Looks Like Espanola Police Department Might Be Haunted - Breakdown Video
Did the Espanola Police Department catch a spirit on their security camera? Or is there a simpler answer? Phil Poling of ParaBreakdown takes a closer look:
BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia
Rumors abound on whether or not Finding Bigfoot will continue, but hopeful news is on the horizon. Snake Oil Productions, the production company responsible for Finding Bigfoot, is seeking a permit for filming in the Monterey, Virginia area. Monterey lies between the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests. Definitely a good place to look for bigfoot. We can only speculate if this means Finding Bigfoot has been signed on for additional seasons, or if perhaps a new bigfoot show is in the works. We'll keep you updated on any further announcements for sure.
FIRST!
ReplyDeleteALL CAPS
second no caps
DeleteThird sOmeTimes CapS
DeleteTEAM HOMOS!
Deletegod damn joe is a simpleton
DeleteGood one Joe !
Deleteoh great this idiot is back
DeleteThanks 4:24!!!
Delete4:24 which idiot would that be ?
Deletetake your pick from joe and joe
There's only one meltdown boy that fits the mould... Man, you've had better times!
Delete4th
ReplyDeletesorry but parabreakdown is no longer relevant kinda like day old bread....just got stale
ReplyDeleteIt's swamp gas reflecting off the planet youranus.
ReplyDeleteLots of ghostly videos just in time for all hallows eve...hey Joe, Rush is confirming on the Standing documentary it seems
ReplyDeleteExcellent news!!!
Delete^ muggy kunt
Deletehahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
It appears we're not over this little cycle of mental health.
DeleteWhat a zinger. You are hilarious "Joe"
DeleteI can't same the same for you, poor boy.
Deleteserious question rumfer...top 5 rums on the planet?
ReplyDeleteMan I just drink all different ones but I like Angostura
DeleteSailor Jerry!!!
Delete^ muggy kunt
DeleteWell done boyo, your moma must be so proud.
DeleteGO REDSKINS!
ReplyDeletehahahah another paranormal woo nonsense post to pwn the sh*t out of that joe f simpleton
ReplyDeletewhat a moron
^ everybody here knows he`s a mug
Delete19-09-14
ReplyDeletenever forget
the meltdown to end all meltdowns
joe got smoked
You have it wrong buddy. Your buddy had a MAJOR MELT DOWN the other day I think his name was CowardJoeyBoy. Poor fella was banned. I think he has a father issue cause Joe told him how it was and the lil fella fell apart.
Delete4:00...
DeleteI would try if I were you;
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/this-is-saddest-video-of-week.html?m=1
6:11 err don`t think so ...on any part of your post ...you mug
DeleteBigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
DeleteIn the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks.
Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
DeleteIn the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate.
Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
DeleteIn the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs,
possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Some people do indeed think Sasquatch are descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus... I however, along with many others actually maintain its a human/relict hominid. Having an approach to the subject being unlikely is perfectly healthy. It's quite a crazy concept, but the opening statement would hold weight if it wasn't ignorant of the FACTS that evidence is accumulated monthly. Sightings and physical evidence are documented monthly, whilst there are many examples of other sources of evidence that account for every source of required evidence short of a modern type specimen.
DeleteThe truth is it's a far greater leap of faith to assume that ten thousand years of cultural and contemporary references, that transition into modern mediums that account for verified evidence of all forms is the doing of a handful of hoaxers, as it is to look at the aforementioned historical facts and suggest there's at least SOMETHING to the reports. It would have to be a secret society of gorilla suit wearing people who've transcended the same idea across cultures, at a time when they knew nothing of the appearance of great apes.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest some sources of photographic evidence indeed are people dressed up in ape suits. The problem is when you have anthropologists, wildlife biologists, primatologists, cosmetic surgeons, costume experts, etc, telling you otherwise. This cannot be ignored and the premise requires testing... All too often we hear the issue transferred to the enthusiast who's argument is actually the one that holds weight considering the lack of supportive compromising data, and considering all accompanying sources of evidence in favour
"Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate."
Yes... Got monkey suit?
"Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies."
DeleteGet ready for it...
"Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists."
Self obliteration right there. Also... Are we to now lean towards testing scientifically presented evidence with mere rumours? Self serving reassurance holds no double standard, no boundary of audacity it seems.
"Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person."
Proportions being a factor, as well as the magic SFX defying monkey suit that has trumped 47 years worth of costume advances, yes.
"The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps it's knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight."
Whilst this is certainly achievable with considerable practice, it is not a normal gate, and not one that would come naturally to someone.
Delete"Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach."
Ok... Take it away Bill!
"1. Is there any documentation that Gamora actually accomplished this? No, there is none. There are testimonials from other men who performed in gorilla suits and studied his life and work who describe his doing so. It’s not true documentation, but to give the skeptical community a bit of slack, let’s concede that Gamora did in fact put some kind of waterbag in a gorilla costume. Then we go to the next level of proof.
2. Is there any documentation of his actual design? Did he use an old “hot water bottle” commonly used for home medicinal purposes? Did he use some type of custom-fabricated bag or pouch? Was it loosely hanging in the belly, affixed to the fur, affixed to the undersuit padding, or what? We don’t know, because virtually no documentation of the device design exists. So even if we assume he did something with water in it, we do not know what that something is, and if it
could be adaptable to breasts.
3. Did it work? We don’t know. There is virtually no documentation that any visible fluid and natural motion of the costume belly was actually achieved, no film footage we can watch to see it in use and in motion. Makeup and Special Effects people have actually designed things for costumes which failed to work, but like a sort of placebo effect, people who were told he has a waterbag in his costume belly might see him wearing the suit and the simple power of suggestion
was such that they thought they saw it move naturally. So they said, “wow, that’s amazing. It looks so natural!” (this likely said by people who have never studied gorillas, because there were very few in captivity in the 40‘s and in the zoos, they’d likely just sit in their cages, bored and lonely). In Hollywood, the power of suggestion is often enough to make people think that just because somebody put something into a costume, that it worked, even when it didn’t. But now, today, as scientists and researchers, we must ask, if it was done, did it even work? If it worked, is there any documentation we can view on film to verify that it worked? And the answer is, no, there is nothing we can watch or study to verify it worked.
4. So, not knowing how it was designed, and what the water pouch was made of, and not knowing if it worked, we must ask, can it be adapted to make fluid-looking breasts? And of course, the answer is, no, we cannot make any such determination. We cannot even make an assumption that it would or might work.
Lacking that, we must look for other examples of the concept. Are there any documented examples of a makeup artist employing a water-filled device in a makeup or costume for any type of natural motion effect of the prosthetic? The answer is none. Even Stuart Freeborn, designing the apes for 2001 A Space Oddyssey (the Dawn of Man opening) had a R&D budget to make the most natural full body costumes ever created, and he started his R&D almost 2 years before the PGF was taken, and even he could not design a full and fluid breast effect for the female apes."
For further reading, please see link;
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/2428-the-munns-report/page-138
The problem for psuedoskeptics is there are reliable sources of professional eyewitness testimony and embarrassingly for them, the legal system accounts for much of it. When you have people from walks of life like long term experienced hunters, geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, wildlife biologists, anthropologists, wildlife consultants, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners
Deleteand forestry commissioners reporting the exact same thing from unprovoked and impartial circumstances you have an issue to deal with called professional consistency. More so when you put occasions of multiple eyewitness accounts where physical and biological evidence had been accumulated from one site. When there is steady level of reports that span cultures, then mediums, then into physical and biological evidence, then the reports by reliable professional people hold weight. The truth is that sheer frequency of professional people who are accustomed to decades worth of experience in wildlife and the wilderness account for much of the opinion and accounts to which from the basis of this field. Police officers are also trained to develop a heightened attention to detail. To suggest that these very reliable people are merely seeing upright bears is an overly cynical and typical statement to make, that's obviously either rhetorical of ignorant of the very detailed accounts that span into the tens of thousands. When bears start walking with a stride, lose the snout for a flat face, grow crazy width in their shoulders and grow hands... Then the suggestion that trained, long term experienced professionals are being mistaken will hold weight. These people who account for hunters, forestry officers, etc, who have reported full frontal, very distinct features of the anatomy that account for nothing that looks like a bear, will always point out to you that very obviously, bears are clumsy when they walk bipedally... They also don't run and jump or achieve any of the reporter stealth that so frequently gets reported in regard to the Sasquatch being.
Sweet Jesus, you are SUCH a bore.
DeleteKeep praying if I were you.
Deletehappee dayz are here again tra la laa la la tra la laa la la
ReplyDeleteanybody hear the wheels squeaking ?
ReplyDeletesqueaking ? they`re falling off m8 !
DeleteThe squeaky wheels are the sound of your meds carriage coming around on the ward.
Delete