M.K. Davis Stabilizes Calgary Bigfoot Footage
We've never seen such a huge stabilization attempt from M.K. Davis, so we're going to hotlink the GIF animation instead. It's 44 megs, and there ain't no way we're going to upload it to blogger. The Calgary Bigfoot is one of the most compelling footage to come out of Canada. This was actually filmed back in January 2014, and it's was supposed to be a routine nature walk when the family catches something stalking them and getting back into crouching position before getting away. You can clearly see that it's a biped and not a bear. The video is below if you haven't seen it:
Here's the link to the stabilized GIF animation. Warning: 44 megs!: Link
[Update] We've reduced the stabilized GIF down to 4 megs. Enjoy!
Back to back....shackalacka bammm.......tkoenig
ReplyDeleteNice one Koenig!!
DeleteI've always thought this footage compelling.
That's a Bigfoot alright. A Damn big one too. But what do I know? My height is now 4ft8. :D
DeleteHa ha ha!!
DeleteScience says no bigfoot. Uh oh.
DeleteMy good buddy DWA says science is over-rated.
DeleteHe's the biggest skeptic I know. ;0)
MMG
2:35... Science isn't a thinking entity, it's a tool... And it's been used to verify evidence of an unknown primate residing in the wilderness of the U.S.
DeleteNo, no... The pleasure's all mine.
'it's been used verify evidence of an unknown primate' - if that's even a scientifically acceptable statement - means yes we know there is something out there but we don't know what it is. That's not the same as saying Bigfoot exists, and it definitely doesn't give anyone liberty to describe characteristics of said unknown primate. So while the blurry figure in this video looks like what we assume the 'unknown primate' could look like it could also be a bloke in a suit assisting a filmmaker to create a story.
DeleteYou're quite right about the footage in question, but the rest of your statement would hold weight if we didn't already have footage showing anatomical and morphological traits consistent with reports, along with every other source of evidence short of modern type specimen, along with ten thousand years of understanding of behaviour and appearance.
DeleteNobody is suggesting they can prove bigfoot exists, but that they can prove there is evidence of an unknown primate in the U.S.
Occam's Razor time.
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
DeletePsuedoscience is in fact maintaining that there is nothing worthy of analysis until such a process of conclusive research is reached, such as type specimen. Psuedoscience is also ignoring data based on subjective assumptions and inaccurate data, reclining to preconceived preferences that cannot be supported, and is in fact heuristics (what the scientific method was designed against)... Some of your very regularly expressed fallacies... Like providing a means to test the sources presented sufficiently and show that your position is not one hypocritically based on lies that you point to others making.
DeleteThe theories regarding the evidence for this subject are based on consistent scrientific methods that have propelled fields of science to be as reliable as they have become, that have in turn transitioned into this field, therefore, it is a contradiction to celebrate science like a free thinking entity, when it's been applied in its purest form impartially & successfully to this field of study.
There is no requirement of mere belief, because we are in fact convinced by the data and evidence. Psuedoskepticism is a fundemental, quasi-religion.
"A conscious entity practicing science can only draw on its subjective experiences to form beliefs. This means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are generally two assumptions which must be taken entirely on faith."
DeleteGlad I could help.
Go outside. All of you. You're here way to much.
DeleteKey info; iPhones.
DeletePut the phone down. Look at your lover, look at the tree's, go for a walk.
DeleteI don't think you grasp tbe accessibility of an iPhone, do you?
DeleteOpen a catalogue son.
Bigfoot no doubt xx
DeletePut the phone down and look up. It might hurt your neck but the world is magnificent.
DeleteHow can you find bigfoot if you stare at your phone all day long? You can't.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI can't look for Bigfoot cause I live in the UK. Why don't you go and do it for me Indiana Jones?
DeleteI enjoy casual research, keeps me outside. Not as nimble as I used to be.
DeleteThe answer for your longing isn't spending your life as a keyboard warrior.
^pot calling the kettle black
DeleteGood for you! If you can send a bit of cash my way so I can not be so restricted by my employment, then I'd be in a far better position to appease this longing of mine.
DeleteMakes sense.
DeleteBroke Englishman overcompensating by being an obnoxious blow horn.
Best wishes.
Who said I was English or broke? Keep up the good work Indie!
DeleteAre Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland not part of the UK anymore? Wow who knew.
DeleteHow are you my friend?!
DeleteGood Joe, you? I gotta start watching the news more often. Thank God I have these trolls to keep me educated.
DeleteMaybe next time he attempts to insult someone he'll do it with making himself look like an absolute dolt.
*without
DeleteHa!!
DeleteBroke, stupid Welshmen without a girlfriend in sight.
DeleteFIFY
Sticks and stones Indie!!
DeleteNickname is the pin cushion at all the gay bars^
ReplyDeleteJesus just shoot the fucker for once
ReplyDeleteAnyone see the stabilised pgf? Now that is a checkmate for the footers. Kinda hard to explain away all those costume flaws! Shot yourselves in the foot there.
ReplyDeleteAnd you folk claim we see things that ain't there? Not even in direct sunlight, the most unforgiving of suit conditions, do we see anything but organic skin folds, fat deposits and muscle groupings.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
Costume flaws? Those are muscle movements, soft tissue deposits, herniated muscles, hair braids, and I lost track of all the other coverups. I almost said that with a straight face.
Deletehttp://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
DeletePlenty of comparitive pictures here for you, I know how you guys don't like to read.
Not enough sound FX along with the dramatic music to be bigfoot. Put some howls, shrieks and growls in the sound track and BAM! I'm a believer. Blurry blobs just ain't what they used to be...
ReplyDeleteWe also see clearly the suit push out the diaper butt.
ReplyDeleteGot captured bigfoot?
Page 15 here;
Deletehttp://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
Stop crying and find a monkey suit for crying out loud, should be easier than capturing a Bigfoot, right?
Geeeeeeeez Joe, where do ya find ALL these internet articles. Some are ones I never knew were out there. Thanks for ALL the articles I haven't read/seen thanks to you............
DeleteSo ignorant he will think you are being serious.
DeleteHere you go with the Meldrum crap gain. Meldrum is an unreliable source like yourself as I proved yesterday. And you more or less seconded that motion when you said you dont endorse everything Meldrum says. Only the things he says that line up with your theory. Another one of your many conveniences. Plus you and Meldrum also support Todd Standing, which is really unbelievable. I mean as many flaws as the PGF film is I can see people believing that, its still a convincing hoax. But the Standing videos? Seriously? You said yesterday its never been proven to be a hoax? Well if thats not proof to you then its some pretty damning evidence. I would think that anyone of reasonable common sense could look at the Standing videos and know instantly that they are fake. I mean they are horrible.How many articles have there been now pointing out all the flaws of the video. There are a lot. SO the question then becomes, I mean you and Meldrum are obviously educated people right? How do you not see the Standing video and instantly realize thats a hoax? Why would you not try and run as far from that as you could to try and salvage what little credibility you had left. Ill tell you why. Becuase you both know this is all B.S. You figured it out after you have invested all this time into researching it. The only validation you have left is trying to convince people on this blog. And Meldrum has his Bigfoot conferences. But you will never get any validation outside of that world. And you know it. And thats why you perpetuate the lie. You try and reverse this on poeple by asking to find the monkey suit when the burden of proof lies on yourself. We dont have to even try to find a monkey suit because the rest of the world knows thats a guy in a monkey suit. Who cares if a small minority believe if its a giant, hairy, Native American, with mid-tarsal breaks in her foot, or whatever the hell else you are trying to claim it is. You can believe that all day but the rest of the world has more common sense than that and are not going to spend thier lives looking for a suit. We dont need to. Because even if we did you still wouldnt believe it. You would say "getting close but not quite there yet" and spend years of your lives analyzing it for any little minute detail that could support your notion. How do I know this? Because its what you are doing now. Why do we need to find a suit to support what common sense tells us anyway that there is no giant hairy people living in our forests. No sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. And your articles that you post arent proof. Your blurry videos you post arent proof. Only capturing one is proof. And for all your accumulated knowledge you still havent been able to do that. You arent any closer today then you were the day Patty was filmed. You cant even find them and film them living in their natural habitat. Even with all the technology we have now. Its pretty flimsy foundation you stand on, and you have to be ssmart enough to see that.
ReplyDeleteButrhurt boy's back! Ha ha!! I'll take this apart in an hour or two...
Delete: p
Oh... And quickly scanning over your dribble, get ready for another meltdown.
Delete; )
You support hoaxers Joe. Your opinions, and thats all they are are worthless.
DeleteYou'll be writing essays on me for weeks.
Delete: p
Ok, firstly, thanks for bunching me with such esteemed company such as Meldrum, I'm flattered.... But though you keep patting yourself on the back like some ten year old around a birthday cake, again you proved nothing of my alleged unreliability yesterday, and you prove nothing of the sort today. Allow me to demonstrate...
DeleteYou keep patting yourself on the back like its some source of denial, or damning should someone not agree with what another says... Like Meldrum's take on mid tarsals. This might seem a little strange to you, but this is normal in scientific study, BEING ABLE TO THINK FOR YOURSELF, for the sake of evolving a field of study. Something I'm sure you'll grow into one day, like grasping how to support your claims in adult debate. I celebrate everything Meldrum does except a couple of things, and this I totally healthy until we can sit down and classify a type specimen, and if you weren't so naive to the field, you'd realize that this is true of across the board who have space to theorise healthily in line with proper science that evolves and self corrects. I might add, Meldrum has only recently changed his ideas from Giganto to relict hominid, so in that respect he's catching up with me, whilst now he's theories on mid tarsals may well have changed as a result... You'd have to ask him.
Meldrum has support for Standing, so does Bindenagle, because Standing, seperate from the photographs, has taken both researchers to a research site and delivered them genuine experiences. Also... Standing has footage yet to be released to anyone in the Bigfoot community which both have researchers fully endorsed. I might add here that Bindenagle does appear to endorse Standing's older pictures, but as was posted here only 48 hours ago... The claims regarding the hoaxing of those photographs are based on assumptions and inaccurate data, as I will point out with the help of Mr Dover later on.
(Small note here.. You've yet to show any suit anomalies on the PGF. Man up and please do this before celebrating such, it's pretty much imperative.)
DeleteAnyway.... The truth is, Standing's photographs have never been proven to be hoaxed. Rev. Jeff, very skeptical, even had a SFX expert on his show that couldn't rule the photos out as hoaxes. Regardless of my opinion, these are facts; there is yet to be a conclusive means to verify those photographs as hoaxes, whilst the only source that has made a considerable effort was taken apart point for point only the other day. There's not a single angle you can bring up about those photogpraphs that isn't based on inaccurate data and is therefore flawed. By true skepticism, this should be taken into consideration, but by your own standards of this, it'll be pointed out to the detriment of your mental health.
Now for Meldrum to publicly state that he does not endorse the old photogpraphs, and that he is acquiring professional opinion on them, means that your argument is baseless. You can say what you want about Meldrum, but until you've seen the footage that's yet to be released to anyone, you're bunk. My opinion? At first I was very skeptical, but I'm not swayed by anyone else's judgement, don't care what anyone thinks and so far every attempt to debunk those photogpraphs has failed... Therefore, my stance is one that is open to be shown that they are indeed hoaxes, but won't fall for anything less than what that deserves which is conclusive data based on impartial and accurate means. Until then, I'll keep a very open mind. Now that you know my real stance on the matter, you are invited to point out to me the areas in those photogpraphs that confirm they are hoaxes. Easily for me... I will merely reference the great work Mr Dover has put together and you will no doubt reluctantly realise by the end of the day that you're stance cannot be supported with the current means.
"I will never get validation outside of this world", well... Me not personally whilst sitting on my backside watching the footy, no... But you must remember people like George Schaller, PhD, recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America. He is a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based WildlifeConservation Society, has got a foreword in Meldrum's book, and we have none other than the very best genericist in the world conducting field research in Washington.
Burden of proof used by psuedoskeptics is a way out of testing evidence presented, which in science must be. It's a way out of testing something that inevitably has no counter argument or an exchange that does not conclude to a preferenced idea. This is in fact evidence of denial and limited argument. When you have a source of footage presented by an anthropologist, a wildlife biologist, a pioneering plastic surgeon, a primatologist and a costume expert, it is the duty of those opposed to that premise to test the source sufficiently to support theirs, or it can't stand and the default position is the source being presented as legitimate, in line with all the other physical and biological sources of evidence there is to add credibility to said source. You must test the evidence, and how do you test a claim of organic tissue?
DeleteThat's right.
Again... We know that humans have mid tarsal breaks, maintaining that key information is opposed to any notion that Bigfoot is human, is embarrassing.
Is the present Bigfoot evidence reliable? Well about as reliable as any falsifiable source that can be presented as evidence in any scientific or judicial arena. There are in fact plenty of facts that denialists choose to ignore, like the pristine professionalism that has transitioned scientific careers into this field, by methods tried and tested to be legitimate and totally reliable. Like the very best primatologists and conservationists repeatedly telling you that there is nothing in the environment of the US that prohibits the existence of an unknown primate, and in fact... It is likely to be there. Considering that every single source of evidence exists short of type specimen, is it healthy to maintain the tunnel vision, denialist's stance that there is nothing what so ever to the claims of an unknown primate residing in the wilderness of the US?
Commons sense = Occam's Razor.
Technology has been applied very successfully, in accumulating things like thermal and footage. For all our knowledge and understanding of the subject, the only thing we don't know what do to is track them. We know where they are, but so did the researchers looking for the mountain gorilla that took 60 years post discovery, and we're considering a far cleverer, more sentient being in Sasquatch. The evidence for the mountain gorilla didn't stop being a reality until that happened... And no unsubstantiated, sweaty tantrums are gonna change the fact that if it really was as clear cut and obvious as you claim, we wouldn't have the best, pioneering scientists in the world interested, and you wouldn't be wasting all your time trying to oppose that, thinking of little old me.
... And to your next dribbles
: p
Damn JOe, you retarded idiot, that feller let you have it. He describes you perfectly.
DeleteBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
DeletePLOP!
Did you just burp?
DeleteHeres how credible the Fitzgerald and Meldrum team are. Meldrum has worked with Todd Standing. Joe said yesterday that the Standing videos were never proven to be hoaxes. True. How can you prove anything to people that think the government is covering up giant hairy people living with us. Still, if you believe this nonsense that your "experts" are telling you then read some of these articles. Many of which were hosted on this very blog. Then stop and realize that the "experts" whose opinions you value are trying to tell you these are real sasquatch.
ReplyDeletehttp://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/analysis-in-todd-standings-blinking-bigfoot/
Article from Matthew Johnson who is a much more credible source than Joe and Meldrum IMHO
http://www.teamsquatchinusa.com/todd-standing-legit-bigfoot-researcher-or-hoaxer/
and another
http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/04/todd-standing-a-new-name-in-bigfootery/
http://www.thesasquatchvoice.blogspot.com/
I can keep going if you want me to. There are a ton of articles about Stanind and his credibility. But Meldrum actually works with Standing. And Meldrum is one of the "experts" that says the Patty footage is authentic. So if you are actually trying to find a Sasquatch and prove this to the world. Why would be anywhere near this Giant mess(no pun intended) that Standing has released as actual footage of Sasquatch?
Your downfall is naivity, there's just so much easily attainable info to counter your claims.
DeleteSee you soon.
; )
Unless you come back with undeniable verified scientific data you won't counter anything. Here's a hint: IT DOESN'T EXIST.
Delete+1000000000 4:42 keep up the good work
DeleteOh trust me, my hands are tied nis but you'll be writing essays about me for weeks, ha ha ha!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH government cover up BLAH BLAH BLAH Smithsonian conspiracy BLAH BLAH BLAH settler diaries BLAH BLAH BLAH PLOP!
DeleteYOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read the threads, I have plenty resulting in your meltdown.
Delete; )
The only thing more riddled with rife than supposed bigfoot evidence is the character of people in the heart of bigfooting.
DeleteThe fact you feel the need to spend all day unsuccessfully arguing with anonymous commenters, becoming defensive or hyper over any and every comment, going days back to respond to comments, shows exactly where your so called evidence stands in the world.
You are relegated to a barf blog that allows anonymous comments. That's the hilarity of your ignorance.
You are just as big of a hoaxer as Dyer and Patterson. You are going to do the exact same thing you always do. Come up with more babble then talk about how easy and basic this all is and how butt hurt I am. Its getting old. Ive shown everyone that you routinely lie, and support hoaxers and thats all I wanted from the get go. Its up to people to decide if they want to listen to someone who associates themselves with hoaxers. Personally I dont. From day one you have never proven one single fact of your arguements. Its like arguing with a toddler really. If you endorse the Standing footage then you are an idiot plain and simple. Im off to find someone to argue with that actually has some credibility to thier name.
ReplyDelete+10000000 great stuff
DeleteKeep up the good work Joe, the fight against the cement heads is a tough one ."you gotta kick at the darkness til it bleeds daylight"
DeleteLies? Point them out.
DeleteBabble? Point it out.
Hoaxes? point them out.
Never proven anything? Prove me wrong.
And again... Please man up and prove your points, stop posting arguments that in the end don't remotely support your stance & that can have answers pointed out by a ten year old, and stop hypocritically patting yourself on the back and learn these very fundental aspects of adult debate. I'm paying you way more attention than what I should.
(Sigh)
I'd say stick to Call of Duty.
But you are an idiot. Plain and simple.
DeleteThis was one of the handful of vids in the past couple years that looked good and the enhancements leave one wanting more. Darn shoddy camera phones. However when this stands up there is no doubt it is massive. The left arm which shows up dark is just huge and is very long. I think these folks caught one here. Hey it happens from time to time.
ReplyDeleteChuck
Sorry, I don't share your enthusiasm for this footage, it's too blurry to be of any significant value.
DeleteTo me, significant would be footage that's convincing to the regular public and this aint it. Case in point is this thread...
I'm afraid no footage of this quality will ever be produced and a body or two is what's needed, then the sketch footage will be acceptable as continued proof...
This is some guy wearing a hunting outfit. You can clearly see the hat. I feel sorry for you people. You losers need to get a life.
ReplyDeleteSays the guy trolling a site about a creature he doesn't believe in.
DeleteDon't mind 4:47... Another impatient role playing nerd that has to pretend he's a 'skeptic' in case his mummy finds him interested in Bigfoot; who just wants his body so he can come out the closet. Hey... If he can attain some level of attention he lacks so much in the real world in the process... Bonus!
DeletePatience 4:47 and in the mean time, enjoy the subject matter.
He trolls cos just too easy to get a response and the attention he craves. Some may say it's self serving as the protagonist and antagonist indulge their own egos and make this comment section a wasteland.
DeleteArgh bite me... Look at the quality of my comments and ask yourself where's your contribution to this blog.
Delete^^^well said mate.
Delete; )
DeleteBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH government cover up BLAH BLAH BLAH Smithsonian conspiracy BLAH BLAH BLAH settler diaries BLAH BLAH BLAH PLOP!
DeleteYOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have plenty; hense your meltdown twonk! Ha ha ha!!
DeleteBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH government cover up BLAH BLAH BLAH Smithsonian conspiracy BLAH BLAH BLAH settler diaries BLAH BLAH BLAH PLOP!
DeleteYOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In order to "counter" an argument you would have to show why the other person is wrong by giving valid arguments backed up by verified sources.
ReplyDeleteWriting long paragraphs about mildly related stuff and ending with smiley faces and proclaiming "I win" does not do you any favours.
Here's an example of how an actual counter to a skeptic would work:
Bigfoot does exist. Here are multiple links to a news story of a bigfoot body being found (insert links). Here are links to YouTube videos taken by witnesses when it happened (insert links). Here are links to scientific papers that verify the creature is real (link to paper). Here is a link to a paper that verifies where in the tree of life and closely related to humans it is (insert link).
Now that would be a pretty good counter argument. That's the sort of thing that happens for actual species that actual exist. You posting smiley faces on an obscure bigfoot blog is the sort of thing that happens for non existent creatures.
Sorry Joe but nothing you say has any weight, it is merely conjecture.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI find this rich considering I frequently post sources of evidence that have been accumulated by scientists who have excelled all others in their respected fields, with consistent scientific method that has been transitioned from fields of study that have been proven to work for decades. What's funny, is the only thing you appear to be able to stoop to when this occurs, is attacks on the characters of those experts verifying them, maintaining that these are then 'unverified' and this is evidence of perverse rhetorical standings that are evidence of both limited argument, and limited understanding of consistent methods of study.
DeleteIt is also yet further evidence of rhetorical fallacies, that you should require seemingly mainstream sources to show evidence that is in your eyes trust worthy, when mainstream science is either restricted or reluctant to participate and has evidence in it's primest of forms (peer review) to be as equally as deceiving and manipulative as anything you claim this field to be, and by your standards should not be trusted because of such examples. Again, what I can source you are scientists that have only a means of attack on their characters as a means to countering their research, even science journals posted from the 19th century at a time where such giant skeletal finds were mainstream knowledge, have been countered with mere cynisicm; nothing in the way of conclusive data that warrants a basis to not consider three generations of scientific and news media publication.
Again.., audacious you should talk of counter arguments. Debating a denialist is akin to biology evolutionist debating a creationist. The denialist will focus on his own argument and close out any means of counter argument; this serves as an important level of self worth and belonging to a theory group that can provide some sense of community, whilst it also avoids the awkward reality of countering information that is without a counter point. If there wasn't such thing as Bigfoot and there wasn't even cause for debate; you wouldn't be here... Would you?
"The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."
: )
; )
: p
Oh... And an actual species that actually exists leaves actual sign... And considering we have every source of evidence short of modern type specimen for 47 years of a relatively small and unaided collected effort... I think you'd better get cracking and change your angle I wangle, because maintaining that sources aren't there when they are makes you look a little apprehensive to get into a something that inevitably can only make you look daft trying to debate in the end.
Delete: )
; )
: p
Let's back up a second. Please remember that belief in bigfoot is generally associated with buffoonism and pronounced low-brow oafery seldom encountered outside of heavily inbred populations.
DeleteAnd nobody reads you lengthy, dull posts, except BJ if he isn't too drunk,
Only equally affection starved nerds would think so. Welcome to the psycho cyber nerd's head. Where I life dominated by his peers and bullies in the real world manifests perverse attempts at clawing back control anonymously on a blog.
DeleteYou people make having an ego this big easy.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH government cover up BLAH BLAH BLAH Smithsonian conspiracy BLAH BLAH BLAH settler diaries BLAH BLAH BLAH PLOP!
DeleteYOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You must have bad wind son, if I had nothing you wouldn't be having a meltdown now, would you?
DeleteHa ha ha ha!!
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH government cover up BLAH BLAH BLAH Smithsonian conspiracy BLAH BLAH BLAH settler diaries BLAH BLAH BLAH PLOP!
DeleteYOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Does a bigfoot shite in the woods?
ReplyDeleteI always thought this looked a lot like someone caught bare-ass naked taking a crap. ?
Two thumbs up for this video, just as long a MK Davis is not talking in it.
ReplyDeleteFrom the small stabilized gif, I see a four legged animal (deer,wolf, elk?) It rears up on its hind legs and jumps over something runs back into shadow turns left and goes out of sight.
ReplyDeleteI hereby declare Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, or anything else you wish to call it: A MYTH. We can all go home now, thank you for your time
ReplyDeleteIt would be significant if you'd hadn't already been branded an unqualified chump that's scared of the dark.
DeleteLadies and gentlemen... "Last Word" Joe Fitz! Let's hear for him, c'mon, a big round of applause!
Delete^ oops! Last word!
Delete: p
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH government cover up BLAH BLAH BLAH Smithsonian conspiracy BLAH BLAH BLAH settler diaries BLAH BLAH BLAH PLOP!
DeleteYOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you so funny
DeleteLittle girl not scared? Laughing? Her uncle in that suit did a good job though
ReplyDeleteThis place was so much more fun before Joe Fitsimmons joined in. Agree?
ReplyDeleteNo, it was a crap hole where people like you rubbed shoulders witn like minded nerds, spouting cynicism and lies.
DeleteCry me a river.
Same exact situation as now, just spearheaded by Joe this time. Only difference is the higher level of butts n dinkys tomfoolery with Joe and his 3 acquaintances.
Delete^ "boo-hoo"
DeleteNo, you're a twat.
ReplyDeleteReally guy？how old are you? You must be a child or adolescent because adults who have any intelligence at all don't talk like that.and what are you Joe's new boyfriend ...idiot
Delete^ twat.
DeleteThe innocent shall suffer.
ReplyDeleteBigtime.
I am no expert but the reaction and words of the family seems somewhat staged. The dad seems completely spooked, a young voice is analyzing the amount of hair on the face and says "that is not a human" four times the kids in the middle are like cowering down but the one in blue out the front is just standing there not phased at all. And then there's the spooky music for dramatic effect...
ReplyDelete