1,000 Free Bitcoins If You Can Guess Who Had This Encounter


This is probably one of the most fascinating and credible encounters we've ever read about. This happened back in the summer of 2000, and this person's life has been changed forever since the encounter. We are intentionally leaving out the title of the report -- see if you can figure out who wrote this report:

Where to begin? Rochelle and I took our kids to the Oregon Caves National Park in southern Oregon.  We ate lunch at a picnic table and then took a tour of the caves.  The caves were spectacular.  If you haven’t seen them before, they are a must see experience.

Upon our exit of the cave, everyone usually turns to the right to go back down to the gift store and lodge. However, we are fresh from Alaska and love to hike in the outdoors (i.e., we just moved from Alaska to Oregon earlier this year). We decided to go left and hike up to see the Big Tree (i.e., a Douglas fir tree with a circumference of 40 feet that is about 800 to 1,000 years old). We hiked for about 2 miles into the forest up the mountain. As we were hiking up the trail, we smelled a very strong pungent smell. It was as strong as a skunk but it wasn’t a skunk (i.e., we know what a skunk smells like and it wasn’t a skunk even though it was as strong smelling as a skunk). We were standing down wind of the smell.

We continued to hike up the trail and the trail started to switch back to the right as we climbed the mountain. There were plenty of tall trees and brush. I heard a faint sound (i.e., “Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!). At first I thought it was the blood vessels pounding in my head because it was a constant sound / rhythm and I’m out of shape (i.e., it was a big mountain and we were constantly walking up, up, up, up). We kept walking up the trail. I heard the sound again except it was louder. Then I thought, “This sound is external – not internal.” We all stopped and I asked, “Do you guys here that sound?” Rochelle, Levi, Hannah, and Micah looked at me and nodded their heads in affirmation.

Don’t ask me why but we continued to walk up the mountain through the very tall trees and brush. The sound continued in cycles of five to six repetitions (i.e., Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa). Louder and louder. Now the sounds were behind us.

I started putting one and one together in my mind and my biological “fight or flight” responses kicked in. I stopped my family on the trail. I told them to stay quiet. I hiked up the hill to our left because I had to go poop ASAP (i.e., this happens when the biological “fight or flight” response kicks in). While I was doing my duty, I was scanning the woods down the mountain on the other side of the trail my family was standing on. That’s when I saw it. I saw it come out from behind one tree to the left and walk to another tree to the right. Then it looked back and was watching my family while they were standing on the trail.

I’ve hiked through the woods in Alaska numerous times and believe me, I know what a grizzly bear looks like and I know what a black bear looks like. I was actually chased by a grizzly bear on the Russian river in Alaska about six or seven years ago. What I saw was not a grizzly bear or a black bear. What I saw walked upright on two legs like a human and it was much taller than a grizzly bear or a black bear. What I saw was Bigfoot (otherwise known as Sasquatch).

I pulled up my shorts immediately, walked fast down to the trail and got my family moving up the mountain. I sure as heck wasn’t going to go back down the trail where we came from and go right to it. I didn’t tell my wife or children what I saw because I didn’t want them to panic. At this point, the adrenaline was rushing and I was very hypervigilent (i.e., constantly looking behind us and through the woods). The sound stopped but I wasn’t convinced we were safe.

When we got to a place where the kids could stop and sit on a fallen log to rest and drink some water, I pulled Rochelle away and told here that she wasn’t going to believe what I saw. She believed me right away. She smelled the smell and she heard the repetitive cycles of “Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa” and she knows I’m not crazy. I told her to keep the kids going and that I would stay at the back to keep my eyes on what was behind us. I told her that if anything came up from behind us or through the woods from the side of us that I would run interference to protect them. I told her that if this happened, I wanted her to run the kids on the trail, don’t stop, and don’t look back. We agreed not to tell the children because we didn’t want to panic them.

We never heard the sounds again and I never saw anything after that. We finally made it out of the woods about 1½ hours later. We sent the kids into the gift store to look for a gift because we had promised to buy them something if they were good hikers and didn’t complain. Rochelle and I sat on the bench outside the gift store and talked about the pro’s and con’s of whether or not to report what we smelled, heard, and saw (i.e., I don’t want people to think we are crazy). Rochelle said it was up to me. I decided that I wasn’t going to keep this a secret because it was real and I know I’m sane. I remembered reading about how the albino gorilla was a myth/legend in Africa for quite some time until someone finally captured one. Well I’m here to tell you today (and the world) that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is not a myth/legend. The creature/animal really and truly does exist!!

After we made our decision, Rochelle went into the gift shop with the kids. I walked to the Park headquarters and reported what I saw to NPS Ranger Beverly. I sat in the chair stunned and then I began to cry. All these emotions that I was stuffing due to the adrenaline began to surface now that my family and I were safe. You don’t know how vulnerable I felt being so far out in the woods without the ability to protect my family in that kind of situation (i.e., no gun). I told the ranger that I was not crazy. I gave her my business card (i.e., I’m a licensed psychologist in private practice). I told her that I have two master’s degrees and one doctorate degree and that I was an intelligent person. I told her that I know what I smelled, heard, and saw. In between the tears and my shaking, I told her that I saw Bigfoot. She believed me! She didn’t think I was crazy. She said that there is a lot about our world that we don’t know and that we are discovering new species all the time.

She took my story, Rochelle’s story, and Levi confirmed what the noise sounded like. I was the only one who saw Bigfoot because I had hiked up off the trail high enough to see it. I can’t tell you what it looked like other than it was very tall, looked half-human and half ape, walked upright, and had very dark hair (i.e., a mix of very dark brown and/or black hair). It happened way too quick and all I could think about after I saw it was to get my family the heck out of there. I’ve done some surfing on the internet and what I saw looked a lot like this picture below.

Rochelle and I are willing to talk with anyone. We don’t believe that it is right to have this kind of experience and to hide it from the rest of the world. Please feel free to pass this on to anyone you think would be interested in hearing the truth. This is a true story that just happened today (7-1-2000 shortly after 5pm).

Watch the documentary here: Oregon Caves Encounter

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. All Big foot stories True or not, is always, and will always, be labeled LOONEYTOON approved!

      How would you like it if, you, Anon 9:00 told a story, and was called a liar! (To your face)!

      I'd bet you wouldn't do anything, but just stand there a be called a Liar, a Bullshitter, Because you have no BALLS!

      Delete
    2. John Jones Spoke ^ !

      Enough Said!

      Delete
    3. I love getting anally fisted!

      John W. Jones dictated

      Delete
  2. always with the "I know what a bear looks like, it wasn't a bear"... whenever you hear that you know they are trying to cover up the fact that really they just saw a bear

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. how would you know fuck face, you never leave your shitty city!

      Delete
    2. ^^ Butthurt MMG living in Wales and having no wild places in his little country

      Delete
    3. The reason they start off with:

      "I know what a bear looks like..." is because...

      they do. And they don't want to hear from simple minded idiots telling them what they saw.

      That's all.

      Delete
    4. I know what an airplane looks like, that doesn't prevent the possibility of it looking nothing like an airplane when I'm looking it flying during the night

      Delete
    5. I don't believe this jackass for one second. Nor his stupid wife, claiming that bigfeets walk through the SOHA all the time, they just don't WANT to take their picture.

      You have to be pretty fucking stupid to buy their garbage.

      Delete
    6. How dare you!

      Don't you know that Bigfeet avoid people but they show up only to people that don't want to take pictures of them? They know who is bad!

      Delete
    7. I was not commenting on this particular story...

      Just more of a general statement. I think a lot of stories are b.s. however, I think that there are some stories that are accurate and they didn't see a bear. In fact, most people that have these experiences are "outdoor" type people and hence, no more than the average person the difference between a bear and a "bigfoot". (note this story these folks lived in Alaska).

      People should be given a bit more credit for what they see - especially here on this site.

      Delete
    8. Anybody who has never seen a bigfoot is going to assume you are full of shit, because it is literally unbelievable. If you can't accept the reality of that and instead want to be a jackass like this Jones dipshit then you are probably going to get your teeth knocked down your throat more than once.
      I will assume everyone is lying about bigfoot until anybody anywhere can show me one good reason why I should not.

      Kirk out.

      Delete
    9. Not before I address your ignorance.

      Who the hell are you to assume everyone else is lying? Ten of thousands of people? Someone can easily say you're a little too scared to acknowledge any good reason to believe, that would be just as fair a statement. The only person who'd get their teeth knocked down their throat would be people like you who obviously don't leave the city and who'd be crawling up Jones' arss for help should they get anywhere hairy, you wouldn't be such the tough guy then.

      Delete
    10. with zero evidence why would you assume even a single person is telling the truth?

      Delete
    11. lies and misidentifications. simple

      Delete
    12. This isn't 5th grade where you can make wild claims with no evidence and expect the class to jump on board the fallacy train.

      This is reality. This is adulthood. This is science.

      Make all the deluded claims you wish but when you step into the scientific realm, don't get butthurt when you have a hard time producing viable biological evidence year after year after year.

      Delete
    13. It's pretty simple... There is loads of evidence. It's not that everyone should believe in Bigfoot 100%, it is in fact very rational for someone to be skeptical without having a first hand experience, but that doesn't mean people are lying, and it doesn't mean there isn't any evidence. Skeptics are meant to be open to both sides of the coin, not claim that everyone is lying; that is being agenda driven and trying too hard to not let the evidence that you require so badly to breath.

      Keep an open mind, it takes one sighting out of the tens of thousands for Bigfoot to be real; and there are some pretty amazing & detailed accounts out there (like the one up top).

      Peace.

      Delete
    14. 12:53...

      Think what you like about the account up top, that's your right to think whatever you want, but for someone like me who has read many accounts, you draw from consistencies and then make a decision from there. I don't have evidence for you about the account up top, but I do in fact have plenty of examples of evidence for you, the question is would you agknowldege it like the 'science' you preach about should?

      Delete
    15. 12:58...

      Yes, a considerable amount of them.

      Delete
    16. Fairy tales and legends are all fun and games, we know, but you're trying to make it real. That means you are stepping ino anthropology and biology, which are sciences. The standard and accepted definition for viable evidence in science is biological and organic evidence. This evidence must be repeatable and verifiable. This is something you cannot side step and insist special treatment for, it's the baseline.

      Stories are just that...stories. Unless you can provide viable organic evidence of your wild biological claims, then one must err on the side of caution that you are either lying or misidentifying known creatures.

      That's the way this field works. Heck, you might not be lying but that doesn't matter when you make biological claims with zero biological evidence.

      Sorry, welcome to the real world. It's been this way forever.

      Delete
    17. More science, less stories.

      Standard definition of scientific evidence is biological and organic in nature, not circumstantial.

      A mountain of anecdotal/circumstantial evidence does not validate a species of wildlife, only biological evidence will do such.

      Delete
    18. Special treatment? That's for sure!

      Track castings with dermals that have for bending and scar tissue that are attained 50 mikes into wilderness areas. Are a very impressive means of evidence. Even more so that they have dermals that are consistent with species traits from opposite sides of the country that have been accumilated many years (decades even) apart.

      Hair has been sequenced on at least three ocassions that have yielded unknow primate DNA. There are considerable examples of scat that very experienced researchers are also able to distinguish from other forms.

      You also have official Snithsonian Bureaus, archeological and anthropological studies that have doncumentary giant skeletons (the biological evidence you require) with 150 years' worth of printed need media confirming this right up to the mid 20th century when you have a transition into modern means of media such as footage.

      You have examples of recorded language; again with very credible scientists and experts putting their names to and publishing.

      Special treatment? I think you of you were to be scientifically impartial, you would see that the decision to not at least investigate such a rich history is an odd one, and who's to say that with a collective effort, the mystery wouldn't have been solved by now?

      Nobody expects special treatment, but a fair playing field would be nice.

      Peace.

      Delete
    19. You have to be fair, eywitness accounts have also their good part of inconsistencies, just look at the people interviewed in Finding Bigfoot and you'll see that many accounts describe animals with different features, too much also for the "multiple type of Bigfoot" hypothesis

      Delete
    20. Yes, you're quite right. I used to have a theory that 90% of all accounts were missidentifications, now I think it's more 80%.

      Peace.

      Delete
    21. Every case starts at a base 0. It takes viable repeatable biological evidence to substantiate wild biological claims. How many times do I have to repeat this? That is scientific evidence, or proof if you will. No crying about it is going to change what is and is not accepted.

      There has never been one piece of legitimate biological evidence to validate these claims. None.

      You have a lot of anecdotes and circumstantial evidence. Congratulations. That means NOTHING in anthropology and biology.

      There are no final published results of 'unknown primate, hominid, or great ape' sequencing. I'm sorry that this may be hard to hear but it's true.

      It seems during preliminary analysis there may occasionally be 'unknown' results, and that's why they are preliminary analysis and not the final published results. A common point of reference is the Sykes Bear mishap. Another is human contamination, as well as the use or development of primers or sequence duplication.

      Delete
    22. Ok, nobody's crying... Simply not rolling over to a very obvious inability to look at a series of sources of evidence and key information.

      Every case starts at base 0, yes... But is that the case when in the same breath, you claim that this subject is 'wild'? Science is impartial and that is contradicting yourself somewhat and is merely perpetuating the example of what I was highlighting previously.

      There has been inumerable documented archeological and anthropological studies from major universities over the past 200 years that have uncovered giant skeletal remains... That is fact. You have to remember that if major institutions such as the Smithsonian had put such things on display, then the idea of wild versions still living in the deep wilderness areas of the States; wouldn't be as sensational a concept.

      Also, you are not saying anything that is difficult for me to hear, I have had this conversation many a time, the problem with the examples of unknown primate DNA there is, is that you require at least two other examples for it to be considered 'repeatable publishable scientific evidence'... But laughably, that doesn't make those examples not what they are, especially when you have credible scientists willing to put their names to such findings. With something so elusive as this creature is, such a finding is significant when applied to a steady accumulation of various other sources that have considerable consistency and for this reason shouldn't be merely ignored because it isn't published... Again, that isn't scientific, merely because it can't be scientifically published, I shouldn't have to point this out to you.

      You are also forgetting that on two ocassions of such 'preliminary analysis' there has been a significant agknowldegement by the geneticists involved that the samples submitted had degraded considerably since the initial testings; rendering these matchable to the closest species available; us... Or a result of 'suggested' contamination. These are very significant circumstances that are forgotten when trying to put things in black and white that are convenient for someone trying to prop up a seemingly simple conclusion.

      Again... If science was as fair as you make out, there should at least be an effort to investigate such sources, and not assume such things are 'wild', cause to many... It is simply a matter of applying your version of science in a more appropriate manner... Sir.

      Peace.

      Delete
    23. Every decade for the past 50 years has had science investigate and examine the evidence produced by bigfooters. It was heavily scrutinized in the 70's, mid-90's, and late 00's/10's.

      The problem is none of the evidence has ever withstood close examination.

      A common excuse is 'well, they went with X group/researcher when they should have gone with Y or Z.'

      Cherry picking, as it were. These are your researchers and groups, biologists simply ask for submitted evidence. Don't hate those people whom believe they have legitimate samples but didn't submit them, especially in certain studies where they don't have to pay a cent toward genetic analysis.

      Great, Joe, you have whispers of something from the 1800's when hoaxes were high and corruption was heavily prevalent. The New York Times fibs a lot, constantly posts redactions of prior misreported events.

      I saw a wonderful post yesterday that highlights that point: DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!

      So, now we have gone from a lack of understanding on biological and accepted evidence and we're on to the 'woooo' topic of conspiracy and cover ups?

      Well, if you want to go down that rabbit hole, have at it, have fun dude.

      I'll remain here in reality where the sun shines and will rise tomorrow in the morning sky.

      Goodbye.

      Delete
    24. "the problem with the examples of unknown primate DNA there is, is that you require at least two other examples for it to be considered 'repeatable publishable scientific evidence'... "

      Then you don't claim there is unknown primate DNA when there is no scientific backing of said claim.

      So in a big tuft of fur (many hairs, follicles, and probable skin/meat) they cannot replicate the preliminary results? [referencing the Buckeye study]

      You can get multiple test runs with just 1 hair. You don't need 3 different samples to get your testable examples, especially with today's sequencing technology. 1 lone hair can give you several repeatable samples, but that doesn't guarantee it will.

      Delete
    25. I will address most of the points put to me in due course, however first I will post a comment I did a few months ago regarding yellow journalism;

      Wikipedia...

      "Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion."

      1890's headline examples of yellow journalism -

      "President Supports Child Labor Legislation"
      "McKinley Asks Congress to Annex Hawaii"
      "Populist Demand Change in the Gold Standard"
      "Spanish Authorities Butcher Innocent Cubans"

      "In many ways this era (late 1800's) foreshadowed the rise of the internet. Paper became drastically cheaper in the late 1800s, leading to a flourishing of the lower-end publishing business. Suddenly thousands of people had a forum for their views and stories that had previously been non-existent. Both Hearst and Pulitzer’s newspapers were dirt-cheap and appealed to the working classes of the era. More established papers such as the New York Times and the New York Press scoffed at the upstarts (the New York Press made the first accusation of “yellow journalism”), but the success of their methods was undeniable."

      Delete
    26. Ok... Let's now look at the New York Times press releases of the time relating to the subject matter of giant skeletons...

      "On 10 August 1891, the New York Times reported that scientists from the Smithsonian Institution had discovered several large "pyramidal monuments" on Lake Mills, near Madison, Wisconsin. "Madison was in ancient days the centre of a teeming population numbering not less than 200,000," the Times said. The excavators found an elaborate system of defensive works which they named Fort Aztalan.

      "The celebrated mounds of Ohio and Indiana can bear no comparison, either in size, design or the skill displayed in their construction with these gigantic and mysterious monuments of earth -- erected we know not by whom, and for what purpose we can only conjecture," said the Times.

      On 20 December 1897, the Times followed up with a report on three large burial mounds that had been discovered in Maple Creek, Wisconsin. One had recently been opened.

      "In it was found the skeleton of a man of gigantic size. The bones measured from head to foot over nine feet and were in a fair state of preservation. The skull was as large as a half bushel measure. Some finely tempered rods of copper and other relics were lying near the bones."

      Giant skulls and skeletons of a race of "Goliaths" have been found on a very regular basis throughout the Midwestern states for more than 100 years. Giants have been found in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and New York, and their burial sites are similar to the well-known mounds of the Mound Builder people.

      The spectrum of Mound builder history spans a period of more than 5,000 years (from 3400 BCE to the 16th CE), a period greater than the history of Ancient Egypt and all of its dynasties.

      Delete
    27. There is a "prevailing scholarly consensus" that we have an adequate historical understanding of the peoples who lived in North America during this period. However, the long record of anomalous finds like those at Lake Delavan suggests otherwise.

      The Great Smithsonian Cover-Up -

      Has there been a giant cover-up? Why aren't there public displays of gigantic Native American skeletons at natural history museums?

      The skeletons of some Mound Builders are certainly on display. There is a wonderful exhibit, for example, at the Aztalan State Park where one may see the skeleton of a "Princess of Aztalan" in the museum.

      But the skeletons placed on display are normal-sized, and according to some sources, the skeletons of giants have been covered up. Specifically, the Smithsonian Institution has been accused of making a deliberate effort to hide the "telling of the bones" and to keep the giant skeletons locked away.

      In the words of Vine Deloria, a Native American author and professor of law: "Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual demeanor. The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited. This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed off to anyone, but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning the deep past."

      Not only does your theory of yellow journalism not fit the 'spin' you put on content output typical of the New York Press of the time, but neither does your sensational comparisons to lake monsters and airships fit in the professional studies that have INUMERABLE other examples to back them up. This is ignored... I can, after this, find other such cases that if you even take away 90% of them and label them as hoaxes, still leaves remarkably detailed pieces of information that are not hoaxed unless you want the to be hoaxed.

      Delete
    28. The first sign your argument fails is cut and pasting old comments.

      The argument is science hasn't looked at bigfoot samples. That's patently false.

      But hey, if you want legitimate conversation on these topics and so much more, you're invited to join us at the Sasquatch Proboard or on the BFF.

      I'm done here.

      Delete
    29. "The problem is none of the evidence has ever withstood close examination."

      That is not true. It is another example I use to highlight the bias towards 'skeptical' opinion regarding this subject, in that every 'examination' (euphemism for 'closure requirement') there is always a legitimate scientific counter argument that get's ignored. All too often I hear an old, dated, recycled example of why certain sources of evidence can't stand, yet a fair playing field, a properly skeptical view point (in the truer sense of the word) does not ignore the counter points to such 'examinations', but considers them and then has to throw the proverbial ball back, in order for such sources to then be categorically confirmed as insufficient. I think the X researcher example you are referring to is the Melba Ketchum scenario, and the truth is there is a significant geneticist still studying samples of which are being peer reviewed, so let's not assume such sources are dead in the water just yet. I'm not sure what you are referring to with regards to hating submitters, you lost me there. Every person who submitted samples to Sykes in the early stages of his study (Bigfoot Files) had to have their sample checked by professionals first before submitting them to Sykes, so that his time wasn't wasted. I must inform you that regardless of these samples being known animals (a shame), the samples were recommended to Sykes by professionals as 'unkown animals' in such preliminary stages. This was why so many were as shocked as they were.

      Oh, and it is a missconception on your part that I do not understand what 'biological evidence' is... Ironically you would suggest that when I can present you with one of your longest standing institutions' official bureaus that have documented such. I wonder if your apparent understanding of such would stand the test of consistency should you read them?

      I very much doubt it.

      Delete
    30. "The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."

      Delete
    31. In response to your post at 2:33...

      Nope, I haven't said that at all, you may be required to read my posts properly, and to suggest that my arguments fail when I have presented you research that backs up my claims is quite a head scratcher to be honest.

      You made an claim and I presented you with evidence that it was indeed inaccurate, and that isn't any result of my 'arguments failing', quite the contrary in fact.

      I enjoyed I conversation sir, have a good day.

      Peace.

      Delete
    32. You wouldn't enjoy it as much if you knew who you were talking to.

      Like I said, feel free to join us at http://sasquatchforum.proboards.com/ or http://bigfootforums.com/

      Instead of repeating the same paragraphs and cycling through talking points on a daily basis.

      Because honestly, I read all those comments you pasted when they were originally posted and in subsequent pastings, so it's not like you're dealing with a rookie here.

      If you want organic conversation, you know where we'll be. Have fun tarding around this place if not.

      Delete
    33. Excuse me sir... But if you knew my points prior to me posting them, then why would you state such inaccurate claims regarding the New York Times for example?

      I very much think I have been more than respectable in light of some of the comments that were directed my way, and it is important to me that you know that I enjoyed our exchange (regardless of who I'm taking to, I have confidence in in what I know regarding this subject) and would like no hard feelings. Your points were valid and taken on board.

      Peace.

      Delete
    34. Hey Joe! How you doing? I see there are more Non-believing "Trolls" on this site, then ever before.

      It simply amazes me, that so many people, who do not believe in Big foot come on here and Harass, ridicule those that do believe!

      If you don't believe, why don't you "Trolls" go over to a U.F.o. or Ghost site, and harass them! Leave this site for Believers, and true honest Skeptics!

      I see several "Trolls" are now coping my name, that's Great! That's a complement! I know, deep down, you want to be just like me!

      Joe, if you were able to take a survey, you will find 95% are "Sissy City Boys", who never, ever go into the woods.

      i see MMG, says, he had enough, and is leaving this site. That's exactly what these "Pathetic Trolls" want!

      They want to run off all believers. It's either their beliefs or nothing.

      Sounds like we got a lot of "Liberal Obama hand-out sheep" here!

      I know what I'm seeing and chasing, and it is not Bears. you'll never change my mind on this.

      Me and my Team, are having the times of our lives, were doing what we love to do. We're all "Self Made" Men, and we don't depend on this "Liberal Socialistic Government" that turn you "Sissy Boys" into "Sheep"!

      I would love to see any of you face to face. Call me a Liar to my face, and see what happens!

      Enough said!
      Should I write the replies, i already know what you "Trolls' will say! Brave Men hiding behind an Anon listing, Pathetic

      I'm John W. Jones and I Spoke!

      Delete
    35. If that's how you acted at the Finding Bigfoot townhall, no wonder why you got thrown out.

      Regardless of you actually seeing bigfoot or not, you are a cranky and slightly obnoxious senior citizen with an odd obsession with "Liberal" monikers.

      I'll have you know I worked directly for Ron Paul's '08 and '12 Presidential Campaigns, and George W. Bush's reelection campaign.

      Take your liberal bullcrap elsewhere.

      Delete
    36. Hey John!!!

      It's very puzzling to me as well. I have a theory however; if you were a closet enthusiast in a family/friendship circle of cynics then the best way you would be able to impatiently visit a blog like this, checking for evidence whilst remaining in the proverbial closet; would be to pretend to be a skeptic, or pretend to poke fun... When in actual fact, as soon as that day comes where undeniable proof comes, then they can grow a pair and man up. You must remember that for most of the Tards who frequent here, this type of cyber world is their only way of getting any level of attention and also make up for the way they are pushed around by more confidence, socially equipt people in the real world around them... Kind of like taking the power back, so to speak. Pretty sad when you look at it that way.

      You also have the people who this subject threatens and plain and simply scared them.

      Let's look at what qualifies a Tard shall we? Let's...

      Dependance of community to make up lack of belonging
      Chronic denialism
      A missunderstanding of skepticism
      Fear
      Anxiety of the unknown
      Requirement of reassurance
      Closure desperation

      Like I said... Beats me why they are here bit there are some of my ideas as to way they might be.

      Oh... And those posts from MMG aren't actually him. He'll be around soon to do what he does best, I'm sure of that!

      Love ya John!!!

      Delete
    37. 3:29...

      I will have you know that John got thrown out for having a knowledge of a hoaxed scenario that was being perpetuated as legitimate; that is why he was thrown out.

      Corrected.

      Delete
    38. Joe, you and I both know they aren't going to throw him out for 'having knowledge' of a hoax alone. He had to be disruptive or have negligible actions to be tossed out like that.

      Delete
    39. Skeptards are All Kinds of KrazySunday, January 5, 2014 at 4:19:00 PM PST

      This comment and more from 12:53:

      "This isn't 5th grade where you can make wild claims with no evidence and expect the class to jump on board the fallacy train.

      This is reality. This is adulthood. This is science.

      Make all the deluded claims you wish but when you step into the scientific realm, don't get butthurt when you have a hard time producing viable biological evidence year after year after year."

      Note the standard skeptardical talking points used, such as "deluded" and "fallacy." Now we have "reality, adulthood, science." This is highly distasteful, supercilious, and childish. It is embarrassing watching a skeptard at work.

      Later this commenter warns Joe about "who he's talking to." That is even more humiliating for the commenter.

      A serious problem with these science-worshippers is their assumption that they are correct 24/7.

      This person's comments are loaded with fallacies. S/he is not only on the fallacy train, s/he is the bloody engineer going full speed for Skeptardia.

      It is highly naive, unreasonable, and utterly illogical to dismiss all reports as mistaken or lies. You will find the real skeptard extremists insist that they are all lies; none are mistaken. Yes, they are crazy.

      These people obviously have a few screws, bolts, and nuts loose upstairs.

      It's amazing Joe kept his cool in countering this Sharon Shill wannabe, whose obnoxiousness was boiling under the surface and bubbling to the top in every comment s/he made.

      This is another skeptard on the trash heap of "science" who is attempting to be condescending. Unfortunately, this person is not in a position from which to condescend.

      Delete
    40. ^ butthurt MMG rears his head ^

      Delete
    41. ^^^ Rectum-ravaged skeptard wailing impotently in the dust.

      As per usual.

      Skeptardical SOP.

      Delete
    42. Yep, definitely Butthurt MMG ^

      Delete
  3. This must be from Dr. Robert Johnson one of the most credible voices in the bigfoot world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you've been listening to some 1930's blues recently?

      Delete
    2. ;-)
      Sold my soul for 1,000 bitcoins at the bigfoot crossroads blog.

      Delete
    3. I heard they give better rates than Ballyhoo.

      Delete
    4. Sorry; Fozzie; that was a typo. That should have read, "1000 Buttcoins." Buttcoins are what you get when you sit on buttnuggets.

      Delete
  4. http://www.rense.com/general2/bigor.htm

    I will pass on the bitcoins.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Replies
    1. DOH! I've been awake way too long. I think it's hibernation time for this bear. Have a good winter everyone!

      Delete
  6. "I pulled up my shorts immediately". Apparently Doc J squeezed off a few rounds after his first bigfoot sighting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im sure he didn't use a jar and most certainly didn't wipe.

      Delete
    2. *sigh* I think he was masturbating. You know. Waxing the dolphin.

      Delete
    3. Polishing his purple helmet?

      Delete
  7. Funny that Johnson was taking a shit during his first sighting, now his sightings are shit!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes! He probably didn't wipe. Now he has Bacon strip stains on his fruit of the loom briefs. and I just bet you Anon, 9:10 would love to have them! and. . . so would a lot of other guys on this site, especially old Danny Boy!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Levi, Hannah, and Micah- sounds like someone purchased Sarah Palin's Book of Baby names.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hypervigilent? did he mean hyper-vigilant? Oh well. Two masters and a doctorate, from online universities no doubt.

      You just can't take the retard out of the footer, no matter how much schooling they receive.

      Delete
    2. those names are jewish. you know what that means......

      the jews now control bigfoot.

      Delete
    3. 10:08 just graduated from Universities Is Us, top drawer online institution.

      Congratulations!

      Delete
  10. Trail Head -- Is that where your wife gives you a blow job in the woods?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that's where the scorch marks on your undies lead

      Delete
  11. Replies
    1. yeh we got plenty of them

      Delete
    2. Got magic physical proportion altering monkey suit?

      Delete
    3. no we just have a modifiable monkey suit with prolonged arms, kind of easy to do. you know, it's craft

      Delete
    4. The ever changing suit, arm extensions in the Hiliarious Twerk Dance Redux; no arm extentions in PGF. Super. Yeah 4:24, wow do we sure bleeve you.

      Delete
  12. Mental retardation is no laughing matter.

    ReplyDelete
  13. speaking of arrogant, overweight assholes, where's MMG?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. on the BFF/JREF and proboards

      Delete
    2. He is mining for bitcoins. Sometimes uses a metal detector. Sometimes a pick axe.

      Delete
  14. these are proffesionals. act like one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I get a little tired of people telling me it's all on the proponents to prove this. It's on scientists to prove this. That's their job; and a blanket refusal to review the evidence cuts no ice with me or anyone else serious about the topic." - DWA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gotta love how he talks about science refusing to look evidence, only 2 months after a television production with one of the better geneticists traveled to 3 of the world's most legendary 'Bigfoot' sites and is on the down side of a lengthy study into the topic.

      Science merely examines the evidence at hand, which by standard definition is biological evidence, something rarely found in the footer field. When they do produce biological evidence with their claims, it consistently results in known animal and not bigfoot.

      It's not anyone else's job to drop everything and spend infinite resources to prove your wild claims. It's up to you to provide back up of your claims and that evidence will be examined.

      Don't blame other people for your shortcomings.

      Delete
    2. Nope, scientists are wasting their time looking for a cure to cancer and researching renewable energy technologies. They need to drop all this nonsense and focus 100% on bigfoot.

      Delete
    3. He acts like nobody is using their 'time, money or expertise' to find them. Yet Kit linked to a couple projects where groups of people have done nothing but that to document the species found where bigfoot is supposed to be.
      To which he always replies that the sightings are taking place, it's just that for variety of sloppy and stupid reasons they choose not to reveal the most incredible biological discovery in years.
      Again, I never believe stories. Show me where anyone anywhere can prove the existence of this creature. So far it seems they're all just a bunch of stinkin liars seeking to profit from their bullshit, either financially or simply from a need to feel special and draw attention to themselves.
      And PGF and LRY are utterly inconclusive.
      The ancient human tradition of snipe hunting is alive and well.
      Kirk out.

      Delete
    4. It is an OUTRAGE!!!!! that science wont just do it's job.

      Delete
    5. Kitakrazy self-detonated by going all-in with Bob Hilarious after declaring that Patty's proportions are "an exact match" for Hilarious's, and Hilarious then used arm extensions in his stop motion hairy assed twerkdance.

      Nothing Kitakrazy links to is viable. Nor Kirk. The next time you go out, really go out.

      Delete
    6. Kit said he knows where the suit is, but that it is not in his possession. It is apparently not for sale when asked and claimed it is damaged from not being stored properly, although the extent of the damage hasn't been documented. Despite the damage, and it having not been worn by anyone, he claims it "looks like Patty". Enough so that he claims to be convinced that it is proof that the PGF is a hoax.

      Not one of his claims ever materialized. I wonder why?

      Delete
  16. Hmmmmm interesting outlook what exactly would you like science to look at the thousand plus blurry photos or maybe the nonexistent physical evidence tough call lets send them all of it

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have to admit the trolls are right.

    It's just not worth it anymore.

    I'm done with bigfoot. It's all a lie.

    I'm leaving now. I'll be posting on mlpforums.com under the user name sparklecake.

    Goodbye

    MMG

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm rich. I'm a happy miser.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Don't lose my show tonight, guys! We'll take you nothing, and you'll like it!

    I'VE BEEN TRACKING SASQUATCHES FOR 25 YEARS

    ReplyDelete
  20. only if smeja kept the "*cough*" bigfoot. then all the phony, faky, hoaxie crap wouldn't be needed. of course dyer now has a dog and pony show caravaning across the country doing his carny barkin'. . "step right up folks" grab some popcorn and peanuts and see a dead bigfoot."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sasquatch genome project website and 2 hour press conference discussing the novel consistently blind-tested DNA and testing methodology and EVERYTHING will help verify the existence of this human hybrid.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

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