Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Bob Gimlin Signing Autographs At The Ohio Bigfoot Conference

 

Bob Gimlin is always the star attraction at a bigfoot conference. You can tell he really enjoy what he does. HEre's some footage of him at the recent Ohio Bigfoot Conference at his schwag booth.


159 comments:

  1. Bob Gimlin and Itkomi. Two biggest liars on earth. Should be ashamed of themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scientific American issue of August 14, 1880, page 106:

      "Ancient American Giants.

      The Rev. Stephen Bowers notes, in the Kansas City Review of Science, the opening of an interesting mound in Brush Creek Township, Ohio. The mound was opened by the Historical Society of the township, under the immediate supervision of Dr. J. F. Everhart, of Zanesville. It measured sixty-four by thirty-five feet at the summit, gradually sloping in every direction, and was eight feet in height. There was found in it a sort of clay coffin including the skeleton of a woman measuring eight feet in length. Within this coffin was found also the skeleton of a child about three and a half feet in length, and an image that crumbled when exposed to the atmosphere. In another grave was found the skeleton of a man and woman, the former measuring nine and the latter eight feet in length. In a third grave occurred two other skeletons, male and female, measuring respectively nine feet four inches and eight feet. Seven other skeletons were found in the mound, the smallest of which measured eight feet, while others reached the enormous length of ten feet. They were buried singly, or each in separate graves. Resting against one of the coffins was an engraved stone tablet (now in Cincinnati), from the characters on which Dr. Everhart and Mr. Bowers are led to conclude that this giant race were sun worshipers."

      Delete
    2. Lol just lol c'mon Iktomi. Do you want me to start pulling garbage out from 140 years ago and claim it's true because someone said so in the 1800s? You have anything about giant skeletons in an outlet like Scientific American from, say, the past 40 years?

      Delete
    3. Poor, deluded Iktomi. Here's Scientific American from 2013 (not the following sentence):

      "Today the discovered giant bones are attributed to extinct large mammals and gigantic reptiles. However already in 1638 the Italian physicist Galileo Galilei realized that the basic principles of biomechanics refute the existence of human giants. In his book "Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche intorno a due nuove Scienze Attenenti alla Meccanica & i Movimenti Locali" (Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to the Two New Sciences of Mechanics and Movements) he describes how the bones of large and small animals must differ in their proportions as a result of physical laws. A larger bone is not simply a larger copy of a small bone, but its thickness increase much faster than the length to support the increased weight of a larger body. A human giant would never show human proportions, but be more monster than man!" Thanks for playing, though! Just keep scrounging through old refuted stories and ignoring the advances in biology and anthropology that have happened over the past 100+ years. Just keep that tinfoil hat on real tight and you'll expose science for the fraud that it is! http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/fire-burn-and-cauldron-bubble-bones-of-giants/

      Delete
    4. Sorry pal... The piece you've cited is in reference to biblical Giants, we're talking large skeletons in the region of 8-9 feet, and there are too many witnesses that attest to the human bones, not mammoth, not anything else, found in this instance;

      "We have found eleven human skeletons in all, seven of which have been subjected to fire; and, what is remarkable, we have not found a tooth in all the excavations.
      The above report contains nothing but facts briefly told, and knowing that the public has been humbugged and imposed upon by archeologists, we wish to fortify our own statements by giving the following testimonial;
      We, the undersigned citizens of Brush Creek township, having been present and taken part in the above excavations, do certify that the statements herewith set forth are true and correct, and in no particular has the writer deviated from the facts in the case.
      (Signed)
      Thomas D. Showers
      John Worstall
      Marshall Cooper
      J. M. Baughman
      S. S. Baughman
      John E. McCoy"

      All this starts at page 21 here;

      https://archive.org/stream/cu31924028848673#page/n33/mode/2up

      Enough first hand sources for you? Baring in mind... The Scientific American took a previously printed Science Journal (The Kansas City Review was a very trustworthy Journal) and thought the research relevant enough to reprint it the same year, only a couple of months after the mound was excavated and prior to Everhart's book being published two years later. This had all the details and contributing researchers' names. Therefore, the research topic being made public via mainstream medium with initial details, later to be published. I guess even Scientific American was in on your hoax of three generations of scientists?

      Oh... And there would be nothing from the las 40 years that I'm aware of, except for the Humbolt skull, simply because nothing else has been found. The Industrial Revolution dug up loads and this is why the finds are more prominent at this time. And lastly, your link didn't refute anything you had hoped for.

      Angry comments below...

      Delete
    5. Help me out, friend! I'm sure biologists and archaeologists must be really interested in these giant skeletons. But I can't seem to find any mainstream scientific discussion via google scholar or pubmed. Also, I'd be interested in knowing where all these giant skeletons went. Hopefully they are on display in a museum somewhere (which would be interesting since that they be cause for active scientific inquiry and I find no journal articles discussing them), but maybe the giant skeletons were seized by the MiB and brought to Roswell to be hidden with the Grays?

      Delete
    6. I wonder if anybody calls Gillian a liar to his face.

      Probably not

      Delete
    7. "In the monuments of antiquity found throughout North America, in camp and village sites, graves, mounds, ruins, and scattered works of art, the origin and development of art in savage and barbaric life may be satisfactorily studied. Incidentally, too, hints of customs may be discovered, but outside of this, the discoveries made have often been illegitimately used, especially for the purpose of connecting the tribes of North America with peoples or so-called races of antiquity in other portions of the world. A brief review of some conclusions that must be accepted in the present status of the science will exhibit the futility of these attempts."
      - J W Powell
      http://www.scienceviews.com/lostcivilizations/powelldoctrine.html

      The Smithsonian is sometimes referred to as "the nation's attic" for its holdings of 138 million items, the Institution's Washington, D.C., nucleus of nineteen museums, nine research centres, and zoo, many of them historical or architectural landmarks, is the largest such complex in the world. Additional facilities are located in Arizona, Maryland, New York City, Virginia, Panama and elsewhere, and 168 other museums are Smithsonian affiliates... After many of the bones may have been handed back over to Native Anericans in the Repatriation Act.. They could be anywhere.

      Delete
    8. Nonresponsive. So your answer is, "Yes the giant skeletons exist, which would be one of the most earth shattering finds of all time in biology, but the skeletons either vanished or are hidden in the Smithsonian and, despite the career-making and scientific paradigm shifting results they would have if found... No one wants to bother to look for them."

      So, is that your contention?

      Delete
    9. The discovery of human antiquity was a major achievement of science in the middle of the 19th century, and the foundation of scientific paleoanthropology. The antiquity of man, human antiquity, or in simpler language the age of the human race, are names given to the series of scientific debates it involved, which with modifications continue in the 21st century. These debates have clarified and given scientific evidence, from a number of disciplines, towards solving the basic question of dating the first human being. A key date was the 1859 re-evaluation of archaeological evidence that had been published 12 years earlier by Boucher de Perthes. It was then widely accepted, as validating the suggestion that man was much older than previously been believed, for example than the 6,000 years implied by some traditional chronologies. In 1863 T. H. Huxley argued that man was an evolved species; and in 1864 Alfred Russel Wallace combined natural selection with the issue of antiquity. The arguments from science for what was then called the "great antiquity of man" became convincing to most scientists, over the following decade. The separate debate on the antiquity of man had in effect merged into the larger one on evolution, being simply a chronological aspect. One of the cornerstones of the Smithsonian Institute was the theory of evolution/natural selection, and that in a nutshell says we keep getting bigger and smarter over time. This means that you can't be having 7-10 foot giant skeletons being found everywhere over the US in ellaborate mound systems and argue the case.

      Delete
    10. Actually i was there one time at an event in Oregon where Gimlin spoke, and i was fortunate enough to capture some redneck confronting Bob. Bob handled it rather well i might add. I have it on my channel.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ii_eQ9pU8M

      Delete
    11. Joe,why did you, at 6:40, plagiarize your entire comment from Wiki with no citation?

      Can you just not help yourself? Your writing style is so ridiculously strained that you can never get away with plagiarizing. It stands out like a sore thumb.

      Why do you keep doing this?

      Delete
    12. Pardon me, you only plagiarized about 80% of your comment. The rest was tacked on comments of your own from postings here from last year.

      That is quite pathetic, Joe.

      Delete
    13. This portion is a direct lift from Wiki:

      "The discovery of human antiquity was a major achievement of science in the middle of the 19th century, and the foundation of scientific paleoanthropology. The antiquity of man, human antiquity, or in simpler language the age of the human race, are names given to the series of scientific debates it involved, which with modifications continue in the 21st century. These debates have clarified and given scientific evidence, from a number of disciplines, towards solving the basic question of dating the first human being. A key date was the 1859 re-evaluation of archaeological evidence that had been published 12 years earlier by Boucher de Perthes. It was then widely accepted, as validating the suggestion that man was much older than previously been believed, for example than the 6,000 years implied by some traditional chronologies. In 1863 T. H. Huxley argued that man was an evolved species; and in 1864 Alfred Russel Wallace combined natural selection with the issue of antiquity. The arguments from science for what was then called the "great antiquity of man" became convincing to most scientists, over the following decade. The separate debate on the antiquity of man had in effect merged into the larger one on evolution, being simply a chronological aspect. "

      Delete
    14. And the last portion of your mega paragraph is a tacked on comment you made here in August of 2015:

      "One of the cornerstones of the Smithsonian Institute was the theory of evolution/natural selection, and that in a nutshell says we keep getting bigger and smarter over time. This means that you can't be having 7-10 foot giant skeletons being found everywhere over the US in ellaborate mound systems and argue the case."

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2015/08/is-this-alien-in-this-bigfoot-video.html

      Delete
    15. I can only imagine what warped sort of note taking you must do to have things like this at your fingertips. You rely on plagiarized articles and wiki entries with your own pathetic comments tacked on from previous posts,some of them even quite old.

      Do you have some demented file where you keep all this crap?

      I think you need a break, lunatic.

      Delete
    16. HOLY COW!!!!!!!!! DMAKER JUST OBLITERATED JOE YET AGAIN!!!!!! THIS IS LIKE THE MILLIONTH TIME THAT JOERG HAS BEEN CAUGHT PLAGARIZING!!! AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT LYING A FEW DAYS AGO, THIS JUST MAKES THE WEEK ALL THE SWEETER!!!! JOE IS TAKING ONE OF HIS MOST BRUTAL BEATINGS EVER AT THE HANDS OF DMAKER AND THE TROLLS!!!

      YES!!!!! YES!!!!! YES!!!!!!!

      Delete
    17. Hey dmaker, did you see a couple days ago where Joe emphatically stated that "I have never seen one enthusiast on the blog endorse portals, minspeak, zapping, etc)???? He told a boldface lie. In fact, many of his supporters believe this. When names like Khatt Hansen, Matt Johnson, and Dr. Squatch were thrown in his face, he didn't know what to do, and just laughed off his lie. But then stated that he greatly respects dr squatch and khatt!!! lol. It was golden.

      Delete
    18. How many times do you have to say it? I don't care, ha ha ha!! Phone the police!! You should be more preoccupied with getting a counter argument, me thinks!

      Ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    19. You should be more preoccupied with getting your own thoughts instead of stealing comments from others. Also, you may want to spend some time trying to remember your own name.

      Delete
    20. But here is the thing Joerg, it has been proven on this blog over and over and over and over again that you knowingly lie and plagarize, which is intellectual disshonesty. So why, or how could anyone ever trust a word you say, or believe anything you post at all? How can anyone take you seriously when you do these things? What do you have to say for yourself? Or has dmaker beat you around to badly today for you to think

      Delete
    21. Why would anyone need to get a counter argument to offer to someone who has zero intellectual integrity? Who, in fact, laughs at his regular plagiarizing and lying? You can't take someone like that seriously. Those are the antics of a child, not someone worthy of a counter argument.

      Delete
    22. Please Don, you only regurgitate what the ISF have taught you, and your nut shiner only ever regurgitates what you vomit.

      What you two gonna do about it??

      : )

      Delete
    23. Perhaps you would like to provide some examples of me plagiarizing? No? Don't have any? I'm hardly the one regurgitating, Joe.

      Poor Joe. Can't remember his name and can't stop lying and stealing.

      But in his mind, he is "schooling" people. LOL!

      Delete
    24. Joe flaunting his lies and plagarism. Cmon superfriends, come defend him. Show us that you are made of the same mold. You see Joes behavior day after day. Joe, do you deny that you have ruined this blog single handedly?

      Delete
    25. Donald... Don't you stop crying like a little baby and get a counter argument? Shouldn't be too hard considering I have "zero intellectual integrity"? Seriously... When you're not regurgitating the ISF, you really are just one big b*ch! Ha ha!!

      Seriously 7:50... What are you gonna do about it? You're only sore because it obliterates you. Go rest your head, you're about to pop!

      Delete
    26. Joe, you seem unable to stop lying, plagiarizing or acting like a spoiled child. Why should anyone take anything you say seriously, or bother to engage you in a serious discussion? Your replies will most likely just be lies and plagiarism anyway.

      You are not worth taking seriously, Joe. You have demonstrated this time and time again. I am not about to engage in a debate, or exchange of ideas, with someone who is a habitual liar and plagiarizer.

      Delete
    27. So let me get this straight... You lying and plagarizing obliterates me?? Sounds like typical footer logic to me!

      Delete
    28. Sorry Donald, I'm really not sure where I've lied... Except for the claims that I'm a liar from your beloved n*t shiner. Oh but I forgot!! You apparently need a "'moderated forum" for debating me, right? What you need is someone to help you. What a pathetic, small man you are Don. If you could... You would. You're just a little out of your depth.

      8:18... Sorry n*t shiner, you'll be hard pressed to find a lie I've made regarding the subject matter. Maybe your hero can provide you with something?

      Delete
    29. Yes, Joe, a moderated forum would limit your lies, plagiarism, and childish antics. I would much prefer to debate someone like you who has zero intellectual integrity on a moderated forum. That should be plain for obvious reasons.

      Delete
    30. Ha ha ha ha!! How about you get your ISF mates to help you come up with an example where I've lied? It doesn't appear to be forthcoming from you. Remember when you couldn't understand Nature and had to ask them to explain it to you?

      Delete
    31. You lied, Joe, when you stated you had never seen a single enthusiast around here endorse portals and such. Plagiarism is dishonest, just like lying is dishonest. You plagiarize all the time and then gloat and laugh about it. That type of behavior is not acceptable if you wish to be taken seriously. Since you cannot seem to stop your dishonesty, then a moderated forum would perhaps be a preferred venue since your rampant dishonesty and childish antics would be limited by a third party. This is needed since you have constantly demonstrated that you are not about to stop your dishonesty on your own.

      Delete
    32. Iktomi, you need to read up on the elementary basics of evolution. It does not mean that "we keep getting bigger and smarter over time." It simply means that life adapts to its environment and does not dictate that something becomes "bigger" -- In fact, a life form could become smaller if it gave it an advantage in its environment.

      Delete
    33. Oh no!! What a lie!! Or maybe I just simply forgot about 2 of the hundreds of posters who's frequented here over the past few years? You're an embarrassment, you really are suited to your little n*t shiner, aren't you?

      If I was to plagiarise something and change it's context to support unsubstantiated claims, then I would be a liar. The good thing is, anyone can check my sources to see if I'm lying or not... How fitting that you've alluded to me copy and pasting stuff from the Internet, it actually means people can check what I say and see for themselves that I'm not a liar.

      You're just sore because it's at the expense of your self esteem... "7000 Bigfoot posts dmaker".

      Delete
    34. 8:43... We know that now, scientists had that mindset in mid to late 1800's though. And the "bigger and smarter" is in line with what anthropologists thought of humans during that time.

      Delete
    35. You still haven't figured out the difference between "it's" and "its" I see.

      Delete
    36. "...who's frequented here..."? LOL. I think you meant who have frequented here, grammar master.

      How can people check your sources when you do not provide any sources? You weave your stolen comments into your own words and offer no citation or even quotes. That is flat out dishonest.

      How is anyone even supposed to know you are quoting something when you provide no quotation marks or citation, Joe? Seriously.

      Delete
    37. Donald... Who made you start using capitals in your name? Who's your daddy?

      Why, you simply copied and pasted my comments into Google and hey presto! Just because you are too dense to use capitals in your name, doesn't mean people can't work that out for themselves, "dmaker".

      Delete
    38. What kind of a straight man, says "whos your daddy" to another man???

      Delete
    39. Someone who's got the other person in his pocket... That's who.

      Delete
    40. Joe, do you really think it is reasonable and good form for someone to have to run your comments through a search engine to see if you are plagiarizing or not?

      Holy crap, are you ever deluded. You have just demonstrated, yet again, your lack of intellectual integrity. Unlike with every other intellectually honest poster, there is no expectation to honesty from you. This is what you are saying. You are saying it is fine by you if people have to run your comments through Google first to see if you are being dishonest. You can't just be honest up front and use quotation marks and citations? No? That level of honesty cannot be expected from you is what you are saying.

      Yet, you expect serious debate and discussion? Sorry, if you do not use quotations and cite the source, then the expectation is that the words you wrote are your own. If not, then you are being dishonest. Which you seem totally fine with.

      Delete
    41. No, i believe you are the only one saying that. And you also regularly use other very feminine/gay words, such as calling other men "dear" and using phrases like "tiddly doo" and "laters".

      Delete
    42. Poor dishonest, lying Joe. Doesn't even know his own name. He is like some attention starved child and will respond even when you are not addressing him.

      Delete
    43. Wow, this thread is a real bloodbath. This is the worst beating you have had in quite some time Joe.

      Delete
    44. Iktomi's obsession with giant skeletons was debunked by Snopes years ago - sad! Will his tinfoil hat conspiracy theories ever come to an end??

      http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/giantcoverup.asp

      Delete
    45. Stueys homoerotic obsession with Joe is what people remember about this discussion at the end of the day

      Delete
    46. In all my days of coming here this is probably my favorite. Dmaker has reduced Iktomi to a grade school level crybaby. With all the "what are you gonna do about it's" and "nut shiner" remarks plus all the smileys and "ha ha's" he can fit in. You can see the vein's sticking out of his pale balding welsh forehead in the words he's typing. Ive copied all his remarks into a document and saved it, this meltdown is classic.

      Delete
    47. You believe slopes ? What makes them the truth?

      Delete
    48. Don't forget, Joe, that plagiarism is a form of lying. You say when have you lied here? You lie here regularly every time you plagiarize.

      I know you love Internet quotes, so here are a few for you:

      " It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward."
      https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiPrdHYz-HMAhUKzIMKHaEhCl4QFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plagiarism.org%2Fplagiarism-101%2Fwhat-is-plagiarism%2F&usg=AFQjCNHfeWEsq5tI9JAHownsSv-uOBxSQg&sig2=nPAILTHZjBvJWHfz9Qckpg&bvm=bv.122129774,d.amc


      "Second, plagiarism is a form of lying,..."
      https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiPrdHYz-HMAhUKzIMKHaEhCl4QFgg0MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fintegrity.ou.edu%2Ffiles%2Fnine_things_you_should_know.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHQJdTHXU9ZVN-3vB4sp5sg8ClO3w&sig2=2CM5ie5UtJjPSi5ZNDr-IQ&bvm=bv.122129774,d.amc

      "Plagiarism undermines academic integrity simply because it is a form of lying, stealing and mistreating others."
      https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiPrdHYz-HMAhUKzIMKHaEhCl4QFgg9MAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoria.ac.nz%2Fstudents%2Fstudy%2Fexams%2Fintegrity-plagiarism&usg=AFQjCNGnxPJRlS4AWLzjS5mJ-GEvrc3_GA&sig2=dc2lASyJBzkyTWoXtje-dw&bvm=bv.122129774,d.amc

      Delete
    49. Stuart Smalley - Daily Affirmations: http://youtu.be/6ldAQ6Rh5ZI

      Now I get where Stuart got his name. It does fit


      Delete
    50. Doesn't look too good for you, Joe.

      A simple solution is available to you, however. Apologize to everyone for all your previous lies and dishonesty and promise to not do it again. If you are ever caught plagiarizing after that, then you will have demonstrated that you are beyond rehabilitation and that you should never, ever be trusted.

      What say you? Going to apologize for your history of deceit and lies, and what's more, your gloating about it?

      Are you man enough? I highly doubt it. Feel free to prove me wrong with a genuine apology and admission of all your previous, and documented, plagiarized posts. Atone for your lies and dishonesty and maybe you can claw back some integrity. Or, in your case, begin to develop some in the first place.

      It's not too late.

      Delete
    51. ^ and with that. Joe is officially BTFO!!!!!

      Delete
    52. Not so ladies

      Joe has not offended me in the least. He is simply I using information freely available on the net to make his point

      Whoop de doo

      Time to go outside and get some fresh air

      Delete
    53. Information freely available on the net is not the problem. It is stealing it when you present it as your own words that is the problem.

      If cant see this, then you lack the essential integrity that Joe/Iktomi lacks as well.

      Delete
    54. Information freely available on the net is not the problem. It is stealing it when you present it as your own words that is the problem.

      If cant see this, then you lack the essential integrity that Joe/Iktomi lacks as well.

      Delete
    55. ^^ repeating yourself again


      MELTDOWN ALERT. !!!

      MELTDOWN ALERT. !!!

      Delete
    56. Donald Oh Donald. You arse clown of a man you. Go back to your ISF rock you crawled out under from with your toxic attitude . You must be a true joy to be around during happy hour

      Rule Britannia !

      Joe

      Delete
    57. "Out under from"? LOL, you must be Iktomi. No one else destroys the English language that poorly.

      Delete
    58. I think Joe makes very compelling arguments. So what if he uses resources. I don't see him putting them in quotes next to his name

      You kids need to study harder in school

      Delete
    59. " destroys the English language that poorly"

      Double negative

      LOL

      You just paid Joe a compliment and made yourself look like the twit you are

      Delete
    60. No punctuation above. Looks like a twit fest here!

      Delete
    61. Dress maker and pedo stuart

      What a team

      Delete
    62. OMG! For Gods sake! Who really gives a flying flip over any of this garbage? Iktomi has every right to post whatevere he wants and quite frankly it is the ONLY reason I come to this blog, his is one of the very few intelligences that I find humorous or inquisitive enough to make me even think about coming here especially after the trolls have taken over. Dmaker,get over yourself. You are nowhere near as important as you think you are and trollboy who keeps calling Iktomi a liar>>>NEWSFLASH>>who cares? grow up and get the f off of this site you're bugging the grown ups here who are trying to read up on their hobby. So keep posting Iktomi I like your style and if it comes from Wiki, then I say great they did all the typing for you.

      Delete
    63. WOW!! I go away for a little while and come back to that meltdown!

      9:42... Sorry, nobody has ever used that debunked source, which was from a fictional news website I might add.

      Delete
    64. Joe certainly has every right to post what he wants, but if it is not his words, and he does not use quotation marks and cite the source, then he is plagiarizing. That is dishonest.

      Especially from someone who tries so hard to appear intelligent and learned, yet has to steal comments from public articles and weave them into his own comments deliberately so that people will think they are his words. The problem for him is that he is such a poor writer that it stands out like a sore thumb when he does so. Then he looks dishonest and foolish at the same time.

      Delete
    65. dOnAlD, please stop touching your bellend , it's grossing out the females on here

      Joe

      Delete
    66. I hope you're ok now after that, it's not nice witnessing a grown man so beside himself.

      Delete
  2. Rick Dyer has to be jealous. Bob is the hoaxer that Rick dreamed of being.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. something about blevins?

      Delete
    2. http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/leroy-blevins-unfinished-aborted.html?m=1

      Delete
    3. Google Kanawha valley,valley of the giants.

      Delete
    4. Just did and glad I did! Thanks for that!!

      Delete
    5. but not TRUMP he got big HANDS

      Delete
  3. Gimlin has always been consistent with his story. I believe that what Patterson and Gimlin came across on the last day of their October 1967 expedition was a genuine creature, the creature known as bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe you are an idiot. A genuine idiot.

      Delete
    2. Only an idiot would spend all day, every day of this life somewhere that makes him feel as bad as it does you.

      Delete
    3. You spend all day, every day of your life here. If that makes you feel good, then your life is pretty sad.

      Delete
    4. Donald, my life is filled with wonderful things, I just come here to make people like you look silly.

      Delete
    5. FFS! Wait a minute...I'll be here all day! I guess that makes me sad :( NOT...
      FFS!

      Delete
    6. Joe, you have to be the most unaware person I have ever observed. The only person you make look silly is yourself. You do this daily. Especially when you try to sound smarter than you are, or you prance around saying schooled. You plagiarize and lie constantly. You have zero credibility, charisma or presence.

      Yet in your warped mind, you are a hero who makes people look silly. In your sad mind, this is some grand arena where you battle and school trolls. In reality, it is a fringe blog dealing with a fringe topic. There are about 12 regular posters here, if that. This is where you spend all your time. Being a hero in your mind to a small handful of losers.

      Congrats, man. That must be a fulfilling life.

      Delete
    7. Would you like to explain to everyone why you've got those capitals like that?

      (Creased)

      Delete
    8. ... Ha!! That's right Donald, you keep telling yourself that buddy.

      ; )

      Delete
    9. Why do you respond, when I direct my comments to Joe?

      Delete
    10. Because > 90% of the comments on this site are Iktomi/Joe and his other sockpuppets talking to himself and egging himself on.

      Delete
    11. FFS! I'm not mocking anyone and I like this blog, like the idea of a unknown creature and completely believe in the PG creature video! I don't know what it is in the video but it's 100% real...FFS!

      Delete
    12. Donald... Who's Joe?

      6:40... Yes, how many accounts do I allegedly have now? Cookoo!!

      Delete
    13. Iktomi, if you don't know who Joe is, then why do you respond to his name? Do you not know your own name? Or do you just like to horn in on questions and comments that are not directed to you?

      Delete
    14. Or perhaps, you fantasize about being Joe? Is that it? You are role playing someone named Joe?

      Wow. You're even sadder than I thought. Not only do you create a fantasy world in your head about this place and spend all your time here, but you also like to pretend that you are someone named Joe and will respond to comments and questions directed to him.

      That is really quite, quite sad.

      Delete
    15. You are absolutely right dmaker. But i will do you one better. We all know that Joe is lktomi and that he socks under many accounts. But whats perhaps the saddest thing, is Joe created the lktomi account so that the name Joe F!itzgerald would stop being brought up. He hoped that people would just start referring to him as lktomi, and his constant embarassments under the Joe f!tzgerald account would be forgotten. When that didnt work, then what did Joe do?

      He decides to start posting as "Joe" anonymously, in hopes that this will confuse newcomers to the blog. He hopes that when newcomers see all the comments to "Joe", that the newcomer will think that those comments are addressed to this anon Joe. He hopes that this will happen, but it obviously hasn't. LOL. Its a DISASTER!

      Interestingly, Joe also answers fluently to the name "Joerg". Wonder why that is?

      And to top things off, Joe made up some nonsense about airforce bases and tavistock, and posted it anonymously. Then blamed it on the trolls, trying to make them look insane. He admitted this a few years ago but then deleted it. This guy is sick!

      Delete
    16. FFS! @ 6:54 Not sure mr.anonymous, I would suspect thats she's doing fine how's your sister? :) FFS!

      Delete
    17. AnonymousWednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:03:00 AM PDT
      Joe,John,and the rest of the Super Friends........
      You are the lowest of the low. It is very obvious you are all just 1 or 2 people posting under various names. The Super Friends are all posting from an IP leading back to the USA Air Force. Don't care if you don't believe me....look into it yourselves....I did. Look into Tavistock.

      http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=103996

      I WILL NOT REMOVE MY COMMENT!!!! iF THAT HAPPENS PLEASE COPY AND PASTE!!!!!!

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/top-5-incredible-stories-from-mulders_14.html?m=0




      ... Cookoo!!

      Delete
    18. Notice Donald's "still confused" comments, the exact same circular reasoning & cart before the horse logic you use in the link below? You'll remember I used this thread of comments to make fun of you with some of my academic friends;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/can-you-guess-where-this-photo-was-taken.html

      ... That was on the 8th of August 2014. You do not appear in any BFE comment sections (I can source this if you like though it will take me a little while), until the 11th of August 2014 where you use the exact same "still confused" comments as a signature;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/family-has-bigfoot-encounter-while.html

      ... Now anyone can read for themselves, though nobody in their right minds would believe that you don't post anon anyway.

      Delete
    19. ^ Thats it folks. Thanks for finding it for me Joe. That is the statement that Joe admitted to making in order to troll trolls. He deleted his admission though and now claims he never made the statement. But we all saw it.

      Delete
    20. Joe, you tried this before and it failed miserably. No one has a trademark on "still confused". The fact that some anon used those two words and then I used them also to needle you, proves absolutely nothing.

      You are just desperate to change the topic, since you got caught plagiarizing yet again today.

      Nice try.

      Delete
    21. yep, dmaker hit the nail on the head. last time he did this, it made him look horrid

      Delete
    22. 7:37... There is no "admission", that is your terrible grammar right there and you are quite simply, a racist loon. Here's more of what you're capable of;
      AnonymousThursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:02:00 AM PDT
      Im a proud racist, thank you very much
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/bigfoot-eyewitness-reports-from.html?m=0
      AnonymousMonday, April 4, 2016 at 3:14:00 AM PDT
      A proud racist. We all should be :)
      YES YES YES!!!
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/missing-411-author-isnt-everyones-cup.html?m=0

      You're a frickin' loon son. Why would anyone in their right minds believe you that I've mastered your p*ss poor grammar, and then deleted my admission? Don has a great partner in you.

      Donald... You have been busted. Anyone can see for themselves. That is ten times more evidence than has ever been presented for me allegedly posting as anon. What's more, is there's a million examples of no spacing after commas under anon mode, another one of your grammatical failures after not using capitals in your name.

      Oops!!

      Delete
    23. You're really losing it today, Joe. Grammar is not your strong point, Joe. That is the last thing you should be pointing out to others.

      But what else should one expect from a lying, plagiarizing little weasel like you?

      Delete
    24. Here is your words Joe, and your about to get called out for lying once again.

      Joe: "That is ten times more evidence than has ever been presented for me allegedly posting as anon."

      So you are now claiming there is no evidence of you posting anonymously? Well the evidence we have, is when you admitted it out of your own mouth. Remember when the trolls were first making duplicate Joe F!tzgerald accounts? It got so bad, that you simply stated that from that point forward you were going to go "Guerilla Joe" and that the regulars would know it was you when you posted anonymously. How quick you forget that one Joe. You admitted from your own mouth that you were going to be posting anonymously so that others wouldn't be confused by the duplicate Joe f#tzgerald accounts. So there you have it. Proof from your own mouth. And caught in another lie. What do you have to say for yourself Joe. Maybe the mods should get involved and get you for lying so much.

      Delete
    25. Ten times more evidence, Joe? Two commonly used words and some delusional nonsense about commas and spacing?

      No wonder you are a bigfoot enthusiast. You do seem to enjoy connecting imaginary, or insignificant dots, and calling them evidence.

      Delete
    26. Donald...if grammar's not my strong point, it must hurt then to have someone like me point out that you need to use capitals for writing your name, not to mention how to use commas correctly.

      8:23... Who's Joe F*tzgerald?
      "Maybe the mods should get involved and get you for lying so much."
      ... Why don't you run to the mods, give them a little cry? Ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    27. Joe, you have failed in the last couple of days distinguishing between there and their. Your writing style, when not plagiarizing, is horribly awkward.

      You truly look like a fool when you start talking about caps in an username. Usernames are free from. People can do whatever they wish. Everyone knows this, as I suspect you do as well. That this is all you have to come at me with, really makes you look so foolish.

      Delete
    28. You want to talk grammar, Joe? Fine, let's take just one paragraph from you for analysis. Let's take your comment that tacked on to the end of your plagiarized comment today, shall we? Just a random sample.

      "One of the cornerstones of the Smithsonian Institute was the theory of evolution/natural selection, and that in a nutshell says we keep getting bigger and smarter over time. This means that you can't be having 7-10 foot giant skeletons being found everywhere over the US in ellaborate mound systems and argue the case."

      You misspelled elaborate, genius. You used a tense awkwardly. It reads much easier if you say, " You can't have 7-10 foot giant skeletons being found everywhere ..." Instead you wrote " You can't be having..." Another classic example of you forcing more words than necessary into an awkward sentence because you think it makes you appear intelligent.

      Yes, Joe. Grammar is not your strong point.

      Delete
    29. Yet you spelled your name witn no capitals?

      Ouch!!

      Delete
    30. Its times like this dmaker when i wonder if Joe is just a troll. He can't possibly be this stupid, can he?

      Delete
    31. What does that even mean Joe at 8:52? Why are you caught up on capital letters?

      Delete
    32. On this particular point--grammar in usernames--he must just be trolling. No one can truly be serious about that issue. Internet usernames often have numbers and even special characters. It's not a sentence, it's a word. Joe is just trying to troll me with it, but I don't mind. Every time he prattles on about it, he demonstrates what a petty idiot he really is. Keep at it, Joe.

      Delete
    33. Hey n*t shiner... Can you remember when you called Don's comments, "almost spiritual"?

      Delete
    34. Don... If it truly were a username thing, then why did you start using capitals in your name shortly after, and then after that, seemingly self reflect and start using jumbled capitals like some petulant protest?

      I'm sorry, that's hilarious!!

      Delete
    35. Lets see.....Joe is called out for lying, using multiple accounts, and plagarism. And dmaker is called out for......wait for it.....use of a capital letter!!!! Man Joe sure can lay the smackdown, lol!!

      Delete
    36. Almost spiritual???? Heee heee heee! Morning IK :)

      Delete
    37. I briefly used DMaker because I was tired of hearing you harp on about it. But then I realized that the more you railed about it, the stupider you looked. So I decided to really mix them up so that you would do exactly what you are doing right now. Blabbering on about a completely insignificant thing oblivious to how ridiculous it makes you look.

      Well done, moron.

      Delete
    38. Lets call out Joe in another lie. Joe, you said you forgot 2 of the "hundreds" of posters who have posted here over the last few years. I challenge you Joe, list me the names of 30 different regular non anonymous users who have posted here over the last 3 years. "Hundreds", lol. Now thats a funny lie.

      Delete
    39. Size 2???????????? HEEEE heeee heee!!!!

      Delete
    40. Joe, i agree with you, capitalism in usernames is a horrid thing. So i think you should only do the right and inpartial thing, and call Chick out on her name changes and use of capitals. Remember that Chick started out posting as "Chick". Now she is posting as "CHICK CHICK".Thats right Joe!!!! She is now using all caps, and repeating the name!!!!!!!!! You are obviously outraged, correct?

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

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

      Delete
    43. Ha ha ha ha!! Chick doesn't go around drawing attention to grammatical errors for lack of substantial argument against the subject matter. That's the difference... That... And she's bloody lovely.

      Delete
    44. Gee that IktomiJoe is some kind of wanker... big style.

      Delete
  4. LOL just LOL Iktomi doesn't believe any of the crap he spews. Iktomi says stuff that he knows is false because he likes to troll this forum. For example, his nonsense about "Giant Skeletons at the Smithsonian" is a freeper conspiracy theory that was debunked by Snopes years ago:

    http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/giantcoverup.asp

    All you need to know about Iktomi is that actual scientists would laugh in your face if you presented them with the absurd claims of Iktomi, such as the giant skeleton conspiracy theory. Don't engage him; he's looking for a reaction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nevada Democratic Party shuttered its offices for security reasons Monday and wrote a letter to the Democratic National Committee accusing supporters of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders of having a "penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior — indeed, actual violence —
      THE NEW NORM

      Delete
    2. ^probablt Iktomi and his giant skeleton buddies jumped through a portal into clinton campaign headquarters and tried to mindzap everyone with electromagnetic fields!

      Delete
    3. U got to feel da BURN

      Delete
    4. A BIG COMPLAINT IS IN!!! I MEAN A HUGE ONE!!!

      Delete
    5. but not TRUMP he's a WINNER

      Delete
    6. please pass the popcorn. i'm quite enjoying Donald's latest meltdown today. oh if only the movies were such jolly good fun
      tee hee

      Joe

      Delete
    7. 9:15... Sorry, nobody is peddling a conspiracy, you seem to be very slow on the uptake witn regards to this. Also... Even I was insisting that there was a conspiracy, these ideas have been around for years, and that snope site is actually merely debunking a fictional news blog article that nobody wool seriously anyway.

      Where have all the adults gone?

      Delete
    8. ^where did the giant skeletons go??

      Pssss... You can tell me. I'm also wearing a tinfoil hat so the MiB at the Smithsonian can't intercept our thought frequencies. What did the gubmint do with the giant skeletons?? I have my own theory: the Bigfoots that the MiB kidnapped from the Mount Saint Helen's eruption site were forced to open portals at Roswell, and the MiB put the giant skeletons through the portals and into the Sasquatch dimension so that biologists won't know about the nephilim and our 4000 year old planet. Do you have any theories about where the giant skellies went? Short of interdimensional portals, how did they all vanish? Has to be the MiB, right?

      Delete
    9. I would say have a little read about where they might be at the top of this comment section. You just keep getting your meltdown added to daily, don't you? Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    10. YES TRUMP will take the HELM of this ship of state - a new beginning .... is upon you all

      Delete
    11. Iktomi = Wanker extraodinaire

      Delete
    12. Iktomi, I read your stupid post at the top of this page. So you are telling me that there are three reasons we don't have giant skeletons: (1) the gubmint destroyed them, (2) They were given to Native Americans who then just got really forgetful and lost them, and/or (3) The giant skeletons are lost in an attic in the Smithsonian.

      You realize that all of those are insane, right? So you seriously believe that if these giant skeletons existed (sure, there's no evidence of them in the fossil record anywhere on the planet), biologists and archaeologists wouldn't be tripping over themselves to find these?

      You can be as smug and pretentious as you like, but the onus is on you to explain the conspiracy. Either there is no truth to these claims, or else they are true, and you have knowledge that the world's best researchers don't have. Why don't you call up the Smithsonian or Harvard University and let them know that you know the secret of the giant skeletons? Is it perhaps they will laugh at you because giant skeletons are BS that no legitimate researchers take seriously?

      Delete
    13. Joe is an expert in things that no legitimate researcher takes seriously.

      Delete
    14. Joe has chosen to demonstrate his expertise by plagiarizing public articles on an obscure blog while tapping away on his iphone from his mom's basement.

      I think the status quo is quite safe from Joe and his "expertise".

      Delete
    15. 4:17... You missed the boat. Probably because you are too stupid. I will state this again... It's not like I haven't had to hold your hand through the meaning of comments before anyway...

      THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY. Did you get that this time? If you were actually clever enough with the literary maturity to understand the Powell quote up top, you'll notice that the remains were acknowledged but as stated as plain as day, would not be studied.

      1) nobody has claimed these were destroyed.
      2) if you weren't totally dense to the whole repatriation process, these bones are in turn buried to honour Native culture... Hence the whole requirement of repatriation in the first place.
      3) the Smithsonian really is THAT big.

      Now... If you are being critical of those possibilities, then it is down to you to shift the burden that comes with that. Putting words in people's mouths of a false conspiracy, using your own conspiracy of a hoax led by three generations of archaeologists and anthropologists, isn't very good logic... And kind of turns your best, baseless argument against you.

      Hope that helps this time around, Einstein.

      Delete
  5. Most of what people are attributing to "bigfoot" is actually Dogman Evidence.

    http://dogmanevidence.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is running that one? Shaun? Danny?!!

      Delete
    2. most meaning almost all thinking its a dogman

      Delete
    3. They flat out tell you your answer on Dogman evidence.

      Delete
  6. LOL - I see the "forever war" continues here with both sides not being able to claim victory to the other sides's satisfaction.

    I've given up my belief in Bigfoot some time ago however the subject still interests me and especially the personalities involved. Prominent among these is Bob Gimlin. There is no question Bob is much admired and beloved among Bigfoot enthusiasts and I'm sure he is a genuine nice guy but I have wondered about a couple of things that intrigue me.

    First of all his refusal to take a lie detector test. Now I know lie detector results are unreliable and can be manipulated and are not used in a court of law but both Patterson and Heironimus took them and I don't see how it could hurt him if he is telling the truth. He may have some reason for it but it looks suspicious.

    I have heard he does not like or want to be in the same room with Heironimus. Why is this? Would he not like to directly challenge Bob's story or is he afraid of something Bob might say?

    I have read about the story of Gimlin being offered one million dollars with Doug Hajicek (who's a big Bigfoot enthusiast himself) telling of the offer. Now I believe this was just a verbal offer to which Bob refused. Has there ever been an written contract offered to him with such a proposal? To be truthful I'm not sure he would accept that because I think all the love and attention he is getting from all those who look up to him means more than any money and it would probably be unthinkable to him to let them down.

    I've been over to the ISF site as time provides and I must say they do make some good points about the timeline with the film processing and other matters involving the film.

    In any case it looks like old Bob is certainly enjoying himself at the convention. I'm sure his traveling expenses and lodging are covered but does anyone have any idea if he gets speaker fees?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For decades... Bob Gimlin hated even enthusiasts for what his family had been through (he was almost divorced) and it has taken him a long time to come to terms with the burden of filming that creature. It's actually very comforting to see an old man come to terms with this and embrace people who he almost came to hate.

      Why would Bob G take a lie detector test for people like you? He clearly doesn't care one bit what you think, Mr Curious. It's degrading, he's been cross examined and lied about a million times and as was stated previously, it is only in later life that he's come to embrace what he was a part of filming. A lie detector test might make him feel like he's done something wrong, and do you actually have any evidence that this has been denied on his part? Bob H's test was from a fraudulent entertainment show and a peer review of his results was unexplicably denied by his attorney. Roger Patterson's was arranged by National Wildlife magazine. Furthermore... Bob G had a loaded weapon pointed at the creature, he certainly wasn't in on "the hoax", therefore the emphasis was on Roger and he passed what you require with flying colours.

      If someone had lied, defacated on the character of your deceased best friend and tried to make money off it, our wouldn't want to be in a room with him too.

      You want evidence of a written contract from a film production team? Try to apply your own standards of documentation to your own arguments, Mr Curious, it would be refreshing for you to at least once abide by your own standards. Why would someone trounce around the country in old age when he could merely "come clean" and make a mint & stay in the house? What's more... Is that you do realise that Bob G had an opportunity to "lift the lid" when taking Patricia Patterson to court for rights of the PGF?

      Delete
    2. "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".

      If he's filmed one of the most amazing pieces of footage ever, he's welcome to make as much money as he likes.

      Delete
    3. Well, that's the way you see it and it's fine with me. I know you will never be convinced otherwise so I won't waste my time debating. Unfortunately those issues DO raise doubt in some minds. As for the timeline the guys over at the ISF have a different view of that timeline - it makes interesting reading for sure. I suppose everyone see things from their perspective.

      "People like you" - LOL. Yes, I no longer believe so I am the enemy now. I do believe I have given enough time of my life supporting it's existence but the DNA testing done by Dr. Sykes extinguished any remaining hope I have.

      Well have fun getting your daily ridicule here - for the record I think things have become too harsh but as they say if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

      Delete
    4. No, you are no an "enemy", Curious, and there were man animals that didn't show up in the samples submitted to Sykes... Doesn't mean they don't exist.

      Delete