World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
Meltdowns under this...
Lets leave the discredited Patterson Hoax out of this thread and keep it Mark Anders. If you want you can discuss Todd Standing but keep in mind that he has not yet denounced the Patterson Hoax. The best Bigfoot evidence to date:https://youtu.be/mgWY0D3UcN8
Oh dear ,reduced to absurdities already ?Had a rough night and couldn`t sleep eh ?Never mind...your mid morning nap is soon due...remember to ask nanna to wipe the dribble from your shirt and pants.
Jeffrey Meldrum has never said that he believed the Patterson Hoax but also didn't dismiss it. It is to his credit that he never said the Patterson Hoax was real.
Foremost Bigfoot scientist and popular author Bryan Sykes outright rejected the Patterson Hoax thereby reducing those who believed in the hoax to suckers or "Joes", if you will.
Meltdowns, meltdowns, meltdowns, meltdowns... "I've got you under my skin... I've got you deep in the heart of me... So deep in my heart that you're really a part of me... I've got you under my skin.I'd tried so not to give in... I said to myself this affair never will go so well... But why should I try to resist when baby I know down well... But I've got you under my skin.I'd sacrifice anything come what might... For the sake of having you near... In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night... And repeats, repeats in my ear... Don't you know I'm a fool... I never can win... Sums up my mentality, won't wake to reality... But each time I try just the thought of you... Makes me stop before I begin... Because I've got you under my skin.I would sacrifice anything come what might... For the sake of having you near... In spite of the warning voice that comes in the night... And repeats how it yells in my ear... Don't you know I'm a fool... Ain't no chance I can win... While I use this mentality... Can't get up, wake up to reality... And each time I do just the thought of you... Makes me stop just before I begin... Because I've got you under my skin... And I like you under my skin"
The term "Joe" is quickly replacing the term "sucker" in the Bigfoot community. To use the term in a sentence: That Joe fell for the Patterson Hoax, lets laugh at him.Urban neighborhoods are referring to Patterson Hoax believers as c0ckJoes.
Meltdowns, meltdowns, meltdowns... The failure to produce a magic monkey suit has never weighed so profoundly on the human psyche.
You cant produce monkey suits either.Schooled.
^ 12:35 = Evidence of a "Joe".
I don't have to... I've never made the claim that anything I condemn is a monkey suit. See how basic logic works?You make having this ego so easy.
Only Joe would post song lyrics about how deep a man is inside him.
"I've got you... Under my skin...": )
You just conveniently call any video you're scared of CGI.Why are you so afraid?
Bigfoot is real ?Oh...no evidence as yet I see !!
I make a claim it's CGI, I present the source to be factual of skills on CGI and Photoshop. Not only that, but it's not considered anything but by anyone who's ever seen it. You claim the PGF is a monkey suit... Where's the monkey suit?"I've got you... Under my skin... "; )
12:47... http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints... It's ok, you're learning.
So you admit it`s CGI now ?"under your skin" ?Yes I bet you dream of it - `cept it`s more of the "inside" you think of.
Mark Anders = CGIRoger Patterson = Where's the monkey suit?"I've got you... Under my skin..."
Phil Poling is under your skin alright. https://youtu.be/Pzpu4HlEjOUhttps://youtu.be/Eg3el8f3JnQhttps://youtu.be/zAjAW9BKJdMhttps://youtu.be/MOx6nN4rmbwhttps://youtu.be/4MELCm0I4b0https://youtu.be/4qwdtUHPea8,,,it's okay, you're learning.
Not really... Hoaxes are a plenty and the hoaxes he looks at, nobody endorses anyway. Doesn't take away from the times he can't explain something away! "Bart Cutino... Under your skin..."
Just smile for me and let the day beginYou are the sunshine that lights my heart withinI'm sure that you're an angel in disguiseCome take my hand and together we will riseOn the wings of loveUp and above the cloudsThe only way to flyIs on the wings of loveOn the wings of loveOnly the two of usTogether flying highFlying high Upon the wings of loveSchooled
I've got you busting out the lyrics like a dancing monkey!! Dance, dance, dance!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! : )
hey , this is the year of the monkey but none of you lads can ever produce the magic monkey suit !I am laughing so hard on the inside and outside at your ridiculous skepticism of the greatest filmed evidence that bigfoot is a real living breathing creatureWe have the film but you don't have the monkey suitHey hey where's the monkey (suit) ?Joe
^ said through a gummy mouthful of semen
What a clever young man you are, eh?
bart cutino by chance happens to be a close friend of fats poling..there's your answer ickyjoe.
Yes... After Bart Cutino asked him to analyse the data he put together once the thermal images were attained. And even if that was the case, you only have to look at the breakdown to see how accurate the verdict is.
Joe is getting pulvarized today!
Ha Ha! Joergie is singing about how the trolls get under his skin and he can't live without them. The bird brain doesn't understand the meaning of the song and it is having a total meltdown! Belt it out Joergie!!!
Haaa haa Jotomi Braying like a Jackass He has Trolls DEEP INSIDE OF HIM??? WHUT UP WIT DAT??
Phil usually makes these video breakdowns about bigfoot hoaxes...he`s pretty good at it as he`s had so much practice doing it.
Phil's a leech. Not an original bone in his body.
It makes it all the more credible when he can't explain something way... Like Bart Cutino's thermal. Schooled.
Who are you schooling dingbat? You sound like you are anti Phil Poling too.
If I'm promoting one of his videos, how could that possibly be the case? Surely you can't be pro-Poling if he's making videos like that, eh?Schooling you, kid.
12:42 = evidence of a "Joe"
No monkey suit = epic meltdown.: )
^ 12:47 No evidence for bigfoot is accepted as real by the scientific community.`nuff said .
Joe, did you Phil Poling or did Poling Phil you?
http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints"Krantz (1983: 71-72) writes: "Thus far, every specialist who has examined these casts [Mill Creek] agrees that their detailed anatomy has all the characteristics and appearance of being derived from an imprint of primate skin. These include thirty police fingerprint workers, ... six physical anthropologists ... four pathologists and two zoologists."That's because it's widely unknown to mainstream scientists... "The evidence is not there because scientists who have not studied it say it isn't... Also the evidence does not exist because Sasquatch doesn't exist."- The average pseudosceptical, circular logical troll.
T`is early morn and Joe is breaking already.Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahahahe can`t wait for an excuse to go for a nap
The best Bigfoot evidence there is: https://youtu.be/Pzpu4HlEjOUhttps://youtu.be/Eg3el8f3JnQhttps://youtu.be/zAjAW9BKJdMhttps://youtu.be/MOx6nN4rmbwhttps://youtu.be/4MELCm0I4b0https://youtu.be/4qwdtUHPea8Why so afraid Joe?Joe's got Phil under his skin...
Mark Anders = RealPatterson = DebunkedJoe = inexplicably afraid
12:55... You should be running around like a rat now, trying to find a counter argument for that link. You're giving me what I love pal, one day you might work this out. 12:58... CGI.1:01... Monkey suit? "I've got you... Under my skin..."
Got Chimpanzee uniform?Schooled"Compliment what she doesSend her roses just becauseIf it's violins she lovesLet them playDedicate her favourite songAnd hold her closer all night longLove her todayFind one hundred waysDon't forget, there could beAn old lover in her memoryIf you need her so much moreWhy don't you say?Maybe she has it in her mindThat she's just wasting her timeAsk her to stayFind one hundred ways"
If anyone can understand that ^ they deserve a pat on the back. It can't be nice for you to be this highly strung at this hour in the US? Tee hee!
^ Nothing to back up his ludicrous claims so diverts attention from the real issue...now where have we seen this before ?
Actually... This very thread of comments proves yet again that I have nothing but science to back up my claims. I would label you a hypocrite, considering you have nothing as a counter argument for that... But that would be giving you too much credit for intelligence. No, you sir are just too stupid to know your shortcomings. Like I said... One day, you might work out that you provide me with exactly what I want. : )
^ 1:54 Yet again diversion tactics...no evidence offered but a mouthful of diatribe as ever.Ironic too considering his opening post.
Has the science been peer reviewed?no.
1:57....Scat;http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htmHair;http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhair4.jpghttp://www.texlaresearch.com/okhairroot.jpghttp://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpgBones;http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/Forensic physical evidence; http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprintsAudio;http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf... Let's see you deny that in the very next comment like a perverse denialist. Your issues are a complete education in psychology of denial. 2:27... Mainstream science would have to be aware of the evidence for that to happen, and considering it's a cherry picking sham of a process, who would expect anything of the sort through such a process anyway? https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
It sounds like he has a problem with "luxury journals", not so much peer reveiew.
It's all part of the process, and considering you hold so much stock in it all, here's a paper on how shoddy that process is;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Lol. Mill Creek trail is are known, and confessed, hoaxes. I've posted the details before. Look , by Joe's one post,how many experts were fooled.Tool
Here's how dmaker is either dishonest or stupid... dmakerFriday, December 11, 2015 at 7:39:00 AM PSTAccording to Krantz, quite a few forensic experts were fooled by the Mill Creek fake tracks:"Krantz (1983: 71-72) writes: "Thus far, every specialist who has examined these casts [Mill Creek] agrees that their detailed anatomy has all the characteristics and appearance of being derived from an imprint of primate skin. These include thirty police fingerprint workers, ... six physical anthropologists ... four pathologists and two zoologists."But if you actually read the source to which dmaker has quoted; http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skeptical.htm... It is in no context what so ever to the Mill Creek tracks being faked, and thus not fooling any of the forensic experts listed in Krantz' paper; http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints... The only track that has been shown to be faked, was the Bloomington track by a J W Parker by allegedly using his own dermals pressed into the dirt, but were recognised immediately to be authentic human dermals, thus fooling no expert.
Dag on Joe is taking a beating!YES YES YES!!!
POOR JOTOMI ,he has all of us deep inside of him.Wow what a total "JOE" !!!
Sheesh .. what a battering I`ve taken this morning.Joe
"I've got you... Under my skin..."
^ We`ve no idea who you`re even trying to quote you silly old man
Wouldn't the correct expression be "I'm under your skin"?
That would be because you're as educated in music as you a 12 year old girl.
No need to be sexist.
2:16 it is because you`re an old man with no taste in music you old man fool...just found out he`s dead...that about sums you up.
I think the point was that that the song expresses affection; the other saying indicates irritation or annoyance.It seems that an old man would be more likely to know about song.
You certainly have lad. Perhaps some crumpets to brighten your mood a bit?
He likes it
yup, Fake Joe really does love take a battering . He's all into the pain you knowNot my bag thoughJoe
^ Same Joe - now pretending he didn`t post top comment.He wanker-boy with little appeal to women.
If you don't have a monkey suit, it has to be real Bigfoot.If you can't prove it's not a Bigfoot, then it's a Bigfoot.If a video lacks detail and it passes Iktomi's "feel" test, chalk it up to video evidence of Bigfoot.If a "world class" geneticist makes non committal indications about DNA, chalk it up as support for Bigfoot. When he doubts the Holy Grail of Bigfootery, then doubt his judgement.
You must test science. If a line of reputable, relevant scientists present the PGF as scientific evidence, that must be tested to determine how legitimate that premise is. How do you test the premise of organic tissue in a footage source? That's right... Come on, you can do it! Plenty of detail here, so much so that it can be compared to recognised organic tissue;http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf... You only have to open the link once to realise how stupid you have looked for maintaining your meltdown for over a week. But I think you're too AFRAID to open the link. Come on... You're an anon, you're a coward 100% of the time, nobody will know your ID. The same goes for testing alleged "Bigfoot" forensic and biological evidence... You test this against known primate data, and casting artefacts. If once tested it can not be shown to be false, it stands. This is very basic stuff, it's how science works. "Now Professor Bryan Sykes at the University of Oxford says he believes Zana had a strain of West African DNA that belonged to a subspecies of modern humans.""They will be published in the regular scientific press so I can't be more specific," he said."http://www.techtimes.com/articles/44347/20150406/dna-test-suggests-russian-apewoman-zana-was-not-human-and-yeti-may-not-be-a-myth.htm... Tick, tock... The denialists rock...
2:13 -sorry luv but your reasoning like you is severely flawed . Just based on the eyewitness accounts alone there is enough evidence not to mention everything else. So what do you all these eyewitnesses are seeing when they state without a doubt it was a bigfoot ? Did they all see a 3 legged bear trying to walk upright ? Did they see someone in a monkey suit ? or were they just on some bad drug trip ?Go back to school chumJoe
^ Confucius he say man with pretend accounts on bigfoot blog is wanker extraordinaire .
Iktomi is a chromosome too far...
dIktomiHow do you feel about Todd Standing's Bigfoot?How do you feel about Meldrum supporting Todd Standing?
Meldrum cut out of there just as he did with the Falcon Project. Can't damage the money machine when the PR starts to go bad.
Todd Standing provided Jeff Meldrum and John Bindernagle with their first ever encounter... All the while, researchers were condemning Standing for allegedly stealing a genuine research area.Nuff said.
Talking about Standing's Bigfoot. Do you think its real?
I have my doubts... However I remember Rev Jeff interviewing an SFX expert about those photographs, and he reeled off the most unrealistic, time consuming and expensive Hollywood SFX techniques as possible explanations as to how they might have been accomplished.
According to the expert, is unrealistic to view Todd Standings Bigfoot as fake because it would take time consuming and expensive Hollywood SFX techniques to make Todd Standing's 3 second animations?So with to the SFX experts logic, it would be unrealistic to assume the dozens of Mark Anders bigfoot all with longer than 3 second of movement could have been faked.
Good point . ^
No, stop trying to be clever... It's cringey. The SFX expert did not state anything other than facts as to how Standing might have achieved it. I'm glad that you think that it's pretty unrealistic. Standing has no "three second animations". The SFX expert mentions nothing about three second animations and nothing was discussed about it. Mark Anders Bigfoot videos and photographs are fake because the world recognises him to be an expert and CGI and photoshop. I have not read one person on here claim that Mark Anders' sources show a costume, therefore there is no requirement to find a costume, therefore there is no comparison what so ever to the Patterson Gimlin subject.Like I said... Please stop trying to be clever, it's the cringiest thing on the planet.
You just refuted yourself. You ruled out a costume for Mark Anders's bigfoot and you cite an expert saying CGI is too expensive and time consuming for a Youtube video.So, if Mark Anders'Bigfoot is not a man in a suit and it would be too expensive and time consuming to create a CGI Bigfoot, then Mark Anders' Bigfoot is real by your estimation.Iktomi admits Mark Anders Bigfoot is real and leaves room for Todd Standing's Bigfoot being real.
Um... No, I said nothing of the sort you complete blithering idiot. CGI is ten times cheaper to use than props, sets, etc. Painfully basic stuff. You are the village idiot.
You cited an expert saying CGI is prohibitively expensive and time consuming for smaller venues like Youtube.Why do you think movie budgets these days have ten, sometimes hundred million dollar budgets and a list of CGI FX credits a mile long? CGI is expensive and time consuming, thus the hundred million dollar budgets and many, many people working on them? Plus they divide the CGI duties, they don't have one guy doing it all. The have a team modeling the character, a team putting on skin and fur, a team lighting it, a team animating it... Its not one guy. You're being absurd.It's actually cheaper and less time consuming to make a costume but, of course, you ruled that out.
"You cited an expert saying CGI is prohibitively expensive and time consuming for smaller venues like Youtube."... Where? Though there are no doubt examples of CGI budgets outspending practical SFX, while the cost of building 30 CGI cars and blowing them up IS actually more expensive than a junkyard and TNT, giving the director the ability to change what a particular car does during the explosion is actually much cheaper than reshooting the whole thing... An example. Very basic stuff.
Your quote:"I have my doubts... However I remember Rev Jeff interviewing an SFX expert about those photographs, and he reeled off the most unrealistic, time consuming and expensive Hollywood SFX techniques as possible explanations as to how they might have been accomplished."You said you had your doubts about Standing BF being CGI but then you said HOWEVER and stated what made you hold out a glimmer for Standing.The FX expert was talking about too expensive and time consuming small scale videos like Youtube. He wasn't talking about too expensive and time consuming for movies.BTW why did low, low budget Bigfoot Wars and Exists use a costume if CGI is 10 times cheaper?
No... I said that I had my doubts about the authenticity of the images, and then went on to explain that the SFX expert, who never mentions digital SFX, used the most unrealistic practical SFX methods to explain how those images might be achieved. Learn to read and understand the comments of other people, you ******* twonk. I'm already stooping low enough paying you this much attention, try and keep up with adults for once in your pitiful existence. "The FX expert was talking about too expensive and time consuming small scale videos like Youtube. He wasn't talking about too expensive and time consuming for movies."... You haven't even seen the ******* video I'm referring to, how the **** do you know what he's referring to?! Ha ha ha ha!!!!! What's this SFX expert's name? I know it... Who is he?? He mentions absolutely NOTHING about YouTube videos and what CGI can do for them... Nothing. Nothing what so ever. He does however reel off the most expensive Hollywood techniques to which would leave massive paper trails to major production... All for a couple still images. What would be the point? Because the suits in Bigfoot Wars and Exists are ******* terrible.
Correction: You said you had your doubts about it being REAL but what gave you the glimmer of hope that it may be real was that the FX expert swayed you that it would have been too expensive and time to be CGI(for a small project like Youtube, obviously not for a big budget movie).
No... I stated facts; I had my doubts, the SFX expert reeled off unrealistic practical SFX methods. I'm sorry it swayed you though (not), ha haha ha ha HAAA!! Nobody has said anything about CGI. The SFX expert who you pretended to know didn't say anything about CGI... You are a ******* imbecile. And with that, I am done. Stick to Mark Anders kid, you're better off being loony and using irrelevant comparisons than trying to be clever, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Your quote:"CGI is ten times cheaper to use than props, sets, etc." Why would Bigfoot Wars and Exists use costumes if CGI is "ten times cheaper" than practical FX...and by your estimation the suits in Exists and Bigfoot Wars were terrible?Why go with something 10 times more expensive that looks "******* terrible"(your quote) when they could go with something "ten times cheaper"(your quote) like you say CGI is,and CGI by many accounts creates better creatures?
"Why would Bigfoot Wars and Exists use costumes if CGI is "ten times cheaper"... Because those horrible costumes were even way cheaper than CGI. Adios, village idiot!!
Wrong. Those were not inexpensive costumes and they're terrible to you because they don't look like the grainy creature in the Patterson Hoax which is your raison d'etre. Your life revolves around a hoax.
Stop crying... Every day of your pathetic life, and find a god damn monkey suit?: )
And those costumes fit the budget... Terrible movies, terrible SFX.
3:11 They were moderated priced costumes but way cheaper route to go than CGI. I agree that Joe has been influenced by something that was never true.
So far you have convinced me that Mark Anders did not use a costume and that CGI is way to expensive, time consuming, and complicated for one person to sculpt, put on textures, put fur on, light, animate, render. and then composite into a scene.Thank you. Mark Anders bigfoot is neither costume nor CGI. It is real.
3:23... Got monkey suit? Oh the irony that was never true. 3:30... Switch to the BBW internet tab, your sausage fingers stopped typing sense comments ago. Night!
Iktomi, got monkey suit? Oh well back to the drawing board.
3:54 ,Hey Bud dont trip , everybody on this blog knows that Iktomi is nothing more than a complete,,, "JOE" !!! (chuckles an a gawfaw)
3:54... If I was claiming a monkey suit, then I would have to provide... You ilogical twit. Village idiot... Oh, and hi AC. (Sigh)
Joe, got monkey suit?
Joe, do you have the computer files where Butchy Kid constructed his CGI Bigfoot?Got computer files?
If one doesn't have the computer files ,Than the butchy Kid vids are of a real sasquatch!
Sexier rear end than fake Patty:https://youtu.be/4qwdtUHPea8Bigfoot's morphology normally originates by nine or ten slips, or muscle branches, from either the first to ninth ribs or the first to eighth ribs. Because two slips usually arise from the second rib, the number of slips is greater than the number of ribs from which they originate.
Bigfoots GURUs says there are 9 different types of BIGFOOTS , depends on the type you come into contact with, will depend whether you have a good experience or a not so good one