Friday, April 15, 2016

Finding Bigfoot "Woops" Heard In Southern Oregon



Somethign answers Ranae when she does her bigfoot call in Southern Oregon during her solo trip. And it isn't Bobo.


86 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. The Patterson and Butchy Kid look like a man in a monkey suit.

      Bryan

      Delete
    2. Hello Bryan.

      It's so amazing to see how much support you have for your opinion on the PGF, even though self admittedly you have no authority on the matter. I wonder why the same group of people are not so supportive of your ideas about Zana being a Yeti?

      Yours faithfully,

      Iktomi.

      Delete
    3. Now Bryan,if you can prove to me Patty's a man in a monkey suit i will do anything you want and i mean anything xx

      Delete
    4. FFS! damn it would have to be real :( well no luck for Bryan or myself FFS!

      Delete
    5. In the most recent episode of Finding Bigfoot, they held a townhall meeting in Jackson, Mississippi. The city's population is about 80% black and about 35-40% of the residents of the state are black. Yet not one black person showed up for the town hall meeting! I think that tells you all you need to know.

      Delete
    6. 12:46

      You don`t seem to have much luck,do you ?

      Pity `bout dat.

      Delete
    7. Southern Oregon BIGFOOTS eat you for sure ....

      Delete
  2. Bryan Sykes: The Patterson and Butchy Kid look like a man in a monkey suit. Got monkey suit?

    Iktomi: ... Um... No... Precisely.

    Arbitrator: Iktomi logic once again proves the Butchy Kid Bigfoot real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um... I'm not the one claiming they're monkey suits?

      Logic, indeed.

      Delete
    2. Iktomi never claimed the Butchy Boy Bigfoot was a monkey suit. Gotcha.

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry, I have no idea what Butchy Boy Bigfoot is.

      Laters!

      Delete
    4. No one said Butchy Boy. How's your reading comprehension?

      Delete
    5. I think you're all out of ideas kid.

      Laters!

      Delete
    6. Either Iktomi thinks accuracy is overrated or he really has no clue what 2:19 was talking about.

      Delete
    7. ^ Pricktomi just has no idea...simple as dat.

      Delete
    8. When Sykes declared the PGF a hoax, Joerg had a total mental breakdown which has resulted in significant brain damage. It's a "cringey" thing to witness.

      Delete
    9. The PGF has been declared a hoax numerous times but for some reason the Sykes denunciation has them in panic mode.

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

      Delete
    11. Logic got lost here because Butchy Kid is a parody of Bigfoot and PGF is a real case that happened and should never have been even mentioned in the same sentence as PGF.

      Any way there is plenty of other evidence available out there for skeptic's to pick on why keep trying to disprove PGF.... unless it really pisses them off?

      Delete
    12. Anton, the bottom line is that PG is no more real than BK. The PG costume was better though. The Mark Anders Bigfoot are good as well.

      Delete
    13. Sorry to differ but the Bigfoot in the PGF has been proven by 3 different examinations and all mutually corroborate each other in various ways. The mathematical data of the latest examination gives a more precise measurement of the Patterson creature's height to be at the very least 6 and a half to 7 feet tall therefore by science standards they would need to hire some one say like Paul Wright (Big Show) to be the person in the costume then they would have needed a suite that could show all the bulky muscles and mammaries that this suite has and then required Paul to walk a special way that only this creature does in the film. Seems like an awful lot of cost for no apparent reason to me?

      Still unproven to date just because some skeptic comes out and calls it fake does not make it fake more proof for real then hoax.

      Delete
    14. Your data is not accurate. The man in the costume was 6'2". You're referring to entertainment television show's data that is influenced by confirmation bias. It would require someone the height of John Cena to wear the costume. The film was shot in 16mm film, not 35mm, plus the guy in the costume took up 1/6 the height of the film frame. When zoomed in on him the costume is very grainy. If you were to show someone a close up of just the nose they wouldn't be able to tell what it was.

      Everyone wants it to be real but it isn't. And many of us are getting sick of adults pretending that its real. No one is stopping anyone from finding a Bigfoot. We're all for it. The problem is they don't exist and never have.

      Delete
    15. TV show or not they (National Geographic) still use scientist's for their verification's
      As stated by American Paranormal.
      The approach and results are certainly not novel. In fact they were squarely based on the prior work of Meldrum and Hajicek over the past few years. The involvement of Bill Munns in this doc helped refine the height estimate of the Patterson creature.

      The big lady is 7' 6 1/2" tall.

      Yes I was wrong I should have written 7 foot 6 and a half inches tall.
      And also Thinker Thunker did a clip about this based on the size of Patty against the back ground it to verified this as well.

      Personally if you dont want to believe that is fine but a true skeptic is one that goes in with an open mind and all the flat earthers that I see on this blog are just out to put shut down the truth rather than actually go out there and disprove.

      Delete
    16. By the way where are you "facts" coming from?

      Delete
    17. National Geographic does not advocate the Patterson film as being an unknown creature. National Geographic has never stated that Bigfoot is real. American Paranormal is not a scientific journal. Bill Munns is a Bigfoot crackpot. It would be impossible for him to come up with any evidence that he would not coincide with his belief system. Have Meldrum and Hajicek's "work" been agreed upon as being factual by the scientific community. They are 2 out of thousands of scientists and they are diehard Bigfoot believers. Some Youtube boob called thinker thunker isn't even worth typing about.

      Look, no one is stopping anyone from finding these 9 foot tall 500 lb hairy creature that bigfooters believe are in at least 20 US states. Capture one. All every bigfooter clings to is the PG hoax.
      9 foot tall, loudly tree knock, deafening calls, cracking branches, showing up in peoples yards and property, should be easy to locate. If they existed people would have killed them multiple times since 1492 and prior and there would be plenty of clear photos, captured Bigfoot etc... All you have is a ridiculous 1967 hoax.

      Delete
    18. But Nat Geo were happy to pay for a documentary (You dont pay for something and then not endorse it)on this subject then had scientist's study the evidence which because they do not fit in with your belief's they are now called crack pots. As stated before where is your proof that's right you don't have any but there is plenty of real evidence that has been found over the year's since but because of the flat earthers and their intentions they have to destroy the original proof, perhaps you will now go tell the American Indians what they saw for thousands of years were wrong as well?

      Delete
    19. ^ believes that mainstream science is composed of flat earthers.

      Delete
    20. Speaking of flat earthers, the buffoon on here called troll killer actually believes the earth is flat. I am not kidding.
      You bigfooters concoct a bunch of nonsense and you expect people to spend the time sifting through the BS. That would be like if I came up with a bunch of mermaids evidence and then expected you to point by point refute it all. A waste of time.

      Delete
    21. Troll Killer is a bigfooter by the way.

      Delete
    22. I believe in having an open mind on the subject unlike some and there is a lot of hoaxing going on in the US I accept that, (perhaps you have a suite and jump out from behind a tree when on your week ends?) but I am from Australia and I prefer the term Yowie Believer than Bigfooter and we have records that this has been happening since the 1700's but you probably dont believe in that either.

      Delete
    23. PS - Indians were a very primitive race of people who lived in tepees, rocks and rubble. Guess you take their stick cave drawings and folklore as fact. Ha Ha Ha!

      Delete
    24. Proof Proof where's you proof you dont have any and it is a shame that this is how it is going because this is a waste of my time and your's trying to ask someone to have an open mind about a subject that is very important to human's as a whole and if you had any proof then you would post it so let's leave it there you can continue burying your head in the sand on the real evidence and posting you BS if you wish.

      Have a nice day.

      Delete
    25. Actually we have proof...a list of known North American mammals collected beginning hundreds of years ago.

      Feel free to add a new one when proven.

      Till then rumors is all you have.

      Try learning the basics first before spouting off again.

      Delete
    26. One of the biggest problems with the PGF is the "impossible timeline" issue. The short version of the issue is that Roger claimed to have filmed Patty in the afternoon on a Friday and then drove to Eureka that night to ship the film to Deatley in Yakima. Post Offices were closed by the time he arrived there and there's no evidence that a charter flight was used to ship the film. Also, the type of film used could only be developed at two locations on the west coast at the time -- in Palo Alto and Seattle and they were both closed on the weekend.

      But somehow the film was supposedly developed and then screened in Yakima on Sunday less than than two days later! The only reasonable explanation is that the film was shot and developed some time before Roger claimed it was -- thus, a hoax.

      Delete
    27. Troll...

      In the McClarin size comparison, he is not only walking away in a different direction to Patty, making him look taller, but he's also 6.5... If he was walking the same route as Patty, she may have been several inches taller than him (in the region of 7 foot). There is NOTHING... Not a shred of evidence that supports the lie that the subject in that footage is 6 foot 2. Nothing. Please stop embarrassing yourself by then using the words "confirmation bias". It's not even like you're subsceptible to cognitive bias, you're just too emotionally drained to even acknowledge the comments of other people. I don't think you can step out of your own logical shortcoming to fathom how audaciously hypocritical you sound. Only an idiot would have the guts to be so expressive of poor logic. By Christ, you're lucky you're anonymous.

      You've been posted the best of the rest when it comes to scientists who endorse what Meldum is doing, you ran away, again... Munn's work is available for scrutiny by all those scientists AND the likes of Distotell on Meldrum's online journal and none of them appear to question it. You see, there's nothing that I love seeing you blubber about than hard facts... Like the polygraph thing earlier. And you've also wallowed in your own destroyed comments for about a month now. It doesn't represent someone who's in a stable state of emotional health.

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

      ... And "Bigfoot" don't tree knock or crash about to give their location away, they do it to scare people away. Very, very, very basic, ten year old's knowledge of the topic. And even if that isn't the case, it results in people running the other way. Oh... And Bill Munns' work proves that the dimensions of Patty are not applicable to any known human form. Come see me and I'll educate all about that one time.

      ; )

      Delete
    28. Pretty sad evidence considering it is based on when the film was delivered, this being a hoax because a couple of good old boys forgot what days they were out in wilderness and when they returned as if this never happened to anyone before, try again.

      As stated again where is the proof??

      Delete
    29. "Friday, October 20, 1967

      At approximately 1:30PM, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin begin filming a hairy bipedal subject walking away from them, up Bluff Creek.
      59.5 seconds later (assuming 16 FPS film speed), the role of film runs out.
      Gimlin pursues the film subject up the creek on horseback for approximately 300 yards before returning to Patterson.
      The pair spend about 15 minutes rounding up Patterson's horse.
      Patterson changes the film in his camera under a poncho at the film site.
      They return on horseback to Gimlin's truck (at Louse Camp?) for casting materials.
      Upon returning to the film site, Patterson and Gimlin attempt to track the film subject. Gimlin follows sign for approximately 200' up the mountain before stopping due to the terrain.
      Two casts are made - one of a left foot impression and one of a right foot impression. Patterson chooses the most perfect, foot-shaped imprints he can find.
      Patterson documents the trackway on a second roll of film. This film is subsequently lost.
      Patterson and Gimlin leave Bluff Creek and drive to Eureka, CA, to send the film via airplane to Yakima, WA, to be processed. Note that according to Daniel Perez, John Green's recollection is they drove to Arcata, CA, although all other sources say they went to Eureka. The two towns are only 8 miles apart.
      While in Eureka, they call Patterson's brother-in-law Al DeAtley, Albert Hodgson of Willow Creek, CA, and the British Columbia Museum in Victoria, BC, requesting dogs and scientists be sent to the film site. While the museum sends no one, they do call John Green who in turn notifies Rene Dahinden.
      Patterson calls the Yakima Times-Standard and is interviewed by an unknown reporter.
      Patterson and Gimlin return to Willow Creek, CA, and speak to Al Hodgson and Sylvester McCoy before returning to Louse Camp."

      ... You'll notice that according to the timeline, on the Friday;
      "Patterson and Gimlin leave Bluff Creek and drive to Eureka, CA, to send the film via airplane to Yakima, WA, to be processed."
      ... This would give ample time for the film to be processed. If the processing machine in Yakima was already running there would have been no need to "fire it up" on Saturday. Possibly DeAtely had an arrangement with this "friend" to develop any film Roger came up with "under the table".

      Delete
    30. "The rainstorm did not hit until the early morning of October 21st, starting to rain around 5:00 a.m., as I recall Gimlin saying. The film, were it on a plane, would have been in the air the preceding evening, probably before 9:30 or so when he was talking to the newspaper guy. It would have been landed in Seattle or Yakima area before the rain even hit, so how can you be so sure they would have prohibited flights out of Murray Field? The 6:15 timeline idea is based on what Gimlin and Hodgson say. That they could have made it to Willow Creek by 6:15 is indisputable. However, what they did once they went over the hill to the coast is another matter. The airport people told Christopher Murphy that there WERE 24-hour services available there in 1967, with charter flights available and pilots on call. They apparently didn't have any records of those years in the office when Murphy was there. Perhaps Greg Long talked to a different person who knew more? I'd be curious to know."
      - Bigfoot Bookman
      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/a-miscellany-of-posts-ive-made-on-jref.html?m=0

      "Let me get this straight, Long says that Byrne said he talked to four of five charter pilots who lived in the area, they showed him their log books which said 'rain and wind' and say they would not have flown.

      California contains something like 10-15% of all pilots and planes in the US (about 80,000 and 100,000 respectively nationwide at that time).

      20% of the 'identified' potential pilots from the area remain un-interviewed, not to mention the ability of DeAtley, or anyone for that matter, to charter any of hundreds of planes within a short flight time away.

      And in SkepticLand that magically becomes 'no charter, no planes, no timeline, PGF is a hoax.'

      Then, when pointed out that the statement 'all flights were grounded' appears to be either a factual error/overstatement if not an outright fabrication, the argument becomes 'well, even if was flown (counter to a centerpiece of the skeptic timeline argument), it still means nothing'.

      When needed to support the timeline argument, the skeptics glom on to the 'remote nature of the site' and how long it would have taken to drive, but when needed to discredit specific investigators or claims, they suggest the filmsite was 'not remote at all'.

      Seriously, if that is the position and approach in play, there is absolutely zero reason to continue to pretend there is even a weak facade of respect for the opposition from the skeptical side in this debate."
      - Infoman from the BFF

      Delete
    31. "I got them (film processing) done at a private place. It would jeopardize the man's job if it were told." - Roger Patterson, Daily Colonist. Source: Loudon, Pete. ‘Tis Better To Believe Than Doubt.” Victoria, British Columbia, Daily Times, October 27, 1967.

      The first place I saw this quote was in Chris Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal (p. 44-45) which can be seen here. Steven Streufert also mentioned this quote here...

      Originally Posted by BigfootBookman View Post
      Murphy sent this to me:

      "The info re the processing was in a newspaper article written by Peter Loudon (page 44, 45, Bigfoot Film Journal)."

      Peter Loudon, Victoria, British Columbia, TIMES COLONIST newspaper.

      Patterson said: "I got them [the film processing] done at a private place. It would jeopardize the man's job if it were told."
      Such a short quote, but so highly significant. This was a reporter days within the alleged filming date having the wherewithall to ask Patterson where the film was developed and Patterson stonewalls the guy and tells him it's a secret. This is extremely important because if the film was developed privately, the original film should not have Kodak proprietary markings on it. We have, however, testimony from a person who handled the original film and made copies of it on either Wednesday, October 25 or Thursday October 26 (most likely the 25th since the film showing was on the 26th) that the original film had a Kodak leader on it. This from Rich Vedvick, the owner of Forde Labs in Seattle...

      Delete
    32. This is extremely important because if the film was developed privately, the original film should not have Kodak proprietary markings on it. We have, however, testimony from a person who handled the original film and made copies of it on either Wednesday, October 25 or Thursday October 26 (most likely the 25th since the film showing was on the 26th) that the original film had a Kodak leader on it. This from Rich Vedvick, the owner of Forde Labs in Seattle...

      Vedvick confirms that the original PGF was developed by Kodak and that it had the "Processed by Kodak" leader on the film edge...

      GL: Let me ask you this, Kodachrome film had to be shipped down to Palo Alto for processing. How do you know the film they brought in was the Kodachrome original?

      RV: Because Kodachrome has a distinctive matte finish to the emulsion side, and the film I copied had that matte finish. Also, Kodak had a white leader with red letters on the film saying, 'Processed by Kodak.' I don't remember the typical yellow box that the film was stored in, but it was probably with the film.

      GL: So do you remember reading the markings on the film?

      RV: Yes, that's my recollection. It had a Kodak leader. MoB, p. 283

      Delete
    33. Rich Vedvick and Ed Watton of Forde Labs in Seattle both examined the original PGF film when it was brought in on Wednesday the 25th of October 1967 by Patterson and another person to have copies made. Both of these men observed that the film had the markings of an original Kodachrome film. Vedvick specifically remembered the film had the white and red leader reading "Processed by Kodak". There was only one lab in Seattle capable of developing 16mm Kodachrome film in Seattle in 1967. Frank Ishihara of the Seattle branch of Technicolor was hired to install and operate a Paco 1040 Kodachrome processor. He was in charge of developing 16mm film at Technicolor and received an average of about only six rolls of it a month as it was not a high frequency item for the lab. To do a special order involved starting up the processor for a short run and Technicolor would charge the customer $400 to do it. Only once did Ishihara do this on a Saturday and it was for the government with a film involving explosives.

      Delete
    34. What is key when considering the possibility that Ishihara just somehow forgot doing a rush job on Saturday for a Bigfoot film, is that if the film was processed by Technicolor, it would not have had the "Processed by Kodak" leader that Rich Vedvick of Forde Labs saw on the original film when they were copying it. Also highly damaging to the notion that Technicolor developed the film is the fact that to Greg Long DeAtley recalled in great detail his barnstorming of the film but said his memory banks are flooded. DeAtley would most certainly remember having to lay down at least $400 to get a film developed on the weekend and for what? So that it could be viewed by Bigfooters in Al's basement on Sunday. Then compound this with the fact that DeAtley's memory banks were not flooded with Rene Dahinden. To Dahinden DeAtley simply told him that he was not supposed to tell where the film was processed.

      Delete
    35. If the film was processed by Technicolor rather than Kodak, not only would it not have a Kodak leader on it, it would not have been an illicit activity that someone would get fired for, but rather the business they specialize in. Where else could possibly have the processing machinery and staff in Seattle to process the film on a Saturday and be known to Patterson or DeAtley? Bigfooters will claim that Roger used the porno industry in Seattle to get the film developed. Again, this is something that DeAtley would remember and most certainly the film would not have a Kodak leader.

      Delete
    36. One has to give special thought to the entire logic behind the the alleged massive rush and use of secret resources. The story according to Patterson is that he had the film secretly developed on the weekend and that he came to the Sunday viewing at DeAtley's, had Al show him the film first for his first ever viewing in the basement while Green, Dahinden, McClarin, et al are waiting upstairs for them to be allowed to see the film. Allegedly Patterson has no idea what he's going to be showing these men yet has them all gathered to see this. This makes no sense whatsoever. If Patterson was using illicit means to get the film developed that would still allow for the film to have a "Processed by Kodak" leader on it, it invariably would have meant a major money expenditure on DeAtley's part, and one that given the clarity of his memory regarding money details and the touring of the PGF, he would have remembered. One does not lay down hundreds of dollars to get a film rush developed on a weekend in less than 36 hours so that it can be ready for a private Sunday basement viewing by Bigfoot enthusiasts. The only thing that makes sense for such a rush is to see if they even had anything usable on film while they remain in the area they know has a Bigfoot to find out if they need to track it to get more film. Tracking was allegedly one Gimlin's main reasons for being there and with Patty's apparent propensity to leave massive and obvious tracks, no major challenge.

      Delete
    37. The original PGF was observed by a lab technician to have a "Processed by Kodak" leader on it, and that all indications are that the film was developed normally by Kodak using their proprietary machinery and chemicals at their lab in Palo Alto. This was the Kodalux processing facility located at 925 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto (now the site for a Genencor International building shown here along with the contact info for the plant)

      Delete
    38. "I got them (film processing) done at a private place. It would jeopardize the man's job if it were told." - Roger Patterson, Daily Colonist. Source: Loudon, Pete. ‘Tis Better To Believe Than Doubt.” Victoria, British Columbia, Daily Times, October 27, 1967."

      Unfortunately for the leap made by KitaKraze, the fact that Roger Patterson did not reveal any details of where he got the film processed does not take away from the plausibility that he may have wanted to distance himself from any commercial film processor, and therefore any leads that may have paid him a massive favour.

      Delete
    39. It is also common knowledge that DeAtley had financial resources to support Roger's research, and in fact did so throughout. It is not a leap to assume that DeAtley could have afforded this for Roger, and there is in fact plenty of evidence pointing to him doing exactly that.

      Delete
    40. "This is extremely important because if the film was developed privately, the original film should not have Kodak proprietary markings on it. We have, however, testimony from a person who handled the original film and made copies of it on either Wednesday, October 25 or Thursday October 26th that the original film had a Kodak leader on it."

      ... Hmmmm, but that "testimony" was sourced by someone who's interviewees have come forward to state that their character references of Roger Patterson were twisted (Greg Long)... And surely nobody can read the following and honestly expect Greg Long to deliver an impartially, well researched product;
      http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

      Also, isn't "eyewitness testimony notoriously inaccurate"? For people who'd no doubt have spent much of their lives processing film, and recollecting back to 1967 regarding something as frequently seen as a Kodak label, I'm not so sure it would stand up in a court of law.

      From this premise, the "selective memory" of Patterson and DeAtley is used to evolve theories as to how the film was processed... It's not a solid basis for filling in the blanks by any means of logic because there are no facts to start with. Someone might as easily claim that they had the film processed in the future and brought it back via a time machine car... If the information at the basis of that theory is already non-existent, then how can anything that follows be anything more than conjecture?

      Delete
    41. Wow - the Anon above knows his stuff. Plenty of reason there to question the PG film. VERY interesting reading!

      Delete
    42. You know, before I answer any more questions there's something I wanted to say. Having received all your letters over the years, and I've spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled... y'know... hundreds of miles to be here, I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a guy in a suit! I mean, look at you, look at the way you obsess! You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark one afternoon, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!

      Delete
    43. 8:04... Typical Greg Long BS that has never had an bearing on the authenticity of the PGF... If you google Greg Long, all sorts of BS comes up that no genuine sceptic can rely on... For example, look how many inaccuracies there are here;
      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/skeptoid-botches-analysis-of-patterson.html?m=0

      "AnonymousSeptember 27, 2015 at 11:51 PM
      As a general skeptic myself, that article from Skeptoid is an embarrassment to anyone familiar with the detailed events. Thanks for taking the time to point out the errors, (not to mention the bad logic), in that paltry attempt at skeptical analysis."

      ... Please don't take anything that comes from Long as gospel, the Bill Miller link I provided up top shows just how easy it is to hoax a hoax when the majority of your target audience are already cynical... It's in fact easy money.

      Delete
  3. LOL - Ranae the so-called skeptic trying her luck with those stupid whoops. I swear I can't believe this show has lasted nine seasons. All skeptics make fun of this show and now most believers do as well. How can anyone who truly believes defend this show? Surely those who do believe have to be embarrassed by it as it does not paint them in a good light.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am also prepared to represent myself by my name as I have nothing to hide why is it all that call Bigfoot as BS but you are all named anonymous? MMMM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Posting your name on a blog will not magically make a hairy 9 foot tall, 500 pound ape man exist.

      Delete
    2. True but it adds credibility something Anonymous hasn't. :-)

      Delete
    3. No, actually it doesn't add credibility if you attach your name to fictitious creature stories.

      Delete
    4. As stated before more proof for being real than a hoax, You said that the PGF is grainy but the film that I seen has great definition and really does show enormous detail of the creature. Don't know why you cant see this maybe you dont want to?

      Delete
    5. Simple, after ten thousand years of talk all we want to see is a specimen.

      The burden is in your court...

      Delete
    6. And this is where we agree i want to see one to.

      Delete
    7. And this is where we agree i want to see one to.

      Delete
    8. Welcome aboard Anton !
      The superfriends sure could use someone articulate like you

      Joe

      Delete
    9. Oh, and Anton tiddly doo!

      Delete
  7. Hi Joe

    I just want people to look at the subject with an open mind and believe that you cannot push fact/evidence to one side and expect to be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ that's not me, it's the fake Joe having fun.
      But yes, I totally agree with you that people should have an open mind. There is a lot of really good evidence out there but some people already have concluded that bigfoot doesn't exist . i can't come to that conclusion having read so many reports of sightings over the years

      Joe

      Delete
    2. Sure you can....there are no facts related to Bigfoot, because you know there is no Bigfoot, and the evidence laughable indicates nothing but a social construct.
      Enjoy your fantasy!

      Delete
    3. 5'50 There is plenty of evidence you chose not to see it.

      Delete
    4. 5:50 - I shall enjoy my fantasy and you make sure you so the same with your dungeons and dragons and magic RPGs. My enchanted bigfoot card beats your Vraska the unseen card every single time chum

      Joe

      Delete
    5. And I almost forgot, tiddly doo.

      Delete
  8. Tons of evidence that all points to a social construct....game, set, match no Bigfoot!
    You should join BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy with Friends) they pander to your style of self delusion . Don't get me wrong if chasing a Bigfoot gets you outside or you just enjoy presenting yourself as the most ignorant doofus on the internet arguing about Bigfoot, enjoy your hobby!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ and you should join the boy scouts. Plenty of things to do for a young lad like you to do. You can bake cookies and participate in some excellent bonding exercises that will make you socially more acceptable
      cheerio

      Joe

      Delete
    2. Hmmmm....seems like you might need follow your own advice. Sorry to have distriburbed your fantasy world of Bigfeets with a reality based opinion.
      Like I suggested start with BFF and maybe someday you could step up to ISF, once you become disillusioned with BFF.
      But you seem to be in the right place for now, based on your responses.
      Feel free to enjoy your delusional, ignorance based hobby ;)

      Delete
    3. I will, thank you. enjoy your RPGs and video games with sugar on top :)

      Joe

      Delete
    4. I keep reading a lot about "no evidence" and "fantasies" and hoaxes... I never see anyone shifting a major burden though...

      Out... Of his... Depth...

      Delete
    5. ^ Out... Of his... Mind...

      Delete
    6. Yeah... Spend the day crying delusions about people being multiple people and then bust out another fake account, kid, ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
  9. Still waiting on proof from skeptics that Bigfoot is not real, that's right you guy's dont have any, surely it would easier to go annoy another blog?

    ReplyDelete