Can You Identify These Animal Sounds?
For those of you who think you can identify every animal sound in North America, here's your chance to prove it. YouTube user MissSquatcher is running a contest featuring 15 different animal sounds for us to identify, and we have to admit that we're completely stumped by sound #4. The sound reminds us of the "Sierra Sounds".
why yes I will take this first thank you.
ReplyDeleteDOH!!!!
DeleteALL CAPS
They're all SQUATCHEZ!
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteDB
Youll get known animal sounds and you'll like it.
ReplyDeleteRemember the sierra sounds. Hilarious. People actually got fooled by them and still do.
ReplyDeleteWhen you have all the accumulation evidence there is and then a transcribed language from voices on a recording that is both above and below human frequency and is too fast for humans to achieve; consistent in the respect of repeated words and answers; taken from an actual encounter... Then who's the fool for thinking it a hoax?
DeletePeace.
There are things called speech synthetisers, voice disorters and simple apps like voice changer, ya know
DeleteNope it has to be an undiscovered 9 foot ape. I mean come on it has to be right? Right? Guys?
DeleteLOL @ Joe not considering the possibility of a computer-made distortion.
DeleteWhat language do Sasquatches speak, Joe? Bet it's English
If you can find me a speech synthesiser from the 70's that accomplish complex dialect with frequency changers... Then you have an argument.
DeleteThe people who recorded the sounds were seeing Sasquatch in the Sierra's. To back that up, they recorded sounds both above and below human frequency and that are too fast for humans to achieve; consistent in the respect of repeated words and answers. That is why I can assume, with all the other sources of evidence there are, that the subjects making the sounds were indeed, at least not (normal) human.
Star Wars
DeleteSchooled (God it's too easy)
Actually there's no need to have speech synthesisers, a simple voice distorter is enough.
DeletePathetic
... And a bunch of hunters would have access the George Lucas' studio, yes?
DeleteA voice distorter, doesn't alter sounds both above and below human frequency and that are too fast for humans to achieve; consistent in the respect of repeated words and answers.
Numpties.
Why do you always take assumptions? Actually, the assumptions that suit you better?
DeleteWho said that it was the only speech synthesiser in the world? Actually these machines have been used from decades all across the world, I can nominee tons of other films and examples.
And who said that they did not know someone of the crew?
What the fuck do you know?
Who are you to make up such statistic of probability?
Oh yah, it's more ovbious that it had to be a 9 ft undiscovered human.
Lame
Don't get pissy cause you're getting schooled. The hunters didn't have access the a film editing studio and neither had a synthesiser that altered sounds to both above and below human frequency and that are too fast for humans to achieve; consistent in the respect of repeated words and answers.
DeleteI think you'll find; that those are your assumptions that fit your view better.
Those are aome pretty sensational statistics right there, old boy. And the recordings are a part of the jigsaw puzzle of legitimacy.
"The hunters didn't have access the a film editing studio and neither had a synthesiser that altered sounds to both above and below human frequency"
DeleteWHAT DA FUCK DO YA KNOW!??! YOU WEREN'T BORN BY THAT TIME, AND BY THE WAY YOU LIVE IN THE OTHER PART OF THE WORLD, WHAT DA FUCK DO YOU KNOW WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE IN AMERICA!?
and, guys, that's how Footers think
P.S. Synthesisers were well spread out from the '50s. Actually, here you'll find that they were invented in 18th century. Can you do your little net researches only when they suit you, eh?
http://www2.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/kemplne.htm
You're a giant DICKHEAD
Ha ha ha! Someone's getting pissy!
DeleteI know that they didn't have access to an editing studio because that would have been recognised in the analyising processes with professional disyphering equipment that determined that the sounds were fresh recordings with no tampering or layering.
Lovely little info about synthesisers, but none of them were able to alter sounds to both above and below human frequency and that are too fast for humans to achieve; consistent in the respect of repeated words and answers, in the early 70's.
Calm down and go do something else; this is clearly raising your blood pressure.
; )
^^ now he's also an expert in speech synthesizers...
DeleteNO ONE CAN STOP JOE FITZ
Why should we trust the opinion about synth from a guy that claimed to have attended one of the best universities in the UK and we discovered that this is patently false?
DeleteSchooled
^ Ouch
DeleteBecause I've been a musician for the last 18 years of my life. You know nothing about my personal life, you know nothing about me... It you do, then post it by all means.
DeleteSure sign of pathetic losers when they have to resort to that.
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
A musician that tries to do science. Good.
DeleteI know everything, better if you don't provoke me
DeleteJoey
Schooled ^
Delete^ Scared
DeleteWell let us see. The recording of the 1972, and I was in high school at that time, were the subject of a year-long University of Wyoming engineering study to determine authenticity of the vocalizations compared to a man and ape. The results were published the the University of British Columbia Press in 1980.
DeleteTo sum up the findings the vocalizations were primate in origin, and at least one of the voices exceeded normal human range. Also the vocalizations were spontaneous at the recording time and there was no evidence found of previous prerecording or recording at altered speed.
Since that time another university, I believe Vermont came to similar conclusions.
In conclusion JOE is right and the ones with their heard up their ass, have their head up their ass.
Chuck
I remember... it seems... maybe... who knows...
DeleteSo BIGFOOT
Beautiful Chuck... Much respect my friend.
DeletePlease provide the year long University of Wyoming study, the published results from UBC, and the study done by UoV.
DeleteIt shouldn't be to hard if they really published such results.
"These recordings later became the subject of a year-long University of Wyoming-based engineering study to determine their authenticity and to understand the nature of the vocalizations relative to those of humans and other primates. The results of that study were published by the University of British Columbia Press in 1980 in ?Manlike Monsters on Trial,? an anthology of professional papers presented at a 1978 UBC-sponsored symposium entitled Anthropology of the Unknown. The study concluded that the unusual vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges. Although the study did not rule out the possibility of human source, it established that the vocalizations were spontaneous at the time of recording and that there was no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed."
DeleteThat was from the BFRO, and this is common knowledge amongst Bigfoot enthusiasts.
Here is this also -
http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf
Enjoy.
Since you seem to have misunderstood my post, I'm asking for the actual studies done which should be archived by each university and also on other databases.......
DeleteNot some footers opine about it. The meat and potatoes if you will.
Well, if you think accessing such things is so easy; go and get it for us boyo!
DeleteCommon knowledge in this field bro, and I though you knew everything??
Again, don't push this on me, I didn't make the claim of these studies. Chuck made a claim and you ran with it. I just want to see these studies which were claimed, I've never read them.
DeleteIf you can't back up claims of a scientific study, don't keep referencing it as proof.
http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf
DeleteHey Dan what if I provide you with the "meat&potatos of the sierra sounds study,, AND it happins to be everything cbrippe&joe say they are !! will that prove bigfoot to you? will you leave this blog forever? I think not.. i wouldnt waste my time, dan is like some gay guy trying to convert "straight men " to be Queer like himself.. BIG DORIS !
DeleteYou should probably go reread my posts, I never denied the study taking place nor did I accuse anyone of being a liar about it.
DeleteI just want to read the study myself, which has been purported by several people here, and so far all anyone can give me to read is Al Berry's opine on it instead of the actual study.
Where's the beef?
I think you'll find extracts of the study in the link I supplied you Daniel.
DeleteThat's not the actual study, it's relating the result in a little sidebar. I want the study, parameters, subject information, calculations... You know, the hard math.
DeleteWell instead; you can have consistently used extracts. The information simply would not have been allowed to have been used in such a way, had it not been true to the study.
DeleteSays who? The Foundation for Ethics in Cryptozoology publication?
DeleteConsistently used 'extracts' still don't mean jack. I've seen Melba Ketchum's 'extracts' consistently used too, but that doesn't make her working results legitimate.
More study manuscripts and data, less circumnavigating the point.
You can demand all you like Danny, it is what it is.
DeleteHere's something else on it with one of the professor's faces used as reference;
http://www.bigfootsounds.com/experts-point-of-view/87-2/
The published paper is called Manlike Monsters on Trial - early records and modern evidence
By Majorie M Halpin and Michael Ames
You can buy it on Amazon.
I don't want someone else's work, I want the actual study that was done by UoW and UBC, why is that so hard to accomplish?
DeleteDid it suddenly disappear into the hidden vaults at the Smithsonian too?
Dr. R Lynn Kirlin and Lasse Hertel's original work, please. Thank you.
Ha ha!
DeleteI've told you... You can buy it on Amazon for $75.
Get saving.
Why should I have to spend $75 on someone's thesis?
DeleteThat's very Melba Ketchum.
DeleteWell if you won't pay for it, stop complaining why nobody can bring it to you on a plate then.
DeleteAs for paying money for it... Maybe a lot of work went into it? Maybe a subject as amazing as Sasquatch language is worth $75 dollars?
I love it, Dan you really painted yourself into a corner this time, Joe truly schooled yer arse !! BIG DORIS.
DeleteHello Big Doris, happy new year!!
DeleteBy the way,what information do you hope to gleen by referencing dr. kirlin &co thesis ? its outcome already supports Joe's opinion's,,,,,,BIG DORIS.
DeleteHEY!!! You too Joseph,, Hope all is well with you an yours, Big DORIS.
DeleteGood morning clacka lackas
ReplyDeleteOr is that crack a lackin oh well either way what the fuck is up
ReplyDeleteNot much. Got any evidence of bigfoot kicking about?
Delete^Check out Stacey Brown and Bart Cutino's thermals from last year.
DeleteEnjoy my little troll.
MMG
A couple of ambiguous "could easily be a bloke" thermals. Nice try though MMG.
DeleteTake the time to go over Barackman's analysis of Stacey's footage and likewise Bart's excellent study into what he captured in the Sierras.
DeleteNothing ambiguous about these pieces of work.
MMG
Nothing ambiguous? That's a bit of a leap. Nothing to say they cant be humans and as there is no other bipedal creature it could be then the solution is humans.
DeleteUnless you can show us another bipedal creature that it could be? I checked with science and there are none.
You checked with denialism and fueled your own stupidy in the process.
Deletehttp://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/the-brown-footage/
Read that and know the facts.
You were welcome.
Yep its a human. Don't even need to bother with crappy monkey suits these days just film it on thermal.
Delete"Using the above two measurements on frame 9, I arrived at a height of 93.4 inches (7 ft 9 in) and 103.1 in (8 ft 7 in). Using the two measurement methods above for frame 10 of the video, I arrived at a height of 107.7 inches (8 ft 11.7 in) and 101.3 in (8 ft 5.3 in). The average of all four of these results is about 8 ft 5 in."
DeleteYour ignorance rendered you destined to look silly.
Did you even read the report?
DeleteHe states they could not even find the location as none of the trees lined up so any measurements are guesswork.
Also they try to use the pgf and freeman film to back up the argument. As neither have been verified as a "bigfoot" one could also state the similarities are due to also being a man in a suit.
The S Brown footage is impressive and there's no way the subject is just a human. Cutino's investigation with his footage and mini type peer review should be the standard expected for evidence moving forward in bigfooting. Although his footage isn't as clear they prove he didn't film people if you look at that work.
DeleteThe more I watch, the more I get the creeps with ths footage
Be nice if these critics who demand high standards of evience would even look at these exmples because they clearly stand apart
How about getting some decent video and not blokes in crappy suits or blokes on thermals.
Delete^^ We're too lazy to do that.
Delete- Derek Randles
7:49...
Delete"Measurements at the site using a range finder indicate that Stacy's previous measurement of 120 feet is accurate, probably to within a half yard."
"My newest calculations are no more precise than the originals. However, what the new calculations do is verify the range of size of the figure. Only at the smallest estimated statures can the figure be possibly considered human. These smallest estimations are also the least likely based on observations and comparisons."
I think you'll find that Cliff uses the PGF and Feeeman footage as examples of Bigfoot motion for the sake of consistency. What that does, if anything; is add credence to the two pieces of footage because the 'suits' and motion are consistent with a thermal with approximated measurements in height and proportions that simply can't be a normal human.
I think you'll find the PGF and the Freeman footage, yet to be debunked too.
Schooled.
"Only at the smallest estimated statures can the figure be possibly considered human"
DeleteThere ya go
I mean, Cliff Barackman is without doubt a big expert in this field of study and in optic in general, he can't be wrong, yeh? Right? Guys?
DeleteSchooled with what bigfoot exactly?
DeleteAccording to joe if there were 3 different videos of a unicorn that displayed similar traits then that means unicorns are real.
You can not make this up.
They are going by this guys word where he was standing and which tree it was behind. Dont you think he would choose a larger tree to make his subject seem bigger.
Try to think critically joe instead of jumping on the bleever bandwagon.
Schooled.
You're welcome.
8:07...
DeleteExactly. The creature is approximated at 8.5 feet tall.
8:09...
If you had three different videos of unicorns that were backed up with inumerable track castings, ten of thousands of eyewitnesses, examples of scat & hair, official documents of biological evidence, DNA... Then yes.
Read my comment properly, the approximation and distance was as accurate as was needed. You need to read people's comments before suggesting they are schooled, otherwise you school yourself.
No need to thank me.
"Only at the smallest estimated statures can the figure be possibly considered human" is not 8.5 ft.
DeleteBetter if you read properly the report.
You were welcome
Ah I would like too to see the "official documents of biological evidence", could you share with us here pleaz?
Nah
"Only at the smallest estimated statures can the figure be possibly considered human"... Meaning, if the approximated height of the subject came back within the human range, then this could then be considered 'normal human'.
Delete"Using the above two measurements on frame 9, I arrived at a height of 93.4 inches (7 ft 9 in) and 103.1 in (8 ft 7 in). Using the two measurement methods above for frame 10 of the video, I arrived at a height of 107.7 inches (8 ft 11.7 in) and 101.3 in (8 ft 5.3 in). The average of all four of these results is about 8 ft 5 in."
Jesus, you dum boy.
"12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
(published in 1894)
(Kanawha County, West Virginia)
Spring Hill Inclosure, Kanawha County, West Virginia. In the bottom of Mound 11 (upper left) was found a skeleton "fully seven feet long."
Largest in the collective series of mounds, the Great Smith Mound yielded at least two large skeletons, but at different levels of its deconstruction by Thomas' agents. It was 35 feet in height and 175 feet in diameter, and was constructed in at least two stages, according to the report. The larger of the two skeletons represented a man conceivably approaching eight feet in height when living.
At a depth of 14 feet, a rather large human skeleton was found, which was in a partially upright position with the back against a hard clay wall...All the bones were badly decayed, except those of the left wrist, which had been preserved by two heavy copper bracelets...
Nineteen feet from the top the bottom of this debris was reached, where, in the remains of a bark coffin, a skeleton measuring 7½ feet in length and 19 inches across the shoulders, was discovered. It lay on the bottom of the vault stretched horizontally on the back, head east, arms by the sides... Each wrist was encircled by six heavy copper bracelets...Upon the breast was a copper gorget...length, 3½ inches; greatest width 3¾ inches..."
"12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
Delete(published in 1894)
(mounds at Dunleith, Illinois)
Mound Group, Dunleith, Illinois.
"Near the original surface, 10 or 12 feet from the center, on the lower side, lying at full length on its back, was one of the largest skeletons discovered by the Bureau agents, the length as proved by actual measurement being between 7 and 8 feet."
Regarding the problem of "intrusive" Indian burials, what kind of a time gap were these men looking at between the original burials and the later ones? As his agents uncovered the physical evidence for powerful men of towering stature, Thomas held the position that any and all skeletal remains represented the direct ancestry of the present day people. Was it not plausible to consider an extended "family" or hierarchical group of very tall folk who served with the people? Were they selective enough in their sexual associations to appear, overall, as a race with its own peculiarities and even physical characteristics? The findings that didn't fit in to the guideline established by his superior were summarily recorded and forgotten by Thomas—a legacy we have inherited today.
An old Indian mound has been opened on the farm of Harrison Robinson, four miles East of Jackson, Ohio, and two skeletons of extraordinary size and a great quantity of trinkets have been removed. Some years ago a party of relic hunters, supposed to have been sent out in the interest of the Archeological society visited the Robinson farm, and after a few days search removed a great collection of stone hatchets, beads and bracelets, which were packed and shipped to an Eastern institute, and until this recent accidental discovery it was supposed that everything had been removed by the relic hunters. It is thought by many that more relics are to be found and preparations are being made for a through investigation."
You know when joe loses an argument when he starts copy pasting irrelevant drivel.
DeletePoor guy.
Cut and paste will not make you understand what Cliff's opinion.
DeleteCut and paste? Someone wants to be banned here!
Report me... There is nothing that states I can't do that.
DeletePasting that, won me the argument, I think you'll find... And 8:56, you need to learn to read bro.
Schooled x 2!
^^ Schooled is as schooled does
DeleteUmm...you'd think studies of giant skeletons would include distinct measurements of bone length, width, and density. One has to wonder where the skull measurements are, or any actual measurements for that part. You'd think it would be a little bit more in depth than just a shoddy old paper that says a couple lanky 8 footers were found.
DeleteBesides, it's useless to argue with PJ guise. It's impossible to kick him into the dirt, he bleeves so hard that God himself couldn't tell him it was all a sham. Pretty crazy for someone who's never been to America or been deep into any sort of wilderness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteUmm...you know we still do rudimentary measurements and field preliminaries, don't you Joe?
DeleteWe would still have several distinct measurements, especially being giant humans.
Yet again you fail to realize how scientists operate.
Sounds like you're getting pissy though. Are you menstruating still?
Would you like me to give you examples of studies with measurements? Because I have done on several ocassions, only for you to complain of 'cut and pastes' when I make you look silly.
DeleteSo you want those 'cut and plastes'? You talk of science, yet you can't even stomach it when it is delivered to you in the most drop kick of natures.
Schooled.
And anyway... Your argument is pointless, I have report upon report upon report that lends total credence to the size of the remains being found, documented and sent to major institutions such as the Smithsonian.
DeleteTry and condescend all you like... The one looking silly right now, is you... Old boy.
Hey Joe - what are your thoughts on these giants (found in these burial grounds) with jewelry? (bracelets etc).
DeleteGenuinely? I think they were instruments of war that were being celebrated. Either that, or the Sasquatch lived a very closely linked existence with the advanced cultures of the Amercian continent for many thousands of years, (maybe helped them build the mounds like suggested in other ancient cultures around the world) before they retreated into the deep wilderness areas, for some reason I won't quite speculate at just now.
DeletePeace bro.
Yes genuinely...Thanks.
DeleteAnytime bro.
DeleteBigfooting blunders from 2013 that have been swept under the rug:
ReplyDeleteKetchum self publishing her paper and subsequently getting destroyed by real scientists.
Rick dyers "3 minutes of hd footage" in the shooting bigfoot documentary and the subsequent hank circus show.
Daisy in the box.
The sykes documentary "sykes is coming blah blah". The complete annihilation of footery from mainstream science.
Smeja samples coming back bear and no blood on boots.
Finding bigfoot yet again finding nothing.
Bill munns attempt at a scientific paper which holds no actual science.
And to top it off despite all these research groups, projects etc not a single piece of evidence of bigfoots existence. No dna evidence, no photos, no videos, no scat, nothing, nadda, zip.
Swept under the rug?
DeleteKetchum and Dyer were destroyed by footers.
Sykes looked at 20 samples of poor provenance.
The Smeja boots were a shot in the dark.
Only a clueless tard would expect the Finding Bigfoot guys to deliver.
Bill's paper is what it is. A device to upset guys like you. Bill's not a scientist. Never claimed to be. He does like to mess with his JREF buddies though.
What was your original point again?
MMG
MMG you brighten my days.
Delete20 samples of poor provenance? What you mean the ones vetted by none other than meldrum? Or are you sweeping that under the rug aswell?
Finding bigfoot are going to all the hot spots where the latest "sightings" are supposedly happening but they cant turn up any sort of sign of an actual creature? Seems a bit unfortunate.
Ketchum destroyed by footers? Yes. After she self published. Before that footers were all over her claiming she would prove bf real and be mainstream news, the discovery of the century. Now she has been swept under the rug like it never happened.
Footers gonna foot.
The samples were hair found where a BF was thought to be. Purely circumstantial.
DeleteSome of them could have been ruled out by looking at them under a microscope.
I'll dismiss your ramblings about FB. No one takes this seriously so neither should you.
As for Ketchum. You are wrong AGAIN. Footers tore her apart a full year before she published.
Do keep up.
MMG
Do keep up? With what? The cutting edge of mainstream bigfoot science? Lol.
DeleteMmg you're a funny guy.
The documentary series Bigfoot Files bought the rights to 12 samples at a very early stage of Sykes' study. Do you know how many more samples there are for Sykes to study, of which Mullis claims two have been 'significant'?
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q32XgJBJtE
Three Cases of Bigfoot/Human Hybrids Being Studied by the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project.
Apart from the significant DNA finds, what is also quite interesting to hear is of an anonymous person who had sloping forehead, longer arms, wider feet, bigger hands, was incredibly strong with an amazing tolerance to the cold. What makes it even more interesting, is that this individual was identified by others in his community that knew of old family members stories of being woman taken; completely oblivious to this individual.
No, no... The pleasure's all mine.
In other words youve got nothing^
DeleteIts laughable that you think there are other samples that weren't included in the documentary that you claim is bigfoot. The show was called "bigfoot files" why would they leave out the ones that were actually bigfoot? Lol you are so delusional joe.
Ha!
DeleteIt is more laughable that you don't know the facts, old boy. That is not me 'thinking' anything; rather you being ignorant, stupid... Probably both.
You people need to read properly sometimes; I stated quite clearly that the documantary series had 12 samples from the early stages of the study. Last time I checked; Sykes' study is still going with certain aspects of it going through peer review.
Unbelievable^ still pegs all his hopes on sykes who severely pwned footers delivering news of their bear samples to their face.
DeleteJoe searches for the fact. He searches them on the net, not by first hand.
DeleteYap.
Shall we compare the amount of samples that came back bear, to the tens of thousands of eyewitness accounts?
DeleteClosure desperation much?
; )
What about eyewitness accounts of chupacabras? And mega-birds? And Nessie? And dragons? And witches? And Mothman? And elves?
DeleteI mean, we have 4 full seasons of monsterquest filled with magical monsters and their eyewitnesses, why do you consider only Bigfoot eyewitnesses? They must be real also all the other monsters mentioned above.
Schooled
Because if Chupacabras, Mega-birds, Nessie, dragons, witches, mothman, and elves sightings were backed up with footage, inumerable track castings, examples of scat & hair, official documents of biological evidence, DNA... Then I would.
DeletePow!
Have you ever seen the Chupacabra episode on Monsterquest on History Channel? You got plenty of all that.
DeletePOW!
No... You don't actually. Have you even seen it?
Delete(Duh?)
apparently you don't know much about el chupacabra in America...they do have biological samples, several clear videos, clear pictures, and more than one dead specimen. All things footers can never seem to get.
DeleteYou know, el chupacabra in America?
In support of MMG and JOE about the Stacy Brown thermal and Cliff's at length analysis, he was at the sight and none of us were, he came to the conclusion the creature was probably 8' 5".
DeleteI know most cynics here have not watched the Finding Bigfoot episode of that thermal, but it was truly remarkable. It had a full recreation of Bobo, who is larger than 98 percent of all humans. Bobo could not make the same one step to disappear as the creature did. It took him two completely and unnatural elongated steps to accomplish this. The side by side comparison on the TV was astonishing. The creature made Bobo look like a twig. Even the skeptic Renea who comes up with more goofy reasons for something not being a squatch, had a deer in the headlight look and said I can not explain this.
Just the side by side comparison shows the creature though bent over slightly, as a sasquatch normally is, at least 1 1/2 to 2 feet taller.
Glad I could help.
Chuck
Thank you for that Chuck, I have not had the opportunity to see that episode yet and it's not on YouTube yet either. All in good time though.
Delete10:53... There is no doubting the dog-wolf-coyote type Chupacabra, though there is no footage of the goblin-monkey-alien Chupacabra, there is no tracks, no scat, no hair... The list goes on resulting in it being a pretty bad comparison.
Bobo is not "larger than 98% of all humans."
DeleteDude is like 6'4, fat, and clumsy. Maybe 24 year old bobo was in better shape but that was 20 years and 90lbs ago.
As for El Chupacabra, there has always been the Puerto Rican version and the American version. We have always talked about the American version, seeing as we're American.
The point is; Bobo is taller than most people and in the recreation; he doesn't come near to what the subject in the thermal does.
DeleteAlso... We're not all American, and the Puerto Rican version has been disgust as long as Cryptozoology has been a subject.
I stood right next to Bobo, before i was 'escorted' out of the town hall meeting in Pawling N.Y. for the filming of the "baby monkey" (My cousin's pet) Big foot episode.
DeleteI'm 6[2' and 200lbs (at that time) and was a little taller! He's "Not that Big", But, he is very fat (at that time, i'd say 265 Lbs).
Take this info anywhere you want, i really don't care!
John W. Jones Spoke
Hey John!! What did you get 'escorted' out for??
DeleteHe's said a hundred times there spanky.
DeleteHe made a spat about the baby NY bigfoot being his cousins pet and the FB cast said nuh-uh, he cried out yes-huh! They said nuh-uh, he said up your ass I know me bigfoot! Then he got thrown out.
That's BS JONES. YA ASS WIPE!That was a real baby bigfoot.I know because I've seen it in the video!!!!!!!So there put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!!!!
DeleteFirst off Anon 2:09, How in the hell, did you know I smoked a pipe? Otherwise, you don't know shit!
Delete2nd, Go to cliff's Brackman's website, It should all be there still about the N.Y. baby Big foot Farce. Or you can go to Animal planets.com/Big foot website, go to the Bio section, and under either, cliff or Matt's , older posts (from 2011) It is all written up there. I give credit to Cliff, for posting my claim. I really do not have the time, to explain it all here.
For Anon, 1:55, basically, you nailed most of it!
Joe, i was thrown out for asking to many questions, showing "documented proof' that the Monkey in the Video was my cousin's they didn't want to learn the truth about that.
And, I refused $100 Cash, to put my hand-up to claim I saw or heard a Big foot!
John W. Jones Spoke
Until someone produces a video of a bigfoot producing these sounds there is no evidence that these are indeed bigfoot sounds.
ReplyDelete1. Melba Ketchum’s Bigfoot DNA flying circus. By a good margin (now I know that lots of crypto folks visit the site), I grudgingly award the Readers’ Choice pick to Melba. Her news this year was certainly deserving of the label “Doubtful” Melba’s whirlwind year:
ReplyDeleteShe published the paper
The paper had joke references
It failed peer review
She said something about lemurs or lemurians
She gave her Bigfoot a new name
She teamed up with Erickson to show us really lame video footage
She got into a bitter battle
She remains blinded by belief
She is writing novels now. That actually makes sense… It’s a fantasy novel.
#4 is obvously a self aware deep sea taterhole fish.
ReplyDeleteSykes could die and Oxford be destroyed in a fire and Joe would still claim the study is ongoing.
ReplyDeleteOf dear... You people make me laugh. Forget about me, look at the facts.
DeleteThe Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project is still going on, as we speak.
(Sigh)
No, that would make it a conspiracy involving Smithsonian curators and ancient aliens. Dumbass.
DeleteSound #16
ReplyDeleteNnnnoo! Nnnnnoooo! Nnnnnoooooo! Not true! It's not true! Nnnnnoooooooo!
Answer: Sound of a stuttering, twenty something male underachiever, who failed to graduate from high school due to his dependance on marijuana and other drugs, who is still living at home with his parents who failed to teach him the most basic moral standards and failed to prepare him to receive Bigfoot knowledge, and is now attempting to disrupt a website that deals in the science of the paranormal Bigfoot.
Footers do love their pot and parascience.
DeleteSup Ball Boy.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete