Saturday, February 6, 2016

Florida Bigfoot Investigator Admits To Being Hoaxed


Say it's not so! Florida's beloved skunk ape hunter Tim Fasano has admitted that he was duped! Fooled! Hoaxed! He explains in the description:

I came around the bend near a beautiful lake and saw a giant deer. It was as big as a moose. Scared me half to death. I hid behind a tree and later realized it was a taxidermy job cable locked to a tree. See how easy it could be to pull a Bigfoot hoax. I did not have to tell you the truth. exploitation is what hoaxers do.

41 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Fasano hoaxed....what only 17 nuggets in his 20 piece?

      Delete
    2. I refuse to watch that fat piece of hoaxing shit, the comments are way more fun to read.

      Delete
  2. Roses are Red
    Violets are Blue
    Hello My Friend Eva
    How Do You Do?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're a Trump supporter, aren't you?

      Delete
    2. I SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO ---
      "DRINK PISS" !!

      an lot's of it !!

      Delete
    3. Bud lite = Piss ,,ya dips!

      Delete
    4. Seems a little one sided this blog now Joe`s getting pissed in the pub...so,better even things up...

      I believe in bigfoot.

      Delete
    5. Mongoloid^^^.....lol@ Bigfoot(fake joe) student

      Delete
    6. Are you (2:59) trying to imply that I am this Joe of whom you are so fond, in disguise?

      Delete
    7. ^ i think he`s saying your the fake joe ..

      ...no ?

      Delete
    8. I'm not clear on who the "real" Joe is, for sure, so I certainly don't know about a "fake Joe".

      Delete
    9. Hello BigfootStudent,i good thanks and it's good to see you back xx

      Delete
    10. Thanks Eva...I've been checking in to keep up from time to time...Just very busy. I miss you guys! Still amazed that these folks think I'm Joe...or now a "fake Joe", whatever that means.

      Delete
    11. people seem to be rather nasty today
      nice to see some happy people on here for a change

      Joe

      Delete
  3. Hic hic ..i`m back from the pub now and am drunk enough to say bigfoot ain`t real...hic hic...what a fool i`ve been..hic

    hic...

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ the resident blog idiot...fake joe!

      Delete
    2. Obviously he wasn't at the same pub as me . He must have been into the cheap grog . You need to be schooled boyo not to come on here and pretend to be me or else i'll make ya walk the plank matey...arrrrgh

      Joe

      Delete
  4. Mule deer in Florida? WTF? There are no mule deer east of the Mississippi.

    What a nimrod.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wait a minute? He was "hoaxed" by a deer decoy? Why the hell would someone put out a deer decoy as a bigfoot hoax? That doesn't even make any sense.

    That deer decoy was put out there to fool deer. That this bigfoot "researcher" managed to so easily fool himself with it only shows how ridiculously credulous and unobservant bigfoot "researchers" can be.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let's clarify -- Tim was not "hoaxed." Florida FWC plants fake deer and then watches them hoping that some doofus will think they are real and shoots at them.

    Typically, the only ones who fall for this are drunks with guns. And Bigfoot worshipers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've often said the only serious bigfoot researchers are the ones with rifles, not cameras, but after seeing the clownshow that is bigfoot "research" it's probably for the best these guys stick to just cameras for selfies and stump pics. They won't get proof of bigfoot that way, but at least they won't hurt anyone.

      Delete
    2. I feel bad for the people who come to this site for Bigfoot evidence. This site is to feed the trolls and the perverts...The admins of this site should be ashamed of themselves!
      If you want evidence, see my youtube channel!

      Delete
    3. I feel bad for people who want bigfoot evidence period. Because there isn't any. Anywhere. Just dubious casts, blurry pictures, wild supposition, pathetic excuses, and blatant bullshit.

      If we ever do get real evidence of bigfoot, people will see it in the Smithsonian (or the Field or the AMNH etc.), not on a website, and certainly not on some attention whore's youtube channel.

      Delete
    4. Dr. Squatch, your videos suck. All they show is your fascination with bushes.

      Delete
    5. 10:15...

      To hoax species traits in convincing biological dermals, one would have to have a knowledge of primate dermals (that not many do), have a lottery win's chance of faking the same biological idea, and then fool multiple forensic experts... These are not hoaxes.
      Audio recordings that became the subject of a year-long University based engineering study, with the results determined that the vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges, that the recordings were spontaneous at the time of recording with no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed... Cannot be hoaxed.
      Over a dozen unknown primate hair samples, verified by multiple camps of primatologists, all morphologically uniform and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure, found around sightings and tracks... Cannot be faked.
      Mythical creatures do not leave evidence... And anybody remotely clued up about this topic understands you won't even catch a deer in the woods at night with a film crew screaming.

      I actually feel sorry for people like you, who must have something going on in their personal lives to religiously have to belittle people on the Internet with a version of events that requires far more faith than anyone able to understand the state of evidence for what it actually is. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence. How this is relevant to my situation, is that there is reason to invest enthusiasm in the subject matter based on the accumulated data that accounts for the experiences of tens of thousands of people, spanning different cultures, that is supported by means of physical and even biological evidences that can't be scientifically shown to be false. Religions include revelation, faith and sacredness, and how this is relevant to your situation is that you have nothing but dataless opinion void of any scientific factual basis, with a requirement to be devoted in expressing your sentiment at every opportunity.

      Is the present Bigfoot evidence reliable? Well about as reliable as any falsifiable source that can be presented as evidence in any scientific or judicial arena. There are in fact plenty of facts that denialists choose to ignore, like the pristine professionalism that has transitioned scientific careers into this field, by methods tried and tested to be legitimate and totally reliable. Like the very best primatologists and conservationists repeatedly telling you that there is nothing in the environment of the US that prohibits the existence of an unknown primate, and in fact... It is likely to be there. Considering that every single source of evidence exists short of type specimen, is it healthy to maintain the tunnel vision, denialist stance that there is nothing what so ever to the claims of an unknown primate residing in the wilderness of the US?

      Only a religious zealot would maintain there's not.

      Delete
    6. I'm sorry. Did you say something?

      Delete
    7. Yeah... It read like your dreams falling apart.

      Delete
    8. Apparently someone still doesn't know he has fingerprints.

      All humans, because they are primates, have a convincing set of primate dermal ridges built in. All one has to do to put "convincing dermal ridges" into a fake "bigfoot" track is MOLD IT WITH HIS HANDS. That's it. He doesn't need to intend to create dermal ridges, or even know what dermal ridges are. They happen naturally merely from using his hands.

      Every single clay kindergarten art project is also covered with little, tiny "convincing dermal ridges". Does this mean they are "evidence" for little tiny bigfoots?

      Delete
    9. Apparently someone doesn't know how to read properly... Dermals in impressions are not the focus here, unique species traits are. To hoax convincing biological dermals that are primate in origin but different enough to have species traits across samples, one would have to have a knowledge of all human primate and non-human primate dermals (that not many people on the planet do), and then have less than a lottery win's chance of faking the exact same biological idea, place these impressions in the middle of nowhere and somehow predict to the exact yard out of miles and miles of wilderness that they'll be found, and THEN fool multiple forensic experts.

      That's a greater leap of faith than the samples are in fact genuine in line with the hundreds of years modern cultures have reported relict hominids in the wilderness of the US.

      Delete
    10. > "To hoax convincing biological dermals that are primate in origin but different enough to have species traits across samples, one would have to have a knowledge of all human primate and non-human primate dermals"

      NO YOU DON'T. All you need to do is unwittingly press on the impression with your fingers in a location that doesn't normally get ridges in that pattern or orientation in humans. Like say you shape the instep with the base of your thumb. The result: primal dermals that don't match any known primate.

      I have seen first hand the "evidence" you are talking about, and there's simply not enough there to make any of the claims you are making. To make that assessment we would need a full footprint with a complete dermal impression, but the best I've seen have just a few dermal impressions here and there.

      Oh, and when a real scientist says the sample comes from an "unknown" primate, he means it definitely comes from a primate, but is insufficient to identify which particular primate. He does NOT mean it comes from a primate unknown to science. He probably has a good idea which primate it comes from (lol human), but real scientists are not in the business of making definite claims they can't back up. Unlike bigfoot "researchers".

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

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

      Delete
    13. "YOU DON'T. All you need to do is unwittingly press on the impression with your fingers in a location that doesn't normally get ridges in that pattern or orientation in humans. Like say you shape the instep with the base of your thumb. The result: primal dermals that don't match any known primate."

      You do... Using the morphology of a human fingerprint "unwittingly" does not work. Even though the delta ridges on prints with verified dermals are similar in places to modern Homo sapiens, such as changing directions over 45 degrees, they also converge and deviate, they have the same texture and ridge flow pattern like a humans BUT twice the size. There is however enough unique data in them to be considered an "unknown primate", they follow traits of all other primates but are unique, which could imply a "different version of us". Similar to us but different in it's unique morphology, just like ancient versions of us such as Cro-Magnon that shard our exact DNA but had anatomical and morphological differences. So you see, using a normal human's fingerprint doesn't even begin to account for what is seen in impressions, because they are too small... And even if that was the case, it's an even bigger leap of faith to assume that someone using the same method would have the exact traits and patterns decades apart, States apart. Using things like the base of the thumb to a forensic expert of 30 years would, um... Would be identitied just a little.

      I don't think you actually know what the **** you're talking about, do you? When you are walking barefoot on the forest floor, the foot comes in contact with both fallen leaves and the soil in making an impression. Therefore, casting artefacts for example would be present in consistency right across the different soil areas of the foot fall and they're not. There are castings with dermals across different areas of the foot fall, which indicates even more of a difficult task for someone to jigsaw together the morphological consistencies that would be expected to exist by not only one professional, but by several. I don't think you've seen much if I'm honest.

      I'm really not sure if you're trying to be clever, but your example of unknown primates is exactly the same (cringe) and I don't think you have the qualifications nor the credibility to request "real scientists" over the following;
      Tatyana Gladkova, Dermatoglyphics expert at the USSR Institute of Anthropology. Mikhail Urisson and Vladimir Volkov-Dubrovin (Deputy Director of the Institute) agrees with her opinion. Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Douglas M. Monsoor, Supervisor, Criminalistics Unit, Department of Public Safety, Lakewood, Colorado. Certified Latent Print Examiner, and fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom. Robert D. Olsen, Sr., Criminalist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas. Certified Latent Print Examiner, Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom, Member of International Association for Identification, etc. Edward Palma, Fingerprint examiner for the Laramie County Sheriff's Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Benny Kling, Instructor, Law Enforcement Academy, Douglas, Wyoming. Jimmy Chilcutt, fingerprint technician at the Conroe Police Department, highly regarded by agents of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and state and local law enforcement agencies for his innovative techniques and ability to find fingerprints where others fail...

      But you'd know all about "real" scientists, right?

      Delete
  7. He's a complete idiot, why does he get any attention at all!?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You keep saying the same crap, but still have nothing to back it up.

    To hell with this. I didn't spend the past four decades examining human remains and real evidence to be condescended at by some jumped up arrogant little twit with his encyclopedic knowledge of complete and utter bullshit trying to pass off his unfounded opinions and excuses and assertions as fact.

    Also name dropping as proof? And even then you have to go the the USSR to find someone to support your crap? Really? The same USSR that promoted Lysenkoism?

    That's just pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have the samples and the circumstances that they were attained, not to mention the data within them to back up my claims.

      Not name dropping for proof, name dropping for verification and countering your ad hominem claims that scientists who have verified dermals are not real scientists... Those are the opinions that count and are far from unfounded. Don't be sensitive, be finding an angle to support your ideas that the evidence I reference is "not real". If you've studied human remains that long, then you have my respect, but asserting your alleged credentials under anonymity doesn't buy you a counter argument here, I'm afraid.

      Delete