Sunday, February 21, 2016

Was The Payson Canyon Bigfoot Video A Hoax?


A video shot by a naturalist has gone viral recently showing what appears to be a possible bigfoot creature in the Payson Canyon area of Utah. Several different media outlets picked up the story, and it has prompted many others to discuss and share the footage. Now someone believes they have found proof that the footage is a hoax. It looks like a pant leg can be seen in part of the footage. Check it out:


24 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. I fear bigfoot will never be found.There are just so many of these hoaxes it is all so dismaying.

      *** sigh ***

      Joe

      Delete
    2. ^ seems most of those "found" are hoaxes,dear boy.

      ahem ahem

      Delete
    3. How can we be sure that Bigfoot doesn't wear pants? Bigfoot is human after all.

      Delete
    4. 12:59... Yes, thousands of years of hoaxes by consecutive cultures who found each other's customs undesirable. Quite a conspiracy after all!

      1:10... Here's a report of a Sasquatch wearing an animal skin;
      http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=27076

      ... Also;
      "The Chuchunaa which are sometimes referred to as the "Siberian Snowman" or "Tjutjuna", are unique among their kind for numerous reasons not the least of which being their purported penchant for appearing before eyewitnesses clothed in animal skins. Their name translates to (outcasts or fugitives) which many of the eyewitnesses declared them. This fact that the Chuchunaa are said to wear animal skins has led some researchers to believe that these creatures may have less in common with Gigantopithecus-like creatures such as BIGFOOT or the YETI, and may possibly be a part of what some have speculated are a relic population of paleo-asiatic aborigines or possibly even Neanderthals."

      Delete
    5. It's always amusing whenever BFRO reports get cited as though they are in the least way credible.

      Also neanderthals? Really? It takes a lot more than just animal skin clothing to make a neanderthal. Has it never occurred to certain people that the Chuchunaa are simply modern hermits who lack the means for proper tanning or tailoring? As hermits so often do.

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

      Delete
    7. Who cares what you think is credible or amusing. Are you able to prove any quantity of BFRO reports to not be credible? Maybe the physical evidence that supports such reports?

      I expect the natives who reside in one of the most unexplored places on the planet, who have reported Chuchunaa for hundreds of years are all lying as well, right?

      Nobody cares what you think... Sorry.

      Delete
    8. how does 12:17 keep escaping from his padded cell ? tsk, tsk

      Joe

      Delete
    9. I see someone still doesn't understand that whole pesky burden of proof thing.

      It's the BFRO's responsibility to prove their credibility, not anyone else's to disprove it. And the BFRO is doing a particularly bad job of it.

      Delete
    10. "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
      - Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

      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.

      Learn.

      Delete
  2. Dr. Meldrum has already discounted this footage as being a hoax. Whatever Dr. Meldrum says about bigfoot goes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. All hoaxers should be slapped very hard xx

    ReplyDelete
  4. It doesn't matter. It's crap as evidence either way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not all hoaxes are Bigfoot but all Bigfoot are hoaxes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drunken rednecks with monkey suits and a slightly more sophisticated sense of humor that one would normally expect from drunken rednecks are hardly a conspiracy. But they do account for a lot of bigfoot "sightings".

      Conspiracy? No. Jackassery? Definitely.

      Delete
    2. Argh yes! For thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping, gorilla suit wearing society of drunken rednecks all out to express a sense of humour. These different cultural groups of drunken rednecks, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what an ape looked like, have in fact managed to cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too... All with that pesky sense of humour of theirs!

      The only "drunken redneck" would be he who thinks that way of thinking is remotely logical.

      Delete
    3. Why do you keep on trying to claim it has to be a society or vast conspiracy of hoaxers instead of just isolated jackasses?

      Do you think Rick Dyer is the secret leader of the Bavarian Illuminati or something?

      Delete
    4. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself by claiming thousands of years of reports that span multiple cultures are "isolated"?

      Delete
    5. Because that's what isolated means.

      Or do you really think Rick Dyer has been coordinating all this over thousands of miles and thousands of years? Do you think Rick Dyer has a time machine? Is that it? He's a time traveling hoaxing coordinating mastermind? And here I always thought he was just a jackass with a bad rubber suit.

      Delete
    6. What? I don't subscribe to any of your nonsense, you nutter. That's your ridiculous sentiment, not mine. Your comment makes as much sense as a chocolate watch.

      Delete
  6. Somebody apparently thought that they could pick up some youtube bucks by resurrecting their old rabbit eared Bigfoot costume.

    ReplyDelete