Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Can Bigfoot Vanish Into Thin Air Like This Woman Did?


Some people believe that one of the ways bigfoot has stayed uncatalogued for so long is that it has the ability to disappear into thin air. Vanish right before your very eyes even. Is that even possible? In this video we see how a woman vanishes right in front of the camera. You can clearly see she just disappears. In fact, the video went viral. But is there a simpler, more logical explanation? Just because we think we see what we think we saw doesn't mean we always saw what we think we did. Make sense?


86 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. There is evidence that bigfoot can vanish as has been proven many times...just take a look at some of the trail camera images and you`ll see there`s nothing there...nothing at all.

      What does that tell you ?

      Joe

      Delete
    2. Fake Joe has been on a mission lately. I think he's had a nerve hit on some level.

      Delete
    3. http://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/the-duhon-photograph/

      Delete
    4. ^^ certainly seems to have hit a nerve in you

      Delete
    5. 2:56 has been grinding lately, trying extra hard for some Joe attention.

      Delete
    6. mirageman

      How could a huge primate (such as Bigfoot) continue to feed and breed whilst remaining almost completely undetected by humans? And what is your opinion of the Patterson–Gimlin film?


      I frankly don't know. I heard a lot of theories about their secrecy, underground tunnel systems and so forth, but "where's the body" is still a very relevant question for bigfoot enthusiasts everywhere - of which, just to be clear, I am not one. As to the P-G film, the opinion as to it authenticity has always been split between a genuine film and a hoax. I don't think I have any special knowledge of filming to make my opinion at all relevant, but to me it does look like a man in a monkey suit.

      Written by one Dr. Bryan Sykes.....

      Iktomi is done.

      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1110646/pg1

      Delete
    7. superman2012

      What are your thoughts on Melba Ketchum's DNA study on bigfoot? Have you read the report and what are your thoughts on the whole "Galileo effect" that she speaks of? Is mainstream science too scared to investigate the unknown anymore? I believe George Knapp says that, "science should investigate the unexplained, not explain the uninvestigated".


      I have written a chapter in "Bigfoot, Yeti and the Last Neanderthal about this very subject. Briefly I found her report unconvincing (for reasons I explain in the book) and have suggested a number of points she might consider, including concentrating efforts on one or two of the best samples and, crucially having her "positives" analysed by an independent laboratory. They have, famously, not been published in a peer-revied journal so must rank as mere assertions rather than evidence.

      One thing that came up a lot during my researches as that mainstream science has somehow rejected bigfoot or is "too scared" to stray from the mainstream. That contention I absolutely reject. Science does not accept or reject anything , it searches for and examines the evidence. I am a scientist and that is what I have done. Whether scientists want to spent their time and effort on bigfoot is another matter, and one of judgement. Scientist love nothing more than to swim outside the mainstream if they can - that's where really exciting discoveries await.


      Iktomi destroyed again by his hero. This is the greatest day ever on this blog.

      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1110646/pg1

      Delete
    8. TheLieWeLive

      Have you, or anyone you personally know, encountered any Government agency intervention that would lead you to believe there could be a cover up of Sasquatches?


      Certainly not. I spend some time at the Federal Fish and Wildlife service Forensic Laboratory working with Ken Goddard, the Director, and his colleagues, on some of the hair samples I had received from donors. They couldn't have been more helpful or objective.

      Dr. Brian Sykes ladies and gentlemen.

      Iktomi BTFO!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    9. Debunkology

      I have two questions
      1.)
      Is the Professor aware of David Paulides missing 411 books of the disappearances of hundreds of people in American national parks?
      The reason this is relevant is because the children that are actually found have said that the “big hairy man took them away”. And they describe a creature that we know as bigfoot.


      Nothing to add I'm afraid. I did follow up a few Native American reports and samples, and visited the tribal areas, but found nothing unusual.

      Delete
    10. What does the Professor think of Bigfoot and the Native American beliefs that it is a supernatural creature and the ability to become invisible.

      The native Americans also said that they stole children.


      I talked at length to a Native American from the Lummi tribe in northern Washington. There were many sightings around his home and he communicated daily with sasquatch. The creature also threw sticks into his garden and, on one of these I found a hair and sent it to the lab immediately. Sadly, it turned out to be from the dog next door. Nevertheless he told wonderful stories about the local sasquatch.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! This drunk injun thinks his neighbor playing catch with his dog is bigfoot.

      Delete
    11. LOL. Tick tock..Sykes is coming. No mention of Zana at all that I could see.

      Delete
    12. "...but to me it does look like a man in a monkey suit." Dr. Bryan Sykes

      I love that.

      Delete
    13. "... a very relevant question for bigfoot enthusiasts everywhere - of which, just to be clear, I am not one." Dr.Bryan Sykes

      Delete
    14. I remember seeing Sykes on that Mark Evans UK channel 4 documentary. I think it was heavily weighted from the start against any notion of evidence of bigfoot. It was a pseudo hatchet job .

      les, eddy van halen and rictor.
      oh and by the way im naked.

      Delete
    15. >>No mention of Zana at all that I could see.

      Nor I. But he does think the PG film is a hoax,there is no government conspiracy,and that Melba Ketchum is an idiot.

      Delete
    16. >>I think it was heavily weighted from the start against any notion of evidence of bigfoot.

      Go read his own words fool. He does not believe any of this. If you read close you will see its all about money. As always.

      Delete
    17. Yep.

      No governemnt consipracy.
      No scorn from his fellow scientists.
      No indication that Native legends should be treated as an historical record of bigfoot.
      No Zana
      Discussing bigfoot without "incontrovertible evidence" is "pointless" and "tedious".

      Delete
    18. Sykes is the embodiment of the establishment view.
      I may not belive in bigfoot anyone can see that he is a paid propagandist puppet.
      he wheeled out to stamp on bigfoot evidence.
      a concerned citizen

      Delete
    19. >>Sykes is the embodiment of the establishment view.

      Keep moving those goalposts joe/iktomi. You really got BTFO this time.

      Delete
    20. Fake Joe is indeed on a mission today . Sadly he has no life and needs to come on here instead of playing his xbox

      Joe

      Delete
    21. Wow!! Where to start!! Ha ha ha!! Ok...

      For starters, if he doesn't believe the PGF to be authentic, big whoop! He's a geneticist, not a video analyst, and there are plenty who support the existence of Sasquatch that believe that footage to be suspicious... Take Anna Nekaris for example. Sykes doesn't consider himself "an enthusiast"? BRILLIANT!! That's exactly what we want... What this field needs is a top geneticist to look at the evidence impartially. It can't be scrutinised with ad hominem should he deliver a positive result then.

      Next... The Melba study. 99.9% of all enthusiasts have condemned this work, and as Sykes said himself on C2CAM, most scrutiny came from within this very field and he appreciated how many level headed people approached that study. I found his views very enlightening and there was nothing neither I, or thousands of other people who believe in "Bigfoot" could disagree with. There is also no "scorn" from mainstream science... Only a naivety of the evidence that's to be tested. 90% of enthusiasts aren't aware of it, so how can mainstream scientists be aware? Who's gonna risk tarnishing their careers risking being ridiculed?

      His views about an alleged government conspiracy, GREAT!! I personally believe that the government can't release any acknowledgement about a creature they know as much about as we do.

      Everything else was a bit trivial. But here's the doozy;
      Coast to Coast AM March 19th 2016;
      http://youtu.be/UitNUuJsWPs

      38mins - "almost finished studying Zana's DNA."

      Tick, tock, tick, tock...

      : )

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

      Delete
    23. Nice spin lktomi. Way to make lemonade out of lemons.

      Tick, tock, tick, tock... indeed.

      Delete
    24. 10.28

      deliberately misinterpreting and misleading to suit what you think he said.

      Delete
    25. When you actually sit down, put your **** down for a second and read what you've posted... None of it is remotely tarnishing to anything he does with his long term DNA study.

      I can hear a clock...

      Delete
    26. DMaker with capitals... Unfortunately, an anthropologist who would understand native oral history would disagree about the significance of that, not that Sykes implied anything of he sort. And when its supported by thousands of contemporary reports and forensic evidence... It leaves your "versions" of what Sykes has said pretty redundant.

      As for Mr >> who called the anon a fool, only a fool would get a a rush of blood over something so trivial, yet so expected from a geneticist preoccupied with samples for testing.

      Delete
    27. Thousands of reports are not incontrovertible evidence and it is pointless and tedious to discuss them even. According to Sykes.

      Delete
    28. Not when they're supported by repeatable, forensic evidence... And Sykes just needs to better educate himself on the matter. I'm not being remotely critical of him because I think he's amazing, but Loren Coleman's review of his last book pointed out many mistakes in his general knowledge of the subject, outsides of his expertise of genetics.

      Delete
    29. ... And that must be a blow to your time invested, considering you self admittedly have 7000 posts dedicated to persuading others that reports aren't credible.

      Delete
    30. Now you are glad that he is not an enthusiast? Yet, you used to crow around here about how he became an enthusiast due to his experiences.

      Delete
    31. IT'S WAR! Trump, Cruz and Kasich all abandon pledge to support whomever the Republicans nominate -
      WHAT THE

      Delete
    32. If he's not an "enthusiast", what are people like you gonna do when you haven't your old tactic of ad hominem to recline on? It's AMAZING news that he's coming public with things like that... And his Lori Simmons experiences are fascinating.

      Delete
    33. ^ can`t bear the thought that his hero,Sykes,has come down on the side of "there`s not a shred of proof"...remember too that he is the "scientist" you had so much faith in..instead he`s done the dirty on you and shown that you don`t have a leg to stand on,"scientifically" speaking of course.

      Delete
    34. Stating that there is no proof, is stating the obvious... It's stating what every die hard enthusiast in the world would say. It's pretty much what a ten year would know from the topic... But that's doesn't mean there is no evidence. Sorry kid, scientifically I have his work on Zana, not to mention the studies I regularly cite that give you your daily meltdowns and hate campaign.

      Better luck next time!!

      ; )

      Delete
  2. Im Looking for a robust garden Shed and I live in the Florida Area.
    Can Anyone recommend a good supplier please?
    thanx in advance.
    E Van-Halen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. try one of the garage bands in your local area

      D.Roth

      Delete
    2. Thanks Davy,
      Just found a nice one from Tim Fasano Florida Sheds!
      Apparantly they have Sheds for every occasion!

      E van Halen

      Delete
    3. I can also supply a small shed section that has been sound proofed with egg boxes for massive guitar riff playing and practising..just need to wait until the misses cooks enough omelettes for the boxes.

      Davy (rhymes with Gravy)

      Delete
    4. Still no non-blurry still photos of bigfoot.

      Tick-tock-tick-tock...

      Smart: P/G was a hoax.
      Stupid: Got Monkey Suit?
      Right back atcha: No, I haven't found Mark Anders monkey suit either. Mark Anders' Bigfoot must be real.

      Delete
    5. http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      Pages 9, 12 and 15... So much detail that the subject's anatomy can be compared to accepted biological tissue. Man up and look at it. Stop being a coward and take responsibility for your claims.

      "PGF was a hoax" - burden ridden.
      "Got Monkey Suit?" - reminding you of that burden.
      "No, I haven't found Mark Anders monkey suit either. Mark Anders' Bigfoot must be real." - stupid, because Mark Anders' YouTube channel demonstrates his expertise at photoshop and digital SFX. Are you implying that the PGF was achieved with SFX? You did claim that there's wildlife photography from the early 1800's I guess.

      (Creased)

      Learn something for once and stop being an intellectual coward... Thank god you're an anon, you'd be ridiculed for being as dense as you are, ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    6. You are hinging your whole belief system on a hoax.

      You can not provide one non-blurry Bigfoot photograph taken with a still camera.

      Stupid:"Got Monkey Suit?"
      Reminding you of your hypocrisy: "No, I haven't found Mark Anders' monkey suit either. Mark Anders' Bigfoot must be real."

      Delete
    7. "You are hinging your whole belief system on a hoax."
      ... Prove it's a hoax. Take some responsibility for your claims. Claiming that "the PGF is a hoax because the PGF is a hoax" is not an intelligent argument, it's a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning". It's what ten year olds do. If you really knew how low I'm stooping even paying you this time...

      "Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade."

      And I have no requirement for a "belief system", I have evidence to be convinced by. The ironic thing here, is you have logical fallacies and baseless arguments, which kind of renders you with (cough, cough), a belief system?

      Can I ask you a genuine, straight up question? I'm not trying to be nasty or derogatory to you now... But are you able to read properly? If so... Do you actually read the comments of other people? One look at Mark Anders’ YouTube channel trailer, will show you that he is a master of CGI and Photoshop effects;
      http://youtu.be/f4uMAofsMBM

      So, the best thing you have to compare the PGF to is CGI? Is that your idea of pointing out "hypocrisy"? No... By using examples of CGI as a comparison to the PGF, you do my work for me, you clever chap. It simply shows that what you see in the PGF is impossibly real for 1967. You weirdly want photographs from a still camera, when you could require a moving image that can't be hoaxed. Is that your idea of logical thinking?

      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    8. http://youtu.be/f4uMAofsMBM

      Using your logic, the P/G is a hoax because it has been featured in the National Inquirer and its been shown on Finding Bigfoot which also has CG effects, therefore the P/G is invalid. Mark Anders is as real as P/G.

      You're full of red herrings. All you are required to do is present one non-blurry Bigfoot photo taken with a still camera.

      Delete
    9. 3:16 "You weirdly want photographs from a still camera, when you could require a moving image that can't be hoaxed."

      Joe's owner, you forgot to point out that Iktomi believes moving images can't be hoaxed. LOL

      Delete
    10. 4:45... I think that with that, you're actually roasted and toasted nicely to a crisp. I know when I'm being trolled, and trying to exchange with a denialist troll is like trying to debate with a flat earther. Mark Anders' "Bigfoot photographs" are fakes because he attains these images with no back story and he's a wiz kid at special effects. Find the same equivalent information about Roger Patterson, and your embarrassing angle might hold. Might I add, that Patty was featured in National Wildlife magazine in the late 1960's, and to this day has anthropologists, wildlife biologists, primatologists and special effects experts presenting it as scientific evidence.

      5.50... Anything can be hoaxed, it's demonstrating how that props up claims, and the reason a moving image is more preferable in any instance of analysis to still photographs, is because there's more data to test and far harder to hoax.

      Consider you both very much educated... Trolls.

      Delete
    11. Will you admit that P/G has never been verified to be real? Can you deny that the man you used to believe would validate you, Bryan Sykes, you know, "Sykes is coming", has said the figure in the Patterson film looks like a man in a monkey suit? Can you handle the truth that Mark Anders Bigfoot is as valid as Roger Patterson. Neither has been scientifically validated. Mark Anders and Roger Patterson are on equal footing.

      BTW, how is your search for a non-blurry photo of Bigfoot taken from a still camera coming along?

      Delete
    12. The PGF has data in it that has stood the test of all efforts of explaining away. By the very nature of testing scientific evidence, if testing does not support the idea that the subject is fake, then the default position is that it is real. It doesn't prove the existence of "Bigfoot", because the creature in that footage may have died out, in an impartial sense. The facts are, that there are far more experts qualified to pass judgement and confirm that footage as authentic, then there is experts against. Sure there's every day Joe's who think it's fake... I did until I looked at the data, but it's experts that make the world go around. If you can't show that the source is fake, and nobody with ten times more intelligence than you has, then it stands.... Sorry!

      It has no bearing what so ever if Sykes believes Patty to be a man in a suit. He's not a primatologist, a biologist, or an anthropologists... Nor a video analyst. He's a geneticist. He has his opinion like millions and millions of others.

      Coast to Coast AM March 19th 2016;
      http://youtu.be/UitNUuJsWPs
      38mins - "almost finished studying Zana's DNA."
      ... Tick, tock, tick, tock...

      Mark Anders is a digital effects expert... And his "Bigfoot" have been shown to be designed this way. You se how his works? I made a claim and supported my ideas with basic information. Now you need to find a magic monkey suit.

      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg
      ... That search ended 47 years ago, flat-earther.

      Delete
    13. The Mark Anders Bigfoot has stood the test of time. No costume has ever been found. Mark Anders successfully protects Bigfoot habituation areas unlike Roger Patterson who would have led hunters directly to Sasquatch territory had he ever encountered one.

      Undeniable proof of Sasquatch:

      https://youtu.be/Pzpu4HlEjOU
      https://youtu.be/Eg3el8f3JnQ
      https://youtu.be/zAjAW9BKJdM
      https://youtu.be/MOx6nN4rmbw
      https://youtu.be/4MELCm0I4b0
      https://youtu.be/4qwdtUHPea8

      Roger Patterson was a 1960s hoaxer. How hard is that to grasp?

      Delete

    14. "Roger's next plans were to capture a Bigfoot, which he planned a full expedition returning to California and searching all the way up to Canada. He planned a one-year expedition with tracking dogs, cages, a large crew, and the entire project filmed. This would have been a huge financial project. So they immediately went to Hollywood for funding, but they turned him down.

      Roger then went on his film tour- he made lots of money, started his own organization, and started investigating capture claims to bag one that way (and was duped in the process). He partnered with Ron Olson to fund the 'capture expedition' that he originally planned. They were going to fund the expedition themselves by making a movie, but that never panned out and the expedition never happened.

      Roger kept investigating claims. He eventually had Ron do investigations for him because by that time he was getting too sick. Roger died and Ron basically continued where they left off doing research, and ended up making a docudrama movie based on Roger's ideas (Sasquatch: Legend of Bigfoot).

      For one, a lot more people were in and out of that area immediately following the film. So the odds of seeing another in the general area were much more slim.

      He also had no means to capture a Bigfoot which would be the next logical step.

      We could speculate all day long and go over 'would haves' and 'could haves', but reality is never that black and white. The facts show that Patterson did make immediate plans for a return to California and a capture- it just didn't pan out financially."
      - Roguefooter from the BFF

      You ain't nothing but a troll.

      : )

      Delete
  3. Who believes these stupid "vanishing" reports ?

    Oh yeah ... footers !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's not like you're totally inept at devising a proper argument that you have to put words in a million people's mouths now... Is it?

      Delete
    2. What a load of bulls hit. Only person who would believe this is that retard Itkomi. Itkomi would believe anything. He still believes he's cute cause mommy told him that when he was young. Let's not forget that he also believes that he's big boned. When really he's just a fatty.

      Delete
    3. If only your parents could see you now, eh?

      Delete
    4. My parents think your a dopey terd. My dad thinks your really pathetic and mom thinks your fat and have a small c ock. I tend to agree with them.

      Delete
    5. Wow... Sounds like you were raised by animals. I didn't think the level of pity I had for you could have increased any more... But...

      Delete
    6. My parents are bigfoots. They raised me in the way of the forest ninja. If you give me your home address I will send you photos of my family. I gotta go f uck with a trail cam and those idiots from the Finding Bigfoot show. Every time they get near I just teleport out of there. Laterz!!!!!!

      Delete
    7. Iktomi = tutored every day

      ...but he`s at the back of the class and is a dim pupil.

      Delete
    8. ^ 5:09 is here more than me and I know they exist.

      Delete
    9. ^ i gotta hand it to ya` - i `spect they probably do - but don`t let IktomiJoe know i said that - it`ll spoil his day as he won`t have anybody to take his angst out on

      Delete
    10. 6:23...Fluff girl in da house

      Delete
    11. GRAYS teleport BIGFOOTS so they appear to disappear right before you...

      Delete
  4. She didn't vanish into thin air. Watch closely and you see her exit the scene right behind the lady in front view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. of course she doesn`t disappear - neither does anybody or any thing

      but try telling that to the gullible footers

      Delete
    2. Get an argument, not just wait for the next sensationalist BF post for your baiting.

      Hang on... You would need a brain cell for that.

      Delete
    3. ^ idiot bites every time without fail

      haha hahaha hahahaha

      Delete
  5. More nonsense. Seems quite apt, being a bigfoot blog and all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes bigfoot can vanish! I've been tearing my hair out for so long trying to get people to understand. Why do you think we have no good solid physical or photographic evidence after all these attempts to find the creatures? Bigfoots straddle multiple dimensions simultaneously - it's where there are never any remains and how they can seemingly vanish into thin air. Some researchers have speculated that the Sasquatch brain chemistry may also allow for the manipulation of electrical fields, which may "scramble" the brain waves of those out in the field and prevent them from seeing a Bigfoot that is maybe just a couple of yards away. Traditional methods won't prove the existence of these majestic creatures we need to think outside the box.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Through the dance classes, I have made wonderful new friends, taken part in shows and other social events, and have mixed with many other lovely people along the way. I love my classes, they always cheer me up if I am down, they are great exercise and I get to hear music and rhythms I would never have known about before. And best of all, I can wear as many sequins as I like!”

      Les Stroud Survivorman

      Delete
    2. The thing that stands out most in the classes is that bellydancing is for everyone — teenagers, young women, mature women. You don’t need to be slim with a perfect figure to be a good bellydancer. In fact, I know that I’m not overweight but like most women I have bits of my body I don’t like, particularly my tummy which up until a few years ago was flat as a pancake but now permanently sticks out. But going to the classes made me appreciate my wobbly belly a little bit more as I realised you need a bum, hips and thighs to wiggle!”

      Les Stroud Survivorman

      Delete
    3. Try magnets fer chris`sakes !

      Joe

      Delete
    4. ^ Yerss good idea - I`d like to see bigfoot get out of THAT little manoeuvre.

      Delete
  7. Hey 6.40 this kind of gibberish is why everybody thinks footers are nutters!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Joe got BLOWN THE FU CK OUT

    ReplyDelete
  9. < DEAL OF THE DAY >

    2 berth end washroom model with bags of quality. With a spacious end washroom and superb fixtures and fittings throughout this makes this front lounge end washroom model a must view caravan. £6,995

    CALL CLIFF NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Cliff Im very interested in the caravan you have for sale. Is this the 2006 COACHMAN PASTICHE 460 ?
    If it is then il be in touch with a deposit.
    cheers
    Rictor Rollo x x

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Ric,
    Yeah its the Pastiche.
    Cliff.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Replies
    1. Why,Yes,of course it can and it has been proven that it can take things such as apples placed as bait and other foodstuffs right in front of a trail camera and nothing at all be seen.They are capable of invisibility and can vanish at will due to an ability to do with dimensions. Not sure what though.

      Joe

      Delete
    2. ^ Yerss yersss ... there there,it`s all better now.

      Delete