Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Bigfooter Finds What They Believe Is A Large Bigfoot During Video Review


Youtube channel Planet Sasquatch posted this video clip where they believe to have spotted a large bigfoot on their video they shot previously. During review of the video they noticed the large face-like anomaly in the picture above. Is it a bigfoot, or is it just a trick of light? Check it out: 


81 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. FFS! The Legion of Doom FFS!

      FFS! way better :) FFS!

      Delete
    2. EPA Spends $75 Million to Equip 200 Special Agents With Drones, Night Vision Goggles, Guns and Assault Ships,
      keep U carbon footprint small or else !!!!!

      Delete
    3. FFS! is there a shortage of tin foil where you live? FFS!

      Delete
    4. I know there's a lot of cynicism expressed towards sources such as this, and I admit that I'm usually struggling myself to see what's being suggested is there... But if you've ever seen the manner in which gorillas conceal themselves, and given that anomalous primates appear to exist based on the evidence, it makes you wonder how many of these sources actually do have major hits within them.

      Delete
    5. Not it really does not make one wonder anything.

      Except why you are desperate for this myth to be real.

      Delete
    6. Good Point Iktomi, something we will never know. Most forest creatures are experts at trying to conceal themselves. In the end all we have is endless videos of dark shadow area and had I filmed this I never would release any of these. But thats me
      Chuck

      Delete
    7. sume sayin trolls bein cuzins to tham thar bigfoots

      Delete
    8. 10:23... If you want to support your ideas that anomalous primates are mere mythical creatures, then demonstrate that the physical sigh that they leave on the environment isn't there.

      Your claims, your burden.

      Delete
    9. 11;00
      No burden upon anybody to prove it doesn`t exist you foolish man.

      It is up to you to prove such a thing is real...and as yet you have not been able to do that (how long is that now ? ...same old position as you were 5,nay,10 years ago...and will still be in the same position in another 10 years)

      Get on with proving it rather than criticizing those with legitimate points to make.

      Delete
    10. Actually, this is how it works...

      You demand evidence for our claims, we provide it. It is then your burden in claiming that the evidence is bunk. The credibility of scientific evidence doesn't decrease because of no type specimen, that is a negative proof fallacy and scientific research does not start at conclusion.

      In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. Your extraordinary claim is that there is nothing to thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports l, that have physical evidence to support. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

      Delete
    11. No, Joe. The evidence is presented and then it is up to anyone who disagrees to demonstrate how the evidence is not adequate. Not to "prove" that is is "bunk"

      The evidence is not adequate because it does not properly prove the claim. Bigfoot remains unproven, despite the so called evidence. Additionally, the evidence is not adequate because in most cases it is anecdotal or ambiguous. Therefore it cannot be used to prove the claim. Therefore it is not adequate.

      Keep trying with better evidence. Until such time as evidence is presented that is undeniable and irrefutable, you will continue to be left with inadequate evidence.

      Delete
    12. Donald... There is no difference between "demonstrating it is not adequate", or "showing it is bunk".

      Bigfoot remains unproven, but unclassified bipedal primates that are of larger size to us, appear to be leaving physical sign via means of forensic scientific recognition. It is now the burden of the critic to show that this is not undeniable or irrefutable. Enthusiasts don't merely have anecdotes to reference.

      Delete
    13. Let me anticipate your response.

      Anecdotes can easily be set aside as they can never be used to prove a species. Sadly for you, that also includes Native oral traditions.

      That leaves only the physical evidence and tracks. All of which are ambiguous. If bigfoot existed, then the tracks could have been made by a bigfoot, or they could have been hoaxed, or could be a mistaken print of a classified animal. The same goes for audio and hair. The evidence is just not conclusive. All of it can be explained in ways other than bigfoot. Hence, ambiguous. Hence, inadequate.

      Delete
    14. Your key phrase there is "..appear to be leaving physical sign." The sign you refer to could just as easily be something else. You cannot prove something when the evidence could be one thing , or could be another. Ambiguity and proof do not mix well.

      Delete
    15. Ok... Your suggestion is that they "could have been hoaxed", or "could have been mistaken", that's all very well... But you yourself have said we need absolutes in science, and expecially when considering forensic evidence. There is no reason to not consider the list of forensic experts' opinion based of "could haves" and "would haves". The same does not go for audio and hair... There are methods of testing these, it is imperative you use them to support the suggestion that these sources are "mistaken". You must show that these are ambiguous, not merely claim that they so and therefore inadequate.

      Using "appear" was for reasons of remaining in scientific etiquette, I've looked for a reason to not consider this evidence, to doubt what the evidence points to and it doesn't exist. If attempting literary loops holes by drawing on words like "appearing" is sealing the deal for you, then you are left with the awkward reality of showing us what other unclassified bipedal primate that is larger than normal human primates is leaving it's sign on the wilderness of the US.

      Delete
    16. Well said dmaker. That is exactly why I remain skeptical of Bigfoot's existence - the evidence is ALWAYS not conclusive. Time after time I read breathless statements of proof and nothing ever comes of it. So all this talk of physical evidence does not impress me unless it is recognized by the scientific community as a whole.

      Delete
    17. Evidence does not always equate to proof... However, if you think the evidence that points to an organic creature leaving it's sign is "not conclusive", then you must demonstrate that. These are the demands of science, and to resort to such is special pleading. It's a contradiction to champion a whole mainstream field who haven't even looked at the evidence, nor know it's there for that matter... In opposition to a line of pioneering professionals who's credentials far exceed there's; to which is merely adhering to scientific pillars such as peer reviews (and don't get me started on that) that you would also champion in a contradicting manner.

      Delete
    18. *and to NOT resort to such is special pleading.

      Delete
    19. Forensics are not accurate 100% of the time. Neither are human beings of any stripe. I won't say all Bigfoot evidence is hoaxed, because I don't know that to be true. Neither do I know Bigfoot to exist, so my position is that of an interested agnostic. It is a perfectly legitimate stance to take on the subject of Sasquatch.

      Delete
    20. Actually...

      The opinion of one forensic expert can be theorised to be wrong... The corroborating opinion of numerous; almost impossible. If so, support your ideas with data. You can't cherry pick what is reliable or unreliable science.

      Please, it is perfectly logical to not believe in something you have not seen for yourself, I appreciate the discussion and your opinion is respected.

      Delete
    21. "...you are left with the awkward reality of showing us what other unclassified bipedal primate that is larger than normal human primates is leaving it's sign on the wilderness of the US."

      Wrong again. You approach this argument as if it is a proven fact that the evidence is caused by an unclassified primate. That is not the case. For a small number of scientists, the evidence is suggestive of a bipedal primate. No one has been able to prove that to be true. The evidence, then, remains putative at best. Given that, no one has to prove what other bipedal primate is causing the evidence, since it has never been proven that a bipedal primate caused the evidence in the first place.

      Added to that is the fact that every time the evidence has been tested or investigated to conclusion, the source was either mistake or human hoax. Every single time.

      Delete
    22. Actually... I approach this argument based on what the experts who are highly relevant to the area in question have concluded upon. By their collective opinion, the physical evidence cannot be hoaxed... And low and behold, there is no source to show otherwise? One might say that I'm more than warranted to endorse that scenario; more obligated out of respect for the scientific method. A "small number of scientists" is what constitutes the scientific output to which you adhere to, Donald. You would listen to any other frequency of scientists should they lend their opinion to any other topic through the peer review process.

      "The sign you refer to could just as easily be something else."
      ... You see, because you have yet to demonstrate that the source is not what the experts say it is, you are obligated to demonstrate what this "something else" is in line with what hard data we have. This data being sourced via the consistent scientific method of reliable scientists that have yet to be proven to be inaccurate. So by these events, we can determine that a bipedal primate is leaving it's forensic sign, and because you fail on the fundamental anti-thesis of that premise, then I am warranted to request of what other biological entity apart from the obvious is guilty of leaving it.

      Lastly, before I have to go, your idea that evidence has always been shown to be the product of hoaxes or mistakes is not true. The many hair samples that have been tested to be that of an unknown primate are starting to gain considerable attention among top geneticists (Sykes and the Walla Walla hairs) and we have things like this;
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf
      ... Regarding audio that has not been shown to follow any of the versions that you're expecting enthusiasts to believe. I have to go now as I have an early start in the morning. I'll be back to answer anything tomorrow, I enjoyed it.

      Goodnight.

      Delete
    23. You're missing a huge point, Joe. To say, well so and so says believes this footprint, for example, to be from an unclassified biped. And then to say that is on any opposing opinion to prove what it came from is incorrect. How would that even be possible? You have an indentation in the ground. Some think it came from one thing, others that it did not. It cannot be proven either way. That particular example of "evidence" ends with analysis and opinion. It, like all other alleged bigfoot evidence, remains inconclusive.

      You cannot rest your argument on evidence that is unfalsifiable. If the truth of a particular example of evidence cannot reasonably be determined beyond doubt, then you cannot demand that someone do such. If one group cannot prove, beyond a doubt, that a track was caused by an unclassified biped, then why would you even think it reasonable to demand that another group prove where it did come from? No. It remains undecided, inconclusive, and inadequate for proof.

      Delete
    24. Dmaker returns and destroys Joerg. Per the usual. Dmaker for president!!!

      Ohhhhhh..........Myyyyyyyy...Joergggggg!!!!!!

      Delete
    25. Dressmaker couldn't argue his way of a wet paper bag.
      Let's face it, he gets schooled each and every time he goes against me - that's why he now spends his time making pretty dresses for all the trolls

      Joe

      Delete
    26. ^ Mike brookerson pretending to be Joe. What a gay sense of humor

      Delete
    27. ....Really good discussion Iktomi and Dmaker...When you guys manage to play nice you give the rest of us somethings to think about...lol...Thanks...

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

      Delete
    29. Dmaker... In your mindset, how can any forensic breakthrough ever be trusted or be correct if that's the case? How can any wildlife biology breakthrough, a field that is largely based around it's study of track impressions be correct? Why not go one further; how can any scientific breakthrough be accepted? There are ways of falsifying what we see in the track impressions, by means of primatology and forensics. What we can deduce from the conclusions made by those forensic experts, is not that "Bigfoot exists", but that there is a large, unclassified, bipedal primate leaving it's sign on the environment; there is nothing inconclusive about that... And we both still know the repercussions of acknowledging that.

      I commend the manner in which you question things, especially with a concept as wild as this. But, how can you be so weary of expert opinion, of consistent scientific method, only to lean on what lesser, more mainstream methods of scientific output tells the scientific community is solid science? It is "analysis and opinion" that form the very basis of any scientific output you can reference.

      You prove that the a track was caused by an unclassified biped by testing it, and by the very means of failing to show (prove) that it was not left by that, then the original premise stands, how can it not? Science demands it... You cannot maintain that science needs to be falsifiable and then deny that it has methods of achieving this in the next breath, because it does.

      Delete
    30. "What we can deduce from the conclusions made by those forensic experts, is not that "Bigfoot exists", but that there is a large, unclassified, bipedal primate leaving it's sign on the environment; "

      There is no difference between bigfoot and large, unclassified primate. It is ridiculous when you try to separate the two. You really should stop doign that, you're not helping your case.

      Scientific breakthroughs are accepted, Joe, when their peers examine the same data and are unable to prove it wrong, i.e. to falsify it. Then the original claim holds and is added to the current scientific knowledge on that subject. The key here is the falsifiability of the original claim. If there is no reasonable way to falsify the original claim, then it is not a sound scientific claim in the first place. And stating that an ambiguous trackway was made by an unclassified primate is not falsifiable. No one can prove that it was, or wasn't made by an unclassified primate. There can be strong opinions one way or the other, but lacking any type specimen or other confirmed physical evidence, tracks are never going to stand up as proof.

      Just out of curiosity, how would you suggest that someone go about proving that a track was NOT made by an unclassified primate? That should be an interesting discussion.

      Delete
    31. "There is no difference between bigfoot and large, unclassified primate."
      ... Precisely Donald, and this is why you are holding on to your premise against such a fact. However... The experts who have verified this evidence are not doing so with the cultural connotations that this topic brings, and are merely impartially analysing what is in front of them. By coming to this conclusions, we still don't have a classification via this type of forensic evidence, like DNA or a type specimen can provide, therefore we cannot point to it being classified as opposed to "unclassified", follow? That still doesn't take away from the evidence being solid for an unclassified primate. You must remember Donald, that one of the circumstances surrounding such traits, is that they were accumulated decades and States apart; repetitive evidence.

      And what constitutes a "sound scientific claim"? This is 100% subjective, Donald. To experts belonging to relevant scientific fields of study, the concept of an unclassified bipedal primate is perfectly sound. We know very large mammals thrive in the wilderness environment of the US. Again Donald, the sources in question are not without a means of falsifying them; we know primates exist, and we have very advanced methods of verifying organic traits and artificial anomalies. You yourself have used the angle of the latter in using Crowley's work, so why the rhetorics now?

      Nobody is claiming that this is proof, it is evidence... But profound evidence at that, to which is offensive to some who would prefer that this subject is relegated to mere anecdotes. How would I go about it? Use primatology, wildlife biology, forensics and casting processes.

      Delete
    32. You didn't really answer the question, Joe.

      Scenario: Someone points to indentations on the ground and says "These were made by a bigfoot. I am a pioneering, excelled footprint analyzer, Joe told me so, so it must be true."

      Your task, prove that person wrong. You don't get to answer by saying you would use this discipline or that discipline. Please explain HOW those disciplines would be used to PROVE beyond a doubt that the tracks were not made by a bigfoot. That is what you are insisting must be done, so please, by all means, explain how that is even logically possible.

      Delete
    33. Can I ask you something Donald? I mean this respectfully... But do you skim read my comments?

      I have answered you at least twice prior, Donald. You compare the data retrieved against existing biological anomalies, and species traits akin to a whole range of primates.. In turn testing them against casting artefacts & methods. If they do not follow any consistent pattern of biological traits, if they do not follow consistency across a number of samples, and if they are consistent with what is identified as casting artefacts, then you have a means to prove that they were not left by what is being suggested.

      Delete
    34. Right, except the analysis you described would rarely be accepted by the other side. They would claim that things like consistency with casting artefacts are actually biological traits. You do it here all the time.

      There will always be argument based on interpretation of the details of the track. No one side is infallible. Bear in mind, every bigfoot Phd has been fooled by fake tracks in the past. So expert analysis is not always correct. So trying to defend against that analysis seems rather silly if what you are mutually examining is a phony.

      Tracks remain in the putative column for evidence. Could be, could not be.

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

      Delete
    36. That's all very well, demonstrate that the alleged biological traits are in fact casting artefacts and you have a comparison.

      One side becomes fallible just as soon as the opposing premise tests that source and is successful in supporting it's opposing stance. These are your standards of falsifiability, Donald. You can interpret tracks all you like, when you have the experts who would know better than 99% of the world's population telling you that there is no indication of the sources in question being hoaxed, then "interpretation" is not so much the issue than denial.

      As far as PhD's being fooled, these were in relation to actual track impressions, not the forensic details within such sources. These instances have also been used in a conducive manner going forward in identifying the same. I wonder how may wildlife biologists would be as easily as fooled should someone try and sabotage their credentials with any animal track casting.

      Tracks can always be putative; forensic sign not so.

      Delete
    37. You have no consensus and no peer review. You have a small handful of experts who probably amount to about less than 1% of their field. Where are the rest of their peers in supporting their conclusions?

      Delete
    38. Also, Krantz was fooled by dermal ridges.

      Delete
    39. Please Donald, I have as much faith in the peer review process as chocolate watches, and I don't believe this to be a standard that should be trusted even if a major journal did suddenly publish the study.

      Delete
    40. That's convenient. What do you propose as an alternative to peer review? Remember that the scientific method relies upon peer input, including review and falsification.

      Do you think it a better venue for discoveries to be blurted out on obscure, crypto websites?

      Since you think peer review is so horrible, what do you suggest?

      Delete
    41. Even though I am not aware of any such occurrence of Krantz being fooled, his area of expertise is not forensics, & therefore means little in the way of invalidating what people better educated in that field have deemed of the evidence.

      Delete
    42. Here is a paper Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Royal Society of Medicine Press
      Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals by Richard Smith;
      "Conclusion
      So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

      I don't know what would be a better suggestion, but I think I remember reading some being put forward in the link provided.

      Delete
    43. No thoughts of your own then? You just like to bash peer review because you managed to find one article that you believe allows you to do so.

      As much faith as a chocolate watch rings pretty hollow when you have no thoughts or suggestions of your own to contribute.

      Delete
    44. No thoughts of your own then? You just like to bash peer review because you managed to find one article that you believe allows you to do so.

      As much faith as a chocolate watch rings pretty hollow when you have no thoughts or suggestions of your own to contribute.

      Delete
    45. Odd, double post must have been due to posting from my phone. I don't normally do that.

      Delete
    46. Isn't it lightly ironic that I'm being accused of not thinking for myself, when you're relying on peer review before committing to anything? I could have used any one of a lot of sources claiming that the peer review process is faulty.

      Thanks for the chat Dmaker, I hope you are well.

      Delete
    47. For a lay person to invest in peer review is hardly an example of a lack of thought or consideration. Given the fact that a lay person does not understand the specific science behind a given claim, it is certainly preferable to await a positive peer review before reaching a decision. Otherwise, what are you going on? Your personal bias? That is not a good idea, either. Don't just cherry pick things that you agree with, based solely on the fact that you agree with the content.

      If there was a peer reviewed article that clearly supported the bigfoot claim, then I would certainly take interest. I have no emotional stake in this. Bigfoot exists, or it doesn't. If evidence and peer consensus supported the claim, then that is where I would be. Currently, it does not.

      Delete
    48. I contest the state of evidence whole heartedly as you know well, Don, but some of the critical stuff that is being thrown at the peer review process is pretty damning.

      For another time, eh?

      Take care.

      Delete
    49. You talk about peer review but there is no peer review on something science claims does not exist yet people all over are seeing something otherwise they are either all mistaken or lying through their teeth. I'm sure there are a number who have had mistaken sightings or some who are lying just to get on TV or have their moment of fame but that leaves a huge number who honestly claim they have seen an 8ft tall + humanoid looking creature . I have some old paperback books from the 70s I reread the other day and it was amazing on how so many sightings seem to describe the same type of creature - massively build, no neck, long arms, hairy and smelling bad , looking like a cross between a man and primate. There are some sightings we can now discard because the description doesn't seem to fit those but a lot do. A lot of science is theory - Steven Hawking believes black holes are real but no one has ever seen one.

      Joe

      Delete
    50. Nice logic. Some are lying, some aren't. When something doesn't fit the model, they are lying.

      No wonder there is a degree of consistency in the sightings. How else would describe something if you are aiming to describe a large primate?

      Delete
    51. it has both human and primate characteristics which is the reason why some will say it looks human but isn't .
      Most hunters wouldn't shoot something that looked human like. A lot of hunters even said they could have shot at one but it looked human but it also looked like a gorilla . Hunters aren't psychos who just randomly shoot at anything in sight.
      Only a matter of time before one is captured just as with the mountain gorilla who was only discovered by science early last century despite thousands of years of sightings. We do now accept mountain gorillas are real and not the figment of wild African imaginations right ?


      Joe

      Joe

      Delete
    52. So, your response is two strawman arguments?

      Very poor.

      Delete
    53. Two strawmen would be perfect halloween decor for the outside of a house - to scare off trolls and skeptics.

      Joe

      Delete
    54. Coincidentally, two strawmen are what you think constitutes an argument as well.

      Delete
    55. Ridiculous !
      You will never be convinced of anything . You would have been one of those people back in the early 1900s who would have said gorillas were merely the imagination of uneducated people in Africa. or the scientist who said it a coelacanth has been extinct for 65 million years so it can't possibly be a living one despite people seeing both .
      mark my words, you will be proven wrong with bigfoot one day.
      Enjoy halloween

      Joe

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

      Delete
  2. Is this some sort of a new game footers play? I mean, what are the chances that they video an area and a Bigfoot just happens to be there at that time and just happens to be expose itself and the people who do the filming just happen to see it after reviewing the video? Pretty slim wouldn't you say? if this is the future of "Bigfoot research" then I predict we will see no end to these "images". Just another case of people seeing what they want to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BILL BROCK for all your critter hunting needs : )

      Delete
    2. 10:33... Well, isn't that what you demand of researchers? Irrelevant to this source up top, it seems like you "scepfooters" are preparing your excuses, in that should someone say they're going to find evidence, that they then are not credible should they then be successful and deliver in that?

      What level of rhetorical nonsense are you striving for?

      To see one of these creatures is near enough mission impossible; but if they exist, and they most certainly do, then with the amount of people who are out searching for their sign it is inevitable that they're going to come back with a number of hits over time.

      Delete
    3. Here's an interesting legend:

      Asin is a cannibal ogress from the mythology of the Alsea tribe. Like other monstrous ogres of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Asin preys on children and is often the subject of "bogeyman stories" told to frighten children into avoiding dangerous behavior. Asin was particularly associated with huckleberry plants, so Alsea people did not touch or eat huckleberries. Hearing Asin's cries was considered an omen of death.
      From nativelanguages.org

      Delete
    4. I absolutely love that stuff NC!!! Relevant to the Genoskwa legends you think? Thanks for the link too brother!

      Delete
    5. Oh please - you make all assumption after assumption such as they exist but are near impossible to see. It would stand to reason after all this time of people hunting for them that they would come up evidence that would be absolutely undeniable to the world. I can tell you pointing out dark shadows in the background does nothing to further your cause and is presented to those who already believe so the ones showing it can feel like their time has not been wasted and they can show something. I can also tell you it makes the search for Bigfoot look foolish as a whole by doing so. Presenting footprints in the mud may be one thing but shadows and fallen branches are quite another.

      Delete
    6. Embarrassingly... It is not an assumption to assume something can exist, yet be very rare in frequency of witnesses. This is the case of some hunters who can have decades of experience yet never see a black bear in the wild (John W Jones has stated that New York State has one of the biggest populations of black bears, yet he knows hunters of many years who are yet to see one in the wild).

      No, by your own unqualified standards and expectations of a creature you don't even find credible, there should be undeniable proof by now (not very good logic). Yet, in the same breath you would deny that there is no physical evidence, when in fact there is every source just short of type specimen for the decades of research invested.

      I am not endorsing the pictures that are on display up top, because I can't make anything out... But because I don't see anything, this does not mean there are not many more photographic sources that have genuine hits that have gone unnoticed, based on how well recognised primates can hide in dense brush, and that we have the evidence to be convinced by of anomalous primates.

      Delete
    7. A totally different creature according to this site, Iktomi. Yet the Thunenhyarhen, Atnayalho, etc. are affiliated with the Genoskwa.
      Here's another for your perusal:
      The Stone-Coat is the name of the mythological rock giant of the Iroquois speaking tribes. In some tribal traditions there is only one Stone-Coat, while in others there are a whole race of them. Stone-Coats are described as being twice as tall as humans, with their bodies covered in rock-hard scales that repel all normal weapons. They are associated with winter and ice, and they hunt and eat humans. In some legends, Stone-Coats were once human, and became monsters as a curse punishing them for evil deeds, like the Windigos of Chippewa mythology. In some legends Stone-Coats were never human, but were a tribe of primordial man eating monsters created by Flint.
      Either way, wouldn't want to encounter one.

      Delete
    8. Let me rephrase that-Same creature, different means of obtaining what they want according to geographical location and tribal affiliation. My apologies.

      Delete
    9. NC, you really do supply me with my favourite reading around here... Bless ya pal. If one day my knowledge of native legends can be anything close to yours; I will be a very happy man.

      Delete
    10. Thanks, pal. You credit me entirely too much. Enjoy your evening.

      Delete
    11. Ohhhhhh..........Myyyyyyy..........Joergggg!!!!!

      Joe, lets visit your son later this evening for some ice cream and candy. It will be amazing!

      John W. Jones Spoke

      Delete
  3. نقدم لكم الشركة الرائده فى عالم تنظيف خزانات وتسليك المجارى بأحدث اجهزة الكشف وبدون تكسير بالاضافة الى كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض بالاعتماد على اكفأ المهندسين المختصين بأعمال السباكة المنزلية واصلاح المواسير الداخليه والخارجية واللذين يؤدون خدمتهم على اكمل وجه وبأقل التكاليف واجود النتائج فاتصلو بنا عملاؤنا الكرام من اى مكان بالسعودية لنتشرف بخدمتكم على الرحب والسعه مع تقديم خدمات شراء اثاث مستعمل بالرياض بافضل الاسعار خدمات شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض لدينا هي الاكفأ علي الاطلاق
    ان شركتنا افضل شركة شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض بالرياض هى الحل الذى امامك فى حالة وجود تسربات لديك بالجدران والاسقف والارضيات حيث نعد من اكبر الشركات المتخصصه فى هذا المجال حيث نقوم باستخدام احدث التقنيات المستخدمة فى الكشف الدقيق عن التسربات من خلال اكفأ الكوادر البشرية والمهندسين المختصين بذلك وبأرخص التكاليف , فاتصل بنا لتتخلص نهائيا من تسربات المياه لديك

    ReplyDelete