Thursday, June 23, 2016

Man Paralleled By Blond Bigfoot


From the youtube channel of TimberGiantBigfoot:

This was the chain of events that occurred this morning - first I noticed something following on a parallel course , then a while later I saw the individual again that appeared blond as the morning sun illuminated its hair , it disappeared as I noticed it then after having left the area myself I heard a grunt down near the river and upon my approach to this area the coyotes were heard and were approaching me quickly . So that was it for this day . But the search continues .

Click here to watch

101 comments:

  1. Trolls suck big time! All they do is suck....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^YOUR MOM MUST BE ONE HELL OF A TROLL THEN

      Delete
    2. Man, remember the good old days, with "Daisy in the box" and the hoax in TX with the guy in the tent, filming the squatch & stuff? I've gone from a 75% believer, down to a 50%. I'm starting to think Squatch's are......not real. Dang, I want to believe. Are the personal accounts all b.s.? Seriously, are all these people lying?

      Delete
    3. I hear you brother! Made it to 100! Who gives a f

      Delete
  2. Utah sasquatch has been exposed in the bigfoot subreddit. The bigfoot sounds in his videos have been added during editing which has been proven by a sound expert when isolating mono audio from the stereo track. The bigfoot sounds were not part of the main stereo camera recording but added afterwards unfortunately for utah sasquatch he added the sounds to a single channel only which allowed the detection to be possible.

    And to think people like joe ponied up the money for his gofundme.

    Footers, they just cant catch a break.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://youtu.be/SJpKiPyew-E

      Check the comment by Utah Sasquatch underneath the video; totally transparent.

      The person attempting to debunk the source has proven nothing of the sort. The main argument for these sounds is that there is nothing behind them when isolated, such as wilderness noises, birds, etc. I'm not so sure that's a decent argument, whilst there are plenty of other sounds in the videos that weren't selected by floobaloo as red flags. Why would someone add manufactured sounds to a source with real ones? Not logical.

      What people like you need to do is go out with him, go see what he's proposing. It's not gonna happen though.

      Delete
    2. What silly little desktop trolls like you need to sweat over, 3:24, is if he should manage to convince someone with a bit of clout to go out with him. For example;

      https://youtu.be/iG4Ywz9ftF4

      Delete
    3. Great find 3:24 its good to see a decent standard of skepticism practised over at the bigfoot subreddit.

      I just isolated the audio tracks in my editing suite and found the exact same thing. Doctored audio. Scientifically repeatable.

      Lovely.

      Delete
    4. ...Joe, Good luck with that..desert and barren mountains are not very "squacthy"..what "forest" there are are pine..You dont need napalm to see whats going on in a pine forest..lol..The focus should be on evidence from the PNW if the crypto-community is looking for participation from scientists..

      EEG

      Delete
    5. ...assuming that "someone with clout" is a scientist...

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

      Delete
    7. Hello EEG. If you take a look at his videos, you'll notice there's some pretty dense brush where he researches. I'm not totally dismissing the prospect of him hoaxing, I haven't been out with him and can't vouch for anyone's credibility... But his transparency is very telling and refreshing. I'm hoping more people go out with him in months to come so we can paint a better picture. Yes buddy, I mean someone like scientist.

      Delete
    8. Why do you partake in a hobby that is supposed to be for americans?

      Delete
    9. ..Thanks Joe..I'll give it a look..I am far from an expert on US wilderness..

      Delete
    10. well another odd thing is that he luied about being a film maker and audio expert.listen to his commentary in the video he states many times that he is no expert in audio major red flag. to myself at least,and also you must be a paid member of his gofundme and have proof to join his facebook...rather odd no? he also leads you with his babble just like timberjimbullshit...so for once i think vegasthedog is spot on calling him out

      Delete
    11. Respectfully, I don't know anything about Facebook accounts. I'm not on Facebook or anything of the sort, and I find his demeanour very self critical.

      Delete
    12. To 4:48, please don't ask "Joe" anything about the US wilderness. He supposedly is based in the UK, and so he knows absolutely nothing about the USA wilderness other than what he has seen on TV. Yet oddly enough, he talks as if he knows it like the back of his hand. He often likes to state that there are many places in the USA where no person has ever stepped. And that many track finds are in locations that rarely see people. Yet he has never been to these locations, and has no clue what the human travel in these areas are. He just guesses from half way around the globe. Thats of course if you believe a word he says. Most think he has a blog admin/paid troll.

      Delete
    13. Son, I know people from the US that have three times the experience of you, seen Sasquatch multiple times and would take you places you'd cry. It simply wrecks your ego that someone from the UK educates you on what's in your own back yard.

      Delete
    14. I've called Utah Sasquatch from the start, anyone who asks for $20,000 without a shred of evidence is not being honest.

      Delete
    15. And who do you know from the USA Joe, please tell us? lol. Alas, your "friends" who have seen sasquatch numerous times are flat liars. They are the types who pull off of a county road, hike a few miles into the woods, and then make statements like "i may be the first person to ever set foot here". Time and time again, these "researchers" who claim to be in the middle of nowhere show there lack of knowledge for the common wildlife. They have little to know backcountry knowledge, little to know experience with the native wildlife, and zero clue when it comes too where people may or may not have been. There are no places in the USA that would make anyone cry as far as isolated areas, and that comment makes you sound extremely foolish Joe. The problem is that the researchers who live in the USA are simply a bunch of new age yuppies. Your delusions know no end Joe. By the way, how is blog traffic recently? Much adsense money coming in?

      Delete
    16. Like I said son, they'd make you cry.

      : p

      Delete
    17. Crying with laughter most likely.

      Delete
    18. This is the stupidity of fools like Iktomi the Cuck: he claims that he has good friends in the states who know where sasquatches live and have regularly encountered them.

      The logical thing to do would be call up game wardens, sheriff's offices, local universities, and simply bring these experts with cameras and hunting equipment to catch the creatures, dead or alive.

      Of course, we know what happens when these types of field experiments are conducted, we've all seen it on Finding Bigfoot: idiots running around with some of the world's most advanced audio and visual equipment to come back with blurry infrared images and night vision "photos".

      But sure, Joe. I totally believe you have friends who are real badasses and regularly interact with sasquatches. They never come back with any definitive proof because they just don't feel like it and would prefer these gentle new age creatures be left alone at their habituation sites.

      Give me a break!

      Delete
    19. Mike Brookreson for one, and Joe knows me, but I've never seen a Sequatchie, I live in the city

      Delete
    20. "Of course, we know what happens when these types of field experiments are conducted."
      ... Name one.

      "we've all seen it on Finding Bigfoot"
      ... You don't a deer in the wild with a film crew screaming.

      "idiots running around with some of the world's most advanced audio and visual equipment to come back with blurry infrared images and night vision "photos"."
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      http://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/the-brown-footage/

      https://youtu.be/l-xAuHHdaYU

      Like I said... You wouldn't last five minutes.

      : p

      Delete
    21. Praytell, Cucktomi, why aren't mainstream scientists and researchers taking this evidence seriously? Why aren't the biologists and primatologists, anthropologists and archaeologists, all over this evidence?

      I know that "Cliffbarackman.com" and "sasquatchcanada.com" are highly regarded scientific outlets, widely respected in the professional circles of mainstream biology and primatology, so clearly it must be because they are stupid?

      Just stop, cucktomi. Give it up. You've been PWND

      Delete
    22. 1. If scientists are interested in studying the topic, unless they are already established then they have careers and credibility to look out for. 2. The general public which account for people in all professions including mainstream scientists, have "flag ships" like Finding Bigfoot as the main mainstream output, which would make anyone remotely intelligent cynical.
      3. IMPORTANTLY, hoaxes always get massive publicity.
      4. EXTRA IMPORTANTLY, when people are already suspicious of the credibility of the subject, they'll settle very quickly for an uncountered "debunking" due to the "extraordinary" nature of what's being proposed. However, should these people listen to the actual experts' counter opinions to these shoddy "debunkings", they'll realise very quickly that the evidence is reliable by consistent scientific standards. The problem is the only people who realise this are those willing to put in the time to look at it. A prime example of this is the Crowley stuff with dermals. So many "sceptics" claiming they rest on the high standards of scientific absolutes, yet they are happy to lessen these standards and rest on what someone grossly unqualified puts forth rather than listening to what the actual experts say.

      If the Brown's thermal is so blatantly unscientific, you'll have no issue debunking it!

      Delete
    23. 1. Careers and credibility? But you see the evidence as so convincing that you have concluded that sasquatches must exist. Therefore, there are 2 possibilities: (i) either the scientists are too stupid to evaluate this evidence, (which would bring them untold fortune and academic fame) or (ii) the evidence is not as overwhelming, reliable, or conclusive as you think. I wonder which is more likely?

      2. So you recognize that the most high profile attempts at proving bigfoot are either (i) outright hoaxes (like the georgia freezer and countless others) or tainted by the possibility of hoaxing.

      3. Of coarse hoaxes get massive publicity: it should come as no surprise when those in the footing community make grandiose claims of proof, it virtually always ends up being made up or (the footer's favorite) "inconclusive"

      4. Evidence is reliable and consistent? Why isn't this "evidence" discussed at the main academic conferences of primatology. archaeology, anthropology? Are you willing to concede, at all, that the evidence is not what you want it to be? If not, you aren't a scientist. You're just a dogmatist obsessed with the religion of footery.

      GODDAMN IT, IKTOMI. How stupid can you be?

      "If the Brown's thermal is so blatantly unscientific, you'll have no issue debunking it!"

      Why doesn't Brown submit his "footage" to the American Anthropological Association with that verbatim quote from you?

      "Hey guys. I have thermal footage of bigfoot. If this is not footage of bigfoot, PROVE THAT IT IS NOT FOOTAGE OF BIGFOOT. If you can't prove that this blurry thermal shows a bigfoot, then this blurry thermal definitely shows a bigfoot."

      If they get around to responding whenever they finish laughing, I would definitely be interested in hearing what they have to say.

      Delete
    24. They were definitely laughing when Brown declared an alligator bone as A Bigfoot arm!

      Delete
    25. 1. Nope... It really is as simple as being restricted. Also... There is as of yet, no consorted mainstream effort to track the evidences which account for three times the amount at this stage of research for the Bili Ape. If mainstream science were aware of it, maybe it would occur. The problem is not even enough enthusiasts are aware of the state of proper scientific evidence, what chance to mainstream scientists have? At present, the evidence points to a creature that's got the same anatomy as what's being widely reported. That requires a lot of research to follow up. It took primatologists a whole year to track the Bili Ape.

      2. No, what I'm saying is you have to have an interest past the mainstream fairy tail monkey stuff to delve deeper and be aware of the science behind 50 years of research. Most people have a fleeting interest and are not anoraks.

      3. Sorry, I've yet to see you or any of your heroes substantiate the evidence I present as "inconclusive". Start with the sources provided to you in this very comment section. Your burden remains. Hoaxes follow pop culture and the these days people can get a lot of money for clicks on YouTube channels. There were a lot of hoaxes in the 90's regarding UFO's, now due to pop culture, nobody in their right minds would argue against alien life.

      4. It's simple, it is... Take a look at Meldrum's online journal and the type of people who are putting forwords in his book... None other than George Schaller.

      "Why doesn't Brown submit his "footage" to the American Anthropological Association with that verbatim quote from you?"
      ... You'd have to ask him that! Personally I'd be pushing this stuff hard. You must test science. This is how breakthroughs are made and how sources are verified. In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. All the while you're "laughing", the sources that have been presented to you in his comment section remains unchallenged.

      Chop! Chop!

      Delete
    26. Wouldn't you like to address what's actually giving you your vendetta, for once?

      Delete
    27. Lol cuktomi rages impotently, attempting to come up with excuse after excuse as to why mainstream scientists, mainstream journals, and mainstream universities don't take his "crypto-blog" claims seriously.

      Don't worry: three years ago, footers just KNEW that Ketchum's exhaustive DNA study would prove Bigfoot. And three years later, they have nothing but egg on their face. And I'm willing to bet my life that three years from now, in 2019, footers still won't have a body.

      Just lol at the delusions!

      Delete
    28. Rage? Oh dear.

      No excuses, sorry... Just a slow progress due to the extraordinary repurcussions of what the evidence entails. That doesn't make the evidence, evidence you have failed yet again to address, go away. What "mainstream science recognises" means little. If there's scientific evidence that not one from that mainstream can explain away, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority.

      Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Royal Society of Medicine Press
      Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals by Richard Smith;
      "So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

      And what's a classic ISF mantra? When one requires deflecting from addressing the evidence that is above them, refer to the Ketchum study that enthusiasts themselves exposed as fruitless, and have the audacity to claim it as an example of enthusiast incompetence. You truly are so out of your depth, it's hilarious.

      One day, you might actually mix it with the adults. Until then, you'll be reminded of your burden.

      Delete
    29. Oh... And the scientists in these "crypto-blog" sources need embarrassing, hurry up!

      Delete
    30. No matter what anyone posts about bigfoot the skeptics are going to say one thing or another.. The people that know for sure arent out there trying to prove it to the skeptics they mostly posts for the ones wanting to learn, or are open to the idea that is a undiscovered creature out there.. But to flat out call someone a hoaxer or liar or other names if just being juvenile.. If your not into the bigfoot subject then why bother cutting a person down that believes or knows.. They are not hurting you, unless you are just jealous that you havent gotten off your duffs and have videos to show others or your pissed you dont have the followers other do.. grow up..

      Delete
  3. Well, we don't "accept" because the claim being made is that hairy bipedal hominids are building shelters and roaming the Wasatch in great numbers. That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Mr. Utah Squatch seems to take great umbrage that people question his methods and motives. But actually, in the world of science this is done every day.

    He publishes this material online so really, we don't have to accept what he says at all. We can call it out for the low-quality "research" that it is and question his motives where they seem less than straightforward. All of this is perfectly acceptable on Reddit and probably the closest Utah Squatch's brand of sasquatchery will ever get to peer review.

    And what is his brand of research? From here it looks like sloppy data collection, apparently no record keeping at all, nor any attempt to evaluate his own bias. He's out there in the woods with a camera posting material on YouTube. In turn, mooncalf acolytes post their support thus completing the cycle of delusion (or hoax if you lean that way.)

    He really should start a cult. Maybe he'll stumble across some golden tablets written in Reformed Egyptian up in the Uintas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Why did you delete your comment Joe? I love everything you have to say.

      EEG

      Delete
  4. So up close, we can tell a zebra from a horse and presumably we could also tell a sasquatch from a person or an elk.

    But when confronted with equivocal or indirect evidence - as is almost the rule in squatchdom - the conclusion should not be "This means there IS a hairy bipedal non-human roaming the Wasatch" but rather "Meh, it's probably people or some kind of natural process." US mistook grouse for squatches at one point for example.

    There is a conservatism to science which is spelled out explicitly in statistics by way of the Null Hypothesis. In statistics we do not prove the positive - but reject the negative. This is the standard I would think should apply here.

    When I watch US do his thing, it comes across like a train wreck of confirmation bias and poor weighing of what is clearly equivocal evidence. He see "proof" everywhere, it's like apophenia live and in color. Hilarious really.

    I'm not a cynic. I'm very willing to evaluate any piece of evidence people bring forth in good faith and I go into the field twice a year myself. But I'm not delusional enough to post the kind of material US gathers and then take umbrage at criticism... I mean that is cray cray.

    So my "cynicism" is that I see a mental process going on that leads US to very different conclusions than I would make when confronted with the same evidence. We are watching the human mind process the world and arrive at fanciful conclusions. My statements here are the imago of my own mind's processing the material posted. I am skeptical and think critically about the nature of evidence and am always checking my evaluation against the very human desire to believe in the extraordinary, to love a good story, to participate in a fantastical discovery.

    But I'm quite sure 99.99% of scientists would be on my side here. These videos are full of excitement and a lot of talk - but (sadly) nothing at all that makes the case for sasquatches being real creatures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. If somebody is sitting on HD footage of say the live birth of sasquatches, or nice video of bluff charging males, or DNA, or a body, or even a decent trail cam pic at this point, then they are hiding a major discovery.

    Which I find hard to believe.

    I think people here forget just how insanely massive the discovery of sasquatch would be to anthropology and zoology. It's an extraordinary claim, completely unexpected at this point, and very low probability.

    Everyday more crap hits the web, and everyday the forces of reason must fight back... It is a battle that has space travel and longevity on one end and people blowing themselves up for a non-existent Sky Father on the other.

    Only one thing has brought humanity kicking and screaming out of the Demon Haunted World and that is the scientific method. I think we all know which side Utah Squatch is on.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't hate Utah Sasquatch. Assuming this is a hoax, I think he is doing this field a solid by showing how easily misled and gullible folks can be.

    For me, whether this is hoaxed or not is sort of secondary to the material and presentation itself. Utah Squatch has not presented anything of merit and has not abided by even the most basic principles of self-skepticism.

    If you are a "believer" and like being led around by the nose by a Pied Piper of Sasquatchery, then go ahead and have fun with this material. But don't for a minute think anybody with two neurons to rub together takes this seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The real problem for Utah Sasquatch is that there is nothing presented in the videos that amounts to unambiguous evidence for sasquatch much less proof. In contrast, the claims are hyperbolic.

    So for people who think the scientific method is worth staying true to, worth defending, and worth promoting as a framework for discourse, a video of unsubstantiated conclusions should be interrogated and torn apart. It is necessary. This does NOT mean sasquatch doesn't exist. This does NOT mean that there isn't a juvenile sasquatch in that Monument video. There could be. But it has not been demonstrated.

    When you decide to promote something publicly in an area of inquiry historically packed full of hoaxes and frauds, you should to expect to defend all such claims vigorously. You absolutely should question your own process and be your own worst critic.

    Because science relies upon critical thinking and self-skepticism and ultimately allows only necessary conclusions. It is particularly galling to note that in the sasquatch community, not being a doe-eyed believer is often tantamount to being heretical, or at least, unpopular.

    As of June 23, 2016 - the Sasquatch null hypothesis still cannot be rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let's examine this logic.

    First, there is no scientifically established species such as sasquatch. They could exist - I admit that - but their numbers are vanishingly small in comparison to humans. So small that we have no DNA, bones, fossils, or even unambiguous photographic evidence.

    Second, Utah Sasquatch is not deep into the woods here. In many videos one can hear cars, another is by a park, and in any case, the Wasatch and Uinta ranges have been literally crawling with European humans since the Rocky Mountain beaver trade days, and Native Americans before that.

    So what is more likely? That a subset of the thousand upon thousands of human beings who have been in these mountains left something atypical or a species of hairy hominid - which has never been established as existing in the first palce - did it?

    In comparing these likelihoods, I conclude humans.

    I realize I am in the minority here, I get that. I understand people want to believe in sasquatch, hell I WANT to believe. But just because something is unusual doesn't imply Sasquatch.

    Look at this odd twig lay: Sasquatch.

    Look at this funky lean-to structure: Sasquatch.

    Looks at this unusual imprint: Sasquatch.

    Hey, listen to that unusual sound: Sasquatch.

    The freaking Wasatch Range is fairly crawling with sasquatches apparently and it's a wonder we don't physically collide into them when hiking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the correct way to apply Occam's razor.

      Delete
    2. Sightings = tracks = dermals = hair = audio = footage = thermal = archeological record = Occam's Razor

      Delete
    3. Do you know what "=" means?

      Delete
    4. You guys flatter me. I love this place. I am at work now, but will be on later this evening. I know of some great bigfoot stories, but its too much too type out, so if anyone wants to snapchat later and discuss it, let me know.

      EEG

      Delete
    5. Joe, you wouldn't understand Occam's razor if it walked up and sliced off your tiny excuse of a but sack.

      Delete
    6. His butt sack is ace as well mate !

      Joe

      Delete
    7. I think Iktomi understands the concept of Occam's razor. He just fails when applying it to all things Bigfoot.

      Delete
    8. Dmaker once again blows Joe the f#ck out!

      Delete
    9. Donald's upset again... Everyone ssssshhhhhhhhhh!!!

      Delete
    10. IktoJoe fixates on debunking and somehow believes this to be the role, or challenge, of science. This is not the case. Science does not set out to disprove anything. Science merely tests the evidence against the claim. If it bears out, then great. The claim holds up. But if the evidence upon examination does not prove the claim, then more work must be done and more conclusive evidence provided, or the claim is rejected.

      To set out to "debunk" is wholly the wrong mindset when it comes to science. Joe fails miserably in his interpretation of this concept.

      Delete
    11. But what about "uncountered debunkings"?

      Delete
    12. It's not the role of science to debunk. The role of science is indeed to test, you know this well because you're a little touchy about yesterday's spanking. Debunkers are people like you who spend their days frustrated about what's not under their control. Belittling and battling for self esteem.

      If the evidence under testing does not prove the claim, that's fine and dandy with me. But one must show that to be the case, not cry about it day in, day out with circular reasoning and compromises to scientific absolutes. Nothing more contradicting than pushing the idea of scientific ambiguity with shoddy ambiguity.

      One day you'll grow up, Donald.

      Delete
    13. alas Donald will never grow up and be a duckling all his life.
      everything Donald knows about science he gleamed off the back of a comic book. How have those x-ray specs worked for you Donald ? were you disappointed when you tried to use them on your sexy neighbor only to find out you've wasted your paper route money on a worthless pair of bollocks ?
      teehee

      Joe

      Delete
  9. It's odd how Bigfoot is the only fringe topic where its "skeptics" are more DEMENTED and obsessed than its "believers".

    ReplyDelete
  10. 5:11 you're clueless!!

    Are there any Blonde Bigfoot's in this video that TimberGiant claims to have seen?
    Don't make claims you can't back up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh the hypocrisy. I swear sometimes that I think you must be the biggest troll on the internet- but no, you are just an incredible douche who isn't very bright.

      Delete
    2. dr bullshit...congrats on your 2016 hoaxer of the year award (just edged out squatchmaster) your constant attacking or personal attacks on all other researchers
      has got to stop if you want any kind of following beside the 45 you have now..please if you have any link us to one positive podcast,article or blog about you.....sticks and photoshop o and blue bags.....one word describes you sir..asshole

      MMG

      Delete
    3. MMG is ROBERT DODSON = LOLOLOLOL!!

      Oh it all makes sense now, Mr. Jealous, LOL!!

      I asked a simple question, "Are there any Blonde Bigfoot's in the video??" Anon 7:15 & Robert, your comments should be toward TimberGiant for LYING, Not towardS me, unless of course you're jealous of me.

      YES, 100% I WILL CALL OUT & ATTACK ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE A BIGFOOT RESEARCHER, AND LIES OR HOAXES! IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE, I WILL GLADLY COMPLIMENT THAT RESEARCHER! BUT IF YOU MAKE CLAIMS LIKE:
      1) first I noticed something following on a parallel course
      2) later I saw the individual again that appeared blond as the morning sun illuminated its hair
      3) I heard a grunt down near the river and upon my approach.

      WHERE'S YOUR PROOF LIAR?????? CAMERA WASNT TURNED ON??

      DON'T MAKE CLAIMS YOU CAN'T BACK UP!

      Delete
    4. I do like your channel Dr Squatch, you're very knowledgeable on the subject and nice enough to answer questions, made me research the Ohiopile some, thanks again

      Delete
    5. Thank you Rumferlife, I only want to help others, and prove the species.

      Delete
    6. See folks, a real researcher, shares what he sees and answers questions

      Delete
    7. Every question I will answer.

      I posted on TimberGiants site "Does the video show a Blonde Bigfoot, as you claim?"
      No response.

      Delete
    8. "Dr." Squatch posts videos of bushes and trees on youtube. If he thinks there are monsters in the video blobs that's fine, but his arrogance about it is a bit much.

      Delete
    9. DS it the originator of the blue bag theory of Bigfooting. That is the trash that is layed out before you is not just discarded rubbish but also an elaborate signaling system of Bigfoot, at least where DS is. These Bigfoot favor blue bags. That's some genius thinking isn't it?

      Delete
    10. Dr Squatch is an expert and is backed by Iktomi. Iktomi has always sided with Dr Squatch.

      http://dogmanevidence.blogspot.com/2016/06/confirmation-video-by-1-in-bigfoot.html

      Delete
    11. Iktomi doesn't back his "research". Even he knows to not go down that rabbit hole.

      Delete
    12. 11:40, It's not arrogance, it's 100% confidence! See i'm 100% confident you're an idiot if you think any of my pics are bushes and trees, prove it, or your an idiot!

      11:58, Yep, i'm the originator of the blue bags, and had researchers from all over the united States contact me, and saw the same thing, several saw TIED bags while crawling through thick brush....yep, genius thinking, thanks.

      12:21 Of course Iktomi knows i'm legit...Anyone who doesn't back my research is out of their minds!
      I'm constantly challenging skeptics to prove me wrong! Which one of my hundreds of pics is of a bush?? I want to delete that pic ASAP if it is!! I want nothing but the Truth!

      Delete
    13. So prove to us that all these supposed creatures are real. The burden of proof is squarely on you. You asking someone to prove that they *aren't* real is quite ridiculous. I would have a little more respect for you if you admitted that you can't prove anything with your videos, but no you're the best "researcher" because you say so.

      If Iktomi actually thinks your videos show what you report, have him say so. Him being friendly to you doesn't mean anything.

      Delete
    14. My creatures blink, so i know it's not an inanimate object.

      Iktomi, can you please make 4:10 happy.

      Delete
    15. The only thing to make 4:10 happy is some meds and a lobotomy

      Delete
  11. "You can never fool these beings. So true. They invade memories, dream weave, manipulate light & time. Difficult to wrap your mind around what they do and what they are."

    Michael Merchant commenting on Utah Sasquatch's latest video. Has he really jumped the shark?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael Merchant is a very smart man, but he has lost his goddamn mind. Again, good dude, but his channel is dying and he hitches onto anyone who is "popular" in the Bigfoot world.

      Delete
    2. says the antichristian vegas

      Delete
    3. He just likes to fight, Dr Matt Johnson for God's sake

      Delete
  12. Footers getting blown the fu ck out left right and centre. Joe, dr johnson, merchant, timbergiant, vegas, its an absolute blood bath and its fu cking hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll never be anything more than a loony cheerleader trying to aggravate cleverer people on the Internet.

      Reality check.

      Delete
  13. you guys are killing me today. Thanks for the entertainment!

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you are going to yammer about blonde bigfoot give us a picture of a blonde bigfoot!

    Blonde Bigfoot and his buddies in extreme closeup in Florida:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/gx07za4q2heanqo/albino%20-%20highlighted.png?dl=0

    I'll make a zoom clip of these guys in the next few days.

    And my latest Yowie video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yno9f1Lc0J0

    My apology for any exploded blood vessels or myocardial infarction induced by these images.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh great, another tree humping shadow chaser. The Bigfoot community certainly needs more.

      Delete
    2. I've got footage that looks like a yowie humping a tree if you would like me to trot that out for you.

      Delete
    3. I'm sure it would be just as fantastic as your previous examples.

      Delete
    4. The needle is starting to move on the BF subject, more imagery is coming into the public view. Perceptions are slowly changing.

      I'm sorry for those who let pedantry and narrow-mindedness prevents them from being part of it.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, narrow mindedness, that's why no pictures of bigfoot ever have a bigfoot in them. If only I wasn't so narrow minded I too could look at a picture of trees and see all the awesome bigfoots in it.

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

      Delete
    7. ^^ Sorry, that is a guy in a costume.

      Delete
    8. Proportion defying costumes everywhere, yet nowhere.

      Delete
  15. Replies
    1. I see you still have the Shribes.

      Delete
    2. I see you can.F off Dface! We're almost there..

      Delete