Friday, June 24, 2016

"Mystery Animal" Vandalizes Cameras At Bluff Creek


The Bluff Creek Project, an ongoing study of wildlife through the use of trail cameras at the historic site of the Patterson film, has ran into a strange problem. Something is vandalizing the cameras. They're also finding strange tracks in the area. You don't think it could be...?

At the trailhead we had some lunch before we headed out. We were unarmed as usual and had only walking sticks and bear spray. The trail to the camera location was greatly overgrown and was lost easily. Right away we noticed large track impressions on the trail that we had assumed to be from bears. The mud on the trail had hardened and the animal that made the tracks did so in the mud as the impressions were deep in the dry ground and our footfalls only produced compression of the grasses, which leads me to believe that the trackmaker was there at least a week before when it was raining. The tracks were indistinct and only a few registered, the width was about six inches at the ball of the foot and about four inches wide at the heel. None of the tracks that I saw had any clear indication of toes. Some of the better registered tracks measured over 15 inches in length dwarfing my size 12 heeled logging boots with no obvious indications of a composite register or "one track on the other one". I had assumed that there were bear tracks at the time as bears are common in the area. I didn't think much of them at the time and proceeded to check the trail cameras. This is where things got interesting.

For the full article with lots of photos, click here. 

79 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Don't worry, at least "dmaker" loves you.

      Delete
    2. ^ wonder who`s loving you?

      anonymous cubicle visitors eh?

      Delete
    3. UK is out of the EU
      well done ol chap : )

      Delete
    4. ^ what do you tossers care, you separated over 200 years ago and have been a hot mess every since !


      Rule Britannia !

      Joe

      Delete
    5. ^ " a hot mess every since" ?

      Try taking your time (and not letting your anger befuddle your brain) and making sense when stringing a few words together , you idiot.

      Delete
    6. ^ please do us all a favor and go sod off you pithy wanker

      Joe

      Delete
    7. Good show Trump you are
      SPOT ON...

      Delete
  2. The hoaxers left bluff creek in 67 and never went back. Nothing there. Bigfoot dont exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roger Patterson tried rallying a research project but passed away.

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    2. Congratulations to the UK.

      MMC

      Delete
    3. ...Regardless of what really took place in October 67, Roger was a genuine proponent..In addition to what Iktomi said, Roger was involved with the investigation of the Cripple Foot tracks..Bigfoots were living, breathing winning lotto tickets to Roger...

      Delete
    4. Why ask got monkey suit? Why would anyone here have Pattersons costume? That's a ridiculous expectation.

      I don't have the suit used in Godzilla movies, either. Does that make Godzilla real?

      Delete
    5. "I don't have the suit used in Godzilla movies, either. Does that make Godzilla real?"

      Yes.

      - Iktomi

      Delete
    6. If you claim that the subject in the PGF is inorganic, then that is your burden.

      Delete
    7. Yeah, Patty was "inorganic" like a freaking rock! Sometimes I think you are being purposely stupid.

      Delete
    8. "An inorganic compound is a compound that is not organic. The term is not well defined, but in its simplest definition refers simply to compounds that do not contain carbon, and not consisting of or deriving from living matter."

      ... Like a costume. Chop! Chop! Go get a monkey suit!!

      Delete
    9. 9:15 is emphatically wrong - the burden of proof rests upon your puny shoulders - thus far this weight has merely proven your fragility on mind.

      Delete
    10. In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. 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.

      Delete
    11. FFS! Why "Got Monkey Suit" well that's simple, to this day no one can replicate it, even CGI falls short...What ever is in the PG video is a real creature! that's why.FFS!

      Delete
    12. So you're claiming that skeptics must prove that "the subject in the PGF" was wearing an "inorganic" costume worn by some type of "inorganic" entity such as a metal robot? You're pretty funny sometimes!

      Delete
    13. FFS! No little guy but keep trying FFS!

      Delete
    14. 10:31... A ten year old would be able to understand it. Ok, let's try this. A simple question...

      If the subject in the PGF isn't a "Bigfoot", what is it?

      Delete
    15. 10:14 - "Man" cannot return to the moon because it doesn`t currently have the facility to get there and we`re told the "blueprints" for the Apollo craft were accidentally destroyed - are you saying that because the Apollo modules cannot be replicated they didn`t go?

      Delete
    16. 10:31, where have run off too? Is it the realisation that you're in idiot?

      Delete
    17. You just called someone an idiot after typing the sentence, "where have run off too"!

      Delete
    18. How about answering the question?

      : )

      Delete
    19. That's right... Now, got monkey suit?

      Delete
    20. According to you, the only other option is that it was something "inorganic," so maybe it was one of those rock creatures from that old Star Trek episode!

      Delete
    21. And with that, I think I've made my point.

      Delete
    22. I'm just attempting to satisfy the "burden" that you established for me: "If you claim that the subject in the PGF is inorganic, then that is your burden."

      I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't! =~(

      Delete
    23. ...Hi Iktomi...and sparring partners..

      Delete
    24. Got the toy submarine and dinosaur head from the Loch Ness surgeons photo? No? There you go folks. Nessie is real.... Stupid ass logic homie.

      Delete
  3. There are way too many attention whore hoaxers in the bigfoot community to guess which one is messing with the bluff creek project's trail cameras. My money's on Johnson or one of his minions getting revenge for the bluff creek boys finding soha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doc Jonson is a strait up weirdo! Him and Kelly " you know what I saw" Shaw can be drinking buddies since they are both washed up!

      Delete
  4. I'm going out on a limb and say it was a mysterious bear that messed with the game cam!

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

    ReplyDelete
  6. Again, out of all the controversial subjects in the world, these hardliners choose Bigfoot? Nah, I don't believe it. These are people who did believe or do believe. It's one or the other. Nobody is sitting at home thinking "I'm going to give those Bigfoot believers a piece of my mind, who do they think they are believing in Bigfoot?".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vegas the topic is not a contraversial one. There is no contraversy in science whether bigfoot exists. It does not.

      The topic however is fascinating (not to mention hilarious).

      I mean come on... people believing there are a species of technology avoiding 9 foot apes running around. Its brilliant.

      Delete
    2. Your mastery of the English language is pretty brilliant and fascinating as well(not to mention hilarious).

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

      Delete
    4. I can barely make sense of that rambling gibberish.

      Delete
    5. Sorry kid, science has been used to verify a list of evidences that points to a creature with the same widely reported anatomy leaving its sign on the environment of the US. The data extrapolated from that evidence over a 40 year period, gives the creature leaving that evidence an average height of 7.5 feet tall.

      You're not fooling anyone, you're a scared little cyber Nazi.

      Delete
    6. Exaxtly, it's not even controversial. Yet here you are. The people who believe are hilarious excuse? Cat videos are hilarious. People who believe in something that can't be 100% debunked, is interesting. You are here for the subject, not its believers.

      Hey Iktom! Hope all is well.

      Delete
    7. "Read an introductory textbook on North American archaeology and tell me where in the thousands of years of prehistory that we know about you can spot the Bigfoot people."

      Andy White, PhD Anthropology

      Delete
    8. http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/bigfoot-researchers-still-insist-native-american-skull-is-not-human

      Delete
    9. In one comment, you wrote, "Now I know I am lacking in an archeological record for these ideas." And later in the same comment you wrote, "I'm pretty sure theists never had archeological data to prop up their ideas."

      You can't even get your own nutty idea straight. What a sloppy mess you are!

      Delete
    10. Hanging on Iktomis every word.^

      Delete
    11. Sorry... I think Joe was referring to an archeological record for a temperamental relationship between "tall hairy tribes" and native Americans, but there is an anthropological a one. The latter comment was in reference to their being an archeological record for the existence of a subspecies of early Homo sapiens in the US, period, which is what Joe is theorising Sasquatch are.

      When you're trying to misinform, you do realise that anyone can open the link and read for themselves, right? How's about an answer for the question up top?

      Delete
  7. Oh please give it a rest already "Andy White PhD" you are really going out on a limb with that statement. you know as well as everyone else that North American prehistory has not been completely written or completely discovered as of yet it is still being daily written and discovered so to stand on that statement is pure foolishness. Cement heads is a completely fitting label for the people on this blog as they refused to even consider the possibility that at some point there will be a new classification of old signs that have been mislabeled or possibly even new find that will ultimately show that you are Sasquatch bones. keep up the schooling Iktomi. only a fool says never in the realm of possibilities

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is interesting that you are so obsessed with finding some evidence from the past. Its almost like there is no evidence of any bigfoots in the modern day so you are resorting to "old stories".

      If bigfoot exists right now then prove it with an actual bigfoot right now. At that point the past does not matter and you win.

      Delete
    2. You total twat.

      If something like "Bigfoot" exists, it has to be in the anthropological and archeological record. That's what science kind of expects. You are given modern day evidence every day of your life, evidence that as a countering scientific explanation you provide a hundreds year old culture hopping conspiracy theory.

      Delete
    3. Hey IktoJo, evidences is a verb, not a noun.

      Delete
    4. And you spell the first letters of your name with capital letters.

      Delete
    5. 8;33

      but those records aren`t there , are they.

      Delete
    6. https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/

      Delete
    7. Have you started reading an Introduction to North American Archaeology, as suggested by Andy White, PhD?

      Delete
    8. You might want to learn how to write before taking on that task!

      Delete
    9. One day... You might be able to apply your superior writing skills to an originally thought out comment regarding the subject matter. Until then you're just a little troll with a superiority complex.

      Delete
    10. Amazing how Dmaker just pops in there, yeah, he's not anonymous. What a weirdo.

      Delete
    11. I say we put it to a vote as to whether dmaker leaves this blog
      I vote yes.
      I am confident this vote will go our way lads

      Rule Britannia !

      Joe

      Delete
    12. ...and I almost forgot Tiddly Doo !

      Delete
    13. Vegas,

      By that logic there is more proof that Iktomi is Joerg H. in Germany.

      Delete
  8. Is Iktomi a fan of nathan reo the greatest bigfoot researcher in history? I bet he is.
    The amazing proof that Reo or Utah Sasquatch has found is over whelming in scope!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Utah Sasquatch is a hoaxer do not fund his hoaxery

      Delete
  9. FFS! We all know that Neanderthal and human crossed lines and lived together, mated and produced offspring. This went on for thousands of years…. Not all hybrids are infertile, some are viable hybrids :) perhaps that's what we are dealing with. Whatever the case may be, it's not wrong to believe and until it can be proven to be a myth I will :) FFS!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. full figured she-male...is back, must have just had a short stint in the looney bin this time

      Delete
    2. FFS! ^ Wait you were in the LOONY bin? ^ FFS!

      Delete
  10. The problem with the bigfoot field is the modern humans involved.

    Its no wonder they hide from us.

    ReplyDelete