Sunday, October 12, 2014

Ron Morehead Explains Bigfoot Elusiveness


The Honobia Bigfoot Conference and Festival kicked off this weekend and the speakers includ heavy hitters  like Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Ron Morehead. Morehead, the father of the Sierra Sounds audio was at the conference and he gave this explanation to why Bigfoot is so elusive. Here's a snippet from www.muskogeephoenix.com:

Morehead said in his 40 years of interacting with the ape-man, he’s found Bigfoot to be “bigger, stronger, faster and stealthier” than people, which means it easily avoids humans.

“Why are they so elusive?” Morehead asks a captivated audience, as one woman eats a bag of popcorn. “Well, you could say they don’t want to have anything to do with our tax system or they don’t want to vote.”

His theories explaining Bigfoot’s elusiveness variously involve alien intervention and quantum physics, which he said might explain how the creature can vanish in a blink of an eye.

Morehead's Sierra Sounds recordings are one of the most important evidence supporting the existence of Sasquatch. During the early 1970s, Morehead and his long time friend Al Berry went into the woods of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in eastern California and collected a series of alleged Bigfoot vocalizations that sounded like "samurais" talking. This compilation of vocalizations is now called the "Sierra Sounds" and it has been confirmed by language expert Scott Nelson as Bigfoot language. The list of experts also includes people like, Dr. R. Lynn Kirlin of Wyoming State, Joe Hauser, a biologist. If you haven't heard some of it, listen below:




132 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Nope, but you may hit a new level of PGFCry Baby once you read your obliteration down below.

      : p

      Delete
    2. Did they find a specimen? Finally! Now you can quit looking so stupid.

      Delete
    3. Not a modern one I'm afraid... You would however look less stupid if you familiarise yourself with the inumerable instances where giant human skeletons have been documented?

      Delete
    4. Why are you afraid of the BFF joe? Go there and spew your nonsense.

      Delete
    5. Because it's fun denying you your little disinformation/hate campaign around here, and I don't take myself too seriously.

      For nonsense, it sure does get little in the way of logic back?

      Delete
    6. Says the guy that makes TMI, Chernobyl and Fukiishima look like a pack of matches.

      Delete
    7. I do leave a waste land of destruction in the psuedoskeptical camp, you're quite right.

      Delete
    8. Hey Joe these idiots believe in global warming the biggest hoax of them all!!!!
      lmao

      Delete
    9. Ron Morehead is a living legend in this genre. I used to put the Sierra Sounds through amplification and then leave them at my room mates door in Chicago about 4 am when he needed to understand the complicated communication between Biggie and Wahump. If your Sasquatch female won't quit banging on an old outhouse toilet seat and snarls at you like a Silverback Gorilla you too may have relationship issues. All in all no one comes close to Ron and Al. Though Jim Sherman is the man and my partner Professor Morley is very good. I heard Timbergiant drop the names of US researchers he now likes a lot. I believe Jim Sherman was among them. Have a fantastic Sunday.

      Delete
    10. " Now I'm for law and order, the way that it should be , Like the night they spent at our place protecting you from me...., Someone called us outlaws in some old magazine, And New York sent a posse down like I ain't never seen................Dontcha yall think this outlaw bit has done got out of hand, what started out a joke the law don't understand ..................was it singin through my nose that got me busted by the man? ...maybe this here outlaw bit has done got outta hand .... We were wrapped up in our music and that's why we never saw, the cars pull up the lights go out and the room fill up with law....they came runnin through the back door in the middle of our song, and they got me for possession of something that was goooone (long gone!) Dontcha y'all think this outlaw bit has done got outta hand? " Waylon Jennings.

      Delete
  2. Bob being Patty is far more logical than Patty being a Bigfoot.



    It's not so easy to get the same angle in the Patterson video for comparison sake to be accurate enough to make any claim that it wasn't Bob. Furthermore the entire ordeal was perpetuated by Dr. Jeffry Meldrum when he stated as fact in a scientific evaluation that the figure in the film made the tracks with no proof of said fact ever happening. One could also say it's logical that it fit nicely in his agenda to sell books and casts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Ok... You know that McClarin size comparison you kept on posting? Yeah?? Well McClarin is not only walking away in a different direction to Patty, making him look taller, but he's also 6.5... If he was walking the same route as Patty, she may have been several inches taller than him.

      But that's not the point... Bob H is 6 foot.

      Lastly, in the face of several well known researchers visiting the film site up to a year later and verifying the tracks, you'll have to go a long way yet to proving they're all lying.

      Problem?

      Delete
    2. Meldrum is a liar. He should be thrown in jail for fleecing idiots like joe.

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

      Delete
    3. It's pretty simple... Maybe he simply didn't know about the re-evaluated height proportions that Munns has recently reached, this wouldn't be far different from many people within the field that still maintain Patty's height is at the preconceived evaluation. 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.

      You're not deserving of people thrown in jail, but you sure are skating on thin ice from avoiding the looney bin with that sweaty anxiety.

      Delete
    4. A little lazy? It's greed. I bet he's sending me those emails from Nigeria as well.

      Delete
    5. Greed? Persuing a presentation tour?? Nargh... You slamming 7 double cheeseburgers at McD's later... Now that's greed.

      Delete
    6. that's really stupid joe

      Delete
    7. i call it blowing out yer ass

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

      Delete
  3. No body ....no bigfoot....that's the problem....you'll get it eventually...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Negative.....proof......fallacy.....you'll.....get.....it.....eventually

      Delete
    2. The negative proof fallacy does not support your position. It obliterate it.

      Delete
    3. The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false. It can also happen when one assumes that something is false if it cannot be proven true.

      You're learning, it's ok.

      Delete
  4. Didn't read. Seems nothing's changed still.

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I would've gotten away with it too ... If it hadn't been for you damn skeptic kids!!

      Delete
  5. Joe-doo,
    bigfoot could exist there's just no shred of evidence it ever did or does....except you know in your imagination....carry on!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no evidence to prove the existence of Sasquatch, but there's unshakable evidence of an unknown primate residing where people are reporting them.

      Sighting = tracks = hair = Occam's razor.

      Delete
    2. Agree with Joe... Keep up the good fight Joe!!

      Delete
  6. It's fun watching Joe have his little meltdowns when confronted with reality....you go Joe repeated it enough times and even those voices of doubt in your own head will beleeeeeveeeee!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You not being able to support your stsnce isn't anyone else's meltdown bro... Last time I checked, I was bouncing you around the room, why would I be having a meltdown?

      : )

      Delete
    2. Baby bigfoot caught on tape in upstate New York is all the proof we'll ever need. It changed my life, man.

      Delete
  7. As with all things Joes imagination gets the best of him again....poor Joe thinks he's winning a debate about Bigfoot....you go Joey!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Visit NASA.gov and watch their discussions and videos and you'll quickly understand what the real thing (science and fact) looks and sounds like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you get a footage source presented by an editorial board who consist of Ian Redmond, Anna Nikaris, Zhoua Guoxing, Lyn Miles, Jeffrey McNeely, Chris Loether, Colin Groves and none other than George Schaller are very much enthusiastic about this subject (I wonder how many primates have been discovered between all them), not to mention open skeptics that promote the idea that there has to be something to reports like Esteban Sarmiento... Then I think you should make a double take on how much real science you understand. I could have added Jane Goodall for her enthusiasm and Attenborough for his desire for a Yeti expedition.

      NASA have their expertise, the experts up top that consists of the very best primatologists and conservationsts have theirs.

      Delete
    2. Enthusiasm = science

      If you just say 'please' enough, perhaps the organism will appear.

      Delete
    3. An open letter to Dr Ana Nekaris: " Dear Dr Nekaris, we have a wild primate on the loose here in Central West Texas, Guadalupe Basin, and I believe he is dangerous, he runs through the woods naked and unafraid, whooping and howling at all hours of the night, he seems to be calm for brief periods in the presence of some women and I fully believe you could help me attempt to habituate him". If we begin to gift him, by leaving common household items and food like Coors Banquet Beer, Lobster and AFRIN, I think he will begin to frequent these areas, and you may use your considerable knowledge and skills to attempt to not domesticate or tame him, but perhaps make him less aggressive and more communicative so that we may understand what in the world he's doing out here, thank you Doctor, and good luck. "

      Delete
    4. Early settlers spoke in theatrical whispers about the effectiveness of the Kamino sabredart.

      Delete
    5. 7:08... The people pleading, audaciously in fact, are your folk... In that you insist consistent scientific method should be altered or prejudiced against for preferences that cannot be suported; special pleading. Enthusiasts aren't in a position to fear the what the data entails and therefore deny it's there. That's all I plead for is an even playing ground.

      Delete
    6. Nope.

      All we have when we try and bring Bigfoot into the picture and out of being a social construct is excuses for why they don't do the normal things that all other animals, humans included, do. Excuses for not showing up on these cameras, excuses for not leaving remains, scat, hair, etc and when they do, it's conspiracy time and blame it on The Man for keeping the great Bigfoot truth down, because we're all supposed to be afraid of the soaring reality and do you remember the spotted owl. It's like the whole thing is an indoctrination into excuses. I know all of these excuses because I used to have them memorized and rehearsed for when I would give people speeches about how Bigfoot is really, really real. There is a time when those excuses run out.

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

      Delete
    8. would you like to explain, since this is such a slam dunk, proven thing in your addled brain, why you only read about it on a blog that has about 8 people on it?

      I think it's because you're a delusional idiot who prizes his status amongst the fringe of the fringe.

      Delete
    9. It's simple; nothing has been proven... But all this information points in the direction of arriving at that point at some point... There are far more people who frequent this blog than comment.

      I think you're a little burrhurt at the manner in which I can not only back up everything I say, but deny you your little hate campaign at the same time.

      Delete
  9. Now he's just blathering...all foamy and spittle everywhere...yucky!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I saw wherre JFK has started screening people for ebola. I thought he was dead?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh no you can't prove that!!
    Elvis to he could still be alive!!
    Oh that's right we got bodies to prove their dead or ever exsisted....see how that works Jodo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. human skeletons = bigfoot

      gotcha ace

      Delete
    3. Sasquatch are human. Did I mention that a large number of these skeletons had receding foreheads?

      Got what?

      Delete
    4. human skeletons = bigfoot = human

      gotcha slick

      Delete
    5. Yes, you're alkost there... You forgot to put "giant" in that equation... Now... If you're a tribe of Indians somwhere in the US, way before Europeans settled there, who had been living next to a group of hairy hominids that have language, culture, social and family structure, with human faces, hands, feet, etc... With the exceptions being that they are rather tall, hairy, longer arms, and have wilder/animalistic sensory attributes, and you've known nothing else but this other group of people always being around, then you would refer to them as another tribe of humans. This is true of nearly every single tribe in North America. There have even been burial mounds to which have been shared between smaller and giant Indian tribes in the US.

      Ok... Now look at these digital versions of a hairless Patty;

      http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-human-side-of-bigfoot-comparing.html?m=1

      ... Notice the forensic drawings of encounters by Harvey Pratt? That's right, it's very human looking.

      This is how I can make the claim that Sasquatch are native to the US, and another group/tribe of humans and considering they seemingly have shared similar cultural traditions with smaller native tribes, I can refer to them in the same respect as all native Americans always have done;

      As another tribe of Indians.

      Delete
    6. A well founded claim I might add JOE
      Chuck

      Delete
  12. Keep up the good work Joe...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, but what you oddly never mention on here Joe is that these giant skeletons that were found and then covered up by the government, oops I meant the Smithsonian Institute, LOL.. They had 6 fingers and 6 toes (and oddly enough a double row of teeth). Every Sasquatch track I see has 5 toes. So by looking at the missing giant skeletons I believe you are barking up the wrong tree. Some of these giants found back then also had red bones and horns protruding from their skulls, which I haven't read too many witness reports of Sasquatch having those features. Im sure you have some kind of logic loophole to explain that and I cant wait to hear it. That also kind of shoots down the Sasquatch is a gigantopithecus theory because they didnt have 2 rows of teeth. And all that aside why haven't there been any more giants found in North America since the early 1900's? Or are you alledging that there have been but its been covered up? And why exactly would it be covered up?

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

      Delete
    3. Shhhh....dammit! We're trying to get Joe to take his nap.

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

      Delete
    5. Your getting sleeeeeeepy

      Very sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepy

      O, look at the Bigfeets jumping over the log

      One Bigfeets, two Bigfeets, three Bigfeets.

      Zzzzzzzzzzzzzs

      Delete
    6. OK, but I just think its odd that you never mentioned that they in your words "sometimes" had six fingers and toes. Whereas the article written said they tended to have those features so Id say that would probably be "most of the time". And then you just completely move on and start mentioning the the features that are more convenient for you. As for the sloped forehead, thats very easily explained, lots of ancient people have been found like that. They would constrict thier skulls as infants when the skull could be easily shaped. Also Native Americans often tell of the sasquatch being a god, and usually a bitter enemy. It seems odd then that they would give them a common burial with just some tools and toys. But this is all hypothesis on skeletal remains that have no modern proof of existing, that they could be an animal that there is no proof of existing. If the Wisconsin giants were real, and happen to be Sasquatch, then Patty should have left 6 toed footprints.

      Got sixth toe?

      Delete
    7. So live ascertained from one article that states they had six fingers and toes... That they had them "most of the time"? And then you have the guts to suggest I endorse what's "conscientient for me"? I've never discussed the skulls that had elongated features either, that makes sense condidering this is a Bigfoot blog, don't ya think son?

      Receding skulls and elongated skulls are not the same thing son;

      "Yes, Virginia, there is a Neanderthal fossil record in America. And apparently a Neanderthal hybrid fossil record. No genetics publication has put all the evidence together: the genetics establishment is still in denial about most things Neanderthal. The evidence is scattered and mostly unrecognized, but, in our opinion, conclusive and compulsive. Consider the following article: Frank L'Engle Williams and Gail E. Krovitz, "Ontogenetic Migration of the Mental Foramen in Neanderthals and Modern Humans," Journal of Human Evolution 47/4 (Oct. 2004) 190-219. The mental foramen (literally "mind's little hole") is an anatomical trait very pronounced in Neanderthals, a small dimple in the lower jaw of the skull beneath the teeth, or mandible. It is found sporadically in humans, where it is classified as archaic. Among the places where it has been identified are the Oleniy Islands and Baltic region, Northwestern Russia in Cro-Magnon like Europoid and Mongoloid types, along with "large and massive" torus occipitalis or Anatolian bumps (Alexander Mongait, 1959; Marija Gimbutas, 1956); Bakhehisarai in the Crimea (Alexander Mongait, 1959); the Joman or Ainu of Japan (Carleton Stevens Coon, 1962); and the "race of giants" continually being unearthed in West Coast, Ohio Valley and New England archeological sites, caves and mounds. Archaic giant skeletons with mental foramina, occipital bumps, double rows of teeth and other Neanderthal features are reported, in fact, all over the Americas.

      Evening News (Ada, Oklahoma), November 8, 1912. PRIMITIVE MEN OF GIGANTIC STATURE. Eleven skeletons of primitive men, with foreheads sloping directly back from the eyes and two rows of teeth in the front of the upper jaw, have been uncovered at Craigshill at Ellensburg, Washington. They were found about twenty feet below the surface, twenty feet back from the face of the slope, in a cement rock formation over which was a layer of shale. The rock was perfectly dry. The jawbones, which easily break, are so large that they will go around the face of a man today. The other bones are also much larger than those of the ordinary man. The femur is twenty inches long, indicating a man of eighty inches tall [6' 8"]. The teeth in front are worn almost down to the jawbones, due, it is believed, to eating uncooked foods and crushing substances with the teeth. The sloping skull shows an extreme low order of intelligence."

      And I can go on for posts about these finds... More to follow...

      Delete
    8. If you know anything about the recent DNA studies on the elongated skulls, they're nkt human... They are 25% larger than normal human skulls and are not to product of head binding, I really suggest you learnt be facts, it would save people like me the time.

      We know hominids used tools and Sasquatch are no different. They have widely reported to have been wielding clubs over time, whilst native legends state that they've even used primitive forms of baskets, know how to use fire and spears to fish. Not all Native legends refer to the Sasquatch as an enemy, and there are cultural references to tribes trading with them and even being protected from Grizzlies.

      And no... Like I said, these finds and studies went right up until the mid 20th century; there is a study on a Humbolt skull by Erik K Reed in 1967... A study on a giant skull that has native links to cannibalistic giants, a legend that's is exactly the same to nearly every tribe in North America that has Sasquatch intertwined in their cultures... I will soure you that link now with photographs.

      The Wisconsin Giants may well have been in contrast the the receding foreheaded skeletons which certainly give weight to ten thousand years worth of native culture that claim Sasquatch were resided and buried exactly where they have been found.

      Delete
    9. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/could-this-be-bigfoot-skull-mk-davis-is.html?m=0

      This study was 'archived', when it would have graced any academic arena today with the most greatly applied enthusiasm. "Miscellaneous Paper #18: An Unusual Human Skull From Near Lovelock, Nevada" by Erik K. Reed - Photographic work from the paper one by Dennis Van Gerven."

      Delete
    10. You must also remember that there were different types of giant human remains found in Wisconsin some of which were not reported to have six fingers or toes;

      "Scientists are remaining stubbornly silent about a lost race of giants found in burial mounds near Lake Delavan, Wisconsin, in May 1912.

      The dig site at Lake Delavan was overseen by Beloit College and it included more than 200 effigy mounds that proved to be classic examples of 8th century Woodland Culture. But the enormous size of the skeletons and elongated skulls found in May 1912 did not fit very neatly into anyone's concept of a textbook standard.

      They were enormous. These were not average human beings.

      First reported in the 4 May 1912 issue of the New York Times, the 18 skeletons found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features.

      Their heights ranged between seven and nine feet and their skulls "presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America to-day."

      Above the eye sockets, "the head slopes straight back and the nasal bones protrude far above the cheek bones. The jaw bones are long and pointed, bearing a minute resemblance to the head of the monkey. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars."

      Delete
    11. The "most of the time" comment was in direct response to your "sometimes" comment. We can turn that into whatever we want to. And are we talking about receding skulls now? Because you said elongated, and elongated skulls once again are very easily explained. And then if we really wanted to we could say that a receding skull could be achieved the same way right? And the other features are also common among people who suffer from Acromegaly. I most certainly do have the guts to suggest you are looking at these findings in a way that suits your needs because you are. You dwell on the features that are convenient for your Sasquatch theory and dismiss the ones that arent as flukes. And I have a problem with this because you are saying these findings prove Sasquatch is real, yet these findings are in contradiction to the Patterson footage which you also say is real. Not one of these mentions that the upper arm has unusual length proportions but Pattys arm does as you point out constantly. Also none of them mention a midtarsal break in the foot. So once again I say that you are hunting and picking what you want out of this. And I cant win a logical arguement with someone with this flawed way of thinking. The giant skeletons might be real but not proven, Sasquatch might be real but not proven. The accounts of these giant bones have many differences from the Patterson footage however, seems like you would have to be in one camp or the other.

      Got sixth toe?

      Delete
    12. I think you're trying a little too hard... And missing my points in the process...

      I brought up elongated skulls to prove a point. In the same way that I haven't discussed six didget skeletons, I haven't discussed them, but that doesn't mean skeletons with elongated skulls haven't been documented.

      "It is well-known that most cases of skull elongation are the result of cranial deformation, head flattening, or head binding, in which the skull is intentionally deformed by applying force over a long period of time. It is usually achieved by binding the head between two pieces of wood, or binding in cloth. However, while cranial deformation changes the shape of the skull, it does not alter its volume, weight, or other features that are characteristic of a regular human skull."

      This is very easily attainable information on the internet of course. I can easily counter your allegations of cherry picking skeletal morphologies by merely posting you the sources I have to back up my claims... And none of them have six didgets. The giant human skeletal remains that don't document six didgets greatly outnumber those that do, considering some of the burial mounds are thousands of years old, in respect to these types we may be looking at a long ago extinct type of being, much like the elongated subjects of Peru.

      Oh would certainly like to manufacture a situation where the very small number of six didget skeletons contradict modern Sasquatch sources of evidence like the PGF, but it's very cunningly attempting to manufacture a senario where six didgeted skeletons are the bulk of what's been documented, when in fact it's a considerable minority.

      Not one of the reports describes long arm proportions, but some don't even describe exact heights, and you've been crying for months that Patty's arms are in proportion to a normal human's therefore if the skeletons did indeed have longer arms, these would be something not so easily distinguishable at first, no? The study of mid tarsal break was only first recognised and categorised 75 years ago.

      Also... I have never implied that these giant skeletons have proved Sasquatch is real, merely applied Occam's razor to them. There are also two widely reported types of Sasquatch, one having its limbs in proportion, I might add.

      Have I got six toes? No... But a minority of the documented giant skeletons have.

      Delete
    13. So once again you are using all of these findings of giant humans, all of them are different from each other, to make one Patty. Just doesnt work. Like I said I cant win this arguement though, this converstation is simply what you want it to be. So lets move on from that, I still havent heard why all these giant remains have vanished and are being covered up.

      Delete
    14. "The other bones are also much larger than those of the ordinary man. The femur is twenty inches long, indicating a man of eighty inches tall [6' 8"]." Sounds like they took a fairly good look at the bone dimensions to me, should have been easily distinguishable, especially since you say you are able to do this by looking at 50 year old film footage.

      Delete
    15. I'm not sure if you're trying to lure me into posting extracts that prove my points, but if you like, I would be happy to point out consistency. Again... Your attempt at manufacturing a situation where now there is stark contrast in reports, is none existent. Simply, they tend to be desribed as giant skeletons, with occasion morphological features being described such as receding skulls, double rows of teeth, six didgets. The last of the aforementioned being a stark minority.

      This will not stop being pointed out through this thread, as its a fundemental flaw the basis of your argument. It haven't seemed to 'win' purely due to aspects of your arguments like this, as well as gross naivity.

      Measuring femurs was the very first method applied to gaging the size of such skeletal remains by archeologists... Looking for the dimensions of a subject that has difficult to notice arm proportions, not so natural. The only time I have endorsed the arm proprtions of Patty, is after considerable research has been applied to showing such. The arm length of Patty though obvious in motion, not so much to a skeleton hanging out the ground.

      Delete
    16. I would like to add to the first paragraph of described traits elongated skulls.

      Delete
    17. There is no flaw because this isnt even an arguement. You can post all the consistencies you want, all day long. You are not adressing the fact that you are ignoring the inconsistencies. Im not going to copy and paste a bunch of crap here, I encourage everyone to do a search about giants in North America and see how many different oddball remains people have claim to found in America. Now the two things they all have in common is they have all vanished and none have been found in roughly fifty years. But according to you the giant remains that fit your agenda are the real deal, you arent so sure about the other ones. Then you claim that people that had the bones did notice all the skull abnormalities but probably didnt notice the elongated upper arms? Convenient for you as well. Still waiting to hear why the Smithsonian would cover this up.

      Delete
    18. And anyone looking for a non comspiracy theory, skeptical approach to this should read this article. Very well written.
      http://micahhanks.com/conspiracy-2/big-buried-secrets-giant-skeletons-and-the-smithsonian/

      Delete
    19. Isn't even an argument? Not for you it isn't... As I repeat, this will not stop being pointed out through this thread, as its a fundemental flaw at the basis of your argument. You haven't seemed to 'win' purely due to aspects of your arguments like inconsistencies, as well as gross naivity.

      I have not once suggested that the claims to six fingered giant skeletons are not true, merely that I haven't discussed them (why would I if they don't directly appear to reference Sasquatch anatomy?), whilst the only thing that's stopping me from making you look totally stupid, is spamming up this thread with the instances of the consistency you maintain isn't there. You'll find plenty of hoaxes in the 19th century, many of which I can point out better than you, but these are grossly sensationalist and don't have the same level of scientific backing like the sources I can reference.

      As was put to you previously, looking for the dimensions of arm bones in these skeletons would not have come natural considering the very slight nature of difference in which the proportions of modern documented Sasquatch have been disputed (Patty).

      Delete
    20. John Wesley Powell (1834 - 1902, image above from Wikimedia commons) was made the first director of the Bureau of Ethnology in the United States in 1879, which was established that same year by an Act of Congress, a position he held until his death in 1902.

      That bureau, which changed its name to the Bureau of American Ethnology in 1897, was directly connected to the Smithsonian Institution, which had been established in 1846 through the will of the British chemist James Smithson (1765 - 1829) and funded by his bequest of 105 sacks of about 1,000 gold sovereigns each, and pursued the mission of organizing all the anthropological research in the nation.

      In his first year as head of the Bureau of Ethnology, Powell submitted the first of his Annual Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, dated July 1880 and covering the Bureau of Ethnology's efforts for 1879-1880.

      Beginning on page 73 of that publication is a famous essay by Powell entitled "On Limitations to the Use of Some Anthropologic Data." In it, Powell sets forth the doctrine which would become the guiding principle of his Bureau of American Ethnology and of the Smithsonian at large all the way through the present day, a strictly isolationist doctrine which flatly declares that it is "illegitimate" to entertain any line of analysis which attempts to connect any artifacts found in the New World with any "peoples or so-called races of antiquity in other portions of the world."

      A reproduction of the letter, with the passages emphasizing this isolationist doctrine highlighted in yellow, can be found online here as well;

      http://www.scienceviews.com/lostcivilizations/powelldoctrine.html

      Recently, a new aspect of the Smithsonian's policy of refusing to countenance any artifacts that might pose a challenge to Powell's "doctrine" of isolationism has received a lot of publicity in light of the publication of Richard Dewhurst's new book Ancient Giants Who Ruled North America: the Missing Skeletons and the Great Smithsonian Cover-Up. Richard Dewhurst used the capabilities of modern search engines to examine the archives of US newspapers going back to the early 1800s and found hundreds of published descriptions of giant skeletons being unearthed across the North American continent, many of them containing photographs.

      He also found evidence that, while the Smithsonian in its early years was an enthusiastic documenter of such discoveries, the arrival of John Wesley Powell marked a dramatic change in the Smithsonian's attitude and policy towards such finds, to such an extent that Dewhurst was forced to conclude that: "What my research has revealed is that the Smithsonian has been at the center of a vast cover-up of America's true history since the 1880s" (3). He documents numerous cases in which representatives from the Smithsonian arrived on the scene of any reported discoveries of giant skeletons with remarkable rapidity (sometimes within one or two days, even in the late 1800s and even when the archaeological find was in remote regions of the American west) and in which skeletons reported as being turned over to the Smithsonian were never seen again.

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

      Delete
    22. The Smithsonian Institution aggressively acquired the remains of a vast preponderance of giants’ remains unearthed in North America. Newspaper articles from the period tell this as well as science journals. The technique that Smithsonian curators used to coax people to ship the evidence to them was quite ingenious. First, the museum established itself as the anthropological authority bar none. Often, this was enough to attract flies to the “bug zapper.” And if it wasn’t, then requests were mailed by the museum, which asked to see the evidence. After bones and artifcacts were shipped from another museum, or from a private party, the Smithsonian then proceeded to “sit on them” for a long, long time. In retrospect, it’s obvious that the material was simply put into a top secret warehouse somewhere. Inquiries from the parties involved would produce stalling. Years typically became one or two decades.

      Yes, the Smithsonian’s modus operandi tended to use passive aggressive means to confiscate evidence. This time-honored tradition worked like a charm. Museum staff (from other institutions) tended to give up the easiest. Private parties that had personally discovered or bought the remains were more persistent. Eventually, though, the person would die, as folks tend to do. When another generation of family members deigned to keep up the fight of getting back their property, the Smithsonian would then shift into second gear: refusing to even acknowledge that it had ever received the skeletons and artifacts. Most times, the next generation of family members did not keep badgering the Smithsonian. Why? Well, primarily because they were busy with the travails of earning a living and raising a family. Of course, public perceptions about such things might also have been a contributing factor. The sciences had not only brushed off the evidence; they had also taken a firm stand against the possibility that a giant race of hominids once lived in North America. So, by the 1950′s, children and grandchildren of the original owners of said artifacts, which were stolen by the Smithsonian, could have started to doubt “grandpa’s stories” about a giant skull, copper jewelry, etc. Plausible deniability worked like a charm when new staff and new scientists at the Smithsonian replaced the older generations, which originally accepted the remains. How’s that for sneaky? It’s why I call the Smithsonian “Land of the Lost."

      Delete
    23. "I have not once suggested that the claims to six fingered giant skeletons are not true, merely that I haven't discussed them (why would I if they don't directly appear to reference Sasquatch anatomy?)" Thank you, the entire point of my post. You are using data in a way thats misleading people in your favor. "You haven't seemed to 'win' purely due to aspects of your arguments like inconsistencies, as well as gross naivity." And I guess thats another point of mine, Im not trying to win anything, only make a statement that you are misleading people. I get it, you are constantly battling people here who say they smoked you, and you feel like everyone has to be self proclaimed victory for yourself. If thats what you need then indeed Sir you are the winner here. You smoked me. Dont let me get in the way of you patting yourself on the back. "whilst the only thing that's stopping me from making you look totally stupid, is spamming up this thread with the instances of the consistency you maintain isn't there." Ok... but you allready did that. Oh and a big piece of the making me look stupid puzzle would be actual verified scientific proof of any of this being real. You have an accumalated pile of conspiracy theories.

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

      Delete
    25. I dont need data to back up this propostion. Anyone on here can merely read your posts and see that over and over again you admit that you present the evidence that favors your picture of what a bigfoot is and omit what doesnt. Which is done to purposely mislead the people on this forum. Basically telling us we should look at the alleged giant skeletons, but only the pieces that you want us to see. You are involved in your own coverup in a sense. Because when we start adding in some of the anomalies it makes this whole giant skeleton picture a bit murkier and less believable.
      You have become so one sided on this issue you have lost the ability to look at anything objectively. I personally couldnt believe that when I looked up the giant skeletons, that you wouldnt mention all of the facts. But now I know not to just take you at your word, because there is more to the facts that you present to us here. There is more to the stories you dont want us to know. But like I said, being as these are all UNPROVEN conspiracy theories anyway, Im not sure of the value of any of it.

      Delete
    26. I tell you what... Here's a challenge for you as you're so sure. Post me the instances where six didget giant skeletons have been found. This would be so much easier to support your stance that six didget skeletons are by no means the minority, and since we have no fear of spamming up this thread because people have moved on, I'm sure we can expose your argument as being exactly what it is. Here's the only instance I can find on the internet regarding six didgets;

      "The Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features. Their heights ranged between 7.6ft and 10 feet and their skulls “presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America to-day.” They tend to have a double row of teeth, 6 fingers, 6 toes and like humans came in differant races. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars. Heads usually found are elongated believed due to longer than normal life span."

      Now if you can find me another one or two instances where these six didgets have been documented, then we might have two instances in the face of innumerable, newspaper reports, history of townships and science journals & publications that don't. Are we of the same minority level as the horned skull?

      Also... Here's another thing that you're naive to, I have referenced plenty of Wisconsin giants in my time posting here, go and have a look for yourself, a simple "j** f******* bigfoot evidence wisconsin giant skeletons" will verify this for you, it's not rocket science son.

      A reproduction of the letter, with the passages emphasizing this isolationist doctrine highlighted in yellow, can be found online here as well;

      http://www.scienceviews.com/lostcivilizations/powelldoctrine.html

      You haven't addressed this, have you? And you call me one sided? Do you require any more proof other than a written document by the man himself responsible? The truth is looking you square in the face, yet you appear to have the audacity to point fingers at me like I'm cheery picking information??

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    27. Also... If you delve into the instances in history where we have documented tribes with six didgets, this becomes very clear how rare but easily acknowledged such a thing, which mirrors the rarity in frequency in relation to your the Wisconsin giants and the innumerable contrasting examples. The six fingers and toes phenomenon with the regards to the Waorani tribe, for example is very interesting as it occasionally shows up with other people all over the globe. It is not just limited to that one tribe. Actually you can stumbled on other tribe/family groups, which have the six digit phenomenon running through their genetic lines. There is a region near Efes (Ephesus), Turkey, called "AltI Parmak" where many of the people there have historically had six fingers. Although the six digit phenomenon runs in family lines, it also shows up randomly, when a normally recessive gene become dominant. A Waorani boy, from Songpo village in southern China's Hunan province was documented as having extra digits are absolutely normal were functioning. A Cuban man, Yoandri Hernandez Garrido, was documented having six perfectly formed fingers on each of his hands and the six impeccable toes on each foot. Tirso Furcal grew up in the Dominican Republic with six fingers on his left hand and six toes on both feet.

      "Fourteen members of the Da Silva family who live near the capital, Brasilia, were born with six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, thanks to a rare genetic condition called polydactyly. The family's sixth fingers function exactly as the others and don't hinder activities like cooking or guitar playing. Female family members with six toes have had their sixth removed in order to fit into feminine shoes, but the men have kept all six. The family are staunchly proud of their additional digits, and say they believe they can help the national team win their own sixth. "Yes, of course, because we are giving so much energy for Brazil to win the Cup, and I believe this energy will flow onto the pitch and they will play really well and win their sixth World Cup," said 28-year-old Ana Carolina Santos da Silva."

      For further reading;

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly

      Delete
    28. ... And yes, I've always maintained Sasquatch are another tribe of humans. So I repeat, this will not stop being pointed out through this thread, as its a fundamental flaw at the basis of your argument. You haven't seemed to 'win' purely due to aspects of your arguments like 'inconsistencies' that are in fact small number of reports, as well as gross naivety. You are clinging to a case in which accusations of misleading cannot be propped up by the data, and accusations of mere conspiracy that I have linked you a written statement that quashes any notion of the sort.

      Delete
    29. I didnt address the Doctrine because its absolute nonsense that you think that its proof there were giant skeletons found and covered up. Not one time does it mention Giants. That doctrine can be intrepreted so many different ways. Another example of you bending data to your will. And you still completely miss the point. Link me all the reports of giants found that you say are your Sasquatch and we will go from there.

      Delete
    30. Plus... I haven't even pulled my other arm from behind my back yet; the actual documented cases.

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

      Delete
    32. Post mine? I dont have any. I am saying they are all conspiracy theory B.S. My comments have been stated over and over that you only concern yourself with the facts that suit you and havent objectively looked at this. That is the only fact in this entire conversation. You have posted many articles. I want to see exactly the ones you are claiming are your Sasquatch in one neat little group. So that I may compare them with Patty which you also claim is real. The 6 digit arguement is useless because we have no hard numbers on how many were found like that. Are they in the minority? Yes probably, but in no way is it a VAST minority worthy of you deeming it non important. You have posted the same comments in here basically over and over and now you dont want to? And then add another conspiracy theory on top of it all?

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

      Delete
    34. Nope Im still saying I dont think any of this is real. I can see something like this being covered up a century ago, I dont think anyone would still want to cover it up. The scientific implications of something like this would be huge and I cant imagine anyone would just let it sit. And I know its all easily explained through your conspiracy theory, but I dont buy into those. I am only stating "again" that you are using this wild theory to your liking and omitting things that dont match up because they hurt your claim. The Wisconsin six digit giants has the exact same amount of credibilty as any of the other finds. Covered up in the same exact way as you alledge, but you wish to dismiss it because its only one report. But there are more than just these discrepencies in these reports. I have yet to read 2 of them that have described the exact same features, which is why Im asking for the ones you call legitimate. And I saw nothing in the doctrine that admitted covering up anything. Once again that very old doctrine you cling to is pretty open to interpretation. You have nothing that shows that remains of Giants are being stored in a secret location somewhere. So give yourself another big pat on the back and tell yourself how smart you are. I can only hope that people here now realize there is much more to your stories than the details you give us, which Im sure most of them allready knew anyway.

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

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

      Delete
    37. No because you have done it for me. I dont need to. My one and only point this whole time is that you are using the giant findings only in a way thats convenient for you, not looking at the whole picture. Im fairly sure everyone can see that now. You still havent linked all the findings that you say are legitimate to be compared to each other. Youve really just gone on to repeat yourself over and over and absolutely drown this topic with utter conspiracy nonsense. All I have been asking for is the reports you say are legitmate bigfoot. Please.. just that, weve heard enough of your unproven theories.

      Delete
    38. I would say man up and start proving your points... It's as simple as that. If you want to hold debates/arguments with people in future, it's how it's done... I've basically paid you more attention than anyone else would have in this situation, as your arguments were exposed comments ago. Your premise is that I'm using giant skeletons in a way that suits my argument, yet none of the traits described have been ignored (in fact used by me in the past) and none of the traits take away anything that can be used in a manner to describe Sasquatch skeletons, who are merely giant humans.

      And I'll pull that arm out when I'm ready, because I'm that confident, and to be honest, am slightly bored.

      See you around.

      Delete
    39. Ok first point your link, the truth according to you and MK

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/could-this-be-bigfoot-skull-mk-davis-is.html?m=0

      And heres all the facts of your Sasquatch skull you leave out.
      http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4390
      pretty stark contradiction to each other huh? And that was just the first one I looked at. You dont have to look, I just hope other people will so they can see how you are manipulating these stories.

      Delete
    40. I also find it odd you are suddenly reluctant to provide information.

      Delete
    41. Ok... I'll oblige you as you're learning. The Skeptoid source you referenced, I took apart about a year ago. It's dud too... As the arguments in it would have held weight if there wasn't any biological evidence to back up the legends surrounding the cave, but there is... This has been given to you with photographs of the extact skull that has receding forehead and much larger archaic features. MK uncovered this source a long time after your Skeptoid source was spewed, which totally took it apart as the one thing required to back up the legend, is in it. Here's an extract from that scientific paper;

      An Unusual Human Skull From Near Lovelock, Nevada" by Erik K. Reed - Photographic work from the paper one by Dennis Van Gerven;

      "The skull is categorized as "New World Material," a general archaic type referred to by Georg Neumann's term "Otamid variety." It resembled early period central California material from the lower Sacramento Valley (Neumann 1957) and from Tranquility in the San Joaquin Valley (Angel, 1966). It also resembles the the Ophir cranium from Virginia City, Nevada (Reichlen and Heizer 1966) - even having the strange os inca."

      You see? I can go on and paste larger extracts from that paper of you like? Skeptoid's basis of argument is that there was no skeletal remains to back up the claims, but there was, even photographs... Kind of mirrors your failings a bit, eh? For more information on Otaminds;

      "As it turns out, Otamids are defined as long and low headed with elongate distal limbs (ie. they were hunters like Late Pleistocene Europeans), are present right into the eastern Archaic and Middle Woodlands periods and are described simply as plesiomorphic (meaning primitive ancestral or primitive character) relative to 'derived' Americoids, resembling similar populations in Europe and Siberia and lacking Mongoloid features in their cranium and face (Note from me: So, these slope-headed ones were found in Europe and Siberia and interestingly those are regions where light hair was found in the population correlating with reports of red-haired and blond-haired giants)."

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

      Delete
    43. Eric Johns offered an example from 1911, where researchers named Pugh and Hart had found the remains of large, red haired humans at Sunset Cave close to Lovelock, Nevada. The remains found there were over seven feet tall, and some of the remains were shipped to the Smithsonian Institute by L.L. Loud, an archaeologist with the University of California, one year later.”These notes are still on digital file at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology,” Johns shared, “listed under reference number 544, An Anthropological Expedition of 1913.” But interestingly, Pugh and Hart, while releasing the majority of the remains to the Smithsonian, also managed to keep a number of the strange artifacts and bones they found, including several skulls, which Johns says remain today at the Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca, Nevada. The boxes obtained by the Smithsonian, however, cannot be accounted for so easily:

      "[The University of California] seems to have misplaced the skeletons, yet the other material is still there and on display in their exhibits. The same can be said of the Smithsonian, who still use some of Loud’s artifacts for their Southwest exhibit at the National Museum of the American Indian. Again, no giant skeletons to be found in their exhibits or catalog."

      The Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California published a paper on Lovelock cave, and wrote:

      “The site has been extensively pothunted and many materials remain in private collections. Lovelock Cave, despite years of destruction, is one of the most important sites in the history of North American archaeology.”

      Why is the site so significant? Because the artifacts represented items that showed there was in fact a culture of people living in the area that were quite unlike the nearby Paiutes – a tribe of people currently unknown in the field of human anthropology. The efforts of the first archaeologist to arrive, L.L. Loud from UC, turned up a treasure trove of relics, including some impressive duck decoys used by this unknown culture – but not a mummy, as claimed by many that recount this tale around the Internet. Unassisted, Loud conducted excavations in the cave from April to August, 1912, and collected approximately 10,000 archaeological specimens, most of which came from three locations.

      And to finish up... If you read Kathy Strain's book called Giants, Cannibals and Monsters, you'll learn that nearly every North American tribe has cannibalistic giants intertwined in their agknowledgement of Sasquatch. Here in be study provided you we have a scientific paper on the morphology of a giant skull found at lovelock cave. So, what we have here, is documented biological evidence that explains giant and hominid morphology of a legend of Cannibalistic giants, eerily similar to nearly every other native tribe in North America. These aren't mammoth bones, these aren't giant sloths... This is a recorded scientic study. And I still haven't pulled my other arm out yet.

      Next?

      Delete
    44. Oh and by the way... I'm going to bed, I'll be back in the morning.

      Delete
    45. LOL you are exhausting. Theres so many holes in this, it just cant hold any water. Ok so the Smithsonian is covering all this up, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Your Giants used to make all kinds of weapons, artifacts, toys, artwork etc... Agreed? Its found in thier graves. I will point out none of it was of abnormal size, kind of odd. Seems like Giant people would make at least bigger weapons. I digress.. Another point, some of these have been found with hair remaining. I have yet to read one thing saying these Giants appeared to be covered in hair. I mean if they are finding some with hair doesnt it seem like theyd find evidence they were covered in hair? Once again I digress... We have we found absolutely no evidence of newer relics made by these creatures? I dont buy the little twisted twigs are made by sasquatch either, if they were making better than that thousands of years ago Id have to believe theyd be making even better now. And they must be REALLY good at cleaning up after themselves and must have quit doing art alltogether because nothing has been found. I digress.... Native American remains are still found a lot in this country, no giant remains are being found anymore. All evidence points that these were not giant human remains but misidentified remains. You ignore all that. You would have people here believe that media sensationalized stories, which most people theorize became popular due to the biblical references of giants, are proof or your Sasquatch.

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

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

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

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

      Delete
    50. If there are holes you are invited to expose them, so far you've been shown to be not very good at that. What evidence to the contrary is there that Smithsonian is covering things up? You need to back up your points, it's pretty much essential.

      Also, here are images of giant tools;

      http://rephaim23.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/axe.jpg

      http://rephaim23.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/giant-tools1.jpg

      http://rephaim23.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/giant-hammer.jpg

      The fresh stage is the first phase of decomposition that begins in subjects with hair is approximately four minutes after death and lasts around three days until putrefaction. Following initial decay, approximately 4 to 10 days after death, the body begins the second stage of decay called putrefaction. Than black putrefaction, also known as active decay begins about 10 to 25 days after death. The fourth stage called butyric fermentation begins around 20–25 days after death. The final stage in hair covered subjects' decomposition is dry decay. Dry decay begins between 25 and 50 days after death and can last up to a year. The only remnants of the body are dry skin, hair, and bones. At 5+ months it’s safe to say the subject is bones with the exception of head hair which we know can last significantly longer.

      We don't have any evidence of newer relics, but we don't find skeletons and burial sites either as they evade in what's up to 70% of the US which is wilderness. Sasquatch are regularly seen wielding clubs;

      Club-wielding chimp disappears after sighting

      "Star staff

      July 24, 2006

      Authorities have not been able to locate a chimpanzee seen with a club in its hand in the backyard of a Thousand Oaks home Monday morning.

      At 9:30 a.m., a resident in the 1500 block of Via Bajada saw a chimpanzee with some type of club, the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department said. By the time California Department of Fish and Game workers arrived, the animal had disappeared.

      Officials suspect that it belongs to a neighbour, and the Department of Fish and Game was searching for people who have permits to own such animals, the Sheriff’s Department said.

      Source: Ventura County Star, California, Tuesday, July 25, 2006.

      This “chimp” was never captured."

      There are in fact too many instances of tool baring Sasquatch, and this is pretty much common knowledge to anyone who's spent enough time on the subject. We also have settler's accounts from 19th century printed media that tell of club wielding wildmen. Here is a link to one of D L Soucy's newspaper reports of the Grand Canyon from 1903, where a report of a wildman with a club is discussed;

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izmGdRWYbmI

      Also... Twisted trees are subtle markers and are not meant to be noticed so much by people they are trying to evade, all this is painfully basic stuff.

      Again... Why are Sasquatch going to divulge great statements in art when they are trying to evade people for their safety?

      http://www.geocities.ws/nephilimnot/ancient_giants_of_lovelock_cave.htm

      Fortunately one of the giant Lovelock skulls is still preserved today though not on display and are very rarely seen by people requesting to see them. Scroll down and look at the jaw bone comparison... Damn you make this easy. Does that fall in the size range of a normal human? Look at the scale and the width of the teeth arch... Look at the size of the teeth; this is very, very, very basic anthropology.

      Abraham Lincoln, is quoted as saying before Congress in 1848;
      “The eyes of that species of extinct giant, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara as our eyes do now.”

      This is how common knowledge the giant skeletal finds were in the 19th century. No religious connotations, and the arm I've yet to pull out from behind my back has science publications quashing any claims of mere biblical references, that also show precise measurements of giant skeletons that you insists are not there.

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

      Delete
  13. Bigfoot is so elusive you only have to go as far as a goat in heat to hear one. They're cloaking juveniles of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goats in heat? Morehead's recordings that have become the subject of a year-long University of Wyoming-based engineering study to determine authenticity and the nature of the vocalizations relative to those of humans and other primates, with the results of that study being published concluding that the unusual vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges, that the vocalizations were spontaneous at the time of recording and that there was no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed. These recordings were in turn analysed to have a complex language that's also been transcribed.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, and I've got a study that contradicts that from a scientist that lives near MIT.

      you're wasting your stinky breath you zagnut

      Delete
    3. Get him to publish it via a university & multiple scientists with a cryptolinguist that contradicts the language translation, and you'll have my attention.

      Until then you're wasting yours... Now I'll go brush my teeth.

      Delete
    4. I read the close to MIT study. It's famous now of course. Everyone has read it. One thing he forgot to account for is the straight up cold fact that juveniles can cloak their voices. So it registers to scientists as goats in heat. I'm off in my UFO to survey the Siberian rainforest for global climating.

      Delete
  14. Hi Joe!

    Here is a link to the video of the Russian Bigfoot photos, a new upload by Bigfoot Project! I am still looking for it on my data discs but I think this might be what I was telling you about!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG93YxwtXaY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No problem bro, I was fairly certain I had seen this somewhere before.
      There is still another video similar to this I am looking for.

      Delete
    2. Thanks very much pal. I really appreciate you taking the time.

      Delete
    3. messing around with another man joe?...big gay jon's not going to like this one bit...unless homo blog guy is jon

      Delete
  15. Bigfoot: any day now since 1959.

    It's no fun waiting, but it is fun to tweak the idiots who believe in this crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plenty found, none caught. The idiot's the impatient one trying to pass his presence on a Bigfoot blog as anything else.

      Delete