World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
The ISF is like a cult. Your skepticism is judged by who questions who. If this Bushpilot character claims to have flown on the space shuttle next week and you don't question it, you're considered a good skeptic. If you question his claim in the least bit you're considered a bad skeptic or a nuisance. They don't want anyone to upset the herd.
FFS! Believe FFS!
^ make sense much? LOL
FFS! ^ Yes I do I also make beer on the side...FFS!
^Make stench much?
12:29is for 12:27
FFS! ^ No I leave that up to you FFS!
...I read some of the bigfoot threads there, and I think the poster who goes by Alaska Bush Pilot may be trolling the site...At the least he is having some fun with them at times..He once claimed to have hunted anaconda in the Amazon..lol...
FFS! Get your Monkey on FFS!
what a gay comment
FFS! ^ Seems you're in the market then, eh little mr.anonymous? FFS!
FFS- this is 12:34. Please forgive my nasty comment. I have multiple personality disorder. I have always been so jealous of you and the Superfriends. I apologize in advance for anymore bad behavior. I am off my meds.
another gay comment
12:39 is MM Suckin it C
FFS! I'm not a super friend, not an enthusiast...I however do believe the BG video is a real creature and not a man in a suit...but yes you are very gay and thats okay mr. anonymous FFS!
Darn it how i struggle with myself. Now where are those pills?
FFS! Take the blue pill...FFS!
No one cares who you are or if you are an enthusiast. Nor does anyone care what your opinion is of hoaxed footage. But who is the one here who is making gay comments? I am not the one who Meows at a tranny. Nor am i the one making gay comments like "monkey power"
In South Carolina a black family is mad at cops for returning fire at her son who was shooting at them. Black lives matter is siding with the thug! The New Norm.
FFS! It's okay mr. anonymous let it all out :) I love it when you get mad FFS!
You sure do talk alot like Joe. I wonder if you are another of his accounts. In fact, im willing to bet you are. You use the same phrases, the same punctuation, and just like Joe, you like to talk about people being "mad", when they are pointing out the obvious.
Paranoia will destroy ya^
12:47..are you some sort of dick head?for the record no one cares if you're a skeptard,no one cares if you think some one else is making what you think are gay comments...get over your self xx
Yes- yes he is just that.
^ MM Suckinit C
Why chang your name Eva. Scared?
Eva's scared of nobody! xx
Now i'm going to bed but before i go just remember this..Meow! and Monkey power! xx
You go Eva!
Has anyone else noticed that after Joe receives an unusually harsh beating, such as the one dmaker and the trolls gave him yesterday, that he tends to take a day or 2 off this site. He still uses other accounts, but he typically lays off his lktomi account for a day or 2. Its as if he has to recover from getting pounded so hard. And boy oh boy did dmaker and the trolls give him a pounding yesterday. It was a bloodbath!
China successfully tests 7,000mph hypersonic glide vehicle capable of 'delivering nuclear weapons through sophisticated missile defence shields'THE NEW NORM
No Joe today? I was looking forward to him providing the proof that I have ever posted anonymously.
I have noticed a trend with him dmaker. After a harsh beating, he norally goes quiet for a day or 2. He still posts anonymously and under his other accounts, but he lays off the lktomi account. I think it takes his mind a day or 2 to recover and think of how to spin things. You humiliated him with calling out his lies about you posting anonymously, and he is probably trying to figure out how to lie his way out of it and act like it never happened.
12:43 here again. Sometimes I like to pick all the rotten food out of dmakers smelly fish teeth with a garden hoe. Then polish em up with my dirty underwear. Dont tell anyone tho k?
Golly Im so bipolar. I really do love MMC.
Wow. This place has become an ISF footer satellite forum. Goes to show how demented and obsessed they really are. All of them sock on the BFF as well.
It sure has. Just about all of them have been banned on the BFF and now have sockpuppets there. I'm pretty sure William Parcher had a bunch of his socks banned there. Most of them are believers who are angry that their own sighting weren't believed.
1:11 repeats himself when hes getting his *ss slapped. He's not too bright and all. So its best for him to keep repeating the same sad line.
ISFlers are pretty much like the ISIS of the bigfoot community . They may not resort to the violence but their sick twisted logic of trying to brainwash everyone into believing what they want is spot on . The cult of ISF must be resisted at all costs . Beware the sausage fingersJoe
Only a sick and twisted individual would compare people posting comments on a blog to a terrorist group that beheads hostages.
No, I clearly stated without the violence as i abhor their violence but there are parallels between the fanaticism of both in they way they react to those who have different beliefs . They just can't let them be , they need to attack at every spot . I don't care if skeptics don't believe , that is their business but once they come on here and try to ruin this sacred blog with their toxic attitudes then I get irked.Joe
I don't sock on the BFF. I stopped posting there a couple of months ago. You can only argue with knuckleheads like sweaty yet and bigfoothunter for so long. No point in it.
Hi dan. I see youre nut polisher is busy.
7,000 BFF posts and that burden remains. Now wonder you're so uptight. Being afraid of what other people think on the Internet will eat away at you Don, let it go... You'll feel better about yourself. And I'll source that admission when I can be bothered, troll.
I dont think you know what the word burden means
Funny how Dmaker posts a comment and Joe immediately appears as if he has been obsessively monitoring the comments section all day!
Its not funny at all. Its mental illness.
^Hi ISF'er.Funny how Joe posts a comment and you immediately appear as if you have been obsessively monitoring the comments section all day! Which you have !
Funny how I post a comment about being attracted to blokes' arses and you magically appear !Joe
Nothing funny about your obsessions lunatic.
I have no burden, Joe. The burden of proof is on the claimant. I make no claim. Right now, based on available evidence, I don't think bigfoot exists. That is pretty simple. Now, before you start with your dermal ridges forensic nonsense, you need to better understand falsifiabiliy. If you claim that dermal ridges are made by an unclassified primate, that evidence needs to be falsifiable. As in someone needs to be able to prove that the ridges were not made by an unclassified primate. This is not realistically possible. No one can prove what made the ridges or what did not. Hence why the falsifiability requirement is not met. Some will state they believe the ridges to be made by a primate, but it cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven, it cannot be falsified either. Hence it remains firmly int he maybe column. Not the proof column.I don't expect you to understand this, however.
Get ready for a copy and paste from a debunked 1982 Grover Krantz paper!
You test the species traits found across different casts with known primate species traits and casting artefacts... Very basic stuff. If the evidence is scienifically repeatable, there's nothing more profound. 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, 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.
The point is that you, as the person pushing the Bigfoot hypothesis, must try to prove to "falsify" the evidence that you posit. Not only do you not do so, but when someone clearly shows that your "evidence" is dubious at best, you simply ignore it or attempt to desperately explain it away with tortured arguments. That's not the way science works -- it is the way that propaganda works.
No, Joe, my claim is simply that the bigfoot hypothesis has yet to meet the burden of proof, therefore my provisional conclusion is that bigfoot does not exist. Pretty simple stuff.Yes, you can compare traits, etc, but it does not prove the origin of the alleged dermal ridges. It provides potential origins, but it does not prove any one. This particular branch of evidence falls under further scrutiny because it has been demonstrated that dermal ridge patterns can be hoaxed either directly with latex and kerosone or can simply be an artefact of the casting process. Falsification in this circumstance becomes even more challenging due to this demonstrated artificial origin of alleged dermal ridges. Basically, if it cannot be falsified, then it cannot be considered scientific evidence. Plain as that.
Wow, i think dmaker put the final nail in the coffin, and officially blew joe the f#ck out!! Man oh man this is great to watch.YES YES YES!!!!!
This is a key concept that is either misunderstood by bigfoot enthusiasts or deliberately circumvented. You cannot present evidence that is logically and practically unfalsifiable and then claim it as evidence unless someone falsifies it. It is a weak attempt to change rules of the game and is a standard hallmark of pseudoscience.
3:57 is a fool
^5 to 3:57, Dmaker just destroyed Joe!
3:38... You realise "falsify" is a posh word for testing, right?(Cringe)Donald... You do realise you've just contradicted yourself? You claim that dermals are not falsifiable, and then you cite Crowley as a method of falsifying dermals? That's a massive contradiction in one sentence. So by Crowley's method, you have already acknowledged there is a method of testing forensic sign, in that it can be measured by it's anti-thesis; casting artefacts. One may struggle to falsify track impressions alone, but not forensic sign I'm afraid Donald. To hoax convincing biological dermals, one would have to have a complex knowledge of primate dermals (that not many on the planet do), have a lottery win's chance of faking thesame biological idea over a period of decades and being States apart, and then fool multiple forensic experts... A leap of faith is required to swallow that, if you will.Physical evidence in dermals =there are ways of testing this, notably forensics against casting artefacts, you've been asked to provide drawing on this on multiple occasions; you cited Crowley, failed and now this is "not falsifiable". Hmmmm... ??? Listen to the sceptical radio show linked below. Chilcutt, an actual expert takes Crowley's work apart;http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/03/I keep reading you trying to sell the idea that people are suggesting they have proof. This is a safety net argument. You see, nobody is claiming to have proof, only proof of evidence; but you are not stupid and you know very well what that means. People like you like to reduce this topic to that of being anecdotal based so it is easier for you to argue your case, but it doesn't wash around people like me. Your burden is to present a case against the evidence I reference. You claim it is not there, you contradict yourself by demonstrating how dermals CAN be falsified, only to back track (because your ideas fall flat, it seems). Come on Donald, how many times do we have to has this been explained to you? Pseudoscepticism will contradict itself every time.
Falsify is not a posh word for test. It means to be able to prove untrue. For example, you claim that water only boils at X temp at X altitude. That is a clear example of something that is easily falsifiable. All I need do is demonstrate the opposite, if possible. If I cannot, then your claim is likely to be true. In fact, testing that claim in an attempt to falsify it, is a key component of the scientific method. Perhaps something valuable can be learned while attempting to verify, or falsify, the original claim. Who knows?Little can be gained from a claim like "an unclassified primate made this track and I know this due to the ridges found in the trackway". The tester lacks key components such as a test subject. How can you practically expect someone to verify the origin of the trackway? It's impossible. Take this for a moment, if you will, to the biology of known animals. Say that someone finds a suspected bear track and claims this track was made by a black bear. We have black bear specimens a plenty. We can compare the trackway to feet of available specimens. With that we can, with a high degree of certainty, conclude, or reject, the claimed origin of the trackway. Could someone fake, or mistake, a bear print? Absolutely, but we have a great control mechanism available in the widely available real bear paw. Now take that example and apply it to a cryptid. The problems inherint should be axiomatic.
The problem that you have, Joe, is that in your wordplay around proof and evidence. As if evidence that is not proof opens up some wide flexible gap that equates to infinite possibility. That is simply not the case. That you do not understand this, in the scientific sense, is your failing, not mine.
Maybe I can simplify this for you. Because I do not know for certain what caused my neighbors tree to fall down does not open up the possibility that it was blown down by a giant dragon.Do you get it now?
The advantage for someone like me in using Popper's philosophy is that scientific truths can be falsified when more knowledge and resources are available. Even long accepted theories such as Gravity, Relativity and Evolution are increasingly challenged and adapted. Where falsifiability falls down is that it is extremely strict in its definitions and does not take into account that many sciences are observational and descriptive, even theories like Intelligent Design can be classed as scientific, because they have a falsifiable hypothesis. There are many in modern science who have challenged falsifiable science because according to people like Popper, many branches of applied science, especially social science, are not scientific because they have no potential for falsification. Can you see the inherent problem here? Anthropology and sociology, tried and tested branches of science often use case studies to observe people in their natural environment without actually testing any specific hypotheses or theories. These studies are not falsifiable, but no one with a brain would disagree that they are scientific because they significantly advance human knowledge. This means that the most adhering of sciences must make compromises and assumptions on occasion. The testing of any theory must take into account the equipment and resources available. Falsifiability is not a simple black and white matter because a theory, which is difficult to falsify at the time, may be falsified in the future. The proposition that unknown primate traits DO NOT EXIST is clearly falsifiable. If you are attempting to falsify that proposition, you are attempting to prove a positive statement; that unknown primate traits do exist. The level of evidence required to prove the unknown primate traits are a biological reality are the species traits in question, by testing it with long standing fields of biological/forensic science. The proposition that unknown primate traits DO EXIST can therefore be falsified, because if you are attempting to falsify that proposition, you are attempting to prove the antithesis of that claim with the same methods to which support it; and show that these traits are not biological and do not exist. Physical evidence in dermals =there are ways of testing this, notably forensics against casting artefacts, you've been asked to provide drawing on this; nothing appeared. Biological evidence in unknown primate hair = there are ways of testing this, notably primatology and field biology in comparing against known primates' morphology, you've been asked to provide drawing on this; nothing appeared. Audio = there are ways of testing this, audiology fields that can show that these sounds are within the range of a normal human, you've been asked to provide drawing on this; nothing appeared. The sources in question are not negative and if data exists then it can be scientifically tested, therefore requiring no assumptions on its existence either way. In the possible conclusions; you either have confirmed evidence for an unknown primate, or you don’t… What the positive ramifications mean, is that you don’t have a conclusive means of classifying what that primate is, but you still have the evidence for an unknown primate that has been falsifiably tested.
We're not talking about social science, though. We're talking about biology. Biological evidence, such as DNA, is easily falsifiable.
... And ANTHROPOLOGY. (Sigh)
Anyway... Laters, gators.
You keep missing, or talking around the actual point. The point being that alleged bigfoot evidence be it hair, or audio, cannot be falsified. No one can prove the origin. Well hair can be falsified with DNA testing. So far that has not worked out well for footers. Need I remind you of Sykes DNA results?I find it difficult to imagine that you are so dense that you do not understand how ambiguous evidence is not falsifiable. You are either being deliberately argumentative, or you really do not understand the fundamental principles involved. I'm really not sure which it is, which is why I continue to be civil with you and try to apply logic.
Joe blown the !@#% out again!Love it!
No one is saying that primate like traits do not exist in tracks. What is questioned is the origin of those traits. Do you understand that nuance?
The proposition that unknown primate traits DO NOT EXIST is clearly falsifiable. If you are attempting to falsify that proposition, you are attempting to prove a positive statement; that unknown primate traits do exist. The level of evidence required to prove the unknown primate traits are a biological reality are the species traits in question, by testing it with long standing fields of biological/forensic science. The proposition that unknown primate traits DO EXIST can therefore be falsified, because if you are attempting to falsify that proposition, you are attempting to prove the antithesis of that claim with the same methods to which support it; and show that these traits are not biological and do not exist. Laters.
^ very important part of my comment you seemed to miss, Don. Adios!
Krantz's sweat pores do not exist:"In light of the foregoing, we feel that the “pores” observed on the dermal ridges of the casts of Sasquatch footprints are probably artifacts of the casting process and are not replications of primate sweat pores."source: Freeland, D., and W. Rowe. 1989. Alleged pore structure in Sasquatch (Bigfoot) footprints. Skeptical Inquirer 13(3), Spring: 273-276.
Sure, there are features found in some tracks that appear to be primate like. Ok, fine. No problem with that. The problem is that those same traits have been demonstrated to have artificial origin in other tracks. So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with ambiguous evidence. As in the origin of the evidence is unknown and based on current knowledge could be either organic or artificial. Given those two possible outcomes one must balance the likely origin against evidence available to the possible origins. On the one hand, we have demonstrated ridge patterns as a result of deliberate hoaxing. We also have demonstrated ridge patterns as a result of the casting process. What we do not have is convincing evidence of any unclassified primate that could potentially impart said ridges into a trackway. So, any parsimonious conclusion must be that the ridges are artificial in origin. At least until, or if, any real evidence of a unclassified primate in North America were to be presented.Pretty simple, yes?On a side note, where is that proof of me posting anon that you promised to provide? Not working out well?
Joe, you might want to take notice of how 5:36 properly cites a source.
"The well mixed casting plaster that was poured into these impressions was able to record any degree of detail that was held by the soil. Variations down to less than 0.1 mm are faithfully preserved. This is fine enough to show individual dermal ridges and their sweat pores.""I experimentally depressed my own thumb into a piece of this topsoil, and made a plaster cast of the impression. It faithfully recorded the dermal ridges and some of the sweat pores of my skin. I have since found out, through discussions with police officials, that footprint patterns in dirt are actually used for criminal identification in India and New Zealand.""I have already alluded to the dermal ridges and sweat pores that characterize friction skin on the palms and soles of all higher primates, and not of other mammals. These ridges are clearly evident in the three casts in question. They cover most of the toe areas, and can be seen in scattered parts of the rest of the sole. (The following comments on the skin details are based on long discussions with various experts in the field, [see Addendum], and such sources as Cummins and Midlo , and Olsen .)""In the early fetal development of dermal ridges (and presumed evolution), each sweat pore has a tiny cone, or pebble, of skin surrounding it. AsFig. 10 — Enlargement of digit II of "full left." growth progresses, these cones line up in fixed patterns and merge together into unbroken ridges. Sometimes, this development partially fails, and many of the ridges consist only of a jumble of very short segments. This condition is known as displacia (or dysplasia), and tends to affect mostly those central areas of greatest weight support where the ridges are also most worn down. While the two conditions topographically coincide, they should not be confused, because they have separate origins and morphology. In affected areas, the directions of dermal ridge sets can still be made out by observing the general trend of orientation of the short segments.""In many places in the specimens considered here one can see small indentations, or pores, located along the ridges. These are typically spaced about 0.5 mm apart, and are centered on the ridges. They vary in size from barely visible, less than 0.1 mm, up to a diameter of 0.2 mm. The ridges visibly widen around each of these pores. This is most clearly seen at the base of digit I of the "full left" track (Fig. 10). The margins of these pores curve gradually inward to the centers — there is not a sharp edge. Several forensic specialists who have examined this material agree that these are sweat pores.The sweat pores are generally lined up regularly on adjacent dermal ridges, as opposed to having alternating or random positions. In other words, the pores also occur along lines drawn perpendicular to the ridges. This pattern is not regular, but it is a strong tendency — just as in human dermatoglyphics (see Figs. 10, 11, and 12).
Fig. 12 — Enlargement of a patch of dermal ridges from the sole of "full left."The possibility that air bubbles might have mimicked sweat pores was suggested by physical anthropologist Tim White, at the University of California, Berkeley, who otherwise thought the casts appeared to represent legitimate footprints. To settle this point, I made impressions of false ridges (with a fine comb) in similar soil, and cast them in plaster. I compared the results with the actual casts, and found that there are, in fact, occasional air bubbles from casting. These bubbles, however, are sharp-edged, and are not as small as the apparent sweat pores. They are rather few, and not regularly spaced or lined up. In some cases, they also bulge out the ridges around them, but only slightly, and with a much thinner wall between the hole and the ridge edge than with the presumed pores (Fig. 13).One fingerprint expert (with the Vancouver, B.C. Police Department) pointed out that sweat pores often have irregular edges, while these pores sometimes appear quite circular. This discrepancy results from the method of observation. Inked fingerprints used by law enforcement agencies record the very outermost edges of the pores, and these are usually not quite circular. Photographs of many of these cast pores show only shadows, thrown deeper into the holes, where active sweat pores are in fact perfectly rounded. Others, with more oblique illumination, show the typical irregularities of outline."http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
So after that puts the pores stuff to bed, according to actual experts, all methods of manufacturing dermals artificially do not lend to looking organic under expert eye. Only if we set aside scientific standards and settle for a lesser qualified source, are there two possible outcomes one must balance the likely origin against evidence available to the possible origins. On the one hand, someone, not you has demonstrated something that looks like ridge patterns due to deliberate hoaxing. Someone less not even remotely qualified as an expert to know what he's looking for, has merely demonstrated something that looks like idge patterns are a result of the casting process. Regardless of that... "Ambiguity" is your favourite method of trying to muddy the waters when you can't ad hominem on people presenting an enthusiastic stance on evidence. Rookie pseudosceptics take note. You tried this with George Schaller's forword in Meldrum's book, you tried it with the Army Corpse of Engineers when they listed sightings, even physical evidence and even satire regarding the average ignorant who considers Sasquatch a myth... You EVEN claimed that Meldrum wasn't on record stating he believed Sasquatch to be real when a like minded troll tried it... the list goes on. You'll even do it to the point of using ambiguity to drive home the idea of ambiguity... Like maintaining scientific evidence is ambiguous, when there is no scientific equivalent to the contrary of a list of scientists confirming said source. It's another glaringly obvious contradiction on your part, that for someone who is opposed to "coin tosses" and rests on the premise of scientific absolutes, that you should dismiss sources of evidence on ambiguous claims of ambiguity. Like I said, listen to an expert... Listen to that Chilcutt interview, it takes Crowley apart.
Oh... And I'll source your anon admission as soon as I can be bothered. You can relate to this as for that sceptical radio show you're procrastinating over that obliterates your falsification contradiction.
...Dmaker, if we had the actual bigfoots feet to help determine the source of the ridges, we really wouldn't care about the ridges...Elsewhere you argued against the use of anecdotes as evidence. 1) What would you consider goodevidence short of proof?...2) Do you think crytptozoology is an interdisciplinary approach to discovering undocumented animals or a pseudoscience?....Thanks..
There was no requirement for the Bili Ape's discovery before the tracks that were used to track it would be considered authentic... Respectfully... That's a putting the cart before the horse. There is also three times the detailed evidence at this stage of Sasquatch research than there was for the Bili Ape.
..Iktomi, you make the presence of ridges in some prints sound like a no-brainer in concluding undocumented primates are likely..Then why is there no follow-up to Krantz's paper?.. Chilcut talks a good game on TV but has he published anything(I dont care if its peer reviewed as long as people responded to it)..Has anyone else presented a study or at least cataloged these prints with dermal ridges?..Thanks..
Because you don't prove that Sasquatch exists by tracks, and precisely... Where is the follow up expedition by a consorted mainstream source to get to the bottom of those tracks? A lack of following up the evidence does not mean the quality of evidence is lacking... As was alluded to previously, there is three times the data in those casts than Bili Ape casts after them. The following have all verified forensic physical evidence of an unclassified bipedal primate; 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.
...Thanks Iktomi for the quick response..I agree that some experts find the dermal ridges compelling, I just wish there was more to read about it..I think Sykes and Disotells involvement in cryptozoology may get experts in theirs and other fields to sort through whats been found so far and do some kind of work..An expedition into the PNW would be nice...Have a good one...
11:46... Can I ask you something, friend? Do you think it's scientifically sound to not consider dermals based on some unqualified person achieving something that LOOKS like dermals, in the face of so many experts confirming to the contrary?
...Sorry to get back so late..I had to get some zzz's before the workday..Of course it would not be sound..Remember Krantz himself mentioned casting artifacts. Crowley did nice work in showing that artifacts can give the appearance of ridges, bearing out what Krantz said..But all that means is experts are needed to determine which casts have characteristics that are NOT the result of the casting process...
Wow, that's not much sleep before work buddy?! Well in that paper, the aforementioned forensic experts kind of go into detail about what's not hoaxable. Hope you have a good day and you're not too tired!
...lOl..Thanks Joe..Yeah was up late last night and just grabbed a few hours before breakfast and checking in here..I'll get some more sleep at work..have a good one..
WIDL BILL from the Mountain Monsters AIMS team saying Batsquatch, devildawg, sheepsquatch and the snallygasters, thays bein all reel
Blog continues to suck.
but not TRUMP he's a WINNER