Thursday, August 14, 2014

I didn't know sloths were this slow


This was filmed in Costa Rica. At the end of the video, a thoughtful person decided to help the sloth cross a busy street. Unfortunately, there isn't always a good Samaritan around and some die on the streets. :(




178 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Obama our DEAR LEADER is ending his holiday early to deal with an immigration crisis.

      Delete
    2. ans ISIS are our allies asks Obama ors McCain thays in da knows

      Delete
    3. ^^ no worries a osama bin laden look alike crosses the border from from Mexico into the United States.
      Senator Reid who infamously declared a few weeks ago that the southern U.S.-Mexican border “was secure.”

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. ans tham border jumpin mexicuns gits eatin by tham hawgs thays shure is

      Delete
  3. ^ all the above - not one has bothered to read the article

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What article? It's two sentences. And no, I didn't read them.

      Delete
  4. Every single article on a blog about bigfoot that isn't about bigfoot is just another nail in the coffin of footery and more proof that bigfoot don't exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lemme ask ya`...d`ya really think all the historical reports etc and evidence such as footprints are all just fabrication ?
      D`ya truly think there`s a massive conspiracy ? ..there is only one logical conclusion to reach and that is that bigfoot is a real creature.

      Delete
    2. Every single troll on a blog about bigfoot that troll others relentlessly is just another nail in the coffin of the mentally ill and more proof that children that aren't loved at home do exist.

      Delete
    3. Where? How many are there? What do they eat? How do they remain hidden? Why no clear video or photos? Why no body? Body parts? DNA? Why no roadkills? Why no signs, scat, prints, nests? Why none have turned up during the mass forestation of the USA? Why none on aerial thermal surveys? Cascade carnivore trail cam survey? Why zero bigfoots?

      Do u not see?

      It aint rocket science.

      Delete
    4. I don't own a monkey suit personally Joe, no.

      Delete
    5. 2:48 I guess the only solution is for you to perhaps go looking for one, no?

      Delete
    6. That was for 2:45, and let me just tell you that I've seen one twice. The first time, my colleague saw the same thing I did. That's all the proof I need, it's not up to me to prove to you their existence.

      Delete
    7. Why should I believe you? You have no proof.

      Delete
    8. You don't have to believe me. You dont even have to be on a blog about bigfoot.

      Delete
    9. 2:45...

      Where? There is 70% of the US as wilderness for the to conceal themselves in highly social groups.

      How many? Hard to say, but increasing sightings may be telling.

      How do they remain hidden? They are wild people, therefore very intelligent (evade in groups) with the sensory attributes of animals. Check out the Domino effect.

      Why no photos? PGF. Also, all photos are also branded as hoaxes by 'skeptics' too.

      Body part? There is 150 years worth of archaeological and anthropological studies documenting giant human skeletal remains in the US.

      DNA? There might be very little to separate between modern human and archaic humans, check out cro-magnon for an example.

      Why no road kills?

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/watch-interview-with-retired-forest.html

      Signs? Unless you've been living under a rock, there are innumerable prints, scat signs and alleged nests.

      Mass forestation? Accounts for nothing when you have a subject that can move around as well as this. Would actually account for the reasons as well as deer numbers soaring, that more people are seeing them.

      Aerial thermal? Would a subject from the air look any different to a thermal blob of a bear? We have great thermal by the way.

      Cascade Carnivore? Let's compare the Cascade Carnivore Study to the size of the PNW. Then, let's compare the number of months that study had gone on for, to that of the evidence accumulation for Sasquatch during the same length of time. It's an old argument and there have been trail cams erected all over the country for many years... Bigfoot ain't a wolverine, a wolf, a grizzly, a lynx... It's a type of human that has evaded people and in particular; technology for this long. Why? Because it is a a big pink flag in a see of green... It is an intrusion in a home where they know the slightest bit of detail to stay one step ahead of all other apex predators, and us to survive.

      Shy zero Bigfoot? Plenty found;

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU

      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM

      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w

      ... None caught. It ain't rocket science.

      Delete
    10. Text book footer excuses^

      Delete
    11. 2:48... Got magic monkey suit?

      2:54... I don't think you understand, we cannot prove the subject exists, but we have scientifically verified evidence that points to a unknown primate leaving it. Unless your brainwashed or being rhetorical, that's significant.

      Delete
    12. Joe summing up perfectly that there is no good evidence

      Delete
    13. The prove you need to classify... You need a type specimen. That means that the evidence isn't there.

      Delete
    14. Defeated by what bigfoot exactly? Hahaha we are still waiting

      Delete
    15. I'd lose if you dropped a bigfoot body on my doorstep or you had acknowledgement by nature journal. Until then you always lose.

      Delete
    16. I'm not on a blog about something that I don't believe exists. Who's the loser?

      Delete
    17. I assume you watch films that you know are not real?

      Delete
    18. I don't spend all day everyday on a blog begging someone to show me proof of something that I obviously want to believe exists by trolling them.

      Delete
    19. It's education my friend. And for you it is free. So be grateful.

      Delete
    20. 3:08... Plenty found;

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU

      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM

      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w

      ... None caught.


      3:13... If someone dropped a Bigfoot on your doorstep, you'd cry deformed tramp.

      3:20... This is you;

      Teacher: What does your daddy do for fun at home when he's not working ?

      Kid : He looks up Bigfoot stuff.

      Teacher: Oh.

      Kid : He posts about it on a bunch of different websites and he also watches Bigfoot shows and has some books about it.

      Teacher: So he's a footer ?

      Kid : No, he says he's not like those idiots cuz he's a skeptic.

      Teacher: LOL"

      Delete
    21. The kid in that is calling footers idiots

      Delete
    22. ^Clearly missing the point. Poor fellow

      Delete
    23. Figure,that out all by yourself, genius?

      Delete
    24. What an intelligent response. Butthurt much?

      Delete
    25. No. Its all quite funny really.

      Delete
    26. Someone who is laughing a lot can not be described as angry

      Delete
    27. ^so angry about being destroyed be Joe daily, he's laughing hysterically as a result of insanity.

      Delete
    28. It has a calming effect. same as crying when your upset. Some people laugh instead of cry both because of course they would look sensitive and girly and laughter can release the same endorphines

      Delete
    29. It was obvious and not only funny but very true.

      Delete
    30. The difference between footers being footers and children with imaginary friends, or boogie men in their closet is that footers continue to push for Biological Existence and scientific approval.

      It's not your belief that is in question, you are free to believe whatever hogwash you choose, it's the field continuing for legitimacy and acceptance as an extant creature that draws criticism.

      Delete
    31. That's just a picture of DC after a night of butt plugging away with the JREF crew.

      Delete
    32. "A conscious entity practicing science can only draw on its subjective experiences to form beliefs. This means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are generally two assumptions which must be taken entirely on faith."

      Some of the people who are not concerned with backward, uneducated criticism;

      George Schaller, PhD is recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America. He is a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society.

      Extant creatures do not leave sign, are not seen.

      Delete
    33. Extant creatures do leave sign, do leave biological evidence, do have type specimens to reference.

      When you can't copy and paste on something, you're rather error prone and short on vocabulary.

      Delete
    34. When you have little in the way of a counter argument, you're rather prone to twisting words literally.

      Delete
    35. "When you can't copy and paste on something, you're rather error prone and short on vocabulary."

      This coming from the troll formerly known as "Mike Honcho".That's just rich.Not to mention an exhibitionist.

      Delete
    36. Now DSA, let's not call out exhibitionists named Mike. They have feelings too. :)

      Delete
    37. In fact I'm currently using the old Jason Mraz technique. I go out with nothing but a hat on and a six string and tell them "I've been spending way too much time checking my tongue in the mirror, and bending over backwards just to try and see clearer, but my heart filled up the glass...and I made a new drink and I laughed....I guess what I be sayin is there ain't no better reason, to throw away your vanities and just go with the seasons, it's what we aimed to do, our name is our virtue, but I won't hesitate no more, no more, this cannot wait....I'm yours......"

      Delete
    38. My DSA Caliornian stalker,

      It is obvious to me that you do not understand the English language. It would be "rich" if anything I did was an error, or if 90% of my posts were copy + pastes...

      Shhh...the kitchen beckons...

      And Mike, I believe it's "but my breath fogged up the glass, so I drew a new face and I laughed."

      Delete
    39. Had to change the lyrics. I've been unable to put my face too close to a mirror since the late 80s. :)

      Delete
    40. Any new pics lately DC?I heard JREF Monthly needs a new centerfold.

      Delete
    41. You already got the Lifetime Membership preview email, stop being so greedy you gluttonous little pachyderm.

      Publishing begins next month @ www.youzabiggerfreakthanme.eu

      Delete
    42. sometimes Bigfoots lookin lack tham sloths sos you athinkin that be a sloth overe yonder but it abin a bigfoot shure is

      Delete
    43. A bit paranoid there, aren't you, Crampz? You think everyone is me. This is my first time responding to you since the Joe supposed banning. I don't stalk you, ever. You have another DSA, and it isn't me.

      The fact that you come by once a month is too much visiting for me, Crampz. I need some Midol !!!

      Delete
  5. "Yep, no question about it: the folks who protest the loudest - and most monotonously - that they insist on objectivity and science live in denial, and objectivity is the first - they make sure of it - thing they throw out the window.

    The logical practical scientific and obvious conclusion to those who have reviewed the evidence is that the sasquatch phenomenon is rooted in zoology.

    The only way to avoid this: denial and ignorance (the latter benign or willful)." - DWA

    Let me ask u this DWA.... Got monkey?

    ReplyDelete
  6. So if Munns "proves" that patty is a bigfoot so what? Where do the footers go from there? There is still no bigfoots anywhere and the general public just don't care about the topic. The footers are still in the same position with nothing to convince anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plenty found;

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU

      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM

      ... None caught.

      Delete
    2. None found. None caught. Joe smoked.

      Delete
    3. Open your mind nothing will hurt you

      Delete
    4. I would reflect on that very statement if I were you, you're doing my work for me.

      Delete
    5. The meaning remains the same boy

      Delete
    6. Less so when you can't spell... And stick and stones don't prove any of your points.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. The one running the fools errand. Ie you.

      Delete
    9. I would say the one resorting to stick and stones to compensate lack of argument with spelling mistakes, myself.

      Delete
    10. 2:40, get on Facebook today, friend request Ed Waterman, he's a younger healthier Mike Brookreson with a stable relationship and fantastic camera skills and equipment. If you can look at his complete profile of pics and fell me there's no clear new evidence then one of is blind. Sadly my mother told me if I didn't stop it might happen. :)

      Delete
    11. FACEBOOK = NSA
      for your SAFETY

      Delete
    12. Bend over y`all and get ready to accept the "truth"..and like a good thrusting the truth hurts somewhat

      Delete
    13. like embassador stevens was bent over by the religion of peace folks

      Delete
    14. Ed waterman? Really? I thought the pic of the lady walking her dog was supposed to be a joke, but people actually take him seriously?

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. See how easy it was to come to terms with that?

      Delete
    2. Got magic alien autopsy suit?

      Delete
    3. Well according to your arguments your lack of an alien autopsy suit means the alien autopsy is real.

      Delete
    4. I also have scientists presenting my source as legitmate evidence to which must be tested. I can't find an alien or tipsy equivalent on the Internet, do you know of one?

      Delete
    5. For the sake of not reposting comments I've done a million time; go do your own homework.

      Delete
    6. Bill Munns not a scientist.

      Meldrum is a scientist but has never stated that the film is real. In fact he dances around the subject a lot. He also had to add to Munns paper that a hoax cannot be ruled out.

      Disotell is a scientist but is extremely skeptical of bigfoot despite having a large interest in the subject. He has never issued a statement to say the pgf is real.

      Delete
    7. http://www.isu.edu/rhi/index.shtml

      All your points dealt with in one link.

      ; )

      Delete
    8. Guess you didn't even read the points or are too dumb to take them in.

      Delete
    9. Says the one too scared to open the link.

      ; )

      Delete
    10. How about this link

      http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/whats-up-with-dr-jeff-meldrum-the-bigfoot-professor/

      Check mate smokey

      Delete
    11. Here's an old response to the same source;

      "It's pretty simple, as was put to you up top... Maybe he simply didn't know about the re-evaluated height proportions that Munns has most reached at, this wouldn't be far different from many people within the field that still maintain Patty's height is at that.

      But hey! If we can't prove his research wrong, let's find inconsistencies in his presentations, eh? Career tarnishing... Totally.

      If he profits off his work, then that's fine in my book. If you were an author and at the centre of a research field, you may get a little lazy and forget to update your touring material, it means little about the credibility of said researcher,, and certainly doesn't mean he's not deserving of making some money from his hard work."

      We've checked, and you can't spell and don't qualify.

      : (

      Delete
    12. BIGFOOTs are GRAY hybrids GRAYs been making clones and hybrids for years

      Delete
  8. "The problem is that the book involves a sighting by a man who was an admitted fraud and who was in the process of making a fake BF documentary when this sighting supposedly happened. There is no evidence beyond the film and the fake footprints that the creature exists. There is no original film of the encounter. And the man who claimed to make the sighting (a self-described BF hunter) never went back to the area to look for the creature. So the evidence is piled pretty high that proving the film is not a fake is a fool's errand."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who admitted to being a fraud? Lies.

      The documentary and the footage were two separate projects.

      "There is no evidence beyond the film and the fake footprints that the creature exists." Rhetorical twonk... Prove the tracks are fake before making claims.


      "Roger's next plans were to capture a Bigfoot, which he planned a full expedition returning to California and searching all the way up to Canada. He planned a one-year expedition with tracking dogs, cages, a large crew, and the entire project filmed. This would have been a huge financial project. So they immediately went to Hollywood for funding, but they turned him down.

      Roger then went on his film tour- he made lots of money, started his own organization, and started investigating capture claims to bag one that way (and was duped in the process). He partnered with Ron Olson to fund the 'capture expedition' that he originally planned. They were going to fund the expedition themselves by making a movie, but that never panned out and the expedition never happened.

      Roger kept investigating claims. He eventually had Ron do investigations for him because by that time he was getting too sick. Roger died and Ron basically continued where they left off doing research, and ended up making a docudrama movie based on Roger's ideas (Sasquatch: Legend of Bigfoot).

      For one, a lot more people were in and out of that area immediately following the film. So the odds of seeing another in the general area were much more slim.

      He also had no means to capture a Bigfoot which would be the next logical step.

      We could speculate all day long and go over 'would haves' and 'could haves', but reality is never that black and white. The facts show that Patterson did make immediate plans for a return to California and a capture- it just didn't pan out financially."

      - Roguefooter of the BFF

      Delete
    2. Reality. The excuses were at 3:25 for not finding a monkey suit.

      Delete
    3. No 9 foot rock clacking creek strolling diaper butted fake hairy missile tittied gorillas.

      Delete
    4. Scroll down to about half way down here;

      http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/p-g44-buresh/

      ... Over your diaper butt and apart from be gorilla part, you seem like you're learning at least.

      Delete
    5. Scroll up for a thorough smoking

      Delete
    6. I must have missed that... Last time I checked you were yet to respond to 3:38.

      Delete
    7. Smokey smokerton smoked like a kipper

      Delete
    8. http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/whats-up-with-dr-jeff-meldrum-the-bigfoot-professor/

      Feel that burn kipper kid

      Delete
    9. 3:25....you really believe Roger was " In the process of making a film documentary?" Look. Roger was a legit " byoh" ( bring your own horse) cowboy. Those kind of men don't finish or even get deep in the process of making a film documentary. They might pitch one. Sketch a few pictures. Etc. But real cowboys are looking for the next adventure over the next hilltop. They don't finish the damn fence that needed mending last week. It's simply not in their nature. Perhaps you, my dear, are all hat and no cattle. Unless you know who Luke the Drifter is, unless you've heard John Conlee sing " rose colored glasses" ot you own the very best of Don Williams, let this one die. Some broken hearts never mend, and DSA, some memories never end. But. Every once in a while, on the back of a horse, which is good for the head of a man, you will see a rarity, a unique sunset, flush the last covey of Bob White quail or a couple of melanistic pheasant, jump an albino buck...or watch a female Bigfoot cross a creek, which Roger clearly did do. Then you will understand what a modern day drifter does, and embrace the " cowboy way"

      Delete
    10. Do not attempt to ride a horse without, at the very least chaps or brush pants, as always, severe chafing is a real danger. PSA --DSM

      Delete
  9. That's just a picture of DC after a night of butt plugging away with the JREF crew.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bigfootery is not seen by most skeptics as being as socially corrosive as creationism, and I would agree with this. Yet even most “Bigfoot skeptics” don’t conceive of Bigfootery as being as intellectually bankrupt as creationism.

    I no longer think this way about the subject, and I now conceive of Bigfootery as being as intellectually bankrupt as creationism. Why? Because the Bigfoot proposition, like creationism, is tested on a daily basis. It has failed on a daily basis, and has failed on a daily failed for decades.

    How specifically is the Bigfoot proposition tested on a daily basis? First off, as mentioned earlier, roadkill. Bigfoot is asserted to be a real animal, whose range is the entire North American continent. For decades now, drivers travel literally billions of miles on those roads each year. Traffic is constant. Animals of all kinds both common and rare, like Florida panthers, are killed. Not a single Sasquatch. Hikers traverse the wilderness daily, including the alleged habitation areas of Bigfoot. Humans by nature are curious, and anomalous details stand out. A human shaped skull the size of a basketball would stand out, as would virtually ANY part of a humanoid carcass. The natural curiosity of hikers is an unintentional test for all sorts of anomalies, such as aircraft debris occasionally found in the wilderness. No Bigfoot carcass has ever been found in North America. Geologists, road engineers, paleontologists, and others dig and move earth on a daily basis in North America. Though most are not intentionally looking for Bigfoot fossils, anomalous fossils would be noticed, as would all sorts of anomalies. Wildlife photographers capture high resolution, unambiguous photographs of all sorts of animals, including very rare ones, on a daily basis. In 50 years of Bigfootery, the number of clear and unambiguous photographs or motion pictures of Sasquatch produced by non-Bigfoot advocates is zero.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The culture of skepticism is often “reactive” in the sense that those who assert extraordinary claims act first and skeptics follow by analyzing or testing those claims. I’ve personally done this in the somewhat reviled area known as “Bigfoot skepticism.” Extraordinary claims were made that certain textures on a putative Bigfoot footprint cast represented “dermal ridges.” I involved myself with testing this claim."

      That can be said to be true of the initial fazes of most processes of testing claims, but the major fallacy on this subject is that 'skeptics' will terminate any process of counter argument in favour of heuristical ideals; these being labeled, laughably as 'testing'. 'Testing' being a euphemism of course for a rhetorical arguments that have no means of considering anything in the way of information presented to them regarding this subject in this case, the comment makes a major claim in that dermal ridges have been presented with a means to not consider them as a legitimate source of evidence. However, just saying that's not good enough and I have yet to come across a single source to debunk such. Extraordinary claims should not warrant more dogmatic means of 'testing', that is in fact cognitive bias and against any clean slate of scientific method that doesn't prejudice against things, let alone labeling them 'extraordinary'.

      "I no longer think this way about the subject, and I now conceive of Bigfootery as being as intellectually bankrupt as creationism. Why? Because the Bigfoot proposition, like creationism, is tested on a daily basis. It has failed on a daily basis, and has failed on a daily failed for decades."

      Really? I think you'll find that until the past 15 years, the Bigfoot research field have been preoccupied with a bipedal gorilla. Though this is where most of us enthusiasts have started our interest, it is in fact not realistic to the manner in which this creature could realistically evade us for this long, and since the development of the Internet and linking of research groups it's no wonder why the understanding has shifted to hominid/human and we have the attention of some of the biggest hitters in modern science. In that time, I have yet to really see anyone contend with the idea that something that is far more strategically and methodically evasive in highly social groups, that buries it's dead like a human/hominid, shouldn't exist in the vast space that is the US wilderness.

      Delete
    2. "How specifically is the Bigfoot proposition tested on a daily basis? First off, as mentioned earlier, roadkill. Bigfoot is asserted to be a real animal, whose range is the entire North American continent. For decades now, drivers travel literally billions of miles on those roads each year. Traffic is constant. Animals of all kinds both common and rare, like Florida panthers, are killed. Not a single Sasquatch. Hikers traverse the wilderness daily, including the alleged habitation areas of Bigfoot. Humans by nature are curious, and anomalous details stand out."

      Does this guy seriously, SERIOUSLY need referencing all the accounts where drivers have reported Bigfoot type creatures in the US for the past 50 years? Also... If you have a creature that is reported to be anything between 7-11 feet tall, 1000 lbs, I'd be more concerned with what damage it does to the vehicle, as opposed to how it looks as road kill. It's again... The most pathetic case for a normal scientific debate in that they should adopt rhetorical arguments in the face of so much data to say the contrary. It's a level of ignorance that articulates exactly what this subject is up against... And people like the person making the above statement wants to suggest that we should abide to scientific methods? This incredible story from Stacy Brown Jr. is about a retired forest ranger who ran over a Bigfoot during the 1998 forest fire in the Apalachicola National forest. Though this happens years ago, the details are amazing to listen to. Watch below:

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/watch-interview-with-retired-forest.html?m=1

      Delete
    3. "A human shaped skull the size of a basketball would stand out, as would virtually ANY part of a humanoid carcass. The natural curiosity of hikers is an unintentional test for all sorts of anomalies, such as aircraft debris occasionally found in the wilderness. No Bigfoot carcass has ever been found in North America. Geologists, road engineers, paleontologists, and others dig and move earth on a daily basis in North America. Though most are not intentionally looking for Bigfoot fossils, anomalous fossils would be noticed, as would all sorts of anomalies."

      Ok... Do I really need to go on this? YES I DO!! When the remains of these creatures are found they are either encouraged to be buried again due to their Native American connections or they are taken away by state appointed archeologists with connections to institutions like the Smithsonian. I understand that the sightings require biological evidence to back up, but that's pretty hard when information about such sources do not filter through to the general public. Archeological and anthropological studies documented by some serious big hitters such as the Smithsonian and the Scientific American have documented such. Many think that this creature is a dumb ape that would have been found by now, but burial mounds suggest a much intelligence creature capable of culture with highly social evasion capabilities and would also explain why there are hundreds of accounts of disturbing such in libraries up and down your country and would articulate further why we don't come across the remains of these creatures, especially when 70% of the country is covered in wilderness, to which it turn suggests how hard it would be to locate such burial areas, especially once the old native regions of New England for example were churned up and taken over during the industrial revolution and then covered up as quickly as possible to suit the economic boom. These places were the last burial areas where the Natives shared with the giant tribes, from a time before these creatures returned to the wilderness areas. We also only have four teeth for a fossil trail for chimps and gorillas, for seven million years of being on the African continent.

      Delete
    4. "Wildlife photographers capture high resolution, unambiguous photographs of all sorts of animals, including very rare ones, on a daily basis. In 50 years of Bigfootery, the number of clear and unambiguous photographs or motion pictures of Sasquatch produced by non-Bigfoot advocates is zero."

      I think you'll find that wildlife photographers are assigned specific instruction and are allocated specific areas that would imply specific results. They are also professionals with professional equipment, whereas the majority of this field are people from the general public who have to capture images of a far more evasive and intelligent creature than that of the projects of most wildlife biologists. I find it laughable that most 'skeptics' require photographs, when every photograph or footage has and always will be a man in a suit. Again... The appliance of rhetorical arguments to make the perception of normal circumstance.

      Delete
    5. "Creationists attempt to stage public “debates” with top scientists. In this way, creationists are subtly attempting to persuade by suggesting the issue is a legitimate controversy, and that the creationist’s argument and evidence is equivalent to that offered by legitimate scientists. Bigfoot advocates engage in a similar form of propaganda, though I suspect that they do so unconsciously."

      This is where it gets pretty laughable. Do creationists have physical and biological evidence for their claims? To compare both fields is an old, weak attempt at ignoring your biggest issue, which is successfully and conclusively proving that the mounds of physical evidence amount to nothing. It is also against all scientific research processes that physical evidence should be ignored for the purpose of not persuing an effort to act on such to in turn determine biological evidence. If this natural process of research would have been persued by an impartial collective effort, we might be at a stage where this rhetorical safety net would erode. But these 'skeptics' want biological faze of research to legitimize the previous face? By merely comparing this to something that is based purely on faith is in fact lazy and sidesteps the strenuous task of having to ditch the heuristical ideals that have provided you with an avenue for not confronting all the facts. Again; rhetorical and an outlook that focuses on what information would better suit the counter argument favoured, whilst conveniently forgetting about the counter argument that follows in return. The audacity is the statement up top, where something like propaganda can be touted in the face if such methods being utilized in such disgusting and calculatively manipulative fashion.

      "By causing “Bigfoot skeptics” to continually respond to putative evidence, Bigfoot advocates tacitly position the Bigfoot proposition as a valid scientific question. Furthermore, this obscures the damning flaw of Bigfootery, which is that the Bigfoot proposition is unintentionally tested daily, and fails daily."

      Can you see the pattern applied here? It's aaaaaaaaaaaalll rhetorical rubbish and it's the oldest technique in the book to ignore things that might make you work a little harder for answers. I have yet to see this source successfully debunk any source of evidence, yet it used words like 'putative' and 'fails'... In science you have to actually provide a means to back up your statements, if that doesn't occur then it's evidence of a heuristical mindset that renders people like the person making this statement incapable of looking past what sits better with him, 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 'puatative 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. I don't ever see a counter argument to where these tracks are found, I don't see a counter argument to dermals that have consistent species traits from opposite sides of the country, from many years apart, and I don't see 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 to counter that claim... Yet this source is supposedly 'putative'?

      Delete
    6. I laugh at the notion that this subject is a religion-like when you have so many scientists plying their expertise, I really doubt that Sykes would share that sentiment. There is nothing more fundementally religious-like than someone who has to resort to counter scientific methods to promote a belief system that cherry picks key information to prop up and maintain a regime that provides 'all the answers', whilst as the years roll by and science develops and does the opposite of debunking this subject, 'scientists' try and convince many that what they are thinking is wrong off the back of providing absolutely no good argument to not think this. Instead, we have more and more scientists turning to things like hominology, asking the questions that people like the guy up top don't because those answers are beyond their ability to not only resolve, but threatens their perfect little idea of the world where all your questions are answered; now that reminds me of a religion, would you agree?

      Delete
    7. Lol creationists have scientists too.

      I think you post these OP's just to respond. Pathetic.

      Delete
  11. Some time back an individual named Kevin Buresh aka “Sweaty Yeti” began posting images from the Patterson – Gimlin purported Bigfoot film on various internet forums, including JREF. One GIF image purported to show movement of the film subject’s fingers. The implication is that an actor inside a costume would be incapable of duplicating this feat. Allegedly the arms of the film subject are too long for a human to move the fingers of a costume. This is a form of “asymmetric” argumentation in that if the film subject’s fingers bend and a human actor cannot do this, then it cannot be a human actor in a costume. If it’s not a human actor in a costume, then it can only be Bigfoot. If the Patterson – Gimlin film subject was a real Bigfoot it cannot be the only one, as there must be a population to survive as a species. VOILA! THE FINGERS MOVE, THEREFORE IT’S ALL TRUE!!! Bigfoot is real!

    As skeptics do, this assertion was met with a variety of rebuttals. One of the more cogent was a GIF animation created by a man posting as “Dfoot.” It clearly demonstrates that fingers can move, and rather spectacularly so, while wearing a prosthetic glove.



    I experimented for myself the very same thing, using a bear skin glove. A glove provides the illusion of a longer arm. One does not need to have fingers all the way inside the glove to cause the fingers to move. It’s obvious that bending fingers are seen with this hirsute glove.





    Recently a JREF poster named “Tontar” posted a GIF animation of his own, which suggests that Buresh’s original animation was flawed from the outset by improper arm alignment. Click on the large side-by-side image of the film subject on this page to animate. The GIF animation may load slowly.



    Buresh’s arguments are obviously crackpot, yet it’s doubtful that we will see the end of them. Cryptozoologist Loren Coleman went so far as to promote them on his Cryptomundo blog.



    After 50 years of Bigfootery with no bones, no road kill, no teeth, a certain quasi-religious desperation is sinking in, with asinine arguments like “Bigfoot’s bending fingers” substituting for real science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sweaty Yeti -

      "Patty's hands bend precisely where all of the joints appear to be located...and that is one tricky feat to accomplish, with 'hand extensions'. It might even be beyond 'tricky'....it may be flat-out impossible.

      With all of the impressive features on this alleged "suit"...it is hard to understand why the designer/builder of it never came forward, to claim credit for his work. Maybe it's because....there was no suit."

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/4782-pattys-arms-and-hands/page-30

      All your arguments about Patty's fingers are countered and articulated beautifully in the link provided up top.

      I particularly like the photo montage where Sweaty compares side by side pictures of Bob H and Patty... Also, shows a 'suit' with an extended lower arm, and it doesn't work I'm afraid. How embarrassing for you people, eh?

      And I'll find more to make you silly now... Old argument, same b-slap...

      Delete
    2. "Kevin Buresh has been analyzing the footage intensively for the last five years to see if he could view original items previously overlooked or not noted.

      Who is this investigator? Buresh is 53, lives south of Boston and is an electronic technician. While he has been posting on the BFF and Jref under the username “SweatyYeti,” in general, his insights have never been shared this comprehensively. He recently became a member of the Northern Sasquatch Research Society, based in the Whitehall, New York area.

      Buresh writes, in his preliminary notes, the following (he has further insights about each finding among this sampling):

      “Just in the last few months and weeks, I’ve discovered some new details, such as mouth/eyebrow movement, and independent movement of the right and left sides of Patty’s buttocks (gluteus maximus and gluteus medius muscles). The main reason I’ve been able to find these is because of a special version/copy of the film that I received from Bill Munns, called ‘Copy 8′. Several months ago, Bill sent me a CD-Rom with the ‘Copy 8′ version and I’ve been spending a lot of time looking over the frames, and putting together short animated-gifs to find any movements on Patty that I can. The ‘Copy 8′ version has a better level of clarity than the Legend Meets Science version, which is the most commonly used version, for analysis.”

      http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/p-g44-buresh/

      ... He then proceeds to take you through step by step things about the arms bending and buttocks for example, that blow you people straight out of the water. I can't respect that enough.

      Delete
    3. Oh, and the argument up top that the enthusiasts stance that "because the fingers bend, Bigfoot is real"... Is a false statement from the very off. Not only is his argument fundementally my wrong from the off, but his argument gets taken apart with the fact that all proportions cannot be accounted for once all acknowledged at the same time. This is the major flaw with the argument.

      You see, you never see a skeptic try and account for all proportions, they focus on one element, not realizing that if that was indeed the case, that they would need to account for such a 'suit' element then fitting the proportions of other areas of the anatomy.

      Enthusiasts don't just have finger bending, there are soooooo many factors of that anatomy you see, that tell you that none of the them can all add up to Bob H in a suit.

      It's hypocritical that someone should suggest that 'fingers bend therefore Bigfoot is real', when I never see anyone tackle multiple elements of how accumilative proportions can be managed in a suit that predates all modern tenchological achievements 46 years later.

      Got monkey suit? Didn't think so...

      ; )

      Delete
    4. Easy there sweati yeti^

      That smiley face does not confirm your post it merely shows your insecurities and lack of confidence in what you just wrote. Get back to me when you have a bigfoot body.

      Delete
    5. No, it actually means total satisfaction in having all angles covered. I'm not sure what 'insecurities' can be taken from a confident, subject knowledge rich comment like that. Funny you should suggest that and not have any counter argument.

      Here we go, just for you, note the wink;

      ; )

      Delete
    6. Joes kikkin a$$ and takin names

      MMC

      Delete
    7. It's like a game of wack-a-mole. But in this case it's

      WACK-A-TROLL

      And if anybody is keeping score, my friend Joe is winning

      MMC

      Delete
    8. Winning with what bigfoot exactly?

      Claims and smiley faces just doesn't cut it.

      Back to the fryer kid.

      Delete
    9. You want a samich with those fries ?

      MMC

      Delete
    10. Plenty found;

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU

      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM

      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w

      ... None caught.

      Delete
    11. LOL.

      You truly do the same thing, verbatim every day. I bet you eat the same food on the same day, take the same bus at the same time every day, wear the same Khaki's and Cardigan everyday...

      Delete
    12. I try to do make a DC at the same time every morning

      Delete
  12. The lack of a bigfoot is data that points to the non existence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oh contraire BOBOs theory that BIGFOOTs be real

      Delete
    2. 7:12... The data's there; it points straight to an unknown primate leaving it. This must be need to you, glad I could help.

      Delete
    3. Matt and Bobo been tracking bigfootS for years

      Delete
  13. He taught us how to laugh... and how to cry. But mostly he was just a self-obsessed, hairy, smelly joke thief.

    Oh, is this article about a sloth crossing the road? I thought it was the Robin Williams memorial talk back page.

    Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow Joe took quite the pummeling today.

    Day 64792 - still no bigfoots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plenty found;

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU

      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM

      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w

      ... None caught.

      Delete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This might be the most embracing comment section on the entire internet. Most of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror at yourselves and grow up.

    You guys derail every single post here and instantly turn it into a cesspool of ignorant nonsense.

    I would ban anonymous comments here in an instant. Its ridiculous that this is even allowed. It makes any kind of thoughtful mature conversation impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah joe you tell em!

      Super friends always add substantial original content to discussions on shoes, accessories, colors, uninformed gossip, tampon size preference, and the best lube to use on Chuck.

      Bigfoot though? Not an original thought between the 5.

      Delete
    2. Big joan is scared of her
      PINK SNAPPER!

      Delete
    3. ALL HAIL TROLLANDIA!!!!!!!

      Delete
  17. Armored vehicles on patrol, Kevlar-wearing, camouflage dressed officials carting high-powered rifles, tear gas wafting through the air – sounds like something right off the streets of Iraq. But it’s not. It’s actually the scene that’s playing out in Ferguson right now, with SWAT-type police taking to the residential streets for crowd control duties.
    THE NEW NORM

    ReplyDelete
  18. What no Tony Stewart's in Costa Rica?

    That thing was fair game.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What no Tony Stewart's in Costa Rica?

    That thing was fair game.

    ReplyDelete