Possible Bigfoot Eyeshine Caught on Video Take a Look
Bigfoot group the Tree Peekers got some possible bigfoot activity recently, and posted this video of what may be bigfoot eyeshine. It's kind of hard to catch, but it is definitely there. Check it out.
raccoon
ReplyDeletein memory of mr.chcuck prahl.
ReplyDeleteGone but not forgotten
It's official folks, the Krauts are your World Cup winners !
ReplyDeleteHoaxed and a Fraud!
ReplyDeleteIts probably some n@gger running around in the woods.
ReplyDeleteYou must lead a sad, lonely life!
DeletePoor thing. I feel so sorry for you!
MMC
+ 10,000
DeleteNo anon 3:14 Im not lonely because your skanky momma keeps me company.
DeleteWhat an inbred lowlife. Some never evolve. I've seen more tact in a 4 year old.
DeleteHas anyone stared at this black screen for the whole video and found the supposed "eye shine"?
ReplyDeleteDat lack of monkey tho. Unforgivable.
ReplyDeleteJust like all other hoaxers, there's a point where nothing further can be accomplished without either: a) fessing up to the con or b) making up some grand excuse for quitting like the monsters are all gone or there's no more need to look since personal satisfaction has been achieved and there's no need to try to convince the masses or some other gobbly gook.
ReplyDeletePredictable and comical.
No bigfoot DNA has ever been found on anything for a single simple reason: bigfoots are not real.<- that's a period.
ReplyDeletehow many decades of reports and no solid evidence?
ReplyDeletenot " when" but "if" at this point
how can something supposedly that big exist without a carcass?
some hunters have all kinds of animals on their trail cameras. just 1 BF please
BFF looney tooner of the day. Try to read this and not laugh:
ReplyDelete"One can argue over what you are seeing in the film...is it a Bigfoot, etc. But you can not reasonably dispute whats in the film is a living, breathing, creature. It is not a suit, or a hoax. This is proven by Dr. Meldrum's and Bill Munn's work. You can view it how you want, or dispute whether or not it "proves" Bigfoot, but you cannot argue that it is a suit, I mean you can, but its no longer a valid argument. That is not an opinion, like it or not, that is a fact, a conclusion of their work. Acceptance is not a requirement of a conclusion.
Want to argue that it is not Bigfoot? That is fine, then feel free to argue what it is, a mutant human, a mutant gorilla, the last of an unknown species, whatever you like, but we do know, and have seen proven, it is not a suit.
If your going to argue that, then feel free to write a rebuttal. Do a paper of your own, and submit it for review. The film keeps getting clearer and clearer, technology reveals more and more, write the paper. They did, and its very thorough, passed review, and is sound. Do the same."
This guy is crazy right?
DeleteSo what about you?
You've taken the time to copy and paste his views onto a renegade BF site where the opinions of staunch crazy anti BF guys are simply ignored.
We of course ask ourselves who is the crazy one.....
Shooting fish in a very small barrel.
MMG
^bigfoot believers...they're the crazy ones- just to clarify
Delete@ 3:30
DeleteAre you the mentally ill JREF footer who was pretending to be in another country fighting off insurgents while posting about Bigfoot or are you one of the chimps that believed him ?
wow that top picture is the clearest pic of bigfoot I've ever seen
ReplyDeleteThis post was made by a POSSIBLE bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteLOL. You bigfooters are a riot! My anal butt-shine would pass for "evidence". Lurked here for months watching, reading, and laughing at all you believers. The slams and honest criticism are great. But nothing less than heavy sedation can make you change your minds. Children!
ReplyDeleteI bet you've seen a lot of anal butt shine. Now get upstairs and shave your mother's back before her boyfriend Tim Fasano gets there.
Delete"What we see when we examine any entity prescribed as a Sasquatch or hominid variety there of is a window into other like species predicated as post-australopithicine/post-habilis. Therefore, it is necessary to preclude sub-species verification when we examine artifice subjectively if, for no other reason that , we, as scientists and cryptozoologists, as it were, are, all to often, intrepic foregoers. That is to say we let our evidence dismiss class identification when we exonerate it. That is no clearly evidenced in our descriptions of dermal ridges in Pacific North West Sasquatch who have been figuratively tagged in so much as being recorded visually by nascent field researchers and the like."
ReplyDeleteStuart Hothlider - The Mexican Bigfoot
Stuart Hothlider is on the mark every time. Has his newest report been published?
DeleteWait! Listen carefully, it's a troll.
ReplyDelete^ Wait! Listen carefully, its Blueberry Jones, a waif that thinks she's funny.
Delete