Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Breakdown: Mississippi Skunk Ape Footage


Here's the breakdown you've been waiting for on the recent Mississippi skunk ape sighting filmed by hunter Josh Highcliff. Parabreakdown throws down some excellent questions, such as: Why didn't the person use the camera to zoom in? Why did he choose to run at the end? Or Why does the "skunk ape" look like a man in a costume? (Because it is?) One thing we know for sure is that this is definitely not a bear.



Original footage:



113 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Oh this Firsting is way to challenging. I give up!

      Delete
    2. That's sealed it for me... No muscle tone whatsoever. What does everyone else think? Chuck??

      Peace.

      Delete
    3. ^yet buys the pgf and leaping russian yeti. INCREDIBLE.

      Delete
    4. Do you have a magic monkey suit, or someone who can rip it up like the Russian Yeti? No?? Then go away.

      Delete
    5. i work for a costume manufacturer company. in the past 4 years our sales of Big foot costumes have tripled! I've had orders from Florida, Ontario, Canada, California, Ohio, Oregon. (California orders the most)

      I've just shipped two out. A top-of-the-line Big foot (which has Manhood attached}, with a real good looking butt crack. It sold for $3,500.00 to a guy named Daniel Campbell, and Matt MoneyMaker.

      Delete
    6. I remember this from a few months ago... Funny.

      Delete
    7. Only troll suckers pretend the PGF's fake.

      Delete
    8. PGF is fake because of the simple lack of one biological molecule of evidence since it's filming.

      Not to mention Roger was a hoaxer to start with.

      Delete
    9. STFU damn troll, just by you being here we know it's real and you a fake idiot.

      Delete
  2. quality hoax, about as good as you are going to get....well done.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's sealed it for me... No muscle tone whatsoever. What does everyone else think? Chuck??

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you got fucking pwned.

      Delete
    2. Joe Fitz it's Canadian guy I guess I was right and still think its fake they have hair not fur on them and u now it's a real one when u see one !

      Delete
    3. Joe Fitz agian Canada guy here u were talking to me about two different bfs I'm not Shure what u mean ?? There faces are different from each other and that seems to change with the season, not there face but hair coverage, hard to explain hair gets lighter in a lot of cases but what were u talking about with two different bfs???

      Delete
    4. Hi bro!

      Bigfoot are often reported to look different in different regions of the America's. In my research, you have three main types;

      1. The Patty type with hair covered faces, longer arms and pointed heads.

      2. You have the more homo-sapien typed faced types with arms in proportion to their bodies.

      3. You then have a type with the perfect mix of the previous two with homo-sapien, native looking features in the face, with longer arms (check out Harvey Pratt's forensic sketches on Google image search engine for a perfect example of these creatures).

      ... All are highly evolved and very human like in intelligence, but have the advantage on us as they've evolved animalistic sensory attributes.

      Now I understand I could be wrong, and in fact am looking for as much opinion on my comment as possible, but let me know what you think?

      Peace.

      Delete
    5. Hey Canada guy I think there all the same type people are seeing its just age and how much hair is covering them which gives them these different looks! From young to old they change just like us and if u think of us never getting a hair cut or something like a moose and how much there fur changes over just a period of one year never mind a lifetime I think that is what people are missing here and then saying there's 3 different types if that's being said? Have a good one joe F keep up the good work bro!

      Delete
    6. Hey TTL.

      That was actually my current theory from the research I've done, however I could be wrong.

      Another amazing bit of input TTL, I really need to speak with you off this blog.

      Peace.

      Delete
    7. Hey Joe, is it just me or is there not some muscle tone whilst the creature is squatting? The light seems to show some muscle definition on/between the shoulders from what I'm seeing - almost gorilla-like.

      Also what about the actions of the creature? It seems to differ from the usual hoaxes because it's quite a long video (in Bigfoot terms) of the creature just doing its thing with the tree/water for a good while, oblivious to the guy filming - as opposed to the usual being spotted, turning and disappearing within seconds as with most hoaxes.

      It's when it stands up that makes me think twice mind...

      Also I have an iPhone, have done for over a year now, and I still don't know how to zoom in using my camera or whether it's actually possible - so I can understand how someone couldn't/wouldn't zoom. Besides I don't do much videoing anyway so have no reason to know all the functions that a camera can perform.

      Just saying...

      PS this Dan Campbell dude - I come to this blog to read interesting articles and comments, particularly from Joe, and certainly not to listen to your shite. If you disagree with someone, then discuss it in a mature manner cos I highly doubt you'd have the balls to speak like that to someone face to face instead of behind the safety of a computer...

      Just saying...again.

      Delete
    8. Joe it's Canada guy do u have a website or something?

      Delete
    9. Joe fitz Canadian guy here what your thoughts on Todd standing give me honest answer here? And have u herd of anything new with that guy and what he's doing??

      Delete
    10. Hey Joe. I saw this about three hours ago on You tube already meaning he had no time to do any analysis. Phil says nothing that has not already been said. Also Phil knows very little about bigfoot behavior and culture like most people, and usually only states the obvious. I still need to see an enhancement and for the witness to get involved and show measurements. If he does nothing more than I will say really great hoax. He has a lot of people on his you tube site that have weighed in and think it is real including David Clarr, whom I really respect and has done some good reporting on the Yahoo site for years.

      Chuck

      Delete
    11. Sorry I need to add, it is zoomed in Phil. Look when he runs, the phone looks inches from the ground, when it would be by his waist.

      I have an S4, and let me say, the zoom SUCKS even on high end phones. It barely gets any closer to what you are trying to zoom in on.

      Delete
    12. Anon 11 55. I also see what you see, but could be light trick or something else. I had also thought about a 2 minute hoax being far beyond what has been done in the past.

      Chuck

      Delete
    13. Hey, Chuck. Could be, could be. Damn, wish these videos lasted longer without the running away at the best bits. Makes you wonder what you would do in the same situation - I'd like to think I'd run over and rugby tackle the big fella and prove it's existence once and for all but, then again, I think shitting my pants and running like this guy did is more likely :-)

      Delete
    14. Light shines on fur when its squatting,could be a young one,not the most obvious fake

      Delete
    15. I thought Ernest had died

      Delete
    16. Hey all!! You see, that is a thread of discussion!

      Ok... Chuck and the 'just saying' dude... I'm in the pub right now but I have taken on board your points which are excellent and will watch it over again and drop you a comment later.

      Canada guy...

      You can find me on YouTube... Leave me a contact detail and I'll get to you at the first opportunity.

      Peace all and speak soon.

      Delete
    17. Mine's a pint please, Joe! :-)

      Just saying...

      Delete
    18. Have one on me JOE. Just tell the barkeep to put it on Chuck's tab.

      Anon at 1 34. As much as I know it would not hurt you, I would be scared as hell as would most. When my friend Rob saw one in 2000 it scared him so bad he quit hunting for good and his voice still quivers with fear talking about it to this day. I heard one on Sept. 1, 1996 from less than 50 feet away that screamed with the lungs of an elephant and scared the crap out of my friend Mike and myself, however since we were in his house we had no where to run, just keep a vigil for awhile.

      Chuck

      Delete
    19. Put mine on chucks tab too, Joe! :-P

      Yeah I've no doubt it'd be a scary experience for sure - coming face to face with a (scientifically) unknown creature would be enough to make anyone run to the nearest toilet.

      I camp fairly regularly - I'm from Scotland in the UK so there's not much to fear here - but my brother and I did stumble across a big cat once (we think it was a lynx), which snarled at us literally a few feet away, while camping as kids - to say our underpants were brown is an understatement so I can empathise up to a point.

      Just wondering, do hunters ever go out with tranquilliser guns too? Probably a stupid question, since hunting implies killing, but if you're a hunter and also a Bigfoot enthusiast, surely having a tranquilliser gun in your arsenal wouldn't hurt - to get around the fear that it could be a human that they shoot. Got to be a better option that rugby tackling the big fella or, worse still, killing one.

      Just saying...

      Delete
    20. Bro!! I'm Welsh and have loads to tell you about big cats in Britain; spoke to a friend of mine a few months ago that is a forestry commissioner and he was shown a book of pictures of recently found dead big cats in the UK; about twelve of them.

      Peace.

      Delete
    21. Nice one, bud! Wasn't there some kind of cover up of the cats? Did it say which species?

      It was about 15 years ago we saw the Lynx - so much for it dying out hundreds of years ago hey!

      Just saying...

      Delete
    22. * dying out in the UK I meant

      Delete
  4. Where's John Jones, when we need him? is he back yet? what happened on his bigfooting trip?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Honestly, I dont know how to zoom in with my camera. I'm sure I could figure it out quickly, but in a situation like that, I'd be fumbling around with my phone and I'd be lucky to get much. Do you notice that every description of a squatch, has them with "huge shoulders". In all of the blur-squatch videos, they have normal dude like shoulders.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think This guy and TimberGiantBigfoot are one in the same mold....HOAXERS !!!!! Person in a Monkey suit. No ZOOOOOOOOOOOM !!!! OH my !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would like to know from the skeptics out there what details they would need for it NOT to look like a man in a suit?
    If Bigfoots exist they are going to look like a man in a suit from a distance. Even with all the muscle movement which in my opinion would be impossible to achieve with a suit, as with the PG film, skeptics still claim its a suit!
    Furthermore, I'm not going to fault the guy for not using a zoom, he may not have that capability, mine phone doesn't.
    Lastly, I cant fault him for running either, whether it looked aggressive or not, no one knows what they would do in that circumstance. If I were out in the woods all by myself and came across something like that I would only hope to stay calm long enough to get good footage before shitting myself and passing out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A body or good portion of. Some excellent photo or video taken by someone with no connection to this madness,preferably a real biologist. I would like to see evidence not easily created by the homeless and bored kids.

      Delete
    2. I don't know why, but this clip reminds me of the one with the squatch that somebody filmed sitting on a tree stump.

      Delete
  8. one thing for sure the guy in the suit is a big guy--
    but the legs look disproportionately short.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could be standing in water, as others have pointed out. You can see the splash when he/she throws something.

      Just saying...

      Delete
  9. How the hell did he break it down if he didn't even read the guys comments about using his phone camera. Really? You can do better than that!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm tired of this guys breakdowns. He's so condescending in every one of his videos and who the hell is he to "break down" bigfoot sighting videos anyway? I want some credentials on why we should believe him over the people who filmed/uploaded the videos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because he is a sceptic and looks ushally only to hoaxes to breakdown. This one I thought was a fairly convincing video

      Delete
    2. So start your own channel and do your own breakdowns.

      Delete
    3. Better off... This guy's breakdowns suck. He assumes way more than he breaks down, not sure why he does it.

      Delete
    4. I don't think there is a university/school/any place in the world that gives you a degree on "Breakdown of supposedly magic monkey videos"

      TURD TURD TURD TURD

      VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

      Delete
  11. Its impossible to know the body proportions without knowing where he was standing. Was he standing on ground or in water?
    To gain any kind of credibility he needs to go back there with a few people and get some measurements and check the tree out for any possible evidence left behind.
    I would have gathered everything I could before I even posted the video.

    ~T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same here, except if he's not a Bigfoot enthusiast like us then it's understandable. There's still time yet and he may do just that, what with the popularity and attention his video is getting.

      Just saying...

      Delete
  12. We are not waiting for this jerk to do anymore break downs.......

    ReplyDelete
  13. Joe....Youre correct, If indeed BF's are real I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be a number of differences in appearance. There's certainly many differences in humans as well. And depending on the climate theyre in I'm sure they would evolve and adapt accordingly.
    However the two very different types that Todd Standing has filmed look nothing alike, one looks unnervingly realistic and the other looks laughable.
    Heres vids on both and you'll see the huge difference.


    ~T

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T_Y3YqST6CU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o_-zLdoCaQU

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for that... The two different types in Todd's photos are consistent with two widely reported types.

      I really enjoyed reading your post, much respect.

      Delete
  14. MK Davis get on this! 1000x better than PB BS.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Todd standing do u really belive the stuff he's putting up is real??? Come on give me a real answer u guys??

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey Joe F good work buddy. I have a question. Are the pacific northwest bigfoots bigger than the eas coast and southern bigfoots

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They get to ten foot in Alaska and they get to ten foot in Texas bro.

      Much respect.

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. I saw a big foot once, it was so tall, it hit it;s head on the Moon!

      Delete
    3. Based on...?

      VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

      Delete
    4. Hey Joe did your estimates pass peer review? Bet not.

      Delete
  17. If you did not have the greatest English, would you be sporting an expensive iPhone 4 for $400, or iPhone 5 for $700+? Of course not. Your beer and chips budget gets paid first.

    The iphone 3GS requires an app that you need to buy, in order to get zoom. Do you think that this yahoo is going to buy an app AND intall it on his iPhone? Of course not.

    Phill Poling ought to step out of his computer room once in awhile, and actually venture out into the forest, and see who he is going to run into out there. It will more than likely be rednecks with guns, and not yuppies with a high end iPhone, or even a souped up low end iPhone. Well, duh!

    But that doesn't stop Phil from condemning this video based on the videographer not having zoom on his iPhone.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I found it odd that he stated he had "heard" of skunkapes, but "think they were real". If you go on his youtube profile he had commented about skunapes 5 years ago and 2 years ago. seems fishy

    ReplyDelete
  19. The running away part reminds me of Moneymakers show

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bigfoot - real. Analysis - fake.

    Sad thing BF world - we have a real animal here and so many are missing it. Turn down the squelch a bit - it's good to be discerning but when the real deal sneaks through you have to be able to recognize it.

    This is the real deal. Many factors as to why:
    1. length of video with "nothing" happening (agree Alpha Dog)
    2. the use of his weight to attempt to pull apart the tree - he leads with his torso and then the arm to leverage his strength
    3. the piece of tree he pulled off seems sizable, as does the snap of wood (granted, we are too far away to tell for sure)
    4. creature - not near/clear enough to discern muscle tone but appropriately "animalistic" and human-like
    5. road sound reasonable explanation for viewer staying covert
    6. squatting in water
    7. whiteness of something the creature seems to pull out - what is that? Tough to explain. Not likely something a hoaxer would include.
    8. reaction of cameraman seems logical, rational when confronted with a paradigm-shattering animal

    Those are my thoughts.
    mld@juno

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol. Its a dude in a suit. No doubt this guy will also tell you the pgf is real.

      Delete
    2. All good points there bud - agreed.

      I wonder if the white thing he pulls might be a branch stripped off its bark? Since it seems to be foraging.

      If only there was a foolproof way to determine which video is real and which is hoaxed hey! Hoaxes get right up my 'taterhole', as you skeptics like to say.

      Just saying...

      Delete
    3. I agree also MLD and your analysis is very good. Much better than Phils feeble attempt. This is either the best hoax to date and sets the bar much higher for future hoaxes, or this is the real deal. You mentioned the size of the piece of wood which does seem considerable, considering the noise it makes and the huge splash made as it tosses it into the water in front of itself. It appears to do this with just a minor flick of the wrist from a squatting position instead of an arm throw a major feat if my eyes are not deceiving me.

      There is a lot to like about this and it seems a whole lot of people here and on his you tube site concur. Hopefully we can learn more soon.

      Chuck

      Delete
    4. Already learning more. The guy appears to be using his real name a plus. He is answering some question but seems confused as what to do. He is afraid if he takes his buddies with him ( and a bigger gun ) he will be laughed at and his family ridiculed - all logical. He really needs to get in touch soon with a bonified researcher. Maybe Stacy Brown or someone from the GCBRO could help him out.

      Chuck

      Delete
    5. Aye I don't blame him, maybe someone ought to try get in touch and point him in the right direction before a possible breakthrough is lost.

      Is Sykes still actively seeking samples? Because, assuming the creature is real, chances are it would have left behind some kind of evidence, like hair and footprints, that can easily be gathered if the same spot is visited.

      Just saying...

      Delete
    6. I formally elect MLD to replace Phil.

      Just saying...

      Delete
    7. Yes. It is holding onto a smaller one. It is opening up the tree to get another one out. At the end it seems to hold or hug it.

      Delete
  21. I just had a thought, which can be dangerous sometimes, but what if....BF hair IS like bear hair. Theres nothing saying that it HAS to be like primate or human hair. I'm no geneticist but I'm guessing that they use a data bank of known specimens to match up to and just because we're dealing with something unknown doesn't mean that the results would have to come back unknown as well.


    ~T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was just thinking the exact same thing, T. Cos I was thinking earlier (especially over the whole Sykes results) about what Joe mentioned in previous threads regarding how folk aren't finding evidence because they are looking for a gorilla/ape-type creature that actually isn't there and that we ought to be looking for an intelligent human-like creature instead. Since almost every result seems to be coming back as a known animal, like bear, I'm wondering whether it's plausible that we're still looking for the wrong kind of creature and that Bigfoot may well be one of those known animals, albeit possibly a deformed/hybrid/human-like version? Sounds crazy I know, but sometimes the evidence is right in front of us and we aren't seeing it so maybe it's something to consider.

      Think Joe may disagree with this though. What do you reckon, Joe?

      There is still so much we don't know about the world, our origins, evolution, species etc and probably never will in this lifetime - new species are still being discovered everyday in this day and age.

      In fact, there's a bit of controversy and dispute going on, which only recently came to light, about human evolution (even though there's always disputes over this):

      "Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray" :- A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus

      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

      Just saying...

      Delete
    2. That's all I know... Is I love reading your posts...

      ... Just saying.

      ; )

      Much respect.

      Delete
    3. Haha the feeling's mutual bud - it's one of the reasons I visit this blog :-)

      Hope you enjoyed the pub, I'll be sure to buy you a pint if I'm ever in Wales!

      Just saying...

      Delete
  22. It just makes sense that when you're in search of something unknown that you cant always use "known'" information.
    Science isn't always known for thinking outside the box.
    Its like the search for extraterrestrial life, we cant expect what governs our existence to govern all.
    I'm not saying that the Bigfoot is related to the Ursine family but maybe, just maybe, their hair is more like a bear than anything else that's known of.

    ~T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science is actually part of the scheme in covering this up, just like they're already aware of life elsewhere in the universe. It's a bit of a crime really, how they consider the public unworthy to know these things to which we have the right as citizens of the world. Once you make that connection and realize you're run by crooks, you can't but wake up and demand disclosure.

      Delete
  23. I like your thinking, T, it makes sense and, as Spock would say, it's logical :-)

    And I do agree, up to a point. Because while science doesn't always think outside the box, they do a pretty damn good job on the inside. As Sykes said: "genetics is ruthless". They ARE (kind of) starting to take it seriously but I reckon it's still up to us to place something inside the box for them to think about and finally prove the existence of the big fella once and for all.

    Hell, science still can't even agree on the evolution of humans.

    Just saying...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Here's a stabilized version.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPVcmMm0QrQ

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks Just Saying, its nice to have other people to kick ideas around with. Its not exactly something you can discuss with just anyone...lol


    ~T ;O)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This be true - I made the mistake of mentioning Bigfoot while trying to chat up a lady once: didn't go down well I tell ya!

      Well you're in the perfect place bud so kick around ;-)

      Are you new here, T? Can't say I've seen you around much. Then again I'm not exactly a veteran of the blog, only started getting involved in the discussions a few months back.

      Nice chatting to ya and reading your posts - keep it up.

      There be squatches on them there hills!

      Just saying...

      Delete
    2. New to voicing my opinion but not new to the site. I just got tired of the juvenile crap some of these idiots were posting, as well as some of the researchers themselves. Its a bit counterproductive if the subject matter is ever to be taken seriously.
      And yes, not many men I've been out with find the subject nearly as interesting as I do....lol

      ~T

      Delete
  26. Aye I know what you mean - I just tend to sift through all the chaff to find the wheat, so to speak, like yourself, Joe and a good few others so don't let it put you off, we need more folk like you!

    Seems an apology may be in order for assuming you were a guy - my bad and my apologies :-)

    Had any encounters? I haven't personally, don't think there are any Bigfoot in the UK unfortunately! Just been interested in the subject, amongst many others, since I was a kid.

    Before I forget, this goes for you too Joe, I've been into the Starchild Project for a while now. You guys may have heard of it anyhow but it's pretty interesting and here it is anyway: http://starchildproject.com

    Just saying...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL No worries, I guess there aren't many women interested in this sort of thing. Its my dads fault, we used to watch "In Search Of" together and he took me to see movies like "Chariots of the Gods". I may be dating myself at this point...lol
      So I've been fascinated by anything "unexplained" my whole life. Unfortunately I've never had an encounter of any kind but by God if I ever win the lottery I'm staging a large scale expedition...lol
      Needless to say I have heard of the Star Child Project, I haven't looked in to it much however so thanks for the link!
      So you and Joe are in the UK? I'm in Missouri, just a bit closer to the action...lol

      ~T

      Delete
    2. Haha well I for one welcome more women into Bigfoot :-)

      In that case, I'm blaming my mum - it all started when I found Patty in a book she bought me as a kid called "The Unexplained" - awesome book!

      Besides Bigfoot, what other "unexplained" subjects are you into then? I'm kind of into everything really :-) but mainly Bigfoot and extraterrestrial life, big cats (as my brother and I came across one 15 years ago, despite them apparently dying out in the UK hundreds of years ago) with the odd monster and ghost here and there :-P

      When you win the lottery, count me in and we'll gather all the navy seal wannabes from the blog and hit the forest with our tranquilliser guns, and a few crates of beer too of course, you know, cos it's demanding work and all that...we'll put it on chuck and Joes tab again :-P

      Starchild: Definitely a fascinating project, regardless of whether anything comes from it or not so I keep my eye open occasionally for any updates.

      I'm Scottish and Joe's Welsh. So you're missourian, well get your ass into the forest and get us some decent Bigfoot footage! :-P

      Just saying...

      Delete
  27. LOL There actually has been an odd report or two within 50 miles or so of me, and then theres the Missouri Bigfoot they call "Mo Mo", not to mention the Legend of Boggy Creek Fouke Monster about 300 miles away.
    I'm afraid I probably wouldn't do much better than Mr Skunk Ape here, except for the running away part, I couldn't run toward water if my ass was on fire.....just sayin'
    Like I said, I've been enthralled by anything unexplained, aliens, ghosts, Bigfoot, Loch Ness, you name it. And I've heard of the big cats in the UK also, the Beast of Exmoor etc.., but I never really understood too much of the mystery, its not that far fetched that someone just set a large cat free.
    Whats even more strange to me is that you should be from Scotland, I've always had an uncanny affinity for Scotland. As a matter of fact, its one of only a few items on my Bucket List.


    ~T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Missouri is wasted on you, wasted I tell ye! Swap? :-)

      To be honest the big cats isn't a subject I'm hugely into, not like Bigfoot. But I agree, it's not all that mysterious and it's logical there can be big cats around but the fact is the cats are extremely elusive and when sightings do happen, they are often dismissed as hoaxes, misidentification etc - sound familiar? :-)

      While there ARE hoaxes etc, the cats do exist and it's patronising/frustrating being told that they don't and haven't for close to 1,000 years by so called 'experts', which only adds to the mystery. Not to mention apparent cover ups but I don't know much about this - Joe would know a lot more about that one and the subject in general and has some interesting stuff to say about them.

      Having said that, funnily enough the UK are considering reintroducing lynxes into the country to control the deer population.

      You seem well travelled - are you the female version of Indiana Jones? :-)

      Well since the big cats aren't enough to entice you, perhaps Nessie would be (it's beautiful there btw) and there are plenty of other things that would so you should definitely fly across the pond and give our wee country a visit someone ;-) bring your wellies though...

      Just saying...

      Delete
    2. LOL Reintroducing Lynx, that's pretty rich...lol
      Or maybe they should just import some of those ancient Polar bears from the Himalaya's to do the job.
      Believe me, I can think of no bigger desire than to be in Scotland, but unfortunately it wasn't written in the stars for me to ever be able to afford it. I'm sure that between my love of the country and my fear of flying I would never make it back home again...which may not be such a bad thing...lol
      So you see, I'm not well traveled at all, I'm just an armchair explorer.

      By the way....whats a wellie? lol


      ~T

      Delete
    3. Better start putting more of those lotteries on then, T - you've got a large scale Bigfoot expedition, a trip to Scotland and the importation of ancient polar bears to organise! :-)

      They're Wellington Boots, we Brits call them Wellies for short, don't know what you Americans call them? Scotland can be kinda wet at the best of times so a pair of wellies will keep yer wee feet nice and toasty! :-)

      An explorer that's afraid of lying - just as well you're an armchair explorer hey :-D

      Just saying...

      Delete
    4. Ahhhh...boots, gotcha.
      I've heard them referred to as galoshes or rubbers, that's about it. But I'll be sure to get some before I head over...lol

      BTW...Happy Halloween!

      ~T

      Delete
    5. Back at ya, T! :-)

      PS Whatever you do, don't call them rubbers in Scotland...

      Just saying...

      Delete
    6. So now you're saying NOT to pack rubbers if I come to visit? You're confusing me...LOL

      ~T :O)

      Delete
    7. Nope - I'm saying don't call them "rubbers" while in Scotland.

      Let's just say if you went into a shop here and asked for a pair of rubbers, they would likely give you a pair of contraceptive-related rubbers, if you get my drift :-)

      Just saying...

      Delete
    8. I got it, I had it, I was just playing with you.
      Humor lost in translation...lol

      ~T

      Delete
    9. Ooft! Shame on ye, shame I tell ye!

      Just saying...

      Delete
  28. Man, I just really like this footage. It would be the first hoax where the costume was perfectly fitted to the wearer, the hands were able to grasp and pull with ease, and the wearer was expertly pantomiming ape-like movement and behavior. Not to mention getting all mucked up in the swamp. This one will last...

    ReplyDelete
  29. I like the valuable information you provide in your articles. I’ll bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently.
    I am quite sure I will learn many new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!

    ReplyDelete