.

      Delete
    30. "anon 4.56
      prove it back your claims up"
      "The videos could be faked, either by using people in costumes or by using CGI techniques" is self evident and doesn't require any further evidence. If you want examples there's plenty in Shawn's past blog posts and in Phil Poling's videos.

      "Ketchum's study has been rejected an all sorts of grounds by others in her field and by her own team" has also been shown again and again in Shawn's blog posts and in mnay other BF blogs. If you haven't seen anyone arguing that her paper is terrible then you haven't been paying attention.

      Delete
    31. I've been having butt pain on the inside or the outside of my butt. I can't really tell which it is. It's been about a week or so now and at first for some reason I thought maybe my period had something to do with it. Now, that my period has been over for 5 days it's not that. When I'm in the bathroom it hurts when I push even sometimes when I'm laughing or if I'm sitting so I have to adjust and find a more comfortable position. We have looked at it over and over it was a little red, but no blood clogs or anything. The pain is more towards my back then towards my you know girlie parts. And no I don't get it up the butt if that's what your thinking. It's something I've never dealt with before and I'm not sure what it is. I don't think it's a hemorrhoid, but I have no idea what else it could be. I'm 21 a vegetarian and I'm not over weight so really I have no idea what could be wrong. At this current time I'm actually doing a light cleanse but this pain happened before I started it. If you have any ideas please help me get to the root of this situation.

      Delete
    32. "AnonymousTuesday, September 24, 2013 at 4:58:00 AM PDT

      This article's factual accuracy is disputed.

      Copied from Anon 444

      Thats the link by the way"

      Yeah some technical points used in the article are under question, not the entire article itself. Did you just see that warning and not read the discussion page????
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evidence_of_absence#Disputed

      Delete
    33. 5:02...

      Who is demanding that anyone believe their opinion other than so called 'skeptics that troll this site? You clearly haven't been here long have you? All I ever do, is defend this subject from people who scoff and ridicule what hard work researchers have committed to it. How dare you try and lessen that and how dare you insinuate that there playing field is fair here. Though I agree that in an ideal world all sources of Bigfoot evidence should be peer reviewed and backed up with a second opinion, it is not realistic to the few people willing to put their reputations on the line; hence the reason why so many researchers apply their expertise after their retirements. With the dogma surrounding this subject, along with the wider negative agendas, mainstream science cannot perceive our researchers as a pioneers as opposed to a loan theorists.

      Comparing this subject to mainstream scientific research accumulation or acceptance as an example is not sufficient, because mainstream science has done everything it can to ridicule and censor this type of anthropological research up until now.

      Species identification based on tracks?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86wF5FnRTBY

      Fast forward to 19mins.

      Peace.

      Delete
    34. 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 and the fact that some have sited some casts that have been made poorly by amateur casters (these are mostly untrained civilian researchers, not perfectionists), as the main source to disprove such is at best desperate and ignorant of 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?! The pouring of liquid into a cast can make desiccation wrinkles yes, but when done by amateur casters and there is so, so much more casts to counter that argument. 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?

      I would suggest anyone in the remotest mindset to question casting processes to trot on over to the 'Fringe News: Sasquatch Canyon Bigfoot Tracks, Finding Bigfoot At the Discovery Museum, UFO in Bristol TN' blog page, as there are some amazing threads from very experienced casters who outline this process for you all.

      Delete
    35. Russia has vast areas that have not been penetrated by civilization, and so has Australia and Asia. China has a fully federal funded wild man campaign. The United States is covered by 70% worth of wilderness and much of that is being penetrated very rapidly in comparison to the other countries I just mentioned, and when you have deer numbers soaring, you are gonna see these creatures much more often and with the development of the Internet in recent years, the awareness of this creature has evolved into what can now be labeled; popular culture. Now, if there was indeed an agenda by the United States regarding this creature, that would be in starch contrast other countries where there are areas where the creature can evade populations more easily and therefore, sightings can be treated as just the occasional 'nut-job account' to them, as opposed to the United States.

      Now... to that suggested agenda; when you have the frequency of sightings that are in complete conjunction with what one would expect to see from a highly intelligent nocturnal creature, paired with the amount of evidence there is to suggest there 'could be' something to it... The decision to not investigate is far from the scientific method that you keep implying is keeping this subject in the realms of 'reality'. When that doesn't happen, and you have numerous reasons to suspect that the economy would have to suffer for habitat, then it is not too unrealistic to those who wonder why this subject doesn't move out from dogmaville.

      People make things up, yes... But trolls implying that all witnesses that have seen this creature do or those numerous sources are mistaken, is trying too hard to dismiss them and is again... Not in line with the scientific method you suggest is fairly promoted here. If people really would 'love this subject to be proven', then they wouldn't dismiss every account as either money making schemes of lies. The majority of researchers are just that to replicate experiences they have had that have changed their lives.

      It is too easy for people to suggest that people are hoaxing footprints, collective hair, gifting bowls, too easy for people to suggest that these things are hoaxed... The trolls that try to ridicule this subject on a daily basis are simply uncredible anonymous nobodies and anyone could just as easily suggest they are promoting hoaxing a hoax. There are people who are known to do this, why not these who promote that? You see... You can get into quite a sticky spot when people promote a world where paranoia and the fear of considering someone's word is above all else, especially when there are circumstances that are avoided altogether in determining whether that person is credible... Those things are not considered by these trolls and again; against the scientific method that you are suggesting is being panned out fairly.

      It is our job to prove this, yes... But what chance have we if there are people preventing any information from being considered seriously, after requesting it even? They are preventing anything from breathing and essentially; censoring things. There are long term enthusiasts who have turned against this subject and have been hurt by the field that was looking for a bipedal gorilla for too long. I don't blame them for that... There are plenty who have invested more time than me into this subject, but to go the complete opposite of the scale in what they are doing, is not scientific and these people will be confronted at every opportunity about it by me as long as I can.

      Peace .

      Delete
    36. Joe, you weren't posting back then so you may not know this: The business about finding the PGF suit got some traction because Bill Munns said that Kitakaze(skeptical researcher) indeed found "something" related to the PGF...Its not like it was just thrown out there..It is along story. The "Kitakaze Suit Bombshell" on the BFF has all the info...

      Delete
    37. 2:19, I see you and I am so thankful that a Skeptic feels as you do and expresses himself in such a manner. So refreshing, so, so necessary.

      Delete
    38. Kit and Parn were at a time EXCELLENT contributors to the BFF. Indeed my own stance on the PGF would not be as strong as it currently is without them.

      The PGF threads pulled the whole subject apart and I would encourage all to find the time to read these.

      Kit and Parns scepticism was healthy and very productive, although Kit did start to unravel at the end when it became clear things were not going his way. This is when claims of the 'suit' arose. These claims could not be backed up and quite correctly were dismissed.

      Both Munns and MK Davis still refer to the Kit suit claims. However without an actual suit we have little to hang our hats on unfortunately.

      MMG

      Delete
  4. "Ketchum's study has been rejected an all sorts of grounds by others in her field and by her own team."
    if this is the case there will be links from people other than editors and journalists on the net post a link from a credible source.
    "The videos could be faked, either by using people in costumes or by using CGI techniques."
    that may be the cash but can you prove that the videos are hoaxed or are you just talking

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's some anti-Ketchum links:
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/ex-publicist-sally-ramey-opens-up.html
      http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/02/what-do-geneticists-think-of-the-bigfoot-paper/
      http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/

      Check the credentials of the people passing comment

      Delete
    2. "MJ ATuesday, September 24, 2013 at 5:05:00 AM PDT

      "The videos could be faked, either by using people in costumes or by using CGI techniques."
      that may be the cash but can you prove that the videos are hoaxed or are you just talking"

      No, the videos could absolutely be faked by people using costumes or CGI. We've seen similar videos made by hoaxers over and over. We've seen BETTER videos made by hoaxers. There's all sorts of questionable aspects of these videos - why are they so short? Why do they cut out when the creature is still nearby? Why don't they zoom in and get a better look at the creature? Why aren't the people holding the camera reacting in fear or apprehension, or at least **believable** fear or apprehension? Who were these people, when was the video taken, where was the video taken, are they people of good standing or have they uploaded other suspicious videos?
      They could really really really easily be fake. The onus of proof isn't on me to prove that they're not real, the onus of proof is on anyone who disregards all the big red flags that indicate that the videos are questionable and who claims that they're genuine.

      Delete
    3. If anyone else is keeping track of this discussion, keep in mind that MJA thought that the mermaid video from the fake TV documentary was real.

      Delete
    4. is you read the post on the mermaid video i was getting opinions on the matter.
      and blogs and ars technica is not reliable scorces.

      also who said that i believe in bigfoot from day one i have been skeptical but i am open to the evidence supporting his existence

      Delete
    5. ars technica
      they have a job advert on there site
      science editor
      requirements are "must be creative" last time i checked science wasnt creative it was based on facts
      also high school English.
      the site is a pile of bullshit

      Delete
    6. And that makes bigfoot real does it mja? Get a grip.

      Delete
    7. Insulting MJA wont make you more bright, interesting, develop your third party perspective or cure your incessant need to insult people. Try making a relevant point. Please remember, I asked you to try......baby steps for you.

      Delete
    8. 5:11, check the credentials yourself:

      The aptly named "Arse Technica" article, well the writer has kept the identity of the supposed scientist a secret.

      So what credentials? Secret ones? The writer will not divulge the scientist's ID. You can't verify credentials of that person. He can be imaginary.

      Delete
    9. Mike B., who are you and why should anyone care? And take the sunglasses off--you look ridiculous. On second thought, keep them on.

      Delete
    10. Let me answer your first question second. Actually its a statement, keep them on. Referring to the sunglasses, i wear them because i choose to. If i remove them, it just makes your world a more beutiful place. Why do you deserve that? Who am I? I believe as Bill, the title character in QuentinTarantino's classic noir pulp thriller said to the Bride when asked how her found her, "Im the man"......"Im the Boogar with the Sugar" Im the cat's pajamas, the beees knees Im your intellectual superior, a physical specimen far beyond what you dream about when stroking it to your Tom Hardy poster.....I am the Blonde Bandit.....thats who I am....soldier of the Cornbread Mafia....Bigfooter of the week, cocksmith, swordsman, and all around badass. Now you know me. You might want to remember that and do like the rest of your cast of Pet Shop Boys do around here and show me some respect Or Not.....either way....i'lll still be me....and you'll still be you....at the end of the day that says it all.....doesnt it dear?

      Delete
    11. Now ive got to run...i have a job and a very active life. i enjoy this blog and will try to avoid you if possible but dont try to play the bully boy or inquisitor with me. you are out of your league my friend...

      Delete
    12. and cue the crickets......how peaceful they are..... good day everyone.................................................

      Delete
  5. So if I claim that a hunk of poop tastes good does that mean a disbeliever is required to put a chunk in his mouth to prove me wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe why don't u go out in the feild and look for Bigfoot ?????????????????????????????????? I don't understand????????? Explain please????????

      Delete
    2. Joe why don't u go out in the feild and look for Bigfoot ?????????????????????????????????? I don't understand????????? Explain please????????

      Delete
    3. "AnonymousTuesday, September 24, 2013 at 5:11:00 AM PDT

      So if I claim that a hunk of poop tastes good does that mean a disbeliever is required to put a chunk in his mouth to prove me wrong?"

      If you can get a peer reviewed paper published in a reputable scientific journal saying that a hunk of poop tastes good then yes, a skeptic would have to do their own study to prove you wrong.
      If you're just making the claim without any evidence then we're just going to assume you're a liar or a shit-eating moron.

      Delete
    4. Actually a Japanese scientist created a machine that turns human waste into a meat substitute. {A steak}. So where should we send you're sample and would you prefer it in steak form or Au Natural???

      Delete
    5. To the guy who wonders why I have not participated in field research...

      Firstly, that's none of your business. Do you have to be American to have an interest in cryptozoology?

      My employment renders me unable to leave the UK for significant amounts of time, to which one week, two weeks, is not good enough for field research. So how do I counter that? I have researcher and deer friend in Texas who has put together a project with my participation from over here. Where is that research? Well keep farting around on this blog for at least another week and you will see that.

      Schooled.

      Delete
    6. Joe, you do so much schooling, surely you are tenured by now :)

      Delete
    7. As a skeptic, I think you do lots of research from where you are and it can be seen by all. My hat is off to you because you use a name and others like me post anon..

      Delete
    8. THank you 8:51. I do not know whether you refer to Joe or myself, but i appreciate your candor and your compliment. I can assure you my brain remains split on the issue. I discovered a picture the other day, actually my son did, of a subject that ate a half a cantaloupe from my food bucket. I was shocked. I was in shock. Because part of me, as MMG has stated so much more eloquently, simply hasnt accepted the fact that every time i walk to a certain portion of our field. Do a few wood knocks and leave out food. A group of bipedal hominids are eating it, and watching my son and his friends at play. Its just almost too much for me to believe. And yet there it is, shot on my 11 year olds Iphone 4. Plane as day. Thank you for your courtesy and clearly you are a gentleman and a scholar.

      Delete
    9. excuse the many spelling errors, i just got a new 5 its a little different, but hopefully point taken.

      Delete
    10. Well holy shit dude, I hope yr gonna post that somewhere, if yr not messing with us.

      Delete
    11. Shawn Evidence has it now hopefully he can clean it up a little but yeah....its coming. Where else would I post it. The Ranch is under contract. And that is sad...everyone wants to know where these "elusive" creatures are. Well as late as Memorial Day they were about 30-40 feet from my 11 year old. And unlide Timbergiant he didnt pan away, he took the face shot. i hope you like it....m

      Delete
    12. Awesome...despite all the hoaxer scum, I really do think they're around more than most would suspect.
      Cheers,
      JKH

      Delete
  6. Good to see joe getting smoked today

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why does everyone bother joe he seems to really like big footing so good for him he's not bothering anyone ! Joe answer my question why don't u go out into the feild and look for Bigfoot ??????????!!!!!!!?????????????????answer please

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He supposedly lives across the pond but people say he's DWA trolling.

      Delete
    2. Joes intensions are good, he looks at the world in amazement and mystery. But he applies himself in a manner that does not do his curiosities justice.

      There are an abundance of mysteries and undiscovered species on this planet but an 8 foot ape ain't one of them.

      Delete
    3. DWA is not joe. Joe posts are perfectly consistent with UK time.

      DWA is the guy that comes on here as damage control when ever a bad word is said against the pgf. He uses words like "skeptard" and "jref butt plugger" and "arm extensions". He also makes up statements that he tries to pass off as being the skeptics point of view when infact he is deluded. For example he actually thinks skeptics think that shoulder pads will bring the hand closer to the knee. Deluded. What the factual statement that skeptics make is actually that adding shoulder pads will increase the length from the top of the apparant shoulder to the tip of the fingers.

      This guy rages hard and blames scientists for everything. Ironic really as scientists are responsible for everything that arrogant bastard takes for granted in his day to day life.

      Delete
    4. To the guy who wonders why I have not participated in field research...

      Firstly, that's none of your business. Do you have to be American to have an interest in cryptozoology?

      My employment renders me unable to leave the UK for significant amounts of time, to which one week, two weeks, is not good enough for field research. So how do I counter that? I have researcher and deer friend in Texas who has put together a project with my participation from over here. Where is that research? Well keep farting around on this blog for at least another week and you will see that.

      Schooled.

      Delete
    5. Let me guess they don't have conclusive proof.

      Delete
    6. Let me guess... You wouldn't know it if it was staring you in the face.

      Peace.

      Delete
    7. 5:55...

      So why are you here? How dare you try and condescend me, you know nothing about me, I have ten times more knowledge of this subject than you, and I am not afraid or neither live in a world of paranoia or denial, to acknowledge what is clearly staring me in the face.

      Peace.

      Delete
    8. I just took a dump in my bucket.

      Delete
    9. Joe doesn't exist. He's just a figment of our imagination.

      Delete
    10. to have a figment, you must first have an imagination.

      Delete
    11. As a BFF colleague of DWA I can confirm that he is certainly not Joe Fitzgerald.

      Let's put this rumor to bed.

      DWA does however enjoy the fact that there folks out there obsessed by him. :)

      MMG


      Delete
    12. Joe can't collect welfare if he goes across the pond to America. Joe is the biggest keyboard warrior on this website. People like to bash anons but at least most of them believed in BF at one point, live in America, and actually spent time in the field. Joe relies on the word of someone half a world away with whom he only communicates with via email. That is his definition of 'dear friend.'

      Delete
    13. Beware the double poster.

      Joe posts his views and and opinions like the the rest of us do.

      He doesn't make false claims or live in a world of fantasy. All footers would like to spend more time in the field and I'm sure Joe is no different.

      It could be argued that if some researchers had the knowledge of this subject that Joe possesses and the same moral fiber then we may be in stronger position than we are now.

      MMG

      Delete
    14. Opinion is all footery has. Footers want to spend more time in the woods, true, but Joe hasn't spent 1 millisecond in the woods where BF "resides"

      Delete
  8. Monkey suits exist. Verifiable. Repeatable.

    Bigfoots don't exist. Not verifiable. Not repeatable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is there is no verifiable repeatable suit which represents what's in the PGF. So the words verifiable and repeatable are null and void in that instance. The BBC and another interesting character put much time and money into replicating Patty. Both flunked quite violently in their efforts.

      So far, Patty has not been "repeatable."

      Delete
    2. 4 seasons of Finding Bigfoot traveling across America and to international lands and there still is absolutely zero bigfoot evidence. Their budget blows Hackhams 1 off show out of the water. Countless Monsterquest type shows and still absolutely nothing bigfoot.

      Delete
  9. Joe enjoys smoking a 12 inch cuban.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And the Joe/MJA circle jerk continues...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With you being the receptacle of all DNA that derives therefrom

      Delete
    2. Um...no. And keep your hands where I can see 'em, OK?

      Delete
  11. I <3 Phil, and most of the rest of you are boring as shit.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Phil Poling, Now that Ive dealt with the Haters, heres how I feel about you. You are a professional. You are thorough and you take your time and you seem to be universally respected in the field. You are the unofficial Ombudsman of The Bigfoot Community and we thank you for it. I know sometimes you get bored, and it shows in your breakdown of obvious hoaxes that are repeatedly put upon us. But please. For me, and fan and enthusiast. Will you take a close look at what Timbergiant is proffering. I want to believe him. But he's like a Bizarro Researcher, doing the exact opposite of what you would thing an experienced field researcher would do in the situation he allegedly found himself in . Im holding out until I see your breakdown. Thank you for the time and energy you expend lending your expertise to an otherwise thankless job. Believe me when I say it does not go unnoticed. Yours Truly, Michael K. Brookreson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^^Another fine entry to the Douche of the Month award for September. Joe F., MJA, John Jones, and Mike B. This is a tough one...

      Delete
    2. ^^^10:54 so says our resident Megatard who proudly displays his mantel-load of Golden Idiot Statuettes as awarded by Mayor McCheese for oustanding contributions to the cause of Utter Stupidity.

      Delete
  13. 10:54, i proudly accept your award. as the DB of the month, i would cleanse your mouth of all the unhealthy messages it delivers from your addled brain. the negativity, the utter lack of humor or creativity, and especially the boring lack of originality it constantly utters. I think it would be better served with your boy friend's rubber ball gag in it than the vinegar and water youve chosen from me.....but whom am i to judge......i dont see any point in trying to tell you to get creative because you cannot achieve creativity. Whom can I compare you to in your attempt at criticizing me and try to make it relevant.....lets see.......i think you criticizing me would be akin to Vanilla Ice attempting to criticize Doctor Hunter S. Thompson. It just doesnt work You dont have the clout. You can post your name if you have the guts....Dan Campbell did. I respected that...but you wont..... youll just hide in the nose bleed section and shoot BB Guns at the players on the field....but, in the end......players gotta play......and haters gotta hate......goodnight everyone, lets all say a special prayer for Ice Ice Baby.....cause if theres a problem, yo, he'll solve it check out the hook while his DJ revolves it........now cue that sh*t that Ice robbed from David Bowie and Freddie Mercury, a real gay American hero..............Du Nu Nu Na Na Na nuh........Du Nu Nu Na Na Na nuh......dink......dink.............

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike, A lot of these "Anon of hate" feel for the first time in their pathetic lives that they become "Real Men" from the safety of their home computers. So let's leave them alone in their misery. Let them shine here, because that's all they got.

    You know Mike it's been about 4 years ago when (at my wife's urging) I started posting comments about my research methods hopefully. to help other learn, and I thought I could learn to. But on every site: Finding Big foot, Big foot lunch Club or Mountain monsters, it's all the same. Trolls using foul language and nasty hateful comments, hardly any real intelligent arguments at all.

    These trolls are the dredges of our society, nothing but losers with no real life to look forward to. So we can feel sorry for them, have compassion for them, But. . . if they make personal disgusting remarks about our family, then the gloves come off!

    I will be leaving for my fall expedition around 10/10 and will be gone for 3 weeks or so. Depending upon our signal strength, I should be able to communicate out during the trip. If anything exciting happens, I will let you and Joe know, Good luck with what you do to!

    John W. Jones

    ReplyDelete