Thursday, November 20, 2014

Want to hear the wildest Bigfoot attack story? We have it...


We normally don't check what people post on our Facebook page, but this one really caught our attention. We're not going to reveal his name here because if he's telling the truth, we don't want him to feel embarrassed about it. How many people can say they've been attacked by a squatch? This person has and it was brutal! He left this message on our wall, hoping we'd read it:

Howdie yall I'm reporting to you guys after a 6 month rehab after being attacked by a sasquatch. After almost a year of sampling feces I had found on multiple trails along with prints and semen samples from bigfeet mating grounds; I was able to track down a male bigfoot, upon approach I was viciously attacked...I suffered a broken jaw, cheek bone, dislocated eye socket, broken leg, half of my hand was ripped off attempting to defend myself, torn scrotum, and severed penis (which was reattached ladies). But it was all worth being able to see the big fella...I can't wait to get to training at a local dojo so I can go back and get a fair fight in with the bastard - Anonymous


87 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Morning Joe

      Story has to be fake. No idiot in their right mind would want to go back

      Delete
    2. What evidence do you have that it's fake? I thought you had a high standard of skepticism?

      Delete
    3. That's just it... There is no evidence to base any links of skepticims on.

      Delete
    4. R.I.P my little baby Ebe who i lost today at 5 years old after a week at the vets who did every thing they could....
      Always in my heart

      Love you forever Ebe

      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

      Delete
    5. RIP Ebe!!!!!!!!
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

      Delete
    6. Awe Eva!!! Hugs stacked on hugs to you! So sorry.

      Today is Ebe's day

      Delete
    7. Here we go. A black can in honor of Ebe and Eva.

      Delete
    8. Sorry for your loss Eva

      There is another one out there who needs your love now

      MMC

      Delete
    9. I also am sadden by your loss EVA R.
      Chuck

      Delete
    10. Thank you everyone,i really appreciate your kind words,I've cried more today than i have done for ages xx

      Delete
    11. Understandable EVA R. The true pet lovers, especially dogs, cats, horses, and yes even the Arnold Ziffles, love them as they do their children. Truly a blessing and gift from God. There will come a time when you will be reunited again.
      Chuck

      Delete
    12. Take extra good care of yourself Eva and dont even feel bad about it. It helped me lots to sleep and put cold compresses on my eyes too. Brownies and red wine are very helpful as well! XXX

      Delete
    13. Your right Chuck,i have to keep reminding myself that i'll him again. xx
      Cold compresses are good idea Chick,why do your eye's go so puffy?I'll give the Brownies and the wine a go too xxx

      Delete
    14. Sorry,that should be i'll see him again xx

      Delete
    15. Sorry to hear about your kitty cat Eva.
      Mike H.

      Delete
  2. I want to fuck the bitch in the skinny pill commercial. If she was a fat bitch, maybe her pussy is still tight and not all twisted cauliflower :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't help but wonder what the hell is wrong with you

      Delete
  3. JOE. In case you have not read it yet go back to last night and read the comment Dr. Meldrum posted to his facebook. Reading between the lines he has pretty much confirmed what Standing has been saying.
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Chuck!

      Read it all! Very exciting and I'm looking forward to what gets presented at the up and coming Sasquatch Summit.

      Should be interesting!

      Delete
    2. He is either in on the hoax, or completely retarded.

      Delete
    3. Well we will have to wait and see, won't we?

      Delete
    4. Maybe it's not a hoax and the good Dr. is perfectly sane.

      Delete
  4. How to get a great butt in 60 days?

    CLICK!

    ReplyDelete
  5. If this is a fake then you should very easily be able to SHOW ME this is a fake, otherwise Im saying its the real deal.
    Oh sorry, had a Joe moment there.
    Thank you geniuses for pointing out that this is more than likely fake. You are so critical in your thinking, thanks for not letting this one slip through as the real deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm still waiting for him to disprove I've been banging Jennifer Lawrence.

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

      Delete
    3. 3:49... There is no scientific method for measuring anecdotal evidence. I can't show you this is fake or real either way, but something such as photogpraphs; very much the case.

      Having said that, just because my opinon that this case isn't real, by no way has any baring on the wider accumulative anecdotes on the exact same subject matter, that have a professional basis to add credibility.

      Delete
    4. ... Which is an approach that you base much of your fallacies around.

      Delete
    5. So Joe while you and Todd Standing are still in the "honeymoon" phase please tell us how the "Muppet" bigfoot Todd presented in the past figures into all of this. Should we not adhere to the motto of "once a hoaxer always a hoaxer"?

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

      Delete
    7. You can 'adhere' to what ever you like, should Standing present irrefutable evidence then whatever the deal with his previous work will simply remain a controversy. If he doesn't provide, then I'll be the first to scrutinize.

      The photographs are a cause of doubt for me also, but considering there is no conclusive means to rule them out, and should that continue to not materialise and Todd does indeed deliver, what would YOU say about that?

      Delete
    8. Im not the Anon from above but me personally, I havent seen anything in the preview that warrants groundbreaking. Thermal video is the only new footage I saw and that was pretty underwhelming. I am also skeptical of the language being used here. Meldrum says "Was it a sasquatch? I am not certain, but under the circumstances and based on the reconstruction conducted the next day, it strikes me as a real possibility that it was." A real possibility isnt anything to get excited about, so theres obviously nothing conclusive from him. And Bindernagel "I am firmly convinced he has in fact filmed portraits of the Sasquatch face" Filmed portraits? Is that a misprint? Everything that I have heard to this point is that the majority of this film is supposed to be a recreation of an actual event. Something Standing has tried before mind you and it failed miserably. To me the language being used points to that being the case. I would tread very cautiously around that, with Standings reputation and what Ive seen of this so far I dont think theres gong to be anything groundbreaking being delivered.

      Delete
    9. What exactly are you saying Standing will deliver to us Joe?

      Delete
    10. 5:55... Would you expect to see anything from a preview of a breakthrough it's promoting? Though I'm not claiming that the thermal is going to be world beating, would you expect the full extent of such to be revealed in a preview it's promoting? Is Meldrum using language in a clever way so as not to suggest too much of a biased approach?

      "I observed through night vision an upright silhouetted figure, forward-leaning, arm-swinging, moving smoothly."

      You forgot to post this of course, I think it's safe to make a decent estimation at what Meldrum saw, but as he did not see the subject full frontal in better lighting, it's very wise that he should say that he's not certain as people would no doubt jump all over him. He's only relaying what he is able to relay, if that was his experience then that was that. A "real possibility" in line with what has been described is plenty to get excited about, this is one of the main proponents of the field potentially having a genuine Sasquatch experience (a point lacking that many attackers have so readily pointed out) and you haven't seen a reconstruction of anything yet. Bindenagle using wrong words is also no basis to then make a leap and assume that there's nothing exciting about what's due to be presented.

      I'd be interested in Standing's alleged 'reputation' if it wasn't hunted out and sourced by one of the most back stabbing, money grabbing and competitive field on the planet. I'm pretty sure if someone decided to do a little 'private investigating' on Kulls, there would be all sorts of things that could be interpreted out of context. Having an opinion is great, I find it better to refrain from passing any judgement and keeping impartial until we've seen what he's got.

      Delete
    11. 6:21... I'm not saying anything, would you like to put words in my mouth?

      Delete
    12. Way to go immediately on the defensive, no wonder most of the people dislike you. Your reputation as leader of the douchebags precedes you.
      OK, to avoid hurting your feelings... You asked what if Standing delivers? I am only asking what he will be delivering? Proof of Sasquatch? The sequel to the muppet movie? A pepperoni pizza to yours truly? How can said anonymous comment on what if he delivers if he doesnt know what he will be delivering?
      P.S. Hopefully the pizza

      Delete
    13. Yeah actually I would expect to see something, if only a quick few seconds. Even the Erickson camp did that, displayed a few seconds of footage that had me enticed. Has the rest of that ever been released? Portions of it looked way more interesting than Standings thermal footage. You wouldnt expect anything in a preview of a breakthrough, I would. Especially since Im trying to convince people to pay money for it. You allready shelled out your money for it, Im going to wait it out and see. You dont pay any attention to the language being used, I do. The possibility of a encounter is not a huge deal to me since they were obviously out there the very next morning and could have gathered quite a lot of evidence to conclude it was legitimate. Using the wrong words is a very big deal, as thats a good way to back out of this once this goes south, sounds like they are covering their asses to me.

      Delete
    14. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

      PLOP!

      Delete
    15. That's cool if you expect something like that, it kind of goes against the whole marketing ploy of having a preview however. Erikson chose to do things like that, fantastic... The fact that you highlighted that Erikson hasn't released his documentary yet might render one inclined to suggest his ideas of documentary promotion & distribution not as up to scratch as what would be productive; hence the oversight at putting too much detail in his previews?

      A snippet of a piece of thermal footage would naturally look uninspiring until ou saw the full duration, and again, I'm not suggesting it yields anything more than what we see in the preview as I know how people like to put words in my mouth.

      It's not a matter of what I expect, it's simply not good practice. If Standing has a requirement to get funds to finishing the footage, then he has the Sasquatch Summit and the first 40mins release to help convince people to part with their money in due course... Even more reason to question why would he reveal his best evidence in a preview when his intentions are inclined this way towards such an extensive pre-release. I gladly paid Standing for his previous documentary, and very much glad I did as I have a source of reference that inevitably drawing people's attention towards the wider facts regarding the bank runner. Plenty of people slate sources of evidence and have never even taken the time to even look at it, I hope you can appreciate this isn't the way I go about things.

      It's not that I don't pay attention to language, I just find it a little unconvincing that you should suggest nobody should invest excitement for a documentary that could potentially have two of the best minds in modern Sasquatch research having a genuine experience; the antithesis of that being because Bindenagle used a wrong word to describe a video medium. Also... You are making assumptions on what they accumulated the next day as evidence to support their encounter, this is all total speculation. Again... Your 'excuses' could quite simply be exactly what they experienced and totally seperate to other sources of alleged evidence we already know they intent to present... Why would they need excuses for being honest in the respect of this having no baring whatsoever on other evidence they intent to present? It appears you're attempting to predict what's going to happen on subjective interpretations of what's been put out in a preview, that's all very well, but I'd rather wait and see what they have, thanks.

      Delete
    16. JOE. Are you the leader of an English band called the douche bags? I do not like the sound of that. You need a name with an edge. Change it to the Skofftic Thumpers. Much more fitting
      Chuck

      Delete
    17. Ha ha ha!! I think I'll call my new hardcore band the Douchebags... I haven't the slightest idea what that means but I'll go along with it oit of tribute anyway.

      Delete
    18. Oh, and 7:34... If Meldrum had claimed he'd not seen merely a bipedal silhouette, but a clear as day Sasquatch (in that lighting) fully turning his upper body to look Meldrum square in the eyes, would this have been more believable to you? Your answer will be telling.

      Delete
    19. I didn't highlight, that was a legitimate question, I wasn't sure if Erickson's documentary was out. I don't know why you are so critical of his research though when Standing has been working on this for, what, at least 5 years right? As for the whole marketing ploy of having a preview, didnt know you were so well educated in that field as well. I guess I should of as you know everything. I disagree with you on that. I dont see how showing a brief snippet of your "money" shot undermines the excitement of it at all. In fact now that I think of it almost every single preview Ive ever seen shows a brief segment of the money shot. Maybe they do it differently where you are from, you do seem easily excitable, I can see how they would hold that kind of thing out. But it does make me smile inside to know that you serious researchers need marketing ploys to get this crucial evidence out. However, I can see here Ive hurt your feelings, apologies. I only meant that I personally wouldnt get too excited over it. Because I noticed the red flags allready. But by all means, anyone who thinks what is presented justifies spending money on then please do so. Dont forget to pledge toward his 900,000 goal as well.

      Delete
    20. Well even though you still wont answer on what you claim Standing is delivering Ill be happy to answer this for you little guy :)
      No, I dont care what Meldrum says he saw. Quit trying to skew this back into your comfort zone. I will repeat myself again. Meldrum said he wasnt certain it was a Sasquatch, there was a possibility it could be. And my response to that is big deal, dont we have enough stuff that "could be" as Sasquatch? A bunch of evidence that could be a Sasquatch doesnt make a Sasquatch. Go ahead and add that to the maybe list. My personal opinion is thats nothing groundbreaking whatsoever. Do you understand now or do I need to repeat myself again?

      Delete
    21. 9:12... Hmmmm, yet more speculation it seems. I'm not critical in the slightest of Erikson's work, I'm merely pointing out how it may be perceived that he's not the best at distributing/producing documantries.

      With all due respect, I would probably be inclined to think logically. If he's going to show a money shot now, how's he going to convince people to find him in November and January? I'm tying to not come across offensive here, but the trailers of films and documentaries of the standard I watch don't tend to fall in line with your descriptions, but we all are different of course.

      I'm excited by any news that involves the two leading minds of this field of study potentially having an encounter, that's pretty normal. What may be percieved as 'not normal' is that someone should find that dissagreeable, even boring, and then invest the time expressing such that inflicts such negative emotions? If I find a landmark news article regarding the best racing car drivers boring, I simply go check out the football news and not invest so much time in that of which would merely keep me bored.

      It's not normal to get marketing ploys for evidence, it is if you are trying to get people to help towards signing a protection pertition, I suppose. And please... I can assure you my feelings are in tact, I'm not quite sure what's been presented that could possibly have been interpreted as being offensive? No need to apologize. I understand your point of view, but please, don't be too interested in how I feel about what's due to be presented, it's my opinion that I'm spending my interests appropriately, and I've said time and time again that should Standing not deliver to the standard he's claimed to be them I'll be the first to scritinize. The red flags, to me are subjective on the amount of trust you invest on the experts of this field... And with all due respect sir, what anyone does with their money is totally down to them.

      Delete
    22. Show me another film that uses marketing ploys to help towards signing a protection petition, and Ill agree thats normal.

      Delete
    23. Gotta read between the lines with Meldrum. Believe me he knows what he saw. He knew it was one by its behavior in the woods and interaction with Sonya before it ever crossed the road. If he did not he would never have even posted what he did with the disclaimer
      Chuck

      Delete
    24. 11:00... Find me an anthroplogical topic that has every source of evidence short of mordern type specimen that still manages to get approached with dogma, and you'll have a point.

      Delete
  6. Hopefully meldrum hasn't been duked by standing..... Those 5 actors that he hired ? Maybe they were part of some kind of hoax to fool even meldrum. I am curious to see this too but am sceptical. We will all just have to wait and see

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fabricating evidence again Shawn?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Following is a full on sighting using Swarovski Binoculars by a true skeptic and naturalist in Alberta Canada from 2011. It changes his life and outlook.
    http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=43598
    chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Witness was not pre-disposed to sasquatch lore as he had only been in Canada for a few years.
      Really.....
      "I thought the Patterson-Gimmlin Bigfoot was a man in a Gorilla Suit and the photos taken by Todd Standing et al where men dressed as Chewbacca."
      Clearly not disposed to Sasquatch lore. Great investigative work Gary Cronin, this is what makes the community keep chugging.

      Delete
    2. The witness lives in Canada, he simply could have fleetingly seen Standing's photographs on the TV.

      Delete
    3. You should have your own reality show. Call it excuse masters. I dare say its the only thing you really excel at.

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

      Delete
    5. TV is everywhere these days. 'Excuses' or logical explanations? I won't hold my breath for an honest answer from someone so obviously cornered in countering common sense.

      Delete
    6. Im still confused where you are making the logic bridge here between "I thought the Patterson-Gimmlin Bigfoot was a man in a Gorilla Suit and the photos taken by Todd Standing et al where men dressed as Chewbacca." and not being pre-disposed to Sasquatch lore. Ok he saw it on T.V. he clearly made mental notes of it and formed his own opinion. Is that not being pre-disposed to it?

      Delete
    7. The British soldier clearly states he had seen the PG and Todd Standing and did not believe them. The researcher made the statement he was not pre-disposed which one would surely take to mean he did not believe in them. Quite certain he does now.
      Chuck

      Delete
    8. And 11:06, you were provided with the most LOGICAL answer. Maybe he merely saw the photos on the TV regarding Standing's previous attempts and pertitions and found out his name later in researching his experience afterwards? He's Canadian, the witness lives in Canada... People have lives, things happen.

      Delete
  9. No matter how good the Standing footage is, without a body, it will just be more controversy.
    If he had the goods, he wouldn't need donations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe will supply you a list of things necessary for the 900,000 dollar goal Im sure. If he had the goods he also wouldnt have needed all this time on production and editing as well. You dont need a hollywood production on evidence you are presenting. In the end it will just be another PGF. The loonies here will be convinced, the rest of us will be asking for the original unedited footage. Then the loonies will ask for a monkey suit, as they dont actually want the originals of these films to come out. We will not be able to provide a monkey suit, Bigfoot is real. Funny how they put so much energy into asking for the monkey suit, but put no energy into wanting to see the original unedited film. Wonder why that is.

      Delete
    2. FACT:

      Todd Standing is the Canadian Rick Dyer.

      Delete
    3. How many loonies does it take to make 900k U S dollars?

      Delete
    4. The original of the Patterson Gimlin film is lost, regarding reel 2;

      "I've seen Mike Rugg's reel, and aside from a brief segment of Roger casting a track (which is different from the usual one we see and everybody thinks is second reel), the rest of the 1/2 hour reel Mike got is Al DeAtley talking to camera about Roger's film, which is on the second half of that show reel set, but Mike hasn't got.
      We're still looking for that second theatrical show reel too.

      Bill Munns"

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    5. See what I mean. Its lost, who cares, we need our monkey suit. No mention of the unedited Standing footage, couldnt care less. Thanks for illustrating my point buddy
      ;)

      Delete
    6. Um... If you actually took the time to digest the comment, there are efforts to locate that footage? I might remind you, that someone utterly convinced of Standing's footage might argue that for all this time alleged Sasquatch footage without facial close ups have not been good enough?

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    7. Hmm I didnt see anything referencing locating the original film, only regarding reel 2. The first one is simply lost. I cant believe that noone can find it. Maybe its in the same place the monkey suit is.

      Delete
    8. (Sigh)

      That's becuase it's lost? We have examples of reels from the time, we don't have magic monkey suits.

      Delete
  10. It's fake. The reason that I choose to come to that conclusion is that this semi-illiterate redneck most likely does not have health insurance. Yet he described wounds that would require $300,000 minimum in surgery and hospital stay costs. Yet he failed to mention anything about either the tremendous expense or his considerable time spent in the hospital. Fake!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hear that with every pledge towards his movie you get a free bumper sticker stating you are an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pieces of this are allready leaking all over the internet. Looking at this still frame from the film my mind is officially blown.
    http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOLxwWcjJ4mXhvvy24vV38Zx6SO0kJayCp_QndCr76YxaALCWY

    Deny that skeptics!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Man I can't WAIT to hear about what goes down at the Summit. Some people are pretty pissed about this hoaxer action. I predict fireworks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Eva Sorry about your pet. I dont know what else rips a persons heart than losing a pet.
    Regarding the original poster, guys/gals if you are going out squatching DONT go out unarmed. Even if you dont see a Squatch there are bears mountain lions and other things that dont care about you. DONT take a BB gun like a 9mm either. Too much muzzle velocity and you need stopping power so at least take a .45 Cal with 10 shot clip. BE CAREFUL.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jeepers Average Joe, they ain't going to let you go on a BFRO expedition. Good advice though
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
  16. i see this guy joe fitz is wroting war n oeace comments again

    Does anyone read comments beyond 4 lines
    I guess he has nothing to do in his life if he can be on every blog on here expressing opinions this long.I guess hes part of the in crowd' of regulars on here who indulge him

    ReplyDelete
  17. If you even remotely believe this story then you need to seek help.
    What a load of crap.

    ReplyDelete