Wednesday, June 15, 2016

RMSO Returns To Bigfoot Location To Capture Proof


From the Rocky Mountains Sasquatch Organization youtube channel:
Bigfoot Expedition Dry Fork Follow up

After finding bipedal tracks in the snow along with two bedding spots full of hair, we head back to Dry Fork six weeks later to camp and look around.

98 comments:

  1. Joerg my face and call me daddy!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OHHHHHH MYYYYYYYY JOERGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK KELLY SHAW!!!!

      Delete
    3. BREAKING ...

      Researcher LA Marzulli states the following
      concerning Sasquatch DNA:

      “Sasquatch is definitely Nephilim, we have hair samples that are being tested right now (April 2016), in two different labs, they have a language, they can materialize and dematerialize, we have had many accounts of that”

      https://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk

      Bigfoot = Nephilim ........ ?

      Really ?

      Oh,my.

      Delete
    4. ^ My guess is that Joe needs to rely on others to tell him what is credible as he`s just too limited in vision to deduce for himself.

      Delete
    5. That's ok... You have your hundreds year old culture hopping conspiracy theory as an argument against that. At least yours is logical, right?

      Delete
    6. ^ I thought that would bring you out,heh heh.

      So,the tribes-peoples are wrong ? confused ?
      backwards ? primitive in belief ?

      You are quite happy to use the generations old stories the tribes-people relate as to the reality of bigfoot yet are unprepared to give them credence for their explanations as to what bigfoot actually is...don`t you think they ought to be given a little credit especially as "whitey" hasn`t had a sniff through all the years of researching by thousands of people with all the modern technology they have ? Then there are the researchers who after years and years of conventional ideas become convinced there is another "dimension" to the phenomenon.

      Delete
    7. 7.44... But according to you, everyone is telling us that Sasquatch isn't credible? Do you ever make any sense? Why do I stoop so low as to interact with this adolescent nerds? So many questions... So many...

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

      Delete
    9. Native people's have attributed paranormal abilities to a creature that evades as well as it can. Modern European people have done exactly the same. What you should be focussed on, is there physical evidence that both cultures have acknowledged for thousands of years. One of the native names for this creature is Shoonshoonootr, one of the few native words to literally translate as “big foot”?

      Apart from your usual method of putting words in people's mouths and your terrible attempts at writing English, I couldn't understand the rest of your comment.

      Delete
    10. Okay, I'll stay "focussed" on "there" physical evidence and also take English lessons from you!

      Delete
    11. No, you'll no doubt remain focussed on anything other than the arguments you're so hopelessly out of your depth over. Oh... And for all the technological advances in the 50 years that amateur researchers have plugged away without a consorted professional effort... We have audio, thermal, footage, all the things you rhetorically cry aren't there.

      Delete
    12. Andy White to Joe: "Frankly your ideas sound like a bunch of nonsense to me, and not really worth responding to."

      Delete
    13. If I may interject here I might add that all the audio, thermal, footage, DNA, hair - all the things you readily cite as "evidence" are not without dispute. All this so-called evidence - where has it gotten you? What has advanced towards proving Bigfoot actually exists since the PG film? Why has there not been a consorted professional effort? Well, according to you it has. You regularly list all the professionals who support the belief in Bigfoot's existence. Why have these astute souls not banded together and presented ALL the best of this evidence in proper scientific channels? Could it be that once it does attract the attention of the scientific community as a whole the "evidence" would be summarily examined and dismissed as it had in the Ketchum fiasco?

      Delete
    14. 9:21, thanks for that quote. Made me laugh. Not sure if I have seen that before. Joe beign told off by Andy White is funny as heck.

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

      Delete
    15. "Joe, I see you've been proclaiming some sort of "victory over Andy White" on your Bigfoot forum. I'm not sure if there was some sort of question you expected me to answer? Frankly your ideas sound like a bunch of nonsense to me, and not really worth responding to. If you have something to say to me, please say it where I'll actually be sure to see it. Otherwise what's the point?"

      LOL, too funny.

      Delete
    16. 8:18 is hardly capable of providing an example of the English language to the rest of us.

      He`s the most consistent mis-speller here but attributes this to "typo`s".Well,for somebody lecturing on spelling etc he is rather a little careless with his key strokes.Much like his garnering of so called bigfoot evidence.

      Delete
    17. Joe, I can't believe that in the same comment where you were lecturing another poster on proper English language usage, you wrote the following sentence:

      "What you should be focussed on, is there physical evidence that both cultures have acknowledged for thousands of years."

      You always are a great source of irony.

      Delete
    18. 9.03 ...

      You`re an idiot of psychological complexity that a psychiatrist would pay handsomely to examine.

      Delete
    19. "You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation)."
      - Andy White

      "If I may interject here I might add that all the audio, thermal, footage, DNA, hair - all the things you readily cite as "evidence" are not without dispute."
      ... Sounds like Mr Curious' tiring perspective. Dispute is fine, science requires absolutes... Just ask "dmaker". The experts I cite have all been provided evidence from amateur researchers. A consorted effort would entail that which finally documented the Bili Ape by primatologists; an entire year. That type of research requires professionals that are conducting such research within their current careers, and therefore have the required funding, etc. For all your quotation marks, why is it so hard to bunch the evidence is reference in the Ketchum Fiasco?

      Sorry Donald, I haven't read the AW comment section lately, but does "Frankly your ideas sound like a bunch of nonsense to me, and not really worth responding to." really get around to demonstrating the ideas Joe posted are bunk? I personally love Andy's work, I enjoy his blog and it appears there's been efforts by trolls around here to sh*t stir a little, but the facts are that nothing has come Joe's way as a response to the points presented. You remind me of a little kid wimp who hides in the back and sh*t stirs... You can tell Andy from me he's cool.

      10:21... You're meant to put a space immediately after full stops and commas, by the way.

      Donald... Didn't you used to spell your name without capitals?

      Delete
    20. 10:32... Only one of us have real psychologists analysing our behaviour;

      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

      Delete
    21. I'd say that it's notable when someone with a PhD in Anthropology reads your confused and incoherent mess and replies with, "Frankly your ideas sound like a bunch of nonsense to me, and not really worth responding to." Your wacky ideas don't even pass the laugh test!

      Delete
    22. I'd say it's notable when someone with a PhD in anthropology agrees with me about 7-7.5 foot tall skeletons being found in the US. It's pretty much a slam dunk of epic proportions. Now that passes the laugh test. Maybe you can fill the gap with regards to Joe's comments that required a response?

      Delete
    23. Hmm, let's see. On the one hand we have a PhD in Anthropology and on the other hand we have an anonymous loud mouthed moron on an obscure blog.

      Tough call.....

      Delete
    24. "Frankly your ideas sound like a bunch of nonsense to me, and not really worth responding to."

      Andy White, PhD Anthroplogy

      Delete
    25. Andy White looks like a cute bloke! Do you think he'd fancy a shag with me ?

      Joe

      Delete
    26. Good catch lktomi - Anon 9:21 was indeed me and in my haste to get that post off during my lunch I omitted using the usual name. My apologies.

      Now I know you tried answering that question and I realize you are sick of hearing it but the fact remains that evidence for Bigfoot's existence is being ignored because it is not pushed forward in proper channels by all these professionals as a whole. If the evidence is that strong why does this not happen? I'm sure the media would pick up on a major news release by so many experts attaching their names to it. All I continue to see is dated examples by one or two in their various fields. Instead of wasting funds for such things as a blimp and every amateur's pet project why not start a Kickstarter campaign to support these professionals in getting this evidence to the mainstream?

      Delete
    27. ^ Remember the latest bigfoot news -

      Bigfoot is really one of the Nephilim - materialising from afar - the planet Nibiru,no less,home of the Hairy-One.

      Here`s what LA Maruzilli states - he said the following concerning Sasquatch DNA:

      “Sasquatch is definitely Nephilim, we have hair samples that are being tested right now (April 2016), in two different labs, they have a language, they can materialize and dematerialize, we have had many accounts of that”

      Endorsed by Scott Carpenter (Joe`s preferred hero and oft quoted bigfoot source )

      https://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk


      Gee - that`s really shocking news.

      Delete
    28. Mr Curious, I know your comments well because I look forward to them really. The reasons why the evidence isn't chased up by mainstream scientists are;
      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.

      Delete
    29. Here's your "slam dunk":

      "So sorry, but those reports don’t cut it. First of all, the reason that reports of giants generally ended around 1920 is that professional archaeology started around then as a discipline. Before then, the “excavators,” more appropriately called looters, who dug up mounds and reported to the Bureau lacked academic training and were totally untrustworthy either to measure skeletons (which is no easy task) or to infer living height from those skeletons. Nor could they be trusted to report accurately or even truthfully, since they often were making money from the sale or display of what they unearthed. Powell was constantly riding herd on what he knew was malarkey."


      http://portcitiesreview.com/lincolns-mystery-mound-tour-by-geoffrey-sea/

      Delete
    30. Your source is obliterated with a 7 foot skeleton found in a mound in the 1950's, referenced here;
      https://rephaim23.wordpress.com

      ... Oh, and I'll take a PhD's opinion in Andy White. Surely you're not going to cherry pick what he has to say?

      Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    31. I guess you don't know what the word "generally" means. Geoffrey Sea has a PhD from Harvard and has studied the history of the Smithsonian in extremely close detail. Andy White has a PhD in anthropology and I trust him on that subject when he says that, "Frankly your ideas sound like a bunch of nonsense to me, and not really worth responding to."

      Delete
    32. Geoffrey Sea has a PhD from Harvard and has studied the history of the Smithsonian in "extremely close detail", and he gets obliterated with one link to a archeological study from the 1950's, with photos, of a 7 foot Adena skeleton. I guess his total lack of qualifications to pass judgement on archeological and athropological matters means he messed up royally.

      "You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation)."
      - Andy White

      Delete
    33. You didn't look up the word "generally" or else you didn't read Sea's statement carefully: ". . .the reason that reports of giants GENERALLY (my emphasis added) ended around 1920 . . ."

      You might want to take a few minutes before responding emotionally and carefully read comments to avoid appearing like a complete buffoon! Although I guess I shouldn't expect much more from someone whose "ideas sound like a bunch of nonsense" according to Andy White!

      Delete
    34. Okay lktomi I read what you posted and this "Forever War" of debate between skeptics and believers could continue forever. I have resigned myself to believing Bigfoot does not exist (as you have heard many times before) after much reading of what is presented over many years. The general public mainly makes it's decision (pro or con)in a short time based on shows like Finding Bigfoot or the occasional documentary.

      What I would love to see is a show where you get a panel of your best pro-Bigfoot professionals sitting across from skeptical professionals in the same field. Let the pro-Bigfoot group present their best evidence and then the skeptical group could respond and it would continue from there. The evidence would be known before hand to allow the skeptical group time to study it and you could even have a phone vote to gauge who had the best argument. This would give both groups national exposure and surely would be a step above some of the mindless stuff dealing with Bigfoot on TV now. If the money offered for such was attractive I would think both sides would jump at the opportunity. Just having the national exposure would be attractive enough for some.

      It's unlikely it will ever happen - not entertaining enough and the people might actually learn something.

      Delete
    35. I agree with you Curious. Regardless of one's opinion on the matter, the debate gets old. I think I'll wait to come back until Sykes releases something new. Cheerio!

      Delete
    36. 1:50... In the link provided, there is a 7.2 Adena skeleton found from the 1950's. Someone please explain to this numpty the profound relevance of that? Oh... And in all your funny projection, Andy White agrees with me.

      Mr Curious... That would be amazing. Do you think there's a way we could get the ball in motion??

      Delete
    37. Oh I'd be happy to discuss Adena with you another time, but you seem to be admitting that, as the learned Mr. Sea has conclusively determined, the Smithsonisn reports are total crap. You only want to focus on reports post-1920 and I'll be happy to oblige when I return! So at least we've made some progress!

      Delete
    38. Mr Sea isn't qualified in matters of archeology or anthropology... And his entire argument got obliterated by a study of a 7.2 Adena skeletal from the 1950's. Let's not pretend you're remotely clever enough to "discuss Adena" with me... You're blithering like a desperate idiot. I can't believe that you appear to need pointing this out, but if there is 150 years worth of the same type of skeleton documented, the fact that this is shown to be factual with actual photographs in the 1950's does nothing but substantiate those documented remains.

      Where have all the adults gone?

      Delete
    39. Yawn. More drivel. Zero bigfoots.

      Delete
    40. Zero evidence of a hundreds year old, culture hopping conspiracy.

      : (

      Delete
    41. Damn! Iktomi/Joe BLOWN OUT by Andy White, Ph.D., who dismisses the bizarre Bigfoot theories as nonsense!

      Iktomi, I know you regularly try to cite Andy White, Ph.D., so how do you respond to him gaping you this hard? What is he getting wrong?

      Delete
    42. Drunk again, AC? It's simple... When Andy White actually addresses the points posed about "Bigfoot", and presents a u-turn stance about 7.5 foot tall skeletons, ask Joe again.

      Delete
    43. Iktomi, I will ask you politely. Please read the comments that Andy White posted on his blog. He was having a respectful back and forth with believers. One of them made a point of asking about all the evidence in favor of Bigfoot. This was his response:

      "Every case that I've looked at so far (whether a claim for a giant, or bigfoot, or both) has turned out to be based on misinformation, misidentification, or some kind of fraud/hoax. It is easy to make mistakes when you're not trained in human and animal skeletal anatomy - people have been interpreting animal remains as the remains of giants for hundreds if not thousands of years."

      What does Andy White have wrong? Why isn't he, an anthropologist, able to evaluate the evidence as well as you, an anonymous blog commenter?

      Delete
    44. Around the same time as that discussion, Joe came here and proclaimed:

      "You noticed Joe ripping Andy a new one then?"

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2015/05/does-anyone-know-what-is-attacking-this.html?m=1

      Classy Joe.

      Delete
    45. Andy White, like most people naive to the current state of evidence assumes "Bigfoot" is a non-human primate. The whole fundamental argument of that blog article revolves around this very fundamentally flawed assumption, and this is why he argues that the Humbolt skull isn't from a "Bigfoot" and that the information about remains of this nature are "misinformed". If you have a preconception of "Bigfoot" being an ape and not an archaic human, then his approach is at least understood. The humbolt skull when attached to a living body would have belonged to an archaic version of us, which is what Sasquatch are. The parts of Daniel Dover's work (the subject of scrutiny in that article) that are relevant are the parts that Andy White agrees with... That the morphology is akin to that of prehistoric peoples, and the occipital bun is not seen in any known example of modern human. AGAIN; the PHD agrees with me, that the skull is prehistoric in morphological detail and is lacking a comparison of occipital bun. It's really not my fault that Andy adheres to the fairy tail monkey avenue that tainted his premise from the offset.

      I will politely conclude my answer with my own question. Do you honestly... Honesty read the comments of other people? A genuine question. I have posted the following quote, a direct quote from Andy White in this very thread of comments, a few times now. Here goes again...
      "You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation)."
      - Andy White

      The significance of this quote, is very profound.

      Delete
    46. The significance only matters to people like you, Joe, who proclaim sasquatch is human.

      Delete
    47. There is nothing in the anatomy of Sasquatch, that cannot be attributed to humans across our lineage.

      See you all tomorrow!!

      Delete
    48. It has been a pleasure watching Joe get blown the f#ck out today. I mean epicly!! Andy White tells Joe off, which is halarious, and then he comes here and gets destroyed again. So much so that he now is referring to himself in the 3rd person. This is your worst meltdown in quite a while Joey. I especially loved the part where Andy White told you, that you were an idiot. AHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    49. To be fair, Andy White addressed the prospects of Sasquatch being an archaic hominid in those very same comments, Iktomi. He asked you (I'm assuming you are Joe, if not I apologize) about the fossil record. If Bigfoots are really just large humans, where are the records of their encampments? Their tools? Why have they, beyond all other native tribes, be so adept at hiding their lodgings, burial sites, artifacts? Andy White concludes that such theories are "nonsense".

      You harp about remains of people 7ft tall. We have humans who are that tall - Shaq, Pro Wrestler The Big Show, etc. I don't see why you seem so obsessed with tall skeletons. Even if real (and while there are some legit examples, as White as documented many are the result of crackpots, goons, and comment taking advantage of the gullible before the advent of modern anthropology and archaeology) tall individuals do not an undiscovered class of ape-men make.

      I know that you fancy yourself a dispassionate observer of Bigfoot evidence. But the problem is that every time serious individuals outside the inner circle of footery take a look at the so-called evidence, it comes up wanting.

      So what is it? Is Bigfoot a giant gorilla figure like in the PG film? Or a Homo sapiens creature? If human, how can PG be covered with fur? Or are there human Bigfoots and ape Bigfoots and n'er the twain shall meet?

      I'm sorry if it seems like commenters having been piling on you today - i know it's got to be tough when a PhD in the field you express amateur interest in calls out your favorite pet theories as rubbish, but that's science - sometimes you don't get the results you want.

      Delete
    50. "To be fair, Andy White addressed the prospects of Sasquatch being an archaic hominid in those very same comments, Iktomi. He asked you (I'm assuming you are Joe, if not I apologize) about the fossil record."

      ... Here goes again...

      "You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation)."
      - Andy White

      There is 150 years worth of large human skeletal remains found by three generations of archieologists and anthropologists. If you take be Cherokee for example, they have very rich oral histories of sharing burial mounds with "large hairy tribes". There's a very famous sigtings reports from John Bindenagle that references a very archaic human type Sasquatch using a stick (a tool) to kill ducks. There are hundreds of years of reports of Sasquatch using heavy clubs, whilst David Claerr has put together a recent book about stone tools being found on a research site in Texas.

      "In Monday’s 4:30 PM late dispatch from the Ventura County Sheriff’s department, via the Ventura County Star, authorities still were not able to locate the alleged "chimpanzee" seen with a club in his hand in a Thousand Oaks backyard. By late afternoon, there were no more sightings of the chimpanzee."
      http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/chimpupdate/

      a so called "list of experts outside my inner circle" means little. If there's scientific evidence that not one from outside that "inner circle" can explain away, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority.

      Delete
    51. Here's a little link to remind you of the gorilla type's, Patty's very human traits;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/dr-jeffrey-meldrum-removes-myth-out-of.html?m=0

      Oh, there's this;
      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-06Q66YaU1hc/UaedBDY7fZI/AAAAAAAAF7Q/NBuj57LXxHA/s1600/Transformation.jpg

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p5MXz1az1RQ/UaedStXls5I/AAAAAAAAF7Y/vD7eG9KAKqU/s1600/Harvey1.jpg

      Unfortunately, a gazillion comments are fine by me... It's quality that's important and if PhD opts to call Joe's ideas "nonsense" as opposed to addressing them, whilst categorically agreeing with him that there are 7-7.5foot tall human remains found in the US, I don't think you'd be so keen to convince someone that's somehow detrimental. Sasquatch reports are most commenly in the 7-8 foot range. This is what people report and have reported for a very long time. In the McClarin size comparison for example, he is not only walking away slightly in a different direction that Patty took, making him look taller, but he's also 6.5... If he was walking the same route as Patty, she may have been several inches taller than him and placing her in region of 7 foot. There is also very reliable data that can be attained from decades of physical evidence from track impressions with regards to stride length.

      Any ways! Like is said, pile it on by all means... It's quality, not quantity old boy.

      : )

      Delete
    52. "The height average for the sampled population is 7’ 10", derived from a combination of eye witness estimates and scaling from footprints."
      http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=585

      For further reading on this;
      "Measurements and estimates on Sasquatch dimensions, collected over the last 40 years in the Western U.S and Canada, were subjected to statistical analysis and extrapolation by scaling laws appropriate to primates and mammals. The study has yielded average population values for foot length and width, scaling factors of foot length to height, values for weight, plantar pressure, walking and running gait, speed, and a tentative growth curve as a function of time for the female of the species. The results suggest a substantial population with traits different from those of other higher primates and humans."
      http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbacharticle.htm

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. My Joerg pops, My Joerg pops.
      Suck on my asian Joerg pops. My Joerg pops.


      Ohhhhhhh Myyyyyyy Keneshiwaaaaaa Joerggggg!!!!

      Delete
    2. Ahs a leanin` on a lamppost
      at the corner of the street,
      in case a certain piece of brownness goes by,
      Ohhh meeee ,ohhh myyyyyy,
      I like to lick a little round "brown" eye.

      Joerg Fondleby

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Me so Joergy. Uh Uh. Me so Joergy. Me love you long time.

      OHHHHHH MYYYYYYY JOERGGGGG!!!!!!!

      Delete
  4. Congratulations on the no Bigfoot, Kelly Shaw!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congratulations on being here daily 4:18.

      Delete
    2. The one not here (or anywhere) is Bigfoot. Unless you're talking about the psychological phenomenon of Bigfoot.

      Delete
    3. "Bigfoot" is in the physical evidence you blither around explaining away. It's one heck of an education in psychology, watching a troll in his daily denial.

      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

      Delete
    4. You can fault all the BOGUS researchers featured on this site for the lack of evidence!

      Delete
    5. Are you suggesting that Kelly Shaw is a BOGUS researcher? How - HOW DARE YOU!

      Delete
    6. Iktomi,you certainly provide plenty of material on which to study. And no, I'm not talking about Bigfoot.

      Delete
    7. You point your camera towards bushes and let the youtube crazies and trolls pick out the monsters they see.

      Delete
    8. Are you suggesting that Robert Dodson is a bogus researcher? How - HOW DARE YOU!

      Delete
    9. What are you talking about 2:47??????
      I have a team, and we all go through the footage...there isn't a person on the planet that can spot these creatures like we can!

      Delete
  5. Rocky...Mountain...Sasquatch...Or...ga...ni...za...tion.

    Whew! Got it out safely again!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen a major language accident before, it wasn't pretty. Dangling participles (see how i left out that bait for Joe?), improper pronouns and sentences ended with a preposition.

      Carnage.

      Delete
    2. ^ Please wait while Joe fumbles through his dictionary for your meaning.

      Understanding will take a bit longer.

      Delete
    3. 10:02... You're meant to use a capital "I" when referring to oneself.

      Delete
    4. ^ working hypocrite in action

      Delete
  6. Seriously though, kids: that's an hour of nothing but people telling us what they are doing.

    And the food looked AWFUL. Is American chicken soup actually that pustule yellow?
    In fact that would keep any hairy or hairless bipedal primate miles out of the stink zone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Remember the breaking news -

    Bigfoot = Nephilim - endorsed by Scott Carpenter who is revered by the blogs very own JoeTomi.

    LA Marzulli said the following concerning Sasquatch DNA: “Sasquatch is definitely Nephilim, we have hair samples that are being tested right now (April 2016), in two different labs, they have a language, they can materialize and dematerialize, we have had many accounts of that”

    https://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk


    Wow - bigfoot research has come a long way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."
    And keeping most of humanity in the existence of Nephilim is just another page in his playbook. Why else would these beings called BF cringe physically when you pray or recite scripture at them? Yes, I know blah blah it falls on deaf ears here, but one day it will bear out and then what will the skeptics here do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iktomi told sr1 to chill. She is sounding like a wacko.

      Delete
    2. There isn't any proof to what you claim Stonereader1....I've said out loud to them "Do you know JESUS, SON OF THE LIVING GOD?"...AND I GOT NO RESPONSE.

      No one can claim BF are Nephilim, we don't have Nephilim DNA....HELLO???

      Delete
    3. Shouldn't you be adjusting more spines than worrying about Bigfoot, "doctor"?

      Delete
    4. ^ bonelicker1 is just a sock puppet iktomi account....

      Delete
    5. Of course you got no response. Blue plastic bags cannot speak.

      Delete
    6. Donald... You're just a big fat bully.

      Delete
    7. Oh come on Iktomi, the guy is an absolute loon- and an arrogant ahole on top of that.

      Delete
    8. More of that crazy Nephilim talk please - I love that stuff!

      Delete
    9. Tell me footers aren't all cringing every time DS says something.

      Delete
    10. I'm not on here enough to check/respond, but IKTOMI, please email me if there is a question toward me, and I did not respond.
      Happy now Douchebag maker.

      Delete
  9. EET GUD YOOOO NOOWS HOWE GUD MEE NUUT SAZ

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm still trying to get my mind around eating animals raw.

    Here Og! Have a deer leg! Nom nom nom nom nom..

    I'm thinking give these guys a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken and they will probably follow you out of the bush and get in the backseat of your car 'cause who wants to eat a raw squirrel?

    ReplyDelete