BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Bird Watchers Encounter Bigfoot Family in the Redwoods [Real Bigfoot Encounters]


This week's story comes first hand from Rev. Jeff's Redwoods Expedition from an avid hiker of the coastal trail in Humboldt County California. A chance encounter with a family of Bigfoot changed their lives forever. Let's hear their story...



121 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. joefitz1982@aol.com

      It won't be up long, Carl!

      Delete
    2. Joe, remember that time i gave it to you in the face?

      Delete
    3. has anybody signed Joe up for some free porn emails, if not, i suggest you all do so

      Delete
    4. Set him up with some nice tranny sites, I hear he likes that.

      Delete
    5. Online trolls are psychopaths and sadists, psychologists claim

      http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/online-trolls-are-psychopaths-and-sadists-psychologists-claim-9134396.html

      Delete
    6. The troll study has been pasted. You know what that means. Joe is taking a pwning and is getting upset. We have now entered pre meltdown

      Delete
    7. "They were also given tests that measured their responses against psychology's "Dark Tetrad": narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and a sadistic personality.
      Questions also surrounded sadistic statements including: ''I enjoy physically hurting people,” “I enjoy making jokes at the expense of others” and “I enjoy playing the villain in games and torturing other characters.”

      Delete
    8. Are you serious? I never would have believed it? Joe posting more copy and paste links?? I am shocked. And more troll study links. This correlates with Joes mini meltdown below. He lost it, and so early in the morning. poor Joe isnt anything without Enema Ernie around. Joe has no defense against the trolls, so its time for some nice copy and paste. Got patty diaper butt Joe?? Do you want your greasy face rubbed in it?

      Delete
    9. Oh, and here's your 'diaper butt';

      http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      ; )

      Delete
    10. Man look at all the stalking obsessed trolls up in here this morning. Going off the rails.

      Delete
    11. joefitz1982@aol.com

      joefitz1984@aol.com

      Delete
    12. joefitz1"982@aol.com"

      joefit"z1984@aol.c"om

      Delete
    13. Don't you just love how posting his email, one he freely posted here in the first place, shuts Joe up real good while he cries indefinitely to the admins?

      Nothing like the sounds of a British pansy in tears to start the day.

      Delete
    14. Will do.

      You act like I'm ashamed to troll the most condescending and rude poster this blog has ever had.

      It's incredibly entertaining. Who needs TV or video games when you got the emotional wreck that is joefitz?

      Delete
    15. Hey you're the one totally obsessed in a uber creepy fashion with another poster. But since you're under an anonymous I suppose it helps to hide your shame. I agree though, it is amusing to watch you guys obsessing and stalking.

      Delete
    16. ^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. I always look forward to these, really enjoyable whatever your stance on the subject.

      Delete
    2. Email me bro!

      joefitz1982@aol.com

      Delete
    3. Its just too easy.

      Bloke in a suit.

      Show us the verified evidence of bigfoot? We can do it no problem for every other species. Why not bigfoot? Too easy. Cos it don't exist.

      Royally smoked.

      The funniest thing is the footers will attempt to shoehorn anything they can to be "evidence" of bigfoot. None of it is scientificly acceptable of course but it sure does give us a hilarious circus show to watch. No complaints here.

      Let's go back to the packham bigfoot suit that joe and the resident butthurt footer and poster boy for footer stupidity were talking about earlier. Do you really look at that and think that was a recreation of the pgf? Of course it wasn't. If it was an actual recreation attempt you'd think they would at least get the colour right. The bbc just got a costume company to make them a bigfoot suit and that is what they got. This is a classic example of one of many failed arguments put forth by the footers.

      If we want to look at a patty recreation how about we actually look at one rather than using one that clearly wasnt meant to be a patty recreation.We have 2 examples of these. We have the dfoot recreation and the blevins recreation. Both excellent examples. Blevins recreated the arm proportions perfectly but his budget was too low to get a similar style fur. Dfoots recreation showed identical "muscle" and bulk, quite excellent really. This is the same guy that made patty bleevers on the bff look like fools when he photoshopped patty onto a different background and all the bleevers said it was an obvious suit. He embarrassed them so bad they banned him and swept the whole thing under the giant footers rug of ignorance. Also lets not forget that side by side shot of a gemora butt with the patty butt. Identical.

      And anyway the whole notion of requiring an identical replication is nonsense anyway. The footers know this which is why they use it, instead of doing something like, oh I dont know, find a real life specimen that matches patty.

      Its just too easy.

      Fish in a barrel.

      Now, got patty diaper butt filled with feces and urine?

      Delete
    4. Email me bro!!!

      joefitz1982@aol.com

      Also at joefitz1984@aol.com

      Delete
    5. "Show us the verified evidence of bigfoot? We can do it no problem for every other species. Why not bigfoot? Too easy. Cos it don't exist."

      This is because whenever you are presented with evidence, you claim it's a hoax, do you see how stupid you are for requesting more? Every time a piece of evidence is presented, even for it to have a particular expert in his/her respected field to it, you go into denial mode based in an agenda to outrightly attack that source as opposed to being impartial. Debating a denialist is akin to biology evolutionist debating a creationist. The denialist will focus on his own argument and close out any means of counter argument; this serves as an important level of self worth and belonging to a theory group that can provide some sense of community, whilst it also avoids the awkward reality of countering information that is without a counter point.

      "The funniest thing is the footers will attempt to shoehorn anything they can to be "evidence" of bigfoot. None of it is scientificly acceptable of course but it sure does give us a hilarious circus show to watch. No complaints here."

      I think that you will find plenty of wildlife biologists, anthropologists and forensic experts, not to mention the best genticist in the world now looking for answers, within this subject. Most who Apply their expertise have had to do so once retired because their respected careers would be attacked, but we are now seeing a move away from that with recognitions as profound as that of Dr Sykes, who, regardless of whether he has the holy grail or not, is looking for answers and is not governed by the heuristical system that is a slap in the face to the scientific model that was devised to counter such closure desperation. If Bigfoot didn't exist, it wouldn't leave tracks and tracks are usually good evidence for any wildlife biologist and the fact that these have examples of falsification does not erode the legitimacy of this source of evidence because we know that all forms of presentable evidence can be falsified in the court of law.

      Delete
    6. "Let's go back to the packham bigfoot suit that joe and the resident butthurt footer and poster boy for footer stupidity were talking about earlier. Do you really look at that and think that was a recreation of the pgf? Of course it wasn't. If it was an actual recreation attempt you'd think they would at least get the colour right. The bbc just got a costume company to make them a bigfoot suit and that is what they got. This is a classic example of one of many failed arguments put forth by the footers."

      No... That is a way to snake out of your biggest problem and it's pathetic. Packham had an entire BBC budget to throw at that effort and the entire programme was an effort to condemn the footage, and Patterson & Gimlin at any cost. Why would a documantary programme focussing on proving that the PGF was fake, not be outrightly attempting to make 'the suit', but any suit? I've come across some very poor arguments in my time, but that has to be one of the worst ever attempted at being sold. The suit was a sham and the Gimlin interview edited and sensationalised. The programme was a complete failure once you acknowledge those facts and it is fitting that a programme aimed at helping children sleep better at night should sit well with so many obsessed with that level if reassurance so deeply required from their childhoods.

      Delete
    7. "If we want to look at a patty recreation how about we actually look at one rather than using one that clearly wasnt meant to be a patty recreation.We have 2 examples of these. We have the dfoot recreation and the blevins recreation. Both excellent examples. Blevins recreated the arm proportions perfectly but his budget was too low to get a similar style fur. Dfoots recreation showed identical "muscle" and bulk, quite excellent really. This is the same guy that made patty bleevers on the bff look like fools when he photoshopped patty onto a different background and all the bleevers said it was an obvious suit. He embarrassed them so bad they banned him and swept the whole thing under the giant footers rug of ignorance. Also lets not forget that side by side shot of a gemora butt with the patty butt. Identical."

      I don't have to do anything here other than link you the sources to show how ridiculously bad your effort it...

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/3393-are-we-able-to-recreate-pgf-today/page-3

      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/leroy-blevins-unfinished-aborted.html?m=1

      ... Look how badly those attempts at recreation came out. Neither of them have the leg proportions, arm proportions, don't have evidence of bending fingers, muscle tone in the back AND legs, hair color, spinal erectors, extended toes, and the Blevins had to have the width reduced by 5%, not to mention that we don't see either examples in motion. To suggest that these recreations should be considered accurate regardless of all these failures? SPECIAL PLEADING. Oh... And thise efforts with all those failures... Does nothing but strengthen the claim Roger couldn't have made a suit that topped such shams 46 years later.

      "And anyway the whole notion of requiring an identical replication is nonsense anyway. The footers know this which is why they use it, instead of doing something like, oh I dont know, find a real life specimen that matches patty."

      In any field of research, you require an accumilation of all sources of evidence to promote legitimacy. In Patty, we have evidence that shows a bipedal hominid in motion that has no means to debunk... this being a proverbial a piece of the puzzle. To go with this we have other sources of footage, tracks, recorded speech, eyewitnesses, etc. It is quite funny to see these people use the argument that we should not only find more evidence that would be attacked, but they forget that if there argument fails (Patty recreation) that there in the footage is a Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Hominid. Every year as the evidence rolls in and we get more and more help from reputable scientists like Sykes, and no accurate effort at a suit should materialize, you become more and more hopelessly fruitless for your efforts.

      Got monkey suit?

      Fish in a barrel.

      Delete
    8. Joe has entered premeltdown. Stand clear. He is copying and pasting and giving links as quick as he can click his mouse. Joe, if you think you actually made one good point in all those paragraphs, you are deluded. Just b/c you post a link to some garbage from people you idolize, doesnt mean its correct info. You simply latch on to anyone and everyone who believes the same as you, and then you start quoting them as fact. You have no clue if they are correct or if they are even credible. But, you quote them and copy and paste their material like they are. Yet we know exactly what happened.

      You stupid footers just cant grab onto the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about. You are proved wrong constantly. And yes i do have a monkey suit? Point?

      Do you or anyone else have a bigfoot body? Thats what i thought.

      Now, proceed with your meltdown. Got patty butt diaper?

      Delete
    9. You don't have a magic monkey suit... Diaper butt?

      http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      Also... This happens every day. You post nonsense, get smashed and then you post three or four essays about my character that you know nothing about. This is no bigger evidence of not only an inability to debate or successfully argue your point, but of complete mental instability. You are stupid, you are hateful and you have been absolutely embarassed by me again today.

      You are one silly little boy aren't you?

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

      Delete
    10. Ha ha ha ha!!!

      You thought you were so clever posting that a million times, you look like an idiot now, don't you??

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    11. Folks, you have just witnessed another of joe's many meltdowns. This one probably a 4 out of 10 on the Joe scale. He is congratulating himself for posting many links to images of patty, her butt diaper, and the leaping russians diaper. And also for copying and pasting. Joe has set new expectations as to how a footer should react when schooled. he also has set new expectations for how a footer should go into meltdown after being pwned. Poor Joe has no defense so its back to the copy and paste and furious link posting. Joe, you are without a doubt the biggest hypocritical blowhard footer out there. And as far as looking like an idiot, lol, id check the last 400 threads full of people telling you how much of an idiot you are. I think that should clear that question up for you. And looking at this thread, who has been writing paragraphs?? lol. Now sit down and consider yourself schooled you little boy. Stick your face deep in that feces filled butt diaper and take a big whiff in. Got Patty diaper butt?

      Delete
    12. http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      Why aren't you discussing the subject matter anymore???

      Nuff said... My work here is complete.

      Delete
    13. LOL I just gave my entire class joe's email and we're all signing him up for anything and everything. This is fun!

      Delete
    14. ^No you didn't. But you sure are obsessed.

      Delete
    15. joefitz1"982@aol.com"

      joefit"z1984@aol.c"om

      Delete
    16. Yes we did, ernie.
      Joe fitz 1982 @all.com

      Delete
    17. Lol@ernie looking for attention

      Delete
    18. Bloke in a straitjacket, you embarrassed yourself yesterday by lying about Dfoot/Pruitt and about the Packham BBC debacle. Why are you repeating the same things today? Your claims on those two topics are false.

      Delete
    19. ^^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. joefitz1"982@aol.com"

      joefit"z1984@aol.c"om

      Delete
  4. Where's Leon?

    Out licking men's shafts I presume.

    I hear he gives the best rimjobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you run in circles where men giving other men rimjobs is the topic of discussion, I see. How is the unemployment and alcoholism going?

      Delete
    2. joefitz1"982@aol.com"

      joefit"z1984@aol.c"om

      Delete
  5. Well the poster boy for footer stupidity raised his ugly head on the brony thread. Ironic I know.

    Absolutely raging that guy. Must have touched a nerve speaking about the foundation of his religion like that. What a deluded DWA he is.

    He once again regurgitated the same lies about packhams suit being a patty replication when it clearly isnt. Such a ridiculous claim. You can tell they are getting desperate when they have to resort to such underhand tactics.

    The poster boy for footer stupidity also perfectly demonstrated the sweeping of truth under the giant rug of footer ignorance. Dfoot recreated the suit and smoked the patty bleevers with his photoshopped patty. Truth hurts I guess.

    Clinging on to the pgf cos you got nothing else speaks volumes for what footery is all about.

    Roger was no different to rick dyer of today. Many many hoaxes, lies, stories, and scams. Everywhere roger went bigfoots seemed to be. In 50 years time no doubt the community will have its very own sweaty yeti drawing lines in Microsoft paint over the tent video and photos of hank. "Produce the suit" they will cry. Face will meet palm.

    So we have proof it could be a suit. We have proof of the shadyness of the people involved and we have also zero proof of this actual species existence. That right there is the holy trinity of destruction of the cult of bigfootery.

    Sorry but you fail, again. Bigfootery fails, again.

    You can take your birthing stations, nephilim studies and horse braiding and continue your delusions. Or you can man up, admit to yourself that bigfoot is complete nonsense and join in with the adults.

    Your call bro.

    Too easy.

    Fish in a barrel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bro!!

      joefitz1982@aol.com

      joefitz1984@aol.com

      Delete
    2. Wow, BUSTED!!!! Its awfully early in the morning for Joe to be getting smoked this bad. Remember, he said today now that he has more time, that he will destroy you in a post. Yesterday he claimed he was to busy to respond, but somehow left many replies across many different threads. When you smoked him yesterday all he could do was give you the "got monkey suit" line.
      And im guessing today will be more of the same. Either you will get the monkey suit line, some copy and pasting of paragraphs Joe uses as a defense every single day, or possibly the same Patty drivel he spews every day.

      With hard evidence of footers being pwned, Joe may even go critical and have a patty butt diaper sized meltdown. Followed quickly by deleted replies. Something that Enema Ernie did yesterday in true Joe fashion. Hmmm. I wonder if they are related.

      Delete
    3. No... That is a way to snake out of your biggest problem and it's pathetic. Packham had an entire BBC budget to throw at that effort and the entire programme was an effort to condemn the footage, and Patterson & Gimlin at any cost. Why would a documantary programme focussing on proving that the PGF was fake, not be outrightly attempting to make 'the suit', but any suit? I've come across some very poor arguments in my time, but that has to be one of the worst ever attempted at being sold. The suit was a sham and the Gimlin interview edited and sensationalised. The programme was a complete failure once you acknowledge those facts and it is fitting that a programme aimed at helping children sleep better at night should sit well with so many obsessed with that level if reassurance so deeply required from their childhoods.

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/3393-are-we-able-to-recreate-pgf-today/page-3

      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/leroy-blevins-unfinished-aborted.html?m=1

      ... Look how badly those attempts at recreation came out. Neither of them have the leg proportions, arm proportions, don't have evidence of bending fingers, muscle tone in the back AND legs, hair color, spinal erectors, extended toes, and the Blevins had to have the width reduced by 5%, not to mention that we don't see either examples in motion. To suggest that these recreations should be considered accurate regardless of all these failures? SPECIAL PLEADING. Oh... And thise efforts with all those failures... Does nothing but strengthen the claim Roger couldn't have made a suit that topped such shams 46 years later.

      Got monkey suit????

      Keep crying you pathetic clowns.

      Delete
    4. Online trolls are psychopaths and sadists, psychologists claim

      http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/online-trolls-are-psychopaths-and-sadists-psychologists-claim-9134396.html

      Delete
    5. Diaper butt?

      http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      Also... It might be news to you, but the big arss on a Bigfoot is a very commonly reported. You'll find the same anatomical feature on the Leaping Russian Yeti who is very, very athletic in it's motion.

      About time you were out in your place little troll.

      Delete
    6. When Joe busts out the troll study, you know hes getting smoked

      Delete
    7. Of course you couldnt go even one thread without falling back on your 3 sole sources of info. The patty film, leaping russian, and the sykes study. Joe, your a pathetic excuse for an armchair researcher. Your the worst kind. The kind that think they have knowledge, and they dont. All you do is regurgitate the same info over and over.

      Got patty diaper butt filled with feces?

      Delete
    8. Diaper butt... This link absolutely obliterated you...

      http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      ... Now your turn, you show me a monkey suit. Oh that's right, you're not only too stupid, but you can't find a magic monkey suit, can you? That's why you have to reel off insults on every thread.

      Shut up, sit down cause you've been nailed again, silly little boy.

      Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    9. Full metldown mode folks. And yes Joe, we have the magic monkey suit, its called the Blevins suit. Your a pathetic excuse for an armchair researcher. Dont be mad b/c you have no rebuttle for how bad you were schooled today. And havnet you learned??? No one ever clicks on your links Joe, b/c they all blatantly show how bad patty had the feces filled diaper butt.
      Joe would you like to have your face smeared in that patty feces diaper?

      Delete
    10. Wow this is getting really sad.

      Joe is now claiming the ENTIRE bbc budget went on packhams bigfoot suit. Wow. That must have run into the billions then! What a groundbreaking statement joe thanks for that insight.

      Wow just wow.

      You can tell when packham stated with authority that the pgf was a hoax during the final segment of the show that it broke joes heart. Shattered it.

      The fact remains. Zero evidence of primate in North America. Not a shred. Something that if we are to believe the stories that these things are spotted on an almost daily basis and would have to run into numbers in the thousands to be a viable breeding population, would in reality leave an abundance of evidence of its existence. There is no evidence, because it does not exist.

      Too easy.

      Fish in a barrel.

      Delete
    11. 3:32... http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      3:41... It's a sure sign of you lacking pretty much anything else as a counter argument that you should twist words like a ten year old. The monent in which you suggest a 'bombshell' was dropped in Packham's sham, actually made me amazed at how low you people would stoop for closure as it's pretty obvious the entire phone call interview was edited, badly. You do not hear Gimlin explain himself as well as he probably would have liked and from this snippet of an interview, Packham focuses on a small statement, a rational reflectance on Bob's part (to which anyone would in thinking over an incident so life changing and profound time and time again)... And twists that as his main reason to denounce the footage as a hoax; this was child like and invert much enjoy that you should focus on such. Packham ran with this and implied that Gimlin had let the cat out of the bag, so to speak... Embarrassing. Gimlin's statement, to anyone who is impartial, would suggest merely he has nothing to hide and like he said... It would have been a pretty risky prank considering he had a rifle loaded and pointed at Patty. I have also worked in editing and know how easy it is the manipulate the viewer.

      The frequency of sightings are exactly what one would expect from a highly social, highly evasive largely nocturnal creature that buries it's dead. The accumilation of tracks, hair, etc... May have turned into more definitive proof if mainstream science would have contributed by now. Now we have some big hitters looking for answers, biological evidence might not be far off.

      I love the way that someone who is denial to the point of bat s**t crazy would suggest that these creatures 'should' be in the thousands, and you would not need this amount for a breeding population, though I am in no way suggesting to know how many there are. However... For what ever numbers there are, they do indeed leave an abundance of evidence; the joke here is that you are simply too sacred, too in denial, and probably too stupid to get past your heuristical, closure-desperate stance to agknowledge it.

      I guess it avoids looking silly trying to debate it when you get put right again.

      Skepfools in a barrel.

      ; )

      Delete
    12. A counter argument to what? You haven't put forward a single argument that wasnt a strawman or special pleading for your magic monkey.

      The entire phone call was edited? Wow even that was a low blow for you. He said the words "looking back roger could have fooled me" they came out of his mouth no one elses.

      Denial to the point of bats**t crazy? Denial of what exactly? Its not like you have dropped a rotting bigfoot corpse at my door and I am there saying nope that's not a bigfoot. Instead you are offering nothing that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked and destroyed.

      The religion is dead. Deal with it.

      As technology gets better and better, every single day is yet another nail in the coffin. Its time to wake up and smell the diaper butt.

      The notion of skeptics "being scared of the truth" is another hilarious statement. There is not a single skeptic that would not want these things to exist. If they did it would be a win for everyone. Incredible. A relict species closer to us than anything else on the planet. Simply groundbreaking. HOWEVER, that does not make it real. It makes it real in the minds of the footers and that is understandable but it certainly is not real in actuality.

      Most footers would agree there is as of yet any verified evidence. Not you though. You just love your 100% modern human dna, yet ape like proportions and impossible traits. You can't get enough of that woo and jump aboard anything put forward and claim it as fact.

      Face it joe its over.

      You lose by default.

      No monkey is no monkey.

      It doesn't even need pointing out. Its blatant.

      Fish in a barrel. Too easy.

      Delete
    13. Your heuristical mindset would render you with an incapabity to look past what sits better with you, but the truth is that once you are presented with examples of evidence that can't be hoaxed, like some tracks for example... It is down to you to then find a counter argument to debunk that source and not claim that we haven't provided a shred of evidence after not lifting a finger to debunk it, because that then means that the source is subject to denial as opposed to challenged appropriately. You don't have a counter argument to where these tracks are found, you don't have a counter argument to dermals that have consistent species traits from opposite sides of the country, from many years apart, and you don't have a professional opinion equal to that of one of the very best forensic specialists in the States who also doubles up as a primate print specialist as well.

      Yet you suggest there is no evidence... See how this works? Still with me??

      As was put to you up top, it is a very natural thing for Gimlin to reflect like that... It shows he has nothing to hide. I think you would find that if Gimlin was permitted to explain himself a little better, he would very much beg to differ. It's childish and desperate to use that in favour of proving an argument... Especially as the fundemental aspect of the programme failed so miserably, and this would explain a lot.

      I laugh at the notion that this subject is a religion when you have so many scientists plying their expertise, I really doubt add Sykes shared that sentiment. If the 'religion is dead' then you wouldn't be here and here is nothing more fundementally religious-like than someone who has to come here, day in day out to try and convince many that what they are thinking is wrong off the back of providing absolutely no good argument to not think this. We have psychologists that state that what you do is bordering on psychopathy, I think you'll find that many fundementalists fit that profile as well.

      As technology gets better day by day... You still have no means to debunk this subject, why is that do you think? Think about that... Why haven't you exposed this subject as a load of balony?? Instead, we have more and more scientists turning to things like hominology, asking the questions that people like you don't because those answers are beyond your ability to not only resolve, but threatens your perfect little idea of the world where all your questions are answered; now that reminds me of a religion, would you agree?

      If you wanted this subject to be legitimate, then you would be impartial to the facts, your sentiment that there is no evidence is simply obliterated, purely by the existence of this blog for example. If there was nothing to this subject then there would be no need to bother with it, your actions speak of someone very desperate to argue that case and is the embodiment that you are wrong... Ironic really.

      Most footers who believe in this species would have to have something to go by, otherwise what would they base that belief on? Didn't think that one through too carefully did you, though it's not like I'm talking to Einstein here, is it?

      ; )

      Delete
    14. Poor joe very poor even for you.

      Looks like you have gone back to the prove the negative fallacy.

      Its is your job to prove it. It is noones job to prove the negative, something which by definition cannot be done.

      So lets see what evidence you do have. And to be fair I will be looking at the standard of evidence required for any species in the planet. Lets not make bigfoot any different if it is after all a real flesh and blood creature.

      1. Published papers proving bigfoot is real. None.

      2. Verified specimen. None.

      3. Unambiguous video corroborated with dna collection and published peer review. None.

      4. Published peer review paper on a bigfoot hair sample. None.

      5. Published peer review paper on a bigfoot scat sample. None.

      6. Published peer review paper on a bigfoot blood sample. None.

      7. Published peer review paper on a bigfoot saliva sample. None.

      8. Live specimen in captivty. None.

      9. Prolonged and highly documented habituation scenarios with clear video of interactions. None.

      It doesn't look to good in your corner joe.

      Just too easy.

      Delete
    15. The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false. It can also happen when one assumes that something is false if it cannot be proven true.

      A published paper proving something Hominid related may be on the way in the form of Sykes' study... That's in the pipeline so sit tight and pray to your fundementalist's god.

      If you cannot show us a means as to make the 'Patty suit', off the back of us having a constume expert who has applied years' worth of research and analysis, then the race for a winning argument is lead by us. That source is THE source that you require as legitimate footage, if you can't debunk that after us presenting it, then you lose bro... It's as easy as that.

      Bigfoot hair has been sequenced by the best forensic hair lab in the world that determined it was from an unknown hominid. To publish that you would require multiple examples of it to prove that it is indeed repeatable scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean that one example of unknown primate DNA stops being that because you don't have more of it or because you don't have a source to the contrary. Ever wonder why Sykes is still looking for hair samples??

      Journals shmernals; a convenient kop out. Science has ridiculed this subject so why would anyone release a DNA finding that requires repeated examples of it any way? You people claim to know so much about science but you are selective of what fits your little minds.

      Also... Shall I list the examples of where journals and peer reviews have for it wrong or have deliberately mislead the scientific public? Such a black and white world is it?

      http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=7584

      http://boingboing.net/2012/09/21/of-gm-corn-and-rat-tumors-why.html

      http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/04/open-access-is-not-the-problem/

      ... Now... By your logic, these processes should be cast aside as unreliable now, shouldn't they?

      "Publication Bias is a bias on the part of scientific journal editors and publishers, in which they are more likely to publish studies with positive results over those with negative results. Positive results are thought to be more likely to attract readership and sell journals. Positive studies are more likely to catch the eye of the mainstream media. Studies that show no effect or negative effects of the idea in question are not as interesting, or so it is thought."

      Just think how much panic there would be if the 70% of wilderness in your country was to hide giant hairy people?

      Every time you pat yourself on the back, I just come back with a heartbreaker... Must be difficult for you, old boy.

      Delete
    16. Oh... And all of a sudden you require habituation? Oh m dear lord, and what would you label it should such information come to you?

      The exact details of all habituation areas are not made public due to fear of the area being compromised by hunters, therefore this would lead you to label the source as unreliable due to such restraints.

      You want all these sources of evidence yet you would merely label it as BS anyway.

      "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
    17. Admit it joe, you're out of your league.

      MMG

      Delete
    18. What with those posts? Did you read them?? Fake MMG... I think with your comment there, it's the part of the thread where you people call me names and write 'meltdown' a few hundred times because you don't have the intelligence for a come back.

      Delete
    19. Fake MMG is the biggest obsessed troll in the bigfoot community today.

      Delete
    20. joefitz1"982@a*ol.com"

      joefit"z1984@aol.c"o*m

      Delete
    21. Bloke in a straitjacket, you were busted yesterday for lying about Dfoot-Pruitt and about the BBC bigfoot. Since you were found out and exposed, why are you repeating today what you said yesterday? Readers already know they are lies.

      Delete
    22. ^^^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors

      Delete
  6. Joe if i gave you a patty butt dipaer themed G O L D E N . Would you hold it against me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      Soul destroying.

      Delete
    2. joefitz1"982@a*ol.com"

      joefit"z1984@aol.c"o*m

      Delete
  7. 1) Bob Gimlin has admitted Chico was the horse he was riding at Bluff Creek. Chico is Bob Heironimus' horse. When Gimlin was cornered with it, he said he had the horse because he was breaking it in for Bob. He said he had it for three weeks. Two problems. First, Patterson and Gimlin told the Times-Standard reporter, who Wakeup says was editor Lawrence Beal, whose wife says he was in on Bigfoot hoaxing, that they had arrived at Bluff Creek one week before on a Saturday, not three weeks. That discrepancy is one thing, but here comes The Whopper: Gimlin is saying in print and to Bigfooters that the horse he had was his and that it did not rear and throw him because it was a trailwise, experienced old roping horse. Bang. Boom. Done. Impossible. You can not be breaking in a horse for someone because it is a trailwise, experienced old roping horse. The purpose of breaking in a horse is to make it ridable. That horse by his description is very uneasily scared and very ridable. Also, if he is training a horse for someone, what the heck is he doing taking that person's horse three states away on a potentially dangerous Bigfoot hunt? Whaaaa?

    2) Roger Patterson told the public and media that he went to Bluff Creek because while he was in WA on another hunt, he was alerted to tracks in the area. He said he hadn't been there since 1964. But now we have his own film footage that was never released to the public that shows he was there in 1967 and that it was well before October 20. Here comes The Whopper: On May 26, 1967, he gets $700 from Vilma Radford. She gives him this money because he says he needs a camera which he assures her he is going to use to film Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. This is several months before he is supposed to be alerted about tracks in the area, which were found not until September. The official story was that he went there just to film the tracks, which were old by the time they got there, for his "documentary." Boom. Bang. Done. Impossible. He already had a camera. He didn't need the $700 for a camera. We have now film from two different cameras of his trip in NorCal where he had Jerry with him. They were there. They were right in the area where Bluff Creek is. He's already got contacts with Bigfooters in the area. He's totally there. He said he hadn't been to Bluff Creek since '64. This is huge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg Long is a proven liar.

      Got monkey suit?

      Didn't think so... Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    2. ^ No arguments

      Got Bigfoot body?

      Don't think so

      Delete
    3. Joe is right, Greg Long is a proven liar.

      What's more? Patterson was a known hoaxer.

      Schooled.

      MMG

      Delete
    4. Read your comment back and work out where you look silly in that post... The single worst fake MMG ever, you smashed the record.

      Delete
    5. Oh... And 6:24...

      Some things are simply outside of your imediate experiences, therefore footage would be the next best thing, but that can always be a 'hoax', can't it?

      Shall I list the things that you believe in though you haven't touched it yourself?

      Delete
    6. Like your p*nis? I don't believe you have a p*nis

      Delete
    7. No Joe, this is the real MMG.

      Like many others, I am tired of your constant bickering with the trolls.

      You have ruined this blog and this is the last you will see me here.

      MMG

      Delete
    8. I think you've even broken that record you set on the previous post.

      You really know how to break the barriers; the sky's the limit.

      Delete
    9. joefitz1"9"82@a*ol.com"

      joefit"z1984@aol.c"o*m"

      Delete
    10. More Long Lies. The usual from the skepto-flunktards.

      Delete
  8. Joe! it's ttl! aw are ya? amazing staf as always, trolls b trolled! lol! how are yu? wish to know, whaz your job? ttl!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey TTL!! I don't really say publicly what I do, however I do share all my info with my friends and as soon as you get that email sorted, we'll have some bloody good chats my friend. Any news? Anything you'd like to discuss??

      Delete
    2. gud! hope b able to do that soon! wish to discuss dis! why patty seems have white feets, leaping yeti not! dark! whaz your opinion? whys that? ttl!

      Delete
    3. Could be a racial difference? There are widely reported different skin colours for this creature and is by all accounts; quite diverse in appearance.

      Delete
    4. joefitz1"982@a*ol.com"

      joefit"z1984@aol.c"o*m

      Delete
    5. ^^^No one cares about your email addresses. Give it up. It's weak.

      Delete
  9. 1. Published papers proving bigfoot is real. None.

    2. Verified specimen. None.

    3. Unambiguous video corroborated with dna collection and published peer review. None.

    4. Published peer review paper on a bigfoot hair sample. None.

    5. Published peer review paper on a bigfoot scat sample. None.

    6. Published peer review paper on a bigfoot blood sample. None.

    7. Published peer review paper on a bigfoot saliva sample. None.

    8. Live specimen in captivity. None.

    9. Prolonged and highly documented habituation scenarios with clear video of interactions. None.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points. Now ask yourself why this could be the case? What with the thousands and thousands of eye witness encounters over the centuries and into modern times describing the exact same creature to a T. I dunno it could just be another myth. But I like to keep an open mind.

      Delete
    2. Good question why could this be the case?

      Simple. They don't exist.

      Delete
    3. Exactly the same creature? what the heck are you saying, accounts are inconsistent like s*it. from the color of the eyes at night, to coned head/non coned head, to the shape of the nose, etc.

      Delete
    4. Yah, humans have slightly different attributes from one another as well. What's your point? The general description however, is what I'm talking about. Nice try though.

      Delete
    5. joefitz1"982*@a*ol.com"

      joefit"z198*4@aol.c"o*m

      Delete
    6. bipedal and quadrupedal together is what you refer as "slightly" different attribute? Man you're stupid.
      Nice try though Joe, it's clear that is your style, bro

      Delete
    7. joefitz1"982@a*ol.com"

      joefit"z1984@aol.c"o*m

      Delete
    8. Most of the accounts are of a biped though. Who knows about the walking on all four things, but hey it's not far fetched to believe they can do both if that's the case. But hey, thanks for keeping it mature without the childish personal attacks.

      Delete
    9. ^ obsessed with bigfoot d*ck

      Delete
    10. And with that post, you just tweaked yourself as Kent Skeptard.

      joefitz1"982@a*ol.com"

      joefit"z1984@aol.c"o*m

      Delete
    11. what you mean, that joefitz has two mail? one with 1982 and the other with 1984=

      Delete
    12. Used to be 84 but he made a new one at 82.

      Probably still uses both though.

      Delete
    13. He's been using 82 as recently as today

      Delete
    14. but the * and " marks are for real or are there just so that the comment doesn't get deleted?

      Delete
    15. Joe you have quite the stalking fan base.

      Delete
    16. Yes because shawn has it where it gets auto deleted. Joe fitz 1982 @aol.com

      One word

      Delete
    17. lol @ ernie/joe, fear rising up

      Delete
    18. Ernie and Joe:

      same writing style
      same vocabulary
      same language
      same deleting comments habit
      same posting times

      never post simultaneously

      what a loser that welsh is

      Delete
    19. Joe fitz ! Ttl I will give the tools on this end to make a better judgement on sasqwatch cause if I can't prove to u than there's nothing out there than its a bust! Looking forward to email, and I agree with a lot u have to say buddy!! TTL!

      Delete
    20. ^^^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors

      Delete
  10. Matt and Bobo on the hunt for bigfoot

    ReplyDelete