Cloaking Bigfoot?
This footage came to our attention a couple days ago and we've tried our best trying to figure out where this "cloaking Bigfoot" is. To be honest, we don't think there's anything to see. Perhaps because the Bigfoot is cloaked? These people seemed to be excited about something, but we're just not seeing it.
And again!! Peace!!
ReplyDeleteGot monkey yet?
Delete^ why yes,we have..they`ve been around for a long time
Delete1:57... I suggest you check this out, you've been living under a rock no doubt;
Deletehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Monkey-Life-Series-Primate-Productions/dp/B002UZNGCM
WAKE THE PHUCK UP, TROLLS!!!!!
DeleteGRAB THEM COCKS AND GET YOUR ASSES UP!!!
WAKE THE PHUCK UP, TROLLS!!!!!
DeleteGRAB THEM BIG COXX AND GET UP!!!!
BB
ans HILLARY knows nothing about Benghazi !!!
DeleteDog didn't bark?
Deletetham dawgs be huntin dawgs
DeleteDog did not even alert. Either nothing was there or the dog is useless as a dog.----Jimny
Delete09-19-2014
ReplyDeleteNever forget!
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/this-is-saddest-video-of-week.html?m=0
DeleteBlitzed.
Blitzed would be you delivering an actual bigfoot. We delivered the monkey suits.
DeleteNargh, you've delivered CGI, foam suits that weren't available in the 60's, Gemora suit that's only ever shown in low lighting to hide suit anomalies and a bunny rabbit suit lacking proportions made my a guy who states the PGF probably isn't a man in a suit.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
Plenty found;
http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
... None caught.
And you have zero confirmation of any bigfoots anywhere ever:)
DeletePlenty found, none caught.
Delete: p
Zero confirmed.
DeleteBy who, you?
Delete(Pfft)
By anyone. I don't even need to explain that.
DeletePlenty of people confirming Sasquatch reports boyo, you must have been under a rock... What you mean is mainstream science that's either misinformed, restricted or apprehensive to pass impartial opinion...
DeleteNot to mention you need a monkey suit.
: p
We got monkey suits from the 1930s that look more realistic
DeleteNargh, you got this;
Deletehttp://horrorpedia.com/2014/08/28/george-barrows-other-animals-a-short-history-of-whos-inside-the-gorilla-suit/
Ha ha ha ha!!
G g g g g g g g g g g g got monkey?
ReplyDeleteGot monkey suit?
DeleteYes we have thank you
DeleteNargh, you've got CGI, foam that wasn't available in the 60's, Gemora suits that are only ever shown in low lighting and a bunny rabbit suit made my a guy who states the PGF probably isn't a man in a suit.
DeleteThanks.
And you have zero confirmation of any bigfoots anywhere ever:)
DeletePlenty found, none caught.
Delete: p
the 1s that get caught the Gov takes them !!!
DeleteFor the gullible "theory of evolution" believers of "fossil records of millions of years" ...from a world renowned "scientist"
ReplyDeleteDr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution”
“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
Stop trolling.
DeleteEvolution happened. Deal with it.
I know your trolling but I'll bite.
DeleteThe overwhelming majority of science (that's an understatement) support evolution. Why? Because its good science. Many fields of science all converge to the same conclusion: evolution happened.
Evolution is the basis of modern biology and medicine.
Read a book because you are very ignorant of the facts.
I posted this a moment ago in an earlier thread but I see it's still being discussed, so I'll PJ it here:
DeleteReligions all scoop pieces from earlier religions and cults, which all originated with the Sun and the Seasons. Man is predictable to an extent especially with a written history and traditions.
Yes life on Earth originated by chance, just like our solar system and everything beyond in the Universe (& possibly many Universes) happened by chance.
I suggest you watch the entire series of The Inexplicable Universe with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He can eloquently explain it from the beginning of existence, origin of life, the XYZT dimension, etc. with understandable explainations and great examples.
Leon, you like to say that "if you're right and I'm wrong, nothing happens. If I'm right and you're wrong...[insert eternal punishment]."
That is cowardly. If you believe, or follow, especially evangelically just to hedge your bets then YOU are not a faithful believer in Christ. If you find yourself at the Gate of Heaven with Pete, be sure and look me up before your final judgement. Tell me how God perceived you just playing it safe.
Hey Dan, you dipshit --- none of the above is me!
DeleteYour psychotic.
You are right. Dan is a dipshit and he is very psychotic!!
DeleteDan Campbell
2:19: "evolution is good science." That's an interesting statement, since evolution can't be proven by the scientific method!
DeleteIt seems highly contradictory that all science rests on the "bedrock" of the scientific method, yet evolution which you call "good science" is, glaringly, a theory which cannot be proven by the 'bedrock" scientific method.
That's a gigantic contradictory situation. I would rephrase your comment if I were you.
Go to the tallest building in your town, open the window, and jump out. Let's test out The Theory of Gravity and see how that works.
DeleteIt's a theory but there is evidence to support it
DeleteEVOLUTIONIST Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…
ReplyDelete“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”
Here`s the SCIENTIFIC THINKING behind the lie......ie,what they DON`T talk about...
Deleteevolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change.
“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”
I'd love to hear your theory...
DeleteSome interesting stuff. George Noory last night in the 1200 hour had a guest ( The best of George Noory ) I think saying the same thing. I only caught about 15 minutes before sleep came. My thought is that if humans came from apes it would still be happening. Plus it would take both a male and female and they would have to find each other. But I will admit this is not a subject I know a lot about. I do think the process may be far different from what we have been led to believe and will leave it at that.
DeleteOn another note on the first page of c2cam there is an article " In the News Section" headlined by an in depth study "internet trolls are narcissists, psychopaths, and sadists.
Guess these folks hand out around a lot of other blogs as well.
Chuck
Anybody want to hear my own theory on evolution?
DeleteMMC
Let it rip MMC. Probably as good as any.
DeleteChuck
Chuck, the average human doesn't live much past 80. Upper limits in the low to mid 100's.
DeleteEvolution in the sense you perceive takes millions of years. That's why you don't see macro-evolution, apes evolving. Evolution is the result of necessity, not pleasure. Micro-evolution is there for you to see. Grizzly/Kodiak Brown Bear split for example. Once the same species, now subspecies.
Ok
DeleteI have a theory that I call the "diminished species theory". Simply stated there were more species of critters yesterday versus today. We have never seen macrobiotic evolution but we have seen extinction. Simple enough
MMC
BOBO theory BIGFOOTs are real !!!
DeleteModern man in the mix equals species extinction
DeleteExplain DNA then?
ReplyDeleteExplain why all fossils are found in their expected layers?
Explain the many transitional fossils we have?
Explain the evolutionary traits that are really badly designed because they have formed over millions of years?
“Ape to human evolution” is impossible - recent DNA tests reveal that ape and human DNA are far too different for humans to have evolved from apes.
DeleteResearchers in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day. The more they learn, the more obvious it becomes that it is impossible for humans to have evolved from apes.
DeleteDarwinians have been dead wrong whenever they have claimed that the "genetic matter of ape and humans is 98% identical." The ape and human chromosomes are remarkably divergent and too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.
DeleteThere are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.
DeleteThe laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
DeleteOh boy^
DeletePlease explain your theory... I'd love to hear (laugh at) it
Darwinians have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. Darwinians claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.
DeleteANY reputable scientist will state that the correct answer to the "origins of life question" is,
DeleteWe do NOT KNOW.
But since 2001, scientific researchers in genetics and embryology have discovered proof that virtually every detail of "ape to human evolution" is contradicted by scientific facts.
DeleteSCIENTIFIC FACTS.
DeleteThese are what you are so interested in....FACTS.
Origins of life IS a different thing to evolution.
DeleteEvolution is fact.
The origin of life is unknown at the moment but there are some very good theories of abiogenesis.
Ok. Please link to a published paper that proves all your "no ape to human evolution" claims.
DeleteHumans did not evolve from apes we share a common ancestor. Get your facts straight IDtard.
Delete^ it is I that told you this you moron
DeleteGRAYs mutilation of DNA thats why no one can find tha missing link
DeleteTrue that...space magic
DeleteDuring the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome. For example:
ReplyDeleteIn 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."
Nonetheless, they found that:
The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.
The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.
Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.
^ READ it AGAIN
DeleteBoth of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.
Dude.
DeleteChill.
Firstly humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. They share a common ancestor.
Secondly evolution happened. Deal with it.
You are just mumbling what you have been told...and because "everybody" believes what they have been told...there are a growing number of scientists in this research field that are TURNING AWAY from the "theory" of evolution".
DeleteDeal with it.#
You are correct that the "theory" states there is a common ancestor way way back in time...there is however NO evidence for this as is stated TIME and AGAIN by the TOP scientific researchers in this very field.
Deal with it.
No evidence for this?
DeleteShared DNA?
"Dude" 2:49: "Secondly evolution happened. Deal with it." You must be God in order to proclaim your stunning knowledge of evolution. Evolution is a theory. Gee, that must be why they call it "The Theory of Evolution." Wow.
Delete“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”
ReplyDeletevolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University
If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
DeleteDr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution”
The fairy tale of evolution.......even Darwin recognised that his theory was dependent upon finding fossil evidence....for which their is NONE...even after more than 100 years of searching.........
Deletehttp://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults
You are being educated !!!
You just got a list of fossils
DeleteStop trolling or at least try harder 2/10
DeletePsalm 10:4
4 In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;
All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”
Ah...the God theory...and where's that evidence?
Deletetotally unrelated to this subject. Regarding the "vindication" of Melba Ketchum: The dna study of alleged Orang Pendek hair was performed by Prof. Gilbert of the University of Copenhagen. It apparently showed the result "human, but not Homo sapiens..". The documentary is a French production for the European arts channel "Arte" and was shown for the first time in France and Germany two weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteLol.
DeleteIf something is human then it is homo sapiens.
The amount of delusion in footery is mind blowing.
Wrong.
DeleteNeanderthals, for example, were a human species inhabiting Europe and Asia until 40,000 years ago, when they were replaced by the more modern humans like evolved Homo Sapiens.
The amount of nativity that spews into expressive ignorance from psuedoskeptics is phenomenal.
2 53. Thanks for bring this. This was totally new to me. Have you heard of it JOE
DeleteChuck
Yes I have my friend... I read it here a couple of days ago;
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/dr-melba-ketchum-im-vindicated.html
... Very interesting and I'm really hopeful that it turns out to be as good as it appears to be. If they can prove that the DNA of the Orang Pendek, then what does this mean for other alleged hominoids living in other places on the planet?
We know the answer...
; )
Joe pretends he is an expert an DNA.
DeleteI think I'll go with an expert such a Sykes instead. No bigfoots found.
I think you'll struggle to find an instance where I've made that claim, it says something however when someone with such a minimal understanding of DNA should correct people like you though.
DeleteOh... And I wouldn't cling to Sykes to support your argument either, he's clearly enthusiastic and even theorising/hoping to find Neanderthal DNA.
And still accepting samples.
: p
I will cling to Sykes quite happily. His paper was very interesting and to date zero bigfoots found:)
DeleteThis time around... When you've got the main researcher of that study rallying around researchers to "go get the evidence"... It's a matter of time before you start calling him another hack.
Delete: p
If Sykes finds a bigfoot then cool :) he will have the proof and it won't be disputed:) has he found a bigfoot yet? Nope. Does the fact he is still looking (in your opinion) mean he will find one? Nope.
DeleteNooooooooo, you lie. It won't be "cool", it'll be scuppering around like a rat finding all the angles in the world to discredit, and you will not have one person enthusiastic of the subject believing you otherwise. Even though I'm refraining from piping up too much about this alleged Orang Pendek breakthrough (until I know the facts), we'll also see the same scuppering.
DeleteSykes has not found Sasquatch/Yeti this time around. Considering the small sample frequency, that has no baring on the history and reports along with physical/biological evidence there is, it merely means the samples weren't what they were hoped to be. Will he find anything? DNA is a matter of time...
Nope. If confirmed, I along with all scientists will accept it because he will have proven it via a published paper.
DeleteRemember when you were denouncing Sykes' credentials prior to his Yeti sample results? You people don't know whether you're coming or going, and we'll see how you deal with this Orang Pendek DNA should it turn out to be legit.
DeleteWe denounced it and we were right.
DeleteHad he found a bigfoot we would acknowledge we were wrong. Something that you have failed to do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
DeleteNo, you denounced him as a professional and then celebrated him, ignoring his enthusiasm for the field.
Coming or going? Who knows when you're in chronic denial.
Denial of what exactly? You are a strange person Joe.
DeleteDenial of denial... What a world...
DeleteOh cripes, baloney you sceptards. If Sykes came up with Sasquatch DNA you would tar and feather him. Accept it? Bullpucky. Liars. Remember Nonarchaic Hominid starting up the attacks on Sykes before release of results? He had Sykes "getting it on" in an Oxford lab with an assistant. All this due to fear that Sykes would present Yeti DNA. You sceptard liars. Lie lie lie lie lie.
Delete^ so, so, so true.
DeleteIn Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.
DeleteThe Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.
DeleteThat's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it. Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.
Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
Great answer 3:06^.
DeleteAmused at how desperately you pretend that theory is fact. Toot your horn all you want. Your brains are squeaky and washed to the point of damage.
Delete3:06, gravity is a law of physics; evolution is a theory. It doesn't meant evolution is false; it's a working theory, but it is a theory, not a law, not proven, not provable by the scientific method. You can prove gravity is a law all day long by dropping the ball, as you just did. Every single time, it drops. It's repeatable, endlessly. It can be observed by witnesses, videoed, catalogued, recorded. Gravity is "true". Evolution is a theory, a working theory.
DeleteI make no comment one way or the other...this is merely a video and good fun to watch...it also exposes a truth...a truth which is apparent here on this very site by certain individuals...
ReplyDeleteenjoy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ#t=57
It's therm thar GRAYS messin with our NADS
DeleteWhy is it that the're always either cloaking or lugging around juveniles or both now?and Good morning anonymi's !
ReplyDeleteGod created the universe in 7 days about 5000 years ago and Noah built a boat for every species in the world.
ReplyDelete-Joe f
If God's...God - well then he could do it right ?
DeleteBesides. Noah only had land dwelling animals.
2 horses, 2 dogs, 2 elephants etc.
(babies or juveniles - smaller...makes more room
for everyone...)
Maybe even two squatches :) ?
Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.
ReplyDelete^ the site that is banned for school research in the UK...why ?
Deletebecause there are so many incidents of corrupted "facts"...the site is not an authority that is recognised by scholars or related industry.
All information there is backed up by external sources that can all be viewed.
DeleteZero confirmed bigfoots seems to cause a slight issue for joe
ReplyDeleteSo you agree then. Zero confirmed bigfoots. Glad we are on the same page:)
Delete^ ooooh you have a problem.....he agrees there are no bigfoot that are confirmed.....yet "we" know they exist....and so do you.
DeletePlenty of Sasquatch confirmed by people who aren't missinformed, restricted or apprehensive to pass expert opinion.
DeleteSo basically zero confirmed:)
DeleteYou'd need mainstream science to be able to contribute for that to happen, rhetorical boy... This is the same group that doesn't acknowledge physical and biological evidence but can't for the life of them explain it away either.
DeleteIf it were soooo clear cut, you wouldn't spend all your waking hours looking for monkey suits now, would you?
: p
I wonder what type of IDIOT would contend that humans contained as part of their make up "junk DNA" ? what sort of IDIOT ?
ReplyDeleteScientists !
The phony concept of "junk DNA" is a good example of how the Darwin Conspiracy created a phony concept for the sole purpose of preventing us from learning human DNA is very different from ape DNA and therefore Darwin was wrong.]
Darwinians have to exclude “junk DNA” from their DNA comparison because ape and human “junk DNA” are so different there isn't even a way to compare the two.
If you include all 100% of the DNA, and not just 2%, then ape and human DNA are so different that it is inconceivable for humans to have evolved from apes.
For this reason, the Darwinians pulled a fast one and created the phony concept of “junk DNA.” Darwinians labeled 98% of human DNA as “junk DNA” and claimed it was useless junk and should be ignored in any comparison of ape and human DNA.
Guess what? The science of genetics has just recently proven that human “junk DNA” is not junk but instead essential.
DeleteIn September, 2012, 30 scientific papers were published simultaneously by the US government funded ENCODE project. These peer reviewed papers provide ample proof that human “junk DNA” is at least 80% “functional” and “active.”
The Darwinians went ballistic. The science of genetics is refuting “ape to human evolution” and Darwinians are apoplectic.
“Ape to human evolution” theory is on its way towards extinction – it was not fit enough to survive the truth.
What is your theory out of interest?
DeleteIt's aliens. Always aliens.
Deletefor sure GRAYs been here for years ...
DeleteDid anyone see the dog taking a giant shit? Didn't see the squatch but I did see gabby dropping a deuce. You could see the steam commi8ng off the massive brown pile. I can't stop laughing. I reminded me of T-FATS baby picture. Like a big fat T-FATS brown pile of poop. T-FATS is in the house, DOG!
ReplyDeleteTurns out when footers say it couldn't be a suit they are lying!
ReplyDeleteHey Joe F !!! If this is the same joe I was talking to months ago the hunt starts for me oct 11 and these animals seem to show up around the 20 of Oct till late November so send me a email if u want to be part of this, hope all is good TTL!!!
ReplyDeleteEmail hauts1978@outlook.com
Hey buddy!! Yeah, it's me alright!! I'll send you an email.
Deleteans WILD BILL gots a BIG KNIFE
DeleteYou can easily prove micro-evolution (adaptation) with your own garden or fish tank. Macro-evolution occurs on a time-scale orders of magnitude longer than a human life (let alone attention span); you are unlikely to personally witness speciation.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't get over the, misuse, of commas, in the explanation, , ,
ReplyDeleteThe human race IS evolving, explain lactose tolerance and how that has nothing to do with the evolving physiology of the human body.
ReplyDeleteWhen my grandmother was a kid, in Cape Verde, she saw something similar. She went into town to get eggs and was carrying them back in her skirt. Something black was darting behind trees following her and when she finally caught a glimpse of it she said it was shimmery and she could see right through it. She dropped them eggs and ran home. She got into trouble but it was better than getting snatched by some unknown cryptid. She doesn't tell this story all the time. I think it still terrifies her.
ReplyDelete