This "Bigfoot The Movie" Theatrical Preview Is Hilarious!
This BIGFOOT THE MOVIE preview came out back in January, and it's finally been released! It's available on DVD, Blu-ray, and Digital Download at www.bigfootthemovie.com! The movie is Unrated but is along the same lines as a PG-13 movie. According to producers, they are having a summer tour of screenings for the movie in Western Pennsylvania! More information at bigfootthemovie.com.
Hogwash
ReplyDeleteYuppity yup...the theatricals ain`t half as theatric or hilarious as all the guys chasing shadows of bigfoot in the woods...it`sa real rip roarin` laugh !
DeleteThis is how i found your blog quite interesting and concern in the blog is really impressive keep updating your blog and i have also bookmarked your blog for future updates and thanks for sharing this kind of precious information...!!!
ReplyDeleteWatch free
online
^spammer
ReplyDelete^ scammer
Delete^ never got a attaboy. Needs attention on a Bigfoot site. Hilariously pathetic.
DeleteThe world is so interested in Bigfoot I can't imagine why these movies never make any money.
ReplyDeleteThe whole bigfoot world is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteIf Gimlin were to admit to the PGF being a hoax, the entire multi-million dollar bigfoot industry would collapse.
DeleteHe should be waterboarded to get the truth out of him.
DeleteAre you saying that Gimlin is fibbing when he tells his story?
Delete4:29... Not as hilarious as how much you need to self reassure about the boogeyman.
Delete4:36... If the British Royal family were to admit that they were space lizards, it would bring hundreds of years of British culture to it's knees. See how pointless delusional hypothetical scenarios & thought processes are to actually proving any your points?
Most likely, although you can't say 100%. The least likely scenario is that he saw what he says.
DeleteTwo much likelier scenarios are he was fooled or he was part of a hoax.
A bit of a silly thing to be fooling him with a loaded weapon pointed at it... Bob Gimlin was also offered a million dollars to cough up the truth, and didn't even flinch.
DeleteOh I think Gimlin admitting he hoaxed and speculating what would happen is a far likelier and realistic hypothetical. A good portion of those who knows about him question if he in fact hoaxed.
DeleteAnd where does hypothetically suggesting Gimlin hoaxed get you?
DeleteI thought they agreed they weren't going to shoot. How genuine was that offer? What did he have to lose if he admitted it? Who would he be letting down? I agree that it's more likely he participated if Patty was indeed a hoax.
DeleteA lot of Bigfooters put a great deal into the idea that PG was genuine. It's easy to speculate how this would affect that belief, as well as how it would affect others who don't necessarily believe.
DeleteDid they "agree"? Wouldn't they have to have to a have a preconceived idea of what to expect if that was the case? We have the reaction of Roger's horse to testify against that. How did they know that a Sasquatch wouldn't attack them? What if Bob thought to cash in on it and bag one? You have to remember that Bob fell out with many people and could have blown the lid off the "hoax" when going through legal proceedings. How do you know how you'd react during such a life changing event?
DeleteWhat would if have to lose? Spending the rest of his life traveling the country doing talks for far less money, that's what. The offer was from a documentary film producer... Agreeing does little to prove your position. Hypotheticals don't cut it, especially when there's that much money being waved in his face.
There is very little requirement for mere belief when the footage has accompanying scientific evidence.
DeleteWhich is only accepted by a handful, hence that question if far from settled.
Delete"Accepted by a handful"... And usually distributed to the trusting public in peer review processes.
DeleteAs hilarious as people actually believing in this bullsh**. Which is sad, really. Sad that there are so many dumb ignernts out there who think there is this creature....
ReplyDeleteAt what level did the idea bother you enough for you to take the time to come here and show how un-content you are?
DeleteAt the level when fringe beliefs began to gain acceptance in society and undermine legitimate science -- such a development is disturbing and dangerous for humanity.
DeleteArgh, so we have got an admission that more people being accepting of the topic bothers you? Could it be that more people are becoming less in denial about the state of evidence, people are less threatened by the idea of going out in the woods if proven? Do you think people like Dr Sykes are bothered by your concerns on humanity? You are the cancer of modern science, sir... You don't understand consistent scientific method, you are a medieval throwback that no doubt condemned the idea of the giant squid and various other previously considered cryptids that at this stage of research had far less physical evidence to support.
DeleteThe only danger to humanity are freethinking nazi's like you.
6:11 -- Yes, and more people rejecting evolution and introducing crazy outdated creationist ideas into schools bothers me too. Also, more people embracing racist notions of the past disturbs me. Just because my opinion is not popular doesn't make me wrong. And legitimate science is under attack by people like you who use your right to free speech to spread disinformation and then attempt to bully others into silence by labeling them as "Nazis."
DeleteThe giant squid had "far less physical evidence to support"? They had dozens of dead bodies of giant squids in the 19th Century more than 100 years before a live specimen was captured! Do you even research your stupid conclusions before you post them or do you just assume that no one will fact check you?
DeleteI recall discussing the topic of the giant squid with you six months ago and, after you advanced the identical argument, I corrected you. The fact that you continue to use an argument that you know has been specifically discredited tells me you care nothing for a search for truth, but are only committed to pounding away with a preconceived conclusion.
Delete6:58, get yourself ready for an epic copy and paste explosion!
DeleteMaintaining something that has scientific backing is not legitimate and is akin to creationism, without presenting a single equivalent case to dismiss this, merely on the aspect of FAITH... Is as belief based and religious like as you can ever point to. To suggest that thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports that have solid science in support, science that you contradictively denied when it's required for straw man purposes, is a bigger leap of faith than anything you can reference... And is quite simply a dogmatic view of the situation. The Virgin Mary don't leave tracks, sweetheart. You've been asked time and time again, it appears that you are either against the wall or too stupid to present any sort of data to support your vomit... If Zana was a normal modern human, find me an African skull from the same error that matches her ancient morphology... It's very, very simple.
DeleteAfter centuries of legends and myths, in the 1870s, the scepticism for giant squids stopped as several carcasses were beached in Labrador and Newfoundland, but next to nothing had been documented until 2004 when a living one was documented, until then many scientists were returning sceptical of its existence. Interestingly, the same frequency of documented remains for relict hominids was documented in the late 1800's. In the time that is took to recover a giant squid specimen again in the 20rh century, we have 50 years of research into relict hominids (comparatively until a living squid specimen was located) that has yielded every source of evidence short of type specimen.
Is there anything else I can educate you on, dear boy?
"Bully others into silence..." Aren't you using the racial card to gain the moral highround because you're shitting your shorts at Sykes' work? Aren't you here concerned with what others are thinking??
DeleteThe audacity of these folk knows no boundaries.
Other than your bald assertions that "next to nothing" was found of the giant squid after the 1800's and that scientists "were returning sceptical," there's nothing to suggest that is true.
DeleteIn fact, if you had bothered to study the subject beyond a Wikipedia entry (which you obviously attempted to rewrite in your own butchered English), you'd know that none of what you declared is true. Do you remember any "Giant Squid Evidence" blogs or thousands of fringe losers obsessing over the existence of the giant squid? I sure don't.
Actual scientists, who knew that it existed because of the incontrovertible evidence (state time when you had never even heard of the subject), did the hard work to locate and videotape a live specimen.
And then when that was accomplished, suddenly an army of lazy, illiterate bigfoot buffoons like you took notice and instantly became giant squid enthusiasts! Amazing!
I guess you really do have no conscience (or "conscious" as you refer to it)!
Well said Anon 10:12. Much respect sir!
DeleteNwah! You getting a little hot under the color there darling? Actually, we have the perfect comparitive frequency in documentation, but not the same equivalent in physical evidence considering the squid... Allow me to demonstrate;
DeleteWe have the same scientific documentation of relict hominids and giant squid reports and remains being found in the 1800 century.
The next time we hear of a stranding of giant squid was in the 1960's when guess what? We have the Patterson Gimlin footage!
We then have to wait until 2004 until a living example of giant squid is documented, to which time we have 50 years of physical, biological, video and audio evidence pointing to the existence of a bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates; a far greater frequency of evidence than the giant squid to that point.
We have Bigfoot blogs because we have evidence of Bigfoot. I think you'll notice the giant squid referenced in many cryptid sites previous to it being documented as a living animal? There are also plenty of scientists who are sure that relict hominids exist, there are also plenty in the field looking for footage but considering relict hominids are not dumb animals, it makes documenting a far more calculative creature a far more difficult task. We also know a lot about squid behaviour to help in the respect of having a better start in locating such.
One does not have to be an expert on giant squid, more like having a better understanding of this topic and a lack of agenda ridden ideals against scientific evidence you don't understand.
Oh... And it's spelled "archaic", by the way.
: p
Joe is getting CREAMED! HA HA HA HA HA HA!
DeleteMore bald assertions which are patently false. If you had bothered to look into the history of evidence for the giant squid (beyond the Wikipedia article you apparently skimmed), you'd know that there were plenty of dead specimens and that no serious person doubted their existence -- it was just a challenge to find one in its natural environment. I know that doesn't fit in with the bigfoot fantasy world that you've constructed, but no amount of outright lying by you will change the facts.
DeleteBut not the kind you want you sick maggot Stuart
Delete^ maggot boy ^
DeleteSorry, 11:04... Although reports continued to occur sporadically throughout the world after the 1870's, none had been as frequent as those at Newfoundland and New Zealand in the 1960's. Might I add that there was a hominid skull anthropological paper devised in 1967 regarding the humboldt skull? It is not known why giant squid become stranded on shore, but it may be because the distribution of deep, cold water where squid live is temporarily altered. Many scientists who have studied squid mass strandings believe they are cyclical and predictable. The length of time between strandings is not known, but was proposed to be 90 years by Architeuthis specialist Frederick Aldrich. Aldrich used this value to correctly predict a relatively small stranding that occurred between 1964 and 1966 in line with the previous strandings the century prior.
DeleteUp until 2004, the giant squid was considered a cryptid species. Like many scientists who don't doubt their existence, it's just a challenge to find one in its natural environment... For a "fantasy world", that sure does fit precisely with the frequency of data we have for relict hominids.
Bald assertion, outright lying, and copying and pasting from Wikipedia -- par for the course for a bigfoot lunatic. There were dozens of confirmed giant squid bodies publicly displayed and many more partially digest squids recovered from whale stomachs. Every scientist who studied the subject acknowledged their existence.
DeleteWhat you have is an absolutely bizarre and contradictory conspiracy theory involving multiple levels of government and various private entities to supposedly cover up bones of 10-15 foot giants. Only an illiterate buffoon would consider such garbage to "fit precisely" with the evidence for the giant squid.
I wouldn't knock Wikipedia darling, it appears a fool's guide is getting the better of you on all these "bold assertions" that all these specimens were recovered. Funnily enough, there are 150 years worth of giant human remains located all over the U.S, and no scientist who has looked at the collective data has doubted the existence of relict hominids.
DeleteI'm sorry, what cover up? I'm not sure what you're on about? You have a written statement from the anthropological authority of the day that states that nothing of the sort would be considered... It's not a conspiracy if it's made known. There are also miles and miles of storage all over the U.S. that the Smithsonian enjoy at their disposal.
Would an "illiterate bafoon" spell things like "arcaic"?
: p
You were making "bald" assertions, not "bold" assertions -- meaning that you had nothing other than your own unsupported statements to back up your declaration that scientists have not acknowledged the existence of the giant squid since dead specimens were collected.
DeleteYou may need some reading glasses if the print is too blurry for you!
Occasionally "lktomi" will put up a decent argument but this is certainly not one of them. Anon 12:14, I commend you for factual knowledge on the giant squid and your sound logic in presenting your argument. You are indeed correct!
DeleteNo, no - the pleasures all mine.
12:28... The frequency of scientists in support of the giant squid has never been the issue, it's the comparitive frequency of evidence being an equivalent... Learn to read properly, it helps you not come across as pretentious when you try and use big words.
Delete12:41... When you're not cheerleading, you're showing your scars. I'm not sure, did I miss where the anon posted any supporting data against a Wikipedia source?
(Pffffffft)
Oh... And "bold assertions" was very deliberate.
DeleteSo you admit that the giant squid was not a cryptid -- I accept your apology. And I am
Deletenot attempting to patronize you. With seven years of college and a post-graduate degree, I find that when I communicate with people like you, I am forced to dumb down my language for their benefit.
I'm trying to be nice and help you out here. If you weren't so stubbornly proud of your own ignorance, you would take advantage of my generous nature and willingness to assist you!
Eh??
DeleteThe giant squid was considered a cryptid species until it was filmed in its habitat in 2004. Something can still be considered a cryptid, but have scientific backing. Patronising? I frequently read that you consider me to take premature victories on debates. Claiming that I agree with you when you've not only shown that the equivalent comparison between two subjects is indeed valid, but not even present a single source to support your ideas that these many specimens were revovered outside of the accepted historical timeline, is a little rich. Brother... I could tell you I'm a space astronaut on this blog and it wouldn't really matter, would it?
I'd get a better argument before you try and condescend someone who embarrassed you with a fool's guide.
: )
And if the "bold" assertions thing was deliberate, it made no sense at all -- just admitting that you misread my earlier messages (which you obviously did) would make you appear less desperate to cover your mistake because you're embarrassed. Remember, I'm willing to help you!
Deleteassertion/əˈsəːʃ(ə)n/
Deletenoun
a confident and forceful statement of fact or (and in your case) belief.
... Indeed, so bold you or schooled by Wikipedia on it.
... Looks like the "post-graduate" just needed to read the first Internet encyclopaedia that pops up in Google search.
DeleteOops!
Another BALD assertion (I put it in All Caps this time for you!). Oh wait, you turned it into "BOLD" and created a hilarious joke out of it (a joke that no one -- including yourself -- understands!). Wow, thanks for the entertainment today -- this is even better than the time you mixed up the words "conscious" and "conscience" at the same time you were proclaiming what a genius you were! See you later -- NARGHHHH!
DeleteI thought it was pretty funny, and it's spelled "archaic"... By the way. Don't worry, when all your arguments hit a brick wall, you've always got your inferiority complex of pointing out spelling errors to fall back on.
Delete-- -- -- -- : p
Professor A. E. Verrill of Yale University described a specimen of Architeuthis (giant squid) for the 1875 issue of the American Journal of Science. In fact from 1874 to 1882 he examined, dissected and described them in no fewer than twenty-nine scientific papers. I think "lktomi" should stick to being an authority on mythical creatures rather than real ones.
DeleteGlad to help out Anon: 2:07. You are very, very welcome.
^ oh dear... Your information has never been disputed, in fact very much aware of. Shall I list you the Smithsonian Bueraus that document giant human skeletal remains?
DeleteMythical creatures don't leave physical sign measured by consistent scientific method... Just like the Giant Squid prior to it being filmed in 2004.
2:46... Read my comment at 10:46. You must develop the literary patience to read the comments of others... Only reading what supports your requirement of reassurance doesn't help you looking stupid when you post irrelevant comments.
DeleteBy all means list all the papers that document Bigfoot and giant human skeletal remains . . . . and then please point out which science museum I can view them in. I can list plenty which hold the actual physical bodies of giant squids. Gosh, if the Smithsonian has documented giant humans than surely they are in the collection and can be viewed - right? The giant squid not only left signs all those years but PHYSICAL REMAINS as well. I look forward to seeing such remains of Bigfoot and giant humans and you need not bring up the tired old Lovelock skull again - it's heavily disputed and certainly no proof of giant humans existing.
DeleteGlad to help my darling. Have to run. You may have the last word (for now).
I didn't say they document "Bigfoot", I said they document giant human remains. Relict hominids are giant ancient humans. I can link you the Bureau's, then I can link you the paper where it is in writing that nothing would be considered. So you see... So did giant hominids leave physical remains... You keep getting reminded this, concentrate dear boy!
DeleteThe Lovelock skull has an extra bone that is only seen in cro-magnon and Neanderthals. I love it.
Ta-ta!
Wow, Joe made an embarrassing fool of himself again. IS there a bigger idiot anywhere in the world?
DeletePut the pom poms down kid, there were more facts about the giant squid coming from my comments than the one trumped by a fool's guide. In adult debate you must provide supporting facts... Anyone can check these on the Internet, it takes two minutes. I would recommend you all try it sometime.
DeleteOh and by checking them... I of course mean noticing the lack of facts; in his case made up. This is also easily ascertained.
DeleteGOT YOUR BIGFOOT RIGHT HERE!!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3cGIS3Q3Lc
So you trust these "enhancements"? That looks shaky to me.
Delete100% Legit!
DeleteEven had someone comment on how they can tell if something was altered, and it isn't! I would never be dishonest!
I had someone add eyes so it's more enhanced.
Delete^ That isn`t really the way to go about getting anything accepted...is it ?
Delete9:55 Bearing false witness...that wasn't me!
DeleteYou had someone add eyes so its more nuanced?
DeleteMore like you had them add eyes to make it look more like you wanted it to. How come you didn't have them Photoshop in a blue garbage bag while you were at it?
You just upped your fail you should be ashamed of your self.
There is NO evidence,there is possible evidence which doesnt mean shit.
ReplyDeleteTell it to the experts, darling;
Deletehttp://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
Ah yes, the scientific journal woodape.org
DeleteWoodape ain't the science... The forensic experts in Grover Krantz's paper are.
DeleteFreeman was a hoaxer.
Delete... Not according to a long line of forensic experts, he wasn't.
DeleteSykes is due to analyse his hair samples next and already finds it interesting.
: )
According to Freeman himself he was a hoaxer.
DeleteNo, according to the editing of a programme you think that. Freeman made false casts to rest if toe bending could occur via them.
Delete*test
DeleteNo, you think that based on the layering of the programme. Freeman was a notorious bigfoot hoaxer.
Delete"It was almost ten years ago that I was visited by Paul Freeman and his wife, Nancy. The occasion was an interview for a TV show that was being produced by a documentary crew from Manchester, England. Part of my contribution to this project was to bring Paul Freeman to my place for a taped interview. The English production crew was kind enough to allow me to tape both interviews 'over their shoulder' so to speak, using my own home camcorder. I put the tapes up on Youtube because it struck me that anyone who ever has tried or will someday try to gather 'bigfoot evidence' needs to hear every word of these interviews. One interesting element of these tapes is the fact that the English reporter who interviews Freeman has really done his homework. He knew the controversies that Paul was embroiled in and he did his best to get Paul Freeman to articulate his position on the accusations of hoaxing that swirled back in the 1990's. The biggest flap surrounded comments made by Freeman on a "Good Morning America" appearance. He acknowledged "trying to make" a set of fake footprints. Freeman explained to me as we chatted at my house before the interview that his remarks were taken out of context. He wanted to create a set of deliberate fakes for comparison purposes. He never tried to portray his fakes as anything but an experiment. But by acknowledging on camera that he had 'tried' to make fake footprints, he created a dust-up that many would seize upon to cast doubt on any and all evidence ever gather by this remarkably dedicated field researcher."
Delete- Thom Powell
"The world is 6000 years old and all species are derived from the animals noah took on his ark" - joe f
ReplyDeleteA stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
Delete- Bertrand Russell
Joe = stupid woman!
DeleteA stitch in time saves nine.
Delete-Ben Franklin
A jackass is always available to comment on the unknown.
Delete-A. Einstein
Relying on others thoughts,quotes and writings to make your argument makes one a sheep and a fool
ReplyDeleteM.Ghandi
Of which Joella has none,Thoughts,
DeleteArguments,ect.
12:40 all i can say is perfect , absolutely perfect !!
2:07, I have found that people who brag about their education are only doing so to bolster a weak argument. I highly doubt you're educated, and find your claims suspect. Great job talking about the Giant Squid though, I'll be sure to file that under who gives a shit.
Deletekinda like everybody here does with your postings
DeleteThat's a polite way of stating that Iktomi had his ass handed to him on a silver platter!
DeleteSo once again lktomi gets schooled with basic facts (yawn) - beginning to feel like Goundhog Day.
DeleteYou couldn't go 24 Hrs. without sayings the words Iktomi or Joe. You are thoroughly owned, a penny in his pocket.
Deleteword Vegas!!!
Delete