Redditors Are Jokingly Pointing Out a Bigfoot In This Photograph
This is what we're talking about. Bigfooters aren't the only people shadowy figures and calling it a squatch. Regular Redditors are doing it too. According to Reddit user, ralphwiggum420 they had no idea they were being watch when they got their truck stuck in the mud:
So a couple months ago me and a few buddies went out mudding and I got stuck. A few months later my friends were joking about it and someone noticed this guy in the woods. WTF
Although, no one is really saying Bigfoot, some commenters came pretty close to calling it one.
"It's regularfoot!" says one commenter.
"i was going to go with littlefoot but i knew that was poor."
One commenter decided to do an enhancement:
"My god! He is wearing a civil war uniform. It's G-G-GGG-GHOSTS!" said one user.
Super friends!!
ReplyDeleteThese people are making fun of your research topic joe
DeletePop culture's a curious thing eh? Lucky people like Sykes ain't bothered by it.
DeleteI watched Sykes documentary and he did not find a bigfoot
DeleteThis time around, no. Go take a look at his statements post publishing... Have a pillow close by, you may require to scream in it.
DeleteNo statements that he has found any bigfoots since. Why would you assume otherwise?
Delete"This time"... You're not as stupid as you come across, one day you'll drop the denial and grow up.
DeleteWhat exactly is being denied here?
DeleteThat Sykes has a long way to conclude that there's no such things as Bigfoot, son.
Delete'There is no such think as bigfoot.'
Delete-Dr. Brain Sykes
"The fact that none of these samples turned out to be [Bigfoot] doesn’t mean the next one won’t,” said Bryan Sykes, the Oxford researcher who led the study, according to the Associated Press."
DeleteAnd that makes bigfoot real, how exactly?
DeleteIt doesn't... It makes his stance rather real as opposed to your version of lies, silly boy.
Delete; )
His stance that he bases his statements on the evidence and the evidence that he had tested is no biggie
DeleteYes... "This time around", slow learner aren't you son?
DeleteWhen he's conducting field work in Washigton, setting out hair traps, you look a little silly.
Lol. Did you even watch the documentary?
DeleteYep! My knowledge of the subject didn't stop in a bubble, wallowing in self serving closure desperation after it... And I learnt the facts about his agenda and field research afrerwards.
DeleteLollaz!
Skeptard Fun Fact #1: Did you know the skeptard, before blogging, often marathons My Little Pony episodes to thermogenically psyche up his keyboard muscles?
ReplyDeleteWhat we have here is an unimaginative attempt to portray scoftics as Bronies.
DeleteQuite possibly our own resident butthurt footer, MMG, attempting to deflect his critics. Or maybe he's trying to hit on them. He is, if nothing else, an increasingly desperate man.
One thing is certain: only time will tell.
Smells like The Legion of Doom ^
DeleteDesperate is spending one's time devoted to hating a topic that is clearly out of one's preferred control.
DeleteTime will tell aright...
I like the topic. It's you I can't stand.
DeleteNo, you can't stand not having free reign to spout lies and hate...
Delete; )
No. it's not that. You're just an egotistical blowhard.
DeleteGet a life cupcake.
Careful... You'll hurt my feelings!
DeleteJoe you're are one cool dude,you battle with these ppl constantly and remain composed,I too am a firm believer in Bigfoot and have been since I was 8;as a life long Nor Cal.resident I just think.it's so awesome that im so close to these majestic beings.Hey keep up the good fight my brother.
DeleteMazzini you have a friend in me sir! I must say I'm slightly envious of you guys being able to access one of the most fascinating places on earth, one day I'll mange to get over there to get some field research done but in tbe mean time I'll content myself in conversing with cool people who can like you.
DeleteThanks pal.
Go get a room, you two.
DeleteApparently us skeptards are getting under the skin of you intellectual thinkers, being as you have all resorted to childish insults. Like I said, like arguing with a toddler. Well for your information, super thinkers. I watch Hello Kitty before psyching up my fingers. I got the idea from watching you doing it to psych up your penis, sorry it didnt work out for you so well. Skeptard all you want. At the end of the day you guys think this is a real Sasquatch
ReplyDeletehttp://s172.photobuc...822532.gif.html
It really doesnt get any better than that for me.
P.S. I suck at video games.
Oh you're not getting under be skin of anyone, it's just fun pointing out how silly you people are, not to mention how unconvincing you are of your own confidence taking the time to reinforce your stance places like here. He insults come once you're im a position to not be able to support your stance, there's long comment sections tat attest to it.
DeleteOh and by the way, if you're gonna try and come across clever, post a link that works.
(Pfffft)
Type in Todd Standing Hoax in your search engines and read the absolute wealth of information on the subject. I wont pull a Joe and blow up the blog. Then after researching the subject ask yourself why would an "Expert" like Meldrum ever associate with such an individual. The whole thing kinda reeks similar to Boyd Bushman to me.
Deletehttp://io9.com/lockheed-scientist-gives-deathbed-interview-about-ufos-1653425984
But Im sure you all believe him too.
Yep we are silly for not believing there is a population of Giant Hairy Monkey People in our forests. Silly us.
DeleteType in this into yours;
Deletehttp://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/309-north-american-wood-ape-conservancy/
... And realize you've still got a lot of work to do before you change my mind son... Ironic really you should then post essays on me aaaaaall because of what I think, and then claim anyone else is blowing up the blog, ha ha ha ha!!
As such a slow leaner you are, you didn't graos the facts on the previous commemt section, your arguments are bunk, because Meldrum stands by new evidence not yet made public... You can avoid this like an irresponsible child, but I will be here t remind you.
No... You're silly for denying ten thousand years of contemporary and cultural references, that transition into modern mediums and physical & biological evidence. Were'nt you claiming yesterday to believe here was something to all this? I don't think you know what day it is, do you son?
Helloooooooo???
DeleteYou've used a Boyd Bushman link that supports area 51 claims, to somehow prove your point against Sasquatch?
Are you confused? Are you drunk?? Is that how "science works", prey tell??
Hellooooooooooo???
Point us to a reputable scientific journal that doesn't treat the subject of bigfoot like a joke.
DeleteThat's right, you can't.
What does that tell you? Fifty thousand Meldrums say you're a complete idiot.
I have done from a time when giant skeletal remains were a mainstream fact... You had a denialist meltdown remember?
DeleteOh... And for a modern journal to publish the subject matter it would have to be born out of a less restricted area to participate, you know this of course but it's not like you have a intellectual angle to approach to subject other than rhetorical vomiting now, do you?
Your fifty thousand don't have the experise of the various pioneers exceeding all their accomplishments, whom they should be listening to.
: p
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-30rxwwiZMEY/U2E5augW23I/AAAAAAAAD04/YOwryU9YHkw/s1600/Todd-Sranding-Fraud.jpg
ReplyDeleteThis is the real face of Bigfoot says experts Joe Fitzgerald and Jeffrey Meldrum. LOL.
Pwned
DeleteCould well be... Find us a source that shows it can't be and you'll have weight to your tantrums.
Delete: p
Oh, and by the way... The upper photo source is a photoshopped version done by a fan of Standing's, and not Standing's work, nor is it the actual face of what is suggested is a whole of the subject's face.
DeleteWhat I find funny, is you've bottled the request I gave for you to try and prove your stance earlier today... Show us where you can prove the subject's are fake, I'm open to be shown they're hoaxes, just grow a pair and do it.
One day you'll man up and try and support your claims, I'm waiting.
; )
What do you mean find us a source that shows it can't be????
DeleteDo you even know how science works?
Actually I already know the answer. You have no clue.
^do YOU know how "science works?" You just made an ass of yourself.
DeleteYes thanks, do you?
Delete12:33... It's not rocket science, I'm open to being shown the images are hoaxes, I keep here you crying but nothing in the way of facts.
DeleteStop crying and prove your points, that's how science works, I'm reaching out to be shown they're hoaxes here! Man up...
Come on... This should be easy, it's a proven hoax right? Show me where it's been proven, my sentiment is to be open until shown otherwise, man up... This is your chance!
DeleteHelloooooooooooooo???
Delete(Tumbleweed goes by)
All bigfoot films are proven a hoax by default because there is no confirmed species that matches apart from a human in a costume.
DeleteNegative proof fallacy, one regularly expressed by you silly, silly children.
DeleteAnd since it's unqualified, uneducated, anonymous you verifying them... Got monkey suit?
The negative proof fallacy is actually an argument against you. Not sure why you keep using it and making yourself look silly.
DeleteThe 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.
DeleteIt's ok... You're learning.
"Got monkey suit?" is childish, at least in a general context.
DeleteWhen 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?
Delete^crap
Delete^ for brains.
DeleteHi i want to say BF is real simples to many sightings around for every single one to be a hoax so suck out good work joe
DeleteThe JREF numbskulls are getting spanked on their own court by a poster named ChrisBFRPKY. It's fun to watch.
ReplyDeletePretty sure that guy is just whining in a similar manner to how Joe acts here.
DeleteAlso why do you post under anon, DWA?
^
DeleteHow about you Alaskabushpilot ? Still pretending to be fighting off insurgents in another country while posting about Bigfoot you mentally ill jerkoff ?...lol
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
DeleteIn 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.
I 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
Oh boy Joe got smoked there, good job 12:34
DeleteAnswering your own comments ain't my smoking son, I'm the one still waiting for a counter argument for my comment, by the way.
DeleteOh, and what I didn't add to that, was the fact that I've sourced science journals and printed media from the 19th century that document giant skeletal remains in the US... Much of which were only ever cried about.
Big hitters like Smithsonian and Scientific American.
Sure, Joe, if someone agrees it has to be the same poster. Sure. Whatever dude.
DeleteJoe has nothing from the 20th or 21st century, hence his obsession with 'Little House on the Prairie" era news.
DeleteIt's simple... The industrial and agricultural revolutions churned up most of the places where natives knew remains were buried... This was all documented and verified by three generations of scientists, and no crying about it will change that son.
Delete'documented and verified' as unknown and unexplainable at best. Not so verifiable as anything meaningful unfortunately.
DeleteGiant human skeletons are giant human skeletons.
DeleteSasquatch are giant humans.