ThinkerThunker's Breakdown Reveals a Baby Bigfoot In TimberGiantBigfoot's Big Red Footage
Wow! This is incredible. If the idea of one Bigfoot in the "Big Red" footage is too much for some of you, then you'll probably shake your head in disgust about this latest breakdown from ThinkerThunker. The YouTuber has broken down at least one video a week on his channel, and this is the first time he has taken on TimberGiantBigfoot. The breakdown weighs in favorably on the controversial "Big Red" footage. While many have written "Big Red" off as a hoax, ThinkerThunker suggests that there are probably two Bigfoots in the footage -- a mother and its baby. The breakdown video has hundreds of "thumbs up", which may indicate many people agree with the analysis.
Mandingo here!
ReplyDeleteThe squatch is playin around with its little pomeranian dog!!
Delete"FACT"
1st
ReplyDeleteno mandingo is
DeleteProof it!
DeleteGood work Stacey Brown.
ReplyDeleteMMG
Amazing man !
ReplyDeleteThis is not two Bigfoot. It's not even one Bigfoot. TGBF is afraid of any wild animals so I find it hard to believe he'd hang around a 500-800 lb. primate.
ReplyDeleteThis is likely someone in a costume or it's a known animal...one that's likes the park.
I'll take a well made fake video over a "we just happened to find a sasquatch footprint 20 minutes after all the people who paid us for some bigfoot action left" video.
DeleteI don't care for hoaxes, well made or not.
DeleteNeither do I. I was taking a shot at the willingness of a certain blog (this one?) to prop up the dumbest crap to come down the pike and ridicule someone else efforts based solely on alliances . Not results. But teams..
DeleteHere at Bigfoot Evidence we just report the news...you decide.
DeleteI guess you missed the part where I decided this subject was infested by scumbags?
DeleteDon't bother us while we're reporting !
Delete^Funny stuff, You win!
Delete^ Talent !
Delete9:06 homo x ....don't you have a playdate with phil or rev jeff tonight?
DeleteAnyone who has actually seen a sasquatch will tell you Big Red is 100% the REAL DEAL.
Deletewhere my hat?
ReplyDeleteup yo sorry azz
DeleteI do how I do, when I do how I do!!!!
ReplyDeleteKill it. Hoaxers shouldn't procreate.
ReplyDeleteNeither should liberals....
Delete^idiot
Delete^liberal
DeleteAll liberals should be buried neck deep and stoned too death.
DeleteLiberals are as useful as tit's on a bull.
Liberals are like going in through the out door. Liberals should be infected with Ebola virus and left in a ghetto so their "pet's" can take care of them.
Being liberal is equivalent to having a math degree with a head injury.
Liberals are like watching a train derailment.. exciting at first but the fizzle wears off after the 2nd train-car jumps the track.
Being liberal means you support the terrorist group known as ISIS or A.K.A. The Democrat Party.
Being liberal means you tell others where to get off the bus. Yet your clueless as too where you got on that bus.
And finally....Being liberal mans you are the minority in this once proud country and you and yours JUST PLAIN SUCK!!! Enjoy your self imposed usefulness!
Cause as with everything it comes to and end. How's the HOPE & CHANGE thing working out for this country? Oh I have an idea Lib-Rat's I HOPE you loose your job and you have to CHANGE your address to the nearest GHETTO along side your beloved "PET'S"!Screw you A-HOLES or are you just the CRAP that DROPS OUT? Your call!
^What he said!! And I'll add to it by listing their biggest crime. Compartmentalizing every single group in the U.S. and pitting them against each other for nothing more than votes. Black vs whites. Rich vs poor. Men vs women. You name it. They exploit it.
DeletePresident Hillary Clinton has such a nice ring to it. Who knows maybe some of these jerkiffs heads will just explode with hatred and there will be one less PAID OPERATIVE here hawking their ignorance on a daily basis.
DeleteI guess for you the fact that she has a vagina is her most important attribute? That trumps her being a lying, manipulating scumbag?
DeleteI can still read what you wrote there. OK, lying and manipulitive persons, now who could we say best exemplifies those two attributes, those skills? Let's see, oh yea, here's 4 names for you: how about Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove? Staring a war and getting 5 thousand young American men and women killed on a war, sold to this county with LIES and the manipulation of facts, well that is about as bad as it gets.
DeleteHere's some names for you. Lyndon B. Johnson, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson and even your current hero, Barrack Obama. Four of the biggest gun powder burning "peaceniks" you'll ever find. Oh by the way. You might want to check out how your lady friend voted on Iraq. Oops!!
DeleteWow, Leon. U mad bro? Liberals support ISIS huh? Well you do too, since you voted in the guy that made the conditions favorable for ISIS to even be relevant. I like how you use the word pet like you aren't racist. What kind of idiot blames all the countries woes on the poor. Oh yeah conservatards do. And maybe you dont understand how the minority thing works. See your party lost the election, therefore YOU are the minority. Deal with it. Say what you want. Democrats didnt shut down the government. Democrats didnt try to sue the president because they disagree. I mean those two things alone means you have to be half retarded to be a proud republican. You people are the most willfully ignorant group of people probably to ever own voting registrations in the history of America. You and you heroes like Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity spew this mouth diarrhea and you pat each other on the back like youve made some kind of valid point while the rest of us just sit back and laugh at you. Seriously re-read your post, you dont think you sound like a person who is mad from eating too many paint chips? Probably not. And thats the sad thing about you and your party. You are all a bunch of isolated, sad, scared people. You have no idea whats going on in the real world other than what you see on Fox News. Go ahead and stay away from the rest of us. You all have become a pathetic group of hate spewing sub human mongrels with no balls. The only difference between you all and the KKK is the KKK has the balls to say this to people in person. You have to go on little hate rants on bigfoot internet forums. And you will never even understand why the real America hates you. Just like your party cant understand why it cant win elections. Just like you all posting how democrats are lying, manipulative, scumbags and some how you are above all that. So wish death on people who see different than you. I on the other hand hope you all live. And have to live in this country that you hate so bad because there are people other than bitter old white people here. I hope these worthless little rants are what your lives are reduced to. Its the only thing that gives me pleasure, is knowing that Obama has you people this pissed off. And theres not a damn thing you can do about it.
DeleteKool now practice what you preach, and get out of MY house !! U self hateing gringo!. The more of you baboso's the better!
DeleteJG
The last thing I need is a chickenhawk republican like you to tell me anything about American history 7:25. All of you little rih boys spent your time in colleges paid for by dad so you didn't have to fight the wars that you are always so quick to support-as long as your or any of yours don't have to be involved. Even your hero John McCain admitted that he broke in the Hanoi Hilton and gave away American military secrets. Karl Rove was so smart to have that war vote right before the 2002 midterm electionsa year after 9/11 so no politician could ever vote their conscience, if they had they would have lost-simple as that, The real criminals are the ones who staged it all-YOUR boys Cheney Wolfie, Bush, Rice, Powell CIA puppets
DeleteWow, bible thumping con jobs promoting killing liberals. There's Christianity for yah.
DeleteBy using the word "disgust", is it because ThinkerThunker isn't on the right team or someone's wife got banged by said guy? Fake or real, that video is more interesting than anything the doosh bags that get propped up by this blog have produced. Even if you twats are gonna hoax it, pay attention to what is and isn't in the video. 1st, the star of the video isn't the guy filming it. 2nd, the subject, regardless of what it is, isn't a blurry shadow shot from 700 yards away with the sun right behind the target. With a modified toaster in some cases. 3rd, and this is the important part for me, the guy never, EVER took a shot at a rival. You paying attention Tim? Of course not. You're not looking for same thing, are you? He's looking for bigfoot. You're looking for YouTube hits. So far he's spanking your ass.
ReplyDeleteGranted it's more than a shadow but it's very ambiguous. He's looking for something beyond just Bigfoot if he's putting hundreds of videos on youtube that's obvious.
DeleteI've said before that I think there is something to this subject. That's how and why I found this blog. But when I discovered this lineup of twits trying to make a buck off it, the how and why became irrelevant. When they post some decent evidence I'm more than happy to have a grown up conversation about it. Like maybe the Calgary video that came out a few months ago. But if they insist on churning out the usual garbage then I'm going to kick them in their collective nuts 24/7. Plus, as a bonus, it's fun!
Deletewhat is "saddle backing"?
ReplyDeleteThat's covered in the Welcome to San Francisco packet. I think there is a 20% off leather chaps coupon in the back somewhere. If you don't use the coupon, for god's sake don't throw it in the wrong bin. They shoot MoFo's for that out there. You can run across the playground of the local elementary school with your junk in the wind and call it art. But plastic mixed with biodegradables? You selfish bastard/
DeleteThese guys who call every single bigfoot video a hoax and a guy in a monkey suit are so far off as to not even want to read their posts any more. Talk about being in denial. What ARE they so afraid of? Or...could it be that they are paid to say that about every bigfoot and UFO or alien video that they come across> How much do you guys make per post anyway? I might want to make a little extra cake to help us out of debt.
ReplyDeleteYou caught us. There is a secret society devoted to stifling subjects no one gives a shit about. I personally cleared $678,000.000.00 on Tuesday alone. Shhhh.. Mums the word..
DeleteWell it's not such a far-fetched idea there big guy. I happen to know for a fact that there are republican operatives that pay people to go to sites like The Huffington Post, The Dail Kos, Democratic Underground and whetever other liberal message boards of the day and debunk with whatever lies or mocking that their little minds can think of, getting paid per published comment.
DeleteSo republicans are suppressing bigfoot researchers now? You guys will never run out of victims, will you?
DeleteI'll bet you that if there was a way to calculate the numbers, that 90% of the idiots here who come here daily to call any and every person who is open minded to the POSSIBILITY of there being a Sasquatch vote either R or are Ron and Rand Paul supporters, you know people who rail at the system calling both parties 'corrupt" and when the time comes to vote ALWAYS waste their vote by voting for one of the Pauls or press Republican-NEVER will any of you people ever vote for a "liberal"
Deleteof course its all BS. How else can you explain no one ever (besides P&G) gets a clear photo shot. This is with everyone and their granny having a cell phone camera. They say the Bigfoot is too smart to have his photo taken. I guess the P&G Bigfoot was really dumb to get caught on film and than give us all a nice face shot. That is proof of a hoax in of itself. Probably just a big fat guy with patches of hair and boobs, glued on his body... BTW did anyone ever measure the stride length of that so called Bigfoot? Probably that of a tall, fat human...........jajaja
ReplyDeleteI agree.......probably yo mama before she shaves!!
DeleteThinkerthunker presents well and likes to speculate for the positive identification of bigfoots, so he gets a lot of positive feedback. Unfortunately speculation in a plausible manner is not a scientific analysis or even reasonably close to being objective. If he had not drawn in the outline of a baby nobody would even consider it a possibility. You can just as easily draw in the outline of a squid-like creature attached to the front of the face and claim it is bigfoot being attacked by the creature from the alien movies. Thinkerthunker likes to talk about applying Occam's razor but doesn't seem to know what that means. In this case he intentionally completely ignores the very obvious and unnatural skin folds visible in the back of the neck and the shape of the head which look very much like a hoodie made out of animal fur. Lots of speculation required to believe the partially obscured baby theory but no assumptions are necessary at all to identify the visible fur on the back of the head as a person wearing a hood, because that's exactly what it looks like.
ReplyDeleteSpot on.
Deletejealous much shannon...^^
Delete9:19,,,, BINGO!! NAILED IT!!
DeleteShannon, I have been an outdoorsman, cattle rancher and farmer for most of my life. Taking the film objectively, I dont see any unnatural skin folds or anything that is obvious to me after spending decades caring for farm animals (I admit no primates). I would also speculate that unless you have sat behind a mother bigfoot at that same angle that you have no more expertise than I do on how a skinfold falls on a animal like that. So unless you have definitive proof that this is fake, and I argue you DONT, then dont tell us that ThinkerThunker is wrong. Because you are only speculating in a non scientific manner Which may not be any closer to the truth than what ThinkerThunkers analysis is.
DeleteWhile you accuse him of not being able to state in fact what he is saying I say NO ONE can and unless you show IN FACT that TGBF has hoaxed this then you cant state anything in a Scientific manner about this video or anything in it.
Also ThinkerThunkers crowning glory on his speculation is the hand flexion of the baby. TT has NEVER ADDED anything to these videos that wasnt IN the video. So unless you know that he ADDED the hand flexion of the baby, then I say its alot MORE proof than him drawing the figure. Yes the figure by itself is not gripping but the figure AND the hand movement IS.
I am afraid this is a case of bias and discrimination based on the film makers reputation given to him by other YouTubers
Averege Joe!! I am the one in the ape costume, lol
Delete"FACT",,
"Thinkerthunker presents well and likes to speculate for the positive identification of bigfoots, so he gets a lot of positive feedback."
DeleteOk Shannon, don't you think that that's a little agenda driven? Not to mention a litte naive to the approach most enthusiasts have towards this video source? Just try and detatch yourself from your own cynisicm for a second, and just suppose these creatures are real... Wouldn't it be natural for someone to film one every once in a while? If that's the case... Then to suggest that someone's in it to appease people (who are in fact largely cynical about the footage), is deliberately derogatory and rather audacious considering there is not only data in that footage that you fail to make an adequate case against, but when the only time we see you around here is when a video source comes under analysis.
"Unfortunately speculation in a plausible manner is not a scientific analysis or even reasonably close to being objective."
And how does one apply scientific analysis to a video source? Nobody is claiming to be beyond anything that's theoretically plausible. Interestingly, you adopt the same objective approach that doesn't make any better a claim, and then make quite a self righteous comment like that. This is putting yourself on a mantle that considers itself correct above the imediate subject matter, and simply cannot be any more objective.
"If he had not drawn in the outline of a baby nobody would even consider it a possibility. You can just as easily draw in the outline of a squid-like creature attached to the front of the face and claim it is bigfoot being attacked by the creature from the alien movies."
Not necessarily. We already can safely assume that if these creatures exist, then they're a form of primate. We have consistent reports of them with babies seemingly attached around their parents' necks & shoulders, in the same way we see in known primates. We have consistent reports of the head morphology of these creatures, so when very necessarily analysing the shape in question and it in turn looks undeniably like something akin to an attached baby primate, this is then the natural process of theorising healthily... It's not "seeing something that isn't there", in fact... To ignore the very anomaly would be to ignore key data that under analysis that may even ultimately turn out to be positive for your stance. I find it pretty funny that you should elude to basic primate behavior and then use it in some way to validate your stance because the shape that quite clearly needs to be addressed does not then show an obvious costume anomaly. Let's just suppose Timbergiant is hoaxing... Why would he incorporate the "attacking creature from the alien movies" to the constume? Wouldn't that be an odd move considering someone could so easily zoom in under the available methods of today, remember, you're trying to convey what's meant to be a Sasquatch's morphology under awkward foliage?
"Thinkerthunker likes to talk about applying Occam's razor but doesn't seem to know what that means. In this case he intentionally completely ignores the very obvious and unnatural skin folds visible in the back of the neck and the shape of the head which look very much like a hoodie made out of animal fur."
DeleteActually... I think TT knows quite well what that means and applies it as follows... If the source seemingly conveys an unknown primate, has anomolies outside of any largely expected angle of hoaxing to the point that it almost seems to hinder any attempt at costume consistency, that it's got what appears to be the shape of what is consistent with a baby primate that follows all known traits of known primates attaching themselves to their mothers, that the head morphology is also consistent with reports... That following the theory of Occam's razor it could at the very least POSSIBLY be what is being suggested. Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. That doesn't account for preconceived approaches that the imediate subject matter is a negative, that's also ignorant of the facts to support such a creature's existence. In summarising; when you have a claim that it could merely be a fur covered hoody... When in countering that you in fact have more points of positive focus, more areas consistent with primates, anomolies that are outside of the norm of any logical hoaxing method unique enough to be highlighted as points of interest, then you don't prove anything, but you have a situation where the enthusiasts are at least welcome to have a positive stance, canceling out any notion that it's unfounded.
"Lots of speculation required to believe the partially obscured baby theory but no assumptions are necessary at all to identify the visible fur on the back of the head as a person wearing a hood, because that's exactly what it looks like."
That would be logical to someone who has an agenda to outrightly dismiss the source based on preconception that the subject matter doesn't exist, not to mention posing a poor understanding of how hair aligns itself with tissue & creasing in body folds. But, to someone who isn't prejudised against the evidence to promote this creature's existence, who has not only taken the time to identify data in the footage that's unique outside of any hoaxing method that can be easily exposed with digital zooming (that would. be uncompromising to a hoaxer), who also understands consistent primate behaviour; the notion rests that at the very least this footage may be showing what many very reputable people insist is an unknown primate that lives in the wilderness of the US.
Oh good lord. I might agree with Joe on this one. Someone give Satan a call and have him check the furnace. The pilot light might of blown out. Damn you, Fitzgerald!
DeleteI agree with Shannon.
DeleteAssumptions & speculation.
Average Joe - when someone makes an unprovable claim it cannot and should not be automatically taken as true just because they said so. The concept of having to prove an unprovable claim to be false otherwise it must be true - is just mind-numbingly stupid. When you watch 'magicians' perform sleight of hand do you believe it is actually 'magic' when you don't know how they performed the trick, just because they call it magic? Anyway I was actually commenting on Thinkerthunker's unfounded speculation and specifically the defective application of Occam's razor. The baby bigfoot story is only plausible when accompanied by the video enhancement (lightening and outline drawings) and verbal explanation. If you seriously think that's a baby bigfoot why is it so tiny (roughly the size of the supposed mother's sloping forehead), why is it clinging to the face, and why is it so white? Go look at TGBF's original video around the 6:11 mark and relate what you see there to the baby. There is no baby and nothig that looks like fingers - just a couple of pale lumps on top of some animal fur. In this shot there's no foliage to obscure the remainder of the 'baby' so no amount of lightening would help to invent one. In the same shot you can also see strange skin folds on the back of the head and neck. If these don't look unnatural to you please show by way of example or explanation any animal with skin and fur that distorts in this way. If you don't like that shot have a look at 7:19 where it tilts it's head forward. The skin folds in a way that looks like it's a relatively stiff hide wrapped around the back of the head and shoulders of a person, i.e. like a jacket with a hood or a cheap monkey suit.
DeleteJoe Fitzgerald - you said "Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected". We agree on this. I am not debating the existence of bigfoot, I am pointing out obvious problems with Thinkerthunker's video as it is neither objective nor unbiased and yes there is an obvious agenda - to gain youtube hits. Hey I like his style and have found his videos entertaining. However on this occasion I don't believe he was remotely sincere about examining the video in question objectively. If you watch the original clip all the way through there are many shots of the creature that clearly do not support the baby theory. Also if you do a little research on TGBF the 'Giant' is revealed in a somewhat different light. When attempting to make the fewest assumptions about such videos you can't state up front that you're "not going to get into whether it's a man in a suit..." as Thinkerthunker did because the 'discovery' hinges on assuming it is NOT a man in a suit. Now if he did a second breakdown video assuming it WAS a man in a suit and presented both theories at the same time, then I would have no issue with this.
Delete- you said "Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected". We agree on this. I am not debating the existence of bigfoot, I am pointing out obvious problems with Thinkerthunker's video as it is neither objective nor unbiased and yes there is an obvious agenda - to gain youtube hits. Hey I like his style and have found his videos entertaining. However on this occasion I don't believe he was remotely sincere about examining the video in question objectively. If you watch the original clip all the way through there are many shots of the creature that clearly do not support the baby theory. Also if you do a little research on TGBF the 'Giant' is revealed in a somewhat different light. When attempting to make the fewest assumptions about such videos you can't state up front that you're "not going to get into whether it's a man in a suit..." as Thinkerthunker did because the 'discovery' hinges on assuming it is NOT a man in a suit. Now if he did a second breakdown video assuming it WAS a man in a suit and presented both theories at the same time, then I would have no issue with this
Deletekinda sucks when your wrong don't it punkin
Deletewho gives a rats as$ what you think 8:59...
Delete"I am not debating the existence of bigfoot, I am pointing out obvious problems with Thinkerthunker's video as it is neither objective nor unbiased and yes there is an obvious agenda - to gain youtube hits."
DeleteOk, firstly... I am fully aware that you're not outrightly debating the existence of Sasquatch, the reason I was referencing other relevancies is to convey consistency with not only known primate behaviour, but the theories regarding this subject. YouTube hits? Hmmmm, that's pretty overly cynical there Shannon, if you don't mind me saying. Prey tell... How would one go about this any other way? Now I may be a little naive of how one would go about this, but if you could let me know, that would be great.
"... on this occasion I don't believe he was remotely sincere about examining the video in question objectively. If you watch the original clip all the way through there are many shots of the creature that clearly do not support the baby theory."
Well that's an opinion that you're welcome to and one I genuinely respect, but I'm not totally sure how one would percieve that 'suit anomaly' any other way considering its shape. Remember, the best you could explain it away as was a face hugger from the alien movies, there was nothing in the way of any number of suit anomalies that may have been suggested, the reason the anomaly looks like none that can come to mind means the logical step is to consider its shape in line with aforementioned primate traits, regardless of what stance you approach the source at. Look... It's no secret TT is an enthsusiast, but his analysis cannot be branded as insignificant because, as I alluded to up top, it's hard for any of us to come across objective knowing our individual stances. If there are shots of the alleged Sasquatch that don't show a baby (I will have to go back and look at this for myself) could this be because there is no zoomed in version of the subject at the point of TGBF getting close enough to film the subject closely?
"Also if you do a little research on TGBF the 'Giant' is revealed in a somewhat different light."
Yes, I am aware of this and even co-wrote a piece with Mike Brookreson, a rather damning critique of the footage that was posted on this blog. It wasn't until I saw the unedited version and the manner in which TGBF went about his apparent open nature, I started to change my mind.
"When attempting to make the fewest assumptions about such videos you can't state up front that you're "not going to get into whether it's a man in a suit..." as Thinkerthunker did because the 'discovery' hinges on assuming it is NOT a man in a suit."
Could it be that under post analysis that TT has come to that conclusion, it would indeed be suitable to let the analysis to the talking on his stance then, would it not? There are parts of the video where TT clearly edits so as to not drag on in digress, I think this is a character trait that can be linked to not bogging down the content to which in due course; his agenda will be made known anyway.
"Now if he did a second breakdown video assuming it WAS a man in a suit and presented both theories at the same time, then I would have no issue with this."
That's actually an intersting proposal, but you would have to start with one approach or another (skeptical/enthusiastic), and looks like TT started with the one that clearly rendered his mind made up on the matter. Do I think that's a real Sasquatch in that footage? I don't totally know, but looking at this analysis I can understand why some may think that it possibly could be, and this is my very stance on the matter.
Please... I very much appreciate the mature discussion on the matter and I do not want anyone to think I'm just arguing the toss, so to speak.
Peace.
As for the alleged baby's appearence, if you look at new born gorillas, they are markedly lighter in overall appearence and have less hair on them from what they quickly develop. Also... There are widely reported different hair colours of Sasquatch, to which the hypothetical father may have been of similar hair colour... I know how silly that might come across to some, but I'm just theorising of course.
DeleteIf you enjoyed mature discussion then you'd venture to the BFF and not digress with childish antics/flame wars every day. It's to much for you to simply accept someone's opinion that differs from yours and let it be.
DeleteBro... Take a look at yourself for once in your little life, and read back exactly what you've written there and ask yourself who's looking for anything BUT mature coversation.
DeleteYour false assumption is that I visit this spam blog of half-wits for intelligent discussion, impossible for this comment section and it's posters.
DeleteI don't come here for anything other than passing amusement at jesters. If you had anything worth saying at all then you'd be at the BFF.
TGBF is a hoaxer. Always has been. Always will be.
DeleteThis so-called bigfoot community is full of people just like him and the many people like Joe F. Who are starving for evidence such as what jim provides, the support you give jim only helps to feed the fantasy world jim lives in.
6:46... Yes, yes, yes... You fool no one. If you had anything worth saying, you'd have said it rather than bi*ch like a 16 year old girl, if you were intelligent you wouldn't get your ass handed to you around here with the jesters and be all butthurt about it at me.
DeleteKeep wishing, I'm here to stop the censorship and lies from people like you.
9:06... And you know aaaaaaaaall about evidence, right? It is in fact people like you who need to pull the blinkers off, cause if it doesn't come from your preferred gang of researchers, it doesn't exist and in fact , you're what's wrong with the field bro... You'll rather attack people than contribute to any conduciveness that may have seen a significant breakthrough far sooner. Please, show me the error of my judgement in said source or please, shut up and sit down.
Rofl. The envy here is absolutely palpable!
ReplyDeleteEnvy of what? Bigfoot stories? Go to your local grocery store and announce you're a sasquatch enthusiast. The first thing you'll hear is don't break the eggs.. Losers...
DeleteOops, i ment Loosers..^
Delete9:33... And coming to a Bigfoot blog and anonymously announcing you're a Bigfoot 'skeptic' trumps what exactly?
DeleteI'd start with his notion of envy for starters. I don't think envy kicks in until a bigfoot researcher makes a few million and shoots a blobsquatch video while Jennifer Lawrence gives him a handjob. Since most of them went to the prom stag, I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Besides, Jennifer is here with me right now and she says she hates camping and stinky rednecks.
Deletewhacking off to leaked nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence does NOT constitute to her as "being here with me right now"
Delete^Yes it does. And they don't have to be nude photos. She would look good in a gunny sack and combat boots.
DeleteMom,is that you? ^
DeleteSo many anti-Sasquatch Trolls who are afraid to face the truth of unknown primates, UFOs and Alien life. It doesnt fit into their little pinhead world view.
ReplyDeleteThat is because they cannot bear to think for themselves...and need to be told what is real...any deviation causes internal strife and panic...though I would agree there are certain truths where fear is fully justified.,,take good care.
DeleteI see thinkerthunker is at it again, this is the blind leading the blind. Timbergiantbigfoot has been proven to be a hoaxer, anyone that sides with individuals that partake in this behavior should be labeled the same.
ReplyDeleteproven by whom and please show proof not accusations
Deletelet me guess the good ole tazer gang....they are old news time for all you squatchers lounge,parabreakdown and the rest of your gang to step aside you had your few years run with zero results.and let the new breed take this to the next level
DeleteYes they may be gone now. So we should just forget Timbergiant is a hoaxer then??
DeleteNone of the "big names" in Bigfooting stand behind Timberghianthoaxer because he is just that.
And don't play the Dr. Bindernagel card. That guy is a polite softy who would never tell Jim what he really thinks of his claims.
Bindernagel has not said a bad thing about any of these schmucks because he is overly polite and encourages people to continue looking for bigfoot regardless of the results.
Where is the Love?? TV presented his evidence so take it or leave it...I don't think the guy is rich from you tube hits...no researcher is getting rich so really if they put what they found out there you should cut them a little slack, except for fat Tim
ReplyDeleteStupid spell check
DeleteMoneymaker and Meldrum are cashing in, sorry to say. This isn't some moral thing bc I'm a capitalist but they are making more than YouTube pennies.
Deletenot sure what it is but i'm sure it is a living animal . it just looks too real to be a costume or anything else but an animal
ReplyDeletethinkerthunker is on the right track
its official joe fic=z has no life
ReplyDeleteevery time I drop into a video this weirdo has a war n peace sized contribution which is usually utter bollox and uses 10 words when 3 would do
what a prick
^ look who`s talking...the same guy here every day...and for every thread and post...you nob.
DeleteHOAX HOAX HOAX
ReplyDelete