Monday, March 28, 2016

Montana Ghost Town Possibly Haunted By Bigfoot


From Bigfoot Outlaw Radio:

We finish off our last episode with our special guest Darlene, a horse rancher from Florida that has been noticing some strange activity at her place, and the neighbor's property as well. Duke joins us all the way from Montana to help us sort things out, and talk about their expedition to a remote ghost town that's haunted by bigfoot. Don't forget to subscribe, and thanks for listening!

71 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. This kid still can't post one non-blurry still photograph of a bigfoot. He or she keeps posting a P/G link as some sort of response.

      Almost 200 years of photography and not one non-blurry still photo of a bigfoot. Yet, they live in over ten US states??????

      Delete
    2. Still frames from the faked p/g are not still photographs.

      Post one non-blurry still photograph of a bigfoot.

      Just ONE non-blurry still photograph taken with a still camera.

      Surely, in almost 200 years of photography there must be one?

      Delete
    3. But you haven't demonstrated that the PGF is fake... Do that first, lift that little burden and you have a point. There is in fact enough detail in those images that it is possible to compare the subject to the skin folds of elderly people.

      What's more... Is that primates have only been photographed in the wild since the 1960's, totally quashing any nonsense of a 200 year time frame. And the PGF was filmed when?

      Delete
    4. Bernie Sanders calls George Clooney's $33,400-a-ticket Hillary Clinton fundraiser 'obscene'

      WHAT THE ...

      Delete
    5. There you have it. She can't produce one non-blurry still photograph of bigfoot taken between the early 1800s and the present.

      The foremost cheerleader for bigfoot can not produce a single non-blurry still photo of bigfoot taken in the last 200 years...but she believes, oh she believes!

      Delete
    6. What's more... Is that there were no photographs, of the Bili Ape before it was photographed.

      Delete
    7. You would expect wildlife photography from the early 1800's? Ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    8. Humans are primates, deary, and they have been photographed since the 1800s. Haven't you seen a still photo of Abraham Lincoln, deary?

      I thought you said bigfoot was human, deary?

      Conveniently forgot, deary?

      Delete
    9. Where's your non-blurry bigfoot still photograph? 200 years and still waiting.

      Really strange, isn't it?

      Bigfoot is in the US in 10 or more states and no non-blurry still photo???? Ever??? 10 US states??? What are the odds??? Never??? Is that even possible???

      Delete
    10. Pages 9, 12 and 15;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... Is someone having a little meltdown?

      : )

      Delete
    11. You still can't produce one non-blurry still photograph of bigfoot taken in the entire history of photography.

      Bigfooters believe bigfoot live in over ten states in the United States. They're human according to you. Yet, not one non-blurry photo of one?

      Kind of strange. Stretches logic just a little, you think? Just a little?

      Delete
    12. Oh dear, this isn't pretty... Again...

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

      ... Pages, 9, 12, 15. Do you feel stupid about expecting wildlife photography from the early 1800's?

      (Creased)

      Delete
    13. ... About as logic stretching as photographing something that hasn't been discovered yet (Bili Ape), and regardless, we have detailed footage in the PGF.

      Tell me, what wildlife photography from the early 1800's do you enjoy the most?

      (Oh dear)

      Delete
    14. The religion of bigfoot. Its a faith based. Suspend logic, just believe.

      No wonder the UK is being taken over by Islamists. It's geniuses are looking for an imaginary creature in the US while Islamists are commandeering their wives and daughters.

      UK beta male cuck. As long as you believe in bigfoot you can block out your daughter's screams. What happened to the once great English Empire? They're chasing imaginary men while real men take their wives, mothers and daughters.

      Delete
    15. There is no requirement for faith when you have readily available data to be convinced by... Considering you think there's wildlife photography from the early 1800's, I don't think you're qualified to be pointing out what's worth believing or not.

      Oh god... Listen buddy, step away from the desktop... You're experiencing an emotional episode.

      (Totally creased)

      Delete
    16. The history of still photography includes the present as well, dimwit.

      No non-blurry still photographs of bigfoot in the entire history of photography. Maybe next 200 years? 400?


      Delete
    17. B-b-b-b-b-b-but you suggested you expected something spanning from the early 1800's? You're not making sense, old chap.

      Let's just say that the PGF didn't exist... Would you have said the same regarding the prediscovery of the Bili Ape?

      Did you manage to man up and look at the pages I recommended?

      Delete
    18. Yes, dummy. No non-blurry still photos of bigfoot EVER. From the early 1800s to the present. Make sense, chap? Bigfooters produced the same amount of non-blurry bigfoot in the space and computer age as they did in the 1800s. ZERO.

      Are bili apes 9 feet tall and living in over 10 different US states?

      Ironic, a UK cuck talking about manning up.
      You've produced ZERO non-blurry photos of bigfoot taken with a still camera. Posting the same link with no non-blurry still photographs of bigfoot won't change anything.

      Delete
    19. Wow, you're angry... Again, there have been no primate photographs in the wild since the 1960's. So why are you expecting Sasquatch photographs, or any wild primate photos before then? Did you have the nerve to suggest anyone else is missing logic? If someone was to present close up photographs of a Sasquatch with today's tech, you'd merely suggest that they're the most unrealistic of SFX techniques available to "hoaxers". This is what makes the PGF so believable, it's prior to any remotely possible SFX techniques for the time.

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

      ... I can see muscle tone, skin folds... All of which wouldn't be there if the source was as out of focus as your rhetorical nonsense would have people believe. Have you actually opened the link to see how ridiculous you look? It appears in-focus enough to be able to see plenty of detail, that we can make comparative analysis to the organic tissue of elderly people. Quite a monkey suit for 1967, when Hollywood was managing nothing of the sort many years later. For a creature that appears to evade as well as it does, one in-focus photograph amongst many pieces of footage that show size and stealth outside of any normal human capabilities, with the development of easily mobile cameras since WW2, is not much of a surprise.

      No... Bili Apes are 300 lbs, man sized primates that were continuously reported for decades by the indegenous peoples of the Congo; your best argument dismantled comprehensively...

      I hope you're ok.

      Delete
    20. Wrong. There have been photos of primates taken "in the wild" since the 1960s. You've never seen photos of gorillas or chimps taken in the wild post 1960s???????????????

      P/G not still photograph. All the kooks in the world making diagrams in non-science pdfs won't help.

      Even Dr. Karl Shuker reports that Bili apes belong to a known subspecies of chimp – the eastern chimpanzee Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii.

      http://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-bili-bondo-apes-unmasking-congos.html

      Delete
    21. You've got a lot to digest, kiddo. I'll give you time to read up on the latest regarding the Bili ape. The dna tests made news years ago.

      Delete
    22. "Wow, you're angry... Again, there have been no primate photographs in the wild since the 1960's."
      ... An obvious typo. I would have to contradict this entire thread of comments that I've made if that were the case. There have only been primate photos in the wild since the 1960's. Nat Geo cites this as a landmark in wildlife photography, thanks to Jane Goodall.

      No, the PGF is not a still photograph, it's better than that, it's footage. Even more reason to celebrate the data found within it.

      Bili Apes are man sized chimps... They are human sized primates that science claimed didn't exist for the decades that indegenous peoples reported them. There were no footage, still photographs, nothing, before they were discovered.

      I hope you're doing ok.

      Delete
    23. Maybe New Scientist can convince you.

      https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125584-000-dna-tests-solve-mystery-of-giant-apes/

      ..And by the way, there are in-focus still photos and videos of Bili Apes, not to mention a body, not to mention a photograph dating back almost to the 1800s.

      Delete
    24. There you go, sweetheart.

      https://www.google.com/search?sa=G&hl=en&q=bili+ape&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSjAEaiQELEKjU2AQaAggADAsQsIynCBpiCmAIAxIoyBb5BO4KwRXCFbcZlgXRC4IPvxmSOKstoy7gLcAt5iTmOcwr4inkORowVXezKlL2o8ekYvqNUvpkpk0f7jC3AnLX8te5dksD6Hoq67DWidsHJ5O5k6ysU97pIAMMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgRg2XvNDA&ved=0ahUKEwie4KWog-TLAhVK8mMKHfDPCKAQwg4IGigA&biw=1479&bih=725

      Delete
    25. Nobody has claimed that Bili apes aren't a subspecies of chimp, the fact is they are human sized, far bigger and allegedly easier to spot by your logic. You're wandering from the point that you need to be trying to save right now...

      There was also footage of Sasquatch 47 years ago, 150 years worth of science bureaus documenting large skeletal remains, and hominid skull studies from the 1960's;
      https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/

      ... But again, you're wondering. There were no photographs of primates in the wild before the 1960's, and certainly none of human sized, giant sized primates.

      Do you have a photo of a Bili ape from "almost the 1800's"?

      Delete
    26. 11:40... Yes, it's dead, notice how it's not alive in the wild??

      (Sigh)

      (Creased)

      Delete
    27. Bili Apes look like regular chimps. Old news. We've seen chimps before. They're in zoos.

      Still no in-focus still photographs of a 9 foot tall hairy man living in the US...in over 10 different states. Son, have you ever been to northern california, pennsylvania, texas, florida or new york? I have. Not areas 9 foot tall hairy humans could elude photography. Have you even been to the US???

      Still waiting on a non-blurry still photograph of a 9 foot tall hairy human living in the United states.


      Waiting.


      Still waiting.

      Delete
    28. You say the 1907 Bili Ape photo is not taken in the wild. I didn't specify "in the wild". I said any non-blurry still photo of a bigfoot.

      Okay then, Joe. Show me a non-blurry bigfoot photo NOT taken in the wild then, if that makes such a big difference.



      Delete
    29. Sorry... I've never seen a 300lbs chimp in a zoo before, have you? And a subspecies of chimp has massive repercussions on primatology, maybe you're a little young to understand that, but a man sized primate undiscovered until the 1990's is as profound as you can get.

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

      ... Pages, 9, 12, 15. Do you feel stupid about expecting wildlife photography from the early 1800's?

      (Creased)

      Delete
    30. I didn't specify "in the wild"? Would you like me to source you every comment where that's occurred? If that was the case, you could have sourced chimps in human clothing from the 50's.

      And that photo is from 1910-11, actually.

      Did you open the link? Go on... Be a brave boy...

      Delete
    31. Bigfoot is not a Bili ape. There are no documented weighings of Bili apes. 300 lbs is heresay. Besides, we're talking about non-blurry still photos of bigfoot.

      Show me where I said anything about you supplying a "wildlife" photo. Sorry chap, you are refuting an argument that was not advanced by me.

      Still waiting on the original request: A non-blurry still photograph of a bigfoot. It doesn't have to be in the wild, from the 1800s, just a non-blurry still photo of a bigfoot.


      Still waiting.

      Delete
    32. Your non-blurry still photo of bigfoot just has to be that, a non-blurry still photo of bigfoot.

      It may or may not be in the wild. It may be from the 1800s, 1900s , or 2000s. It just has to be a non-blurry still photo of a bigfoot.

      Anything about Bili Apes, wildlife photos, or and other nonsense is subterfuge.

      Delete
    33. It is common knowledge that the Bili ape stands around 6 feet tall and can weigh in at around 300lbs. Learn something about the subject you're trying to convince people you understand... And we ARE talking about the Bili Ape, because it contradicts your nonsense about a creature existing if it's been photographed or not.

      You've never said anything about a primate in the wild, but it's another obstacle presented by me that you don't appear to have the goods to counter. You maintained that you expected at least one photo for Sasquatch since the early 1800's, but there have only been photos of wild primates since the 1960's, so you made yourself look like an idiot, you dig? Not to mention that around about the same time primates were being photographed in the wild, we got the PGF.

      Here we go!
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... Pages, 9, 12, 15. Do you feel stupid about expecting wildlife photography from the early 1800's?

      Delete
    34. So far, every single argument posed has been put to bed, and I've got all night to baby sit you.

      : )

      Delete
    35. You suggested you could source me(12:04) on where I said "in the wild". Backtracking?

      There is no scientific documentation showing that Bili apes weigh 300 pounds. Common knowledge? It used to be common knowledge that the world was flat. Weak.

      The early 1800s was when photography was invented. In other words, since the invention of photography there has never been an in-focus still photo of a bigfoot. If you can supply one, non-blurry still photograph of bigfoot from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s are all acceptable. I never said the photos had to be taken in a certain century.

      There are no other restrictions, except for being a non-blurry still photo of a bigfoot taken with a still camera. You don't have to limit yourself to any century or decade.

      Still waiting.

      Delete
    36. You've refuted nothing. I only asked for a non-blurry still photo of a bigfoot and you haven't provided one.

      It's pretty clear you came up short. If not, show the photo.

      Still waiting.

      Delete
    37. When you produce a non-blurry still photograph of a bigfoot taken with a still camera I will reply.

      Otherwise, you failed the challenge.

      Remember, you must provide a non-blurry still photograph of a bigfoot taken with a still camera.

      Delete
    38. Back tracking?
      IktomiMonday, March 28, 2016 at 12:04:00 PM PDT
      I didn't specify "in the wild"? Would you like me to source you every comment where that's occurred? If that was the case, you could have sourced chimps in human clothing from the 50's.

      You tried worming out of the fact that I've specified right the way through this comment section that a photo of a primate in the wild before the 1960's would prevent you from looking like an idiot. If you can't ascertain what people are stating in their comments, then I would simply try and save a little face before you look even more daft.

      Sorry... Go google it, an adult Bili Ape can stand between 5-6 feet tall and can way between 200-300lbs. To be ignorant enough to compare that to a flat earth theory is seriously audacious and you're running out of time with me continuing to stoop this low. I've ruined your arguments comments ago.

      No, you expected wildlife photography from the early 1800's and you looked like a idiot, and you have been provided a source that shows so much detail that comparitive analysis can be made. Here that is again;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      Delete
    39. Here we go;
      http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/assets/images/comparison1.JPG

      Delete
    40. http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg

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

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

      Delete
    41. Adding my own two cents here....why would anyone care if someone else found Bigfoot interesting? You say you find the evidence lacking, fine. Has no bearing on my day one way or the other. I'm not entirely convinced either, but I see enough intriguing evidence to remain open to the possibility. I have a hard time imagining what you are hoping to achieve here by taking shots at people who are interested in the subject. Do you hope to persuade them that they are foolish? Why? Try live and let live.

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

      Delete
    43. Good point LT. I've been into Bigfoot since 2011. I think its a matter of time.

      https://youtu.be/Pzpu4HlEjOU

      Delete
    44. ^ how much time do you have ?

      coz it`ll take more than a lifetime

      Delete
    45. ^ Pretty sure I have proof:

      https://youtu.be/NiSDCcHaRA8

      Delete
    46. Dear Joe's owner: first of all you don't own me or any other person on here. You just come on here to be an annoying bugger .Even if there was a super clear photo of a bigfoot you would then ask for a body so there really is no use arguing with pillocks like you
      Tiddly doo

      Joe

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. ^ fa g and ^^ fa gg oty

      Delete
    2. FFS! awww poor little mr.anonymous so butt hurt these days lol :) don't worry one day you'll be happy FFS!

      Delete
    3. ^ very happy now thanks mr fa ggot

      ha haha hahaha

      Delete
    4. Ffs....families for strapons

      Delete
    5. FFS! lol! mr. anonymous you seem to be the expert on the subject matter :) nice try please keep trying lmao FFS!

      Delete
    6. ^ oh look...it`s the Fa ggoty fart sniffer

      Delete
    7. sometimes faggots acting very queer sometimes...

      Delete
    8. Who let the 11 year old out out of juvie today? Such a demand for license plates made by the retarded kids- he must have broke out.

      Delete
  3. David Paulides, author of The Missing 411 series takes a look at our cities and the highly unusual manner in which young college-age men are going missing and ending up dead in bodies of water.


    https://intothefrayradio.com/Episodes/itf-04-david-paulides/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ unconfirmable nonsense

      Delete
    2. its DOGMAN for sure ....

      Delete
    3. Unconfirmed by 8:18... Who abides to nonsense every day of his life. Forgive him... He's having a little meltdown.

      Delete
    4. ^ that pool of brown stain on the floor is our dear friend dicktomi in melt-down mode

      how often do we see it

      Delete
  4. MUFON presentation by Stanton Friedman.

    Not bigfoot related of course but perhaps you guys are as interested in the UFO field as in bigfoot.

    Great presentation from a man of rare integrity...released March 2016.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvfYwMeqC0Q

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. find the GRAYS and you'll find the BIGFOOTS

      Delete
    2. Some times the Grays are in your bedroom xx

      Delete
    3. GRAYS in U bedroom, then U get the probe up your backside , so they can track you 24/7

      Delete