Wednesday, June 1, 2016

The Yeti Is Put To The Test Again


A new show examines the myth of the Yeti, as they try to discover possible DNA samples from various sources to prove once and for all the Yeti exists.

Is there a rational explanation for the legend of the Yeti? Mark Evans and leading international geneticists use cutting-edge DNA analysis to examine the evidence.

109 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. No, zero bigfoots. Try to keep up joe.

      Delete
    2. That's a massive burden to shift there... Words on a blog don't achieve it.

      Delete
    3. YETI a carnivore
      Finding BIGFOOT be on the menu

      Delete
    4. The only thing they had for DNA evidence was from Tibetan Bears, Hymalan Bears etc, no Yeti, total waste of time watching that show

      Delete
    5. The only thing they had for DNA evidence was from Tibetan Bears, Hymalan Bears etc, no Yeti, total waste of time watching that show

      Delete
    6. 3:12 "Plenty found, none caught."

      Pity you`ve no evidence to show that.

      Same shite,

      different day/week/month/year/decade/blah blah blah

      Delete
    7. Iktomi say's sasquatch are homo sapien sapien,,,, So millions have been found and caught!!!

      Delete
    8. find
      fʌɪnd/Submit
      verb
      1.
      discover or perceive by chance or unexpectedly.
      "Lindsey looked up to find Niall watching her"
      synonyms: discover, become aware, realize, observe, notice, note, perceive, learn, detect
      discover after a deliberate search.
      discover or perceive by chance or unexpectedly.
      "Lindsey looked up to find Niall watching her"
      synonyms: discover, become aware, realize, observe, notice, note, perceive, learn, detect More
      discover after a deliberate search.
      "I can't find my keys"
      synonyms: locate, spot, pinpoint, unearth, obtain, detect, put one's finger on;"

      I think you'll find that every time some one reports an encounter with a Sasquatch that has accompanying physical evidence, it falls well within the definition of it being found. If you've seen a dog in your back yard and found trace evidence of it and filmed it, then you merely haven't caught it yet...

      Plenty found;
      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
      ... None caught.

      Delete
    9. You can't find something that doesn't exist.

      Delete
  2. Marc Evans .... Hmmm he did the programme with Brian Sykes and it came to some weird bear DNA ... Bet it's some vague conclusion again

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was bear again. Yeti= Bear

      Delete
    2. ^ Neither was Zana a bigfoot...can`t you get it into your thick skull that Zana has been classified as sub-saharan...just a group or race of people that did exist...unlike the Yeti which has been shown via DNA analysis (remember Sykes,your hero before he let you down so badly) to be related to bear - I`ll say it again for you - B E A R = BEAR.

      Delete
  3. Mark evans once again shattering the dreams of the delusioned. Good work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You watched it 5:18, so please stop pretending you're a skeptic. What you're practicing is called self preservation. You want to believe it exists, but play the skeptic until the real evidence rolls in. That way you are not disappointed, and can still tell everyone how justified your feelings are as a "skeptic". These actions are normally seen in children of single parent families, that feel their opinions were never heard. They play this weird role play game seeking attention.


      Delete
    2. So you admit there is currently no real evidence? Why would you be anything but a skeptic then? Lol

      Delete
    3. I used the word "real" for you, so you understood. Looks like I succeeded.

      Delete
    4. @Vegasthedog
      Your 6:22 post is brilliant. Any real Bigfoot "skeptic" I've known wouldn't waste a minute of their time discussing or even thinking about the subject beyond their initial opinion.

      Delete
    5. Here's Mark Evans' latest work in perspective...

      1. The stuff about Denisovans is years old. Rehashed and presented like it's his own research. I found it interesting however that he appeared to explore the idea that the previously considered timeline for when they shared the planet with us be cut... Kind of like what Sykes is doing with Zana.

      2. Very poorly researched. Nothing of the sort would be at the altitudes he referenced, purely because there is not enough food and cover. Even if there are reports, these are in a stark minority to those in lower jungle altitudes where an unclassified primate would naturally be.

      .. If you like a drab piece of programming that presented no new information or theories and proved NOTHING either way, then this is for the "skeptics" around here. We all know they don't like anything too new.

      Delete
    6. Vegas... That could have been one of the most profound comments I've ever read from you.

      Delete
    7. Joe, you say not enough food or cover, so you therefore dismiss the reports from that altitude? How do you explain them, though?

      Also, it is funny for you to mention food and cover when you think that bigfoot lives on a tiny island in maritime Canada.

      Delete
    8. As long as it fits in with joes fantasy right dmaker?

      Delete
    9. As Meldrum theorised YEARS ago, those altitudes can be used for access from valley to valley.

      COYOTE POLICY FOR PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
      FOOD HABITS
      Although biologically classified as carnivores (meat eaters) coyotes are omniv orous in their eating habits. They will kill and eat live prey, consume dead animals (carrion) and dine on fruit, berries, seeds and grass. A partial list of food items found in coyote stomachs includes – mice, voles, shrews, squirrels, hares, deer, rabbits, skunks, raccoons, muskrats, beavers, grouse, small birds, domestic livestock (often as carrion), poultry, grass, seeds, apples, blueberries and bayberries.
      http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/coyotePOL2003.pdf

      Plenty of food, not to mention the coyotes.

      Delete
    10. So, which is it, Joe? You said nothing of that sort would be at those altitudes. Now you are leaning on Meldrum to explain the reports without including lying by the eye witness. But you are, once again, full of contradictions. One the one hand you scoff and say "nothing of that sort" would ever be at those altitudes, and on the other hand say that they would be as they travel from valley to valley. You want to use the environment at that altitude to make Evans appear foolish, but must reach to an explanation from Meldrum to avoid calling eye witnesses mistaken or liars. That is pretty amusing.

      Cover requirements for a coyote and considerably less than that of a 9 foot, hairy primate.

      Delete
    11. Nargh... Just like yesterday when you were worming for a contradiction in anon mode, there is none. There are plenty of reliable eyewitness reports from Sherpas in those altitudes. But you're as likely to find one of the most elusive creatures on the planet up there as you are a chocolate blimp. Mark Evans did not once explore the idea of them being in lower altitude jungle areas.

      And sorry Donald, throwing something out because it doesn't fit your expectations of something whose existence you don’t even think is credible, isn't very good logic. It means that nothing you claim can be taken as a substantial argument, because your original premise contradicts your methods of moving the goal posts.

      Delete
    12. I've told you before, I don't post in anon mode. Why would I? I am perfectly comfortable with all my comments.

      Delete
    13. Wow, you are just full of contradictions. I guess when you make crap up as you go, it can get tough to keep track.

      Which is it, Joe? "Nothing of the sort would be at the altitudes he referenced...", or "There are plenty of reliable eyewitness reports from Sherpas in those altitudes" Those two statements are not congruent.

      Delete
    14. Oh of course you don't post as anon, I forgot! Here's your answer again, if it's difficult to fathom I hope there's an adult at hand to help;

      "Nargh... Just like yesterday when you were worming for a contradiction in anon mode, there is none. There are plenty of reliable eyewitness reports from Sherpas in those altitudes. But you're as likely to find one of the most elusive creatures on the planet up there as you are a chocolate blimp. Mark Evans did not once explore the idea of them being in lower altitude jungle areas."

      ... Also, what was very misleading about Mark Evans' latest show, was the fact the the word "Yeti" is not exclusive to a bipedal primate. It has over the centuries been applied to all sorts of creatures from that region. Therefore, the Sherpa in that programme maybe referring to a strange type of bear... Another usage for the word "Yeti" over time.

      Delete
    15. "Strange bear"... Meant as being the Sherpa's interpretation of what he saw.

      Delete
    16. You did not address your contradictory statements in any way.

      Delete
    17. What would make the environment at those altitudes more hospitable for a bear, vs a large primate? You seem to think that the fact that the Sherpa may have been referencing a bear means that is quite plausible for a bear to be at those altitudes. How does that differ than a bigfoot type creature? Bigfoot is claimed to share territory and needs with bears in North America regularly.

      Delete
    18. What's the difference? Why are there a million specimens of bear and not Yeti/Sasquatch??

      Come on Don-Donz, some of these answers are painfully obvious.

      Delete
    19. Because there is no such thing as a Yeti/Sasquatch?

      You are fun to watch while you squirm around trying to deal with all of your contradictory statements.

      Blow some more smoke, smart guy.

      Delete
    20. There's is no hold contradictory about the following statements...

      "As Meldrum theorised YEARS ago, those altitudes can be used for access from valley to valley."

      "There are plenty of reliable eyewitness reports from Sherpas in those altitudes. But you're as likely to find one of the most elusive creatures on the planet up there as you are a chocolate blimp. Mark Evans did not once explore the idea of them being in lower altitude jungle areas."

      Delete
    21. No Donald... Because Yeti are far more elusive and therefore require more cover.

      You seem angry?

      Delete
    22. You are correct. There is no contradictions in the two statements you just presented above. But those are not the two statements we are talking about, now is it? That is very sneaky of you. But I really don't expect much more from you. The statements we are talking about are:

      "Nothing of the sort would be at the altitudes he referenced..."

      AND

      "There are plenty of reliable eyewitness reports from Sherpas in those altitudes"

      Delete
    23. I see you have resorted to accusing me of being angry. That is a classic thing you do when you work yourself into a corner and don't know how to get out.

      You really are such a child.

      Delete
    24. It's quite obvious how you ended up in this contradiction. You're not a very bright guy. You can't think far ahead or chain logical thoughts together properly. Most likely because all you ever do is copy and paste the thoughts and comments of others.

      So here we have you trying to do bigfoot spin doctoring by mocking the very idea that the bone would be from a yeti when collected at such heights because Evans is a fool for even thinking anything remotely yeti like would never even be at those heights. Ha ha, what a fool Evans must be. Of course it is going to be bear because yetis simply are not found at those heights.

      But when the reports from those areas are brought up, you find yourself in a predicament, don't you Joey? How do you explain those without calling the eye witnesses liars or mistaken? You can't, so instead you use a statement from Meldrum to prop up those reports. All the while acting like you didn't just ridicule the notion of anyone finding yeti remains in those areas.

      Don't think too hard. You're likely to pass out from exhaustion.

      Delete
    25. Just a troll looking to get a rise out of you, best to just ignore him.

      Delete
    26. "Nothing of the sort would be at the altitudes he reference..."
      ... Basically meaning you'd be a fool to stake out thinking you're going to bag one... Simples. Doesn't mean they haven't accessed those areas, and having the opinion of an anthropologist who has researched primates for decades supporting that is kind of your problem, not mine.

      Sorry your general knowledge is lacking, but if you go back to the Bigfoot Files, you'll notice the same comments here with regards to the the word "Yeti" suiting a wide range taxonomy that deviates from the norm. Those are facts... Oh, and as I remember, the bones that the Sherpa submitted were allegedly that by the hands of the Sherpa, not by natural causes.

      Delete
    27. Don't fight with Iktomi. Against all better judgment he went out into the snow without wearing his tinfoil hat because he thought yetis wouldn't be able to mind blast him the way Bigfoots do. But he was wrong. Yetis can also open portals (whether yeti portals are connected to the same dimension as Bigfoot portals is hotly debated, until we either enter one or one of the creatures tells us via mindspeak we just won't know.). But ever since Iktomi had that infrasound zap in the snow, he's been floundering around with all manner of explanations to justify why, once again, whenever Bigfoot remains are tested in a highly publicized and transparent matter, it always comes up as a known animal. Some researchers surmise that Bigfoots may be able to telekinetic leaky alter their remains to fool DNA tests into recreating bear DNA. They are truly wily creatures.

      Delete
    28. dMaKeRWednesday, June 1, 2016 at 9:51:00 AM PDT
      But when the reports from those areas are brought up, you find yourself in a predicament, don't you Joey?

      ... And on the same comment section...

      AnonymousWednesday, June 1, 2016 at 7:13:00 AM PDT
      I imagine Joe watched this show and had a total meltdown. When are you going to finally face the overwhelming lack of Bigfoot evidence and move on Joey?

      Delete
    29. LOL, so you pile more contradictions onto the existing ones? You may be even more dim than I thought.

      "Nothing of the sort would be at the altitudes he reference..."

      " Doesn't mean they haven't accessed those areas..."

      You fail to see the contradiction? So, if the only "access" those areas, then how does that make it a laughable notion for someone to find remains in those areas? Animals die in transit areas constantly. Remains are found.

      Delete
    30. Oh, is this more evidence of me posting anon? I called you Joey because you called me Don-Donz. If you want to use childish sounding names, then I'll call you Joey.

      Delete
    31. Joe got BLOWN THE FU CK OUT. Absolutely wonderful stuff dmaker.

      Even when proven incorrect with objective facts he still tries to weasle his way out of it instead of being a man and admitting his mistake. Nothing has change.

      Delete
    32. Sorry Donald, I know you're trying twist things literally for lack of genuine argument. However,
      "Nothing of the sort would be at the altitudes he reference..."
      ... Basically meaning you'd be a fool to stake out thinking you're going to bag one. You're also putting words in my mouth, I've never claimed it is "laughable", I've only alluded to there being better grounds for research in jungle areas where he majority of modern reports are, and where an unclassified primate would naturally reside.

      Come on Donald, try harder!

      Delete
    33. Are those goalposts a little heavy for you? So, you go from "nothing of the sort" would be there, to it's not a good place to go look for one?

      And you accuse others of moving goalposts?

      Delete
    34. ^ You obsessed fool.

      Do you have a filing system entitled "contrary posts" in your bedroom or something?

      WHO in their right mind accesses old posts?

      And seemingly is able to extract the offending posts within minutes.

      What a complete picture of MORON you have exhibited.

      Delete
    35. 10:24... Quite an imagination! Shame you can't be as creative explaining away the evidence, eh?

      10:34... Put your pom poms down kid, whilst Donald is being a busy idiot and worrying about me (he's been a little down lately, bless him), the Yeti has still not been shown to be bunk.

      : p

      Delete
    36. dmaker im fairly sure he is mentally ill its best to just let him have his mythical monkey

      Delete
    37. No goalposts Donald, just you blithering about taking comments literally when what you really need is an argument against the evidence.

      11:10... I really can't even understand that, what an angry mess, ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    38. 11:12... Myths don't leave forensic sign. Sorry it's at the expense of your self esteem.

      Delete
    39. Oh, I get it, Joe. You not only have an open license to plagiarize, but people really should not take your comments at face value, in case you desperately need to shift a goalpost down the road?

      Delete
    40. This is one of your worst meltdowns in a while Joe. Take some time to cool off and come back later mate.

      Delete
    41. Oh Donald... I can smell your vendetta from here. It smells of bums, ha ha ha!! I've been pretty clear as to what I've meant, go back and read my comments. If you're expecting to research the physical remains of a creature that is super elusive and in an area that has a small number of sightings, which so happens to be out of it's natural environment... You're really not going to be all that successful.

      : p

      Delete
    42. ^implicit acknowledgment that bigfoot dont exist

      Delete
    43. Sorry... I would have to shift one heck of a burden and be lying to myself for that.

      Delete
    44. You still don't know the difference between "it's" and "its" I see.

      Delete
    45. " If you're expecting to research the physical remains of a creature that is super elusive and in an area that has a small number of sightings, which so happens to be out of it's natural environment... You're really not going to be all that successful. "

      LOL. That is one nice preemptive excuse for why claimed yeti bones prove to bear bones after testing. If you find what you think are bigfoot bones, and the test comes back as a common animal, it's ok. No one really expected a different test result because...well...bigfoot is elusive.

      How can your brain not hurt after you contort it so?

      Delete
    46. 11:43... Maybe if I was as butthurt as you, I would be waiting around for your typos all day too, instead of getting a substantial argument.

      Donald, you missed the boat, you silly boy. Please read back on my comment regarding the appliance of the word "Yeti" to people in those area over time. Considering the word "Yeti" has been used to describe animals over the centuries that deviate from what's expected, who's to say that the Sherpa who allegedly killed one wasn't applying the name for what he interpreted as a weird looking bear? Mark Evans spent nearly the whole programme taking samples from what were clearly described as bears, or what looked like bear remains. The archaic human element for the programme revolved around the theories of Denisovans. Heck, maybe the Sherpa in this instance was delusional, LYING even... That still doesn't take away from my premise that research in that area would be less fruitful compared to lower altitudes where primates would naturally reside, nor does it take away from the handful of sightings reports of Yeti at high altitudes that are in a stark minority to the lower altitudes. It's a futile argument, you are blithering like a big girl, ha!

      Delete
    47. The appliance? Don't you mean application? Ugh. Reading your crap makes me wonder if you ever graduated high school.

      Delete
    48. The point remains that are moving goalposts. You are changing from nothing of the sort would be at those altitudes to not often at those altitudes.

      Delete
    49. Can't be a good look if someone who hasn't "graduated high school" is getting you to chase him around worming for anything due to a bum-sore agenda, eh?

      For the level of shoddy research Mark Evans was willing to put in, there was nothing of the sort going to be up there. Put it like that, Donald. It takes nothing away from the points I've made, unless you're a little worm looking to worm.

      Delete
    50. Oh... And let's not forget...

      dMaKeRWednesday, June 1, 2016 at 9:51:00 AM PDT
      But when the reports from those areas are brought up, you find yourself in a predicament, don't you Joey?

      ... And on the same comment section...

      AnonymousWednesday, June 1, 2016 at 7:13:00 AM PDT
      I imagine Joe watched this show and had a total meltdown. When are you going to finally face the overwhelming lack of Bigfoot evidence and move on Joey?

      Delete
    51. If anyone wants to know how too completely waste your life---------------------------------------------- Watch Dmaker and Iktomi hold the same dum arguments over and over going on three years

      You to should meet up and settle it, or go your separate ways and quit communicating with each-other

      You two have got to be the most idiotic pair on all of the internet!

      Delete
    52. I tend to agree with you, dyer. I only really come here and engage in anything beyond a post or two when I'm bored. I'm studying for an exam right now, so I've been in front of my PC all day anyway.

      Joe is like my own personal bobble head. All I have to do is poke it and get a good laugh. He is like the perpetual dancing bear. He is always here and always willing to make an idiot of himself for my entertainment.

      Delete
    53. Don, I've had you in my pocket for so long it's unreal. And nobody would even begin to believe you're laughing.

      : p

      Delete
    54. LOL!! I just noticed the meltdown in Dressmakers name haha! That's classic! FeElInG sElF cOnSciOuS mUcH? LOL!

      Delete
    55. Everyone be quiet now... Donald has a big exam in home economics tomorrow.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...Fringe? I think its a fairly popular topic..First bigfoot movie came out in 1954: "Manbeast"..Actually its a yeti movie..Next was "Half-Human",1956 and then "Abominable Snowman of Himalayas"1957..I have them all..lol..

      Delete
    2. Oh for the days when I had a fringe thinks Joe to his bald-pated and podgy-bellied self.

      Delete
  5. I imagine Joe watched this show and had a total meltdown. When are you going to finally face the overwhelming lack of Bigfoot evidence and move on Joey?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^
      Hi ISF'er. Why are there so many pathological liars in your tiny little sub culture ?

      Delete
    2. Clear photos;
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg
      Scat;
      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htm
      Hair;
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhair4.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhairroot.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg
      Bones;
      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/
      Forensic physical evidence;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
      Audio;
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      I'm sorry... Did Mark Evans debunk "Bigfoot"?

      Delete
    3. Cement heads getting schooled again, Iktomi you have a long row to hoe...keep up the good work, :)

      Delete
    4. I appreciate the kind words Iktomi.

      I really do believe the "skeptics" on here practice this form of self preservation. The exact second Bigfoot is proven to exist/existed, I believe a lot of these Anons will turn into screen names applauding the subject.

      Delete
    5. 9:03 - your children will be old and grey and still awaiting that scenario I fear.

      Nice thought though.

      Delete
    6. ^ 9.03 is piling fantasy upon fantasy.

      Hope is a good thing however as it lifts the spirits of the downhearted and lean of purpose.

      Delete
    7. 10:20... Does that mean you're a bitter old man who's bipedal gorilla didn't show up? All the more embarrassment for acting like such a troll.

      10:37... What the heck was that meant to mean?? You're hoping if you expected anyone to understand that.

      Delete
    8. Hey Vegas ------- SAME WITH THE RETURN OF Christ.

      Delete
    9. See, this is where we differ, I would never try to shove my beliefs down your throat. Though I don't practice your religion, it doesn't make you wrong in believing in such. Why you and others feel the need to impose your beliefs onto others is petty and immature.

      Delete
    10. NO-BODY SHOVED ANYTHING THE OTHER DAY.

      YOU OPENED YOUR BIG RUDE ANTI-CHRISTIAN MOUTH WITHOUT ANY PROVOCATION.

      YOUR A LIBTARD.

      Delete
    11. Why is it rude to have a different opinion than you?

      Delete
    12. WERE ON A BIGFOOT SITE DIPSHIT, LEAVE YOUR IDIOT OPNIONS ON RELIGION TO SOME OTHER PLACE. UNLESS THEY INTERTWINE, AND THEY MOST LIKLY DO.

      HARRYMAN, in Genesis dope. You have no idea what you are dealing with!!!

      Delete
  6. FFS! Not sure about a Yeti but there's truth in every myth :) I think it's possibly a hybrid bear Polar and Grizzly mix...but then again it could be a BF adapted to the climate! I must admit I like the idea of a Yeti FFS!

    ReplyDelete
  7. An experienced vetenerian and an experienced geneticist both say bigfoot dont exist. Not seen anything to suggest otherwise so thats good enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But not for the loonies, goonies and buffooneries.

      T`is best to humour then lest they become angry,abusive and defensive.

      Delete
    2. Experience 10:48.We're all experienced in walking but we've all fallen over at some point xx

      Delete
    3. only with help from an alcoholic drink or 5

      Delete
  8. ^ 10:48 yet you give no names, no source, I have a bridge to sell you since you believe everything your told it's real nice located in Brooklyn NY lmao!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just a quick heads up about a new bigfoot hoaxer known as utah sasquatch.

    He claims to know where a family of bigfoots live and is currently raking in cash on his gofundme.

    In his videos hes paints an excellent piece of fiction in which he follows "structures" deep into the wilderness and eventually is surrounded by bigfoots.

    The structures are actually of course either natural formations, manmade hunting blinds, kids camps or even made by himself. About an hour in all of a sudden he has one of his mates start whooping, making silly noises and wacking sticks against trees. At this time the guy starts pointing to absolutely nothing (his camera is on proving this) saying theres a bigfoot there and one over there etc.

    A lot of footers have bought into this fiction already and given the guy money just check the gofundme.

    Just a heads up folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I don't require a "heads up" from a denialist. I'm glad he's getting on your nerves though.

      Delete
    2. You don't have to be a skeptic to raise awareness of possible hoaxing or fraud...I was thinking what a breath of fresh air that Utah guy was.but then the gofundme seemed odd. Then his baby squatch claim..his dog was feet away and no reaction..odd then he wants thinker thunker to break it down...odd indeed

      Delete
    3. Odd by whose standards? Yours? I don't find any of that odd. What I do find odd is how Bigfoot is the only fringe topic where its "skeptics" are more demented and obsessed than its "believers".

      Delete
    4. so know it all..what are your standards? mom's fish sticks and henry may podcasts? or are you a real live researcher? you know google,wiki and tinder

      Delete
    5. Awwww, is Bigfoot making you angry again? Maybe it's time for some more prayers huh?

      Delete
    6. He's the flavor of the week, and the problem is, there is a segment in the Bigfoot society that are extremely gullible. They don't hold the "researcher" accountable for his video, statements or evidence. These are the same people who blindly followed Rick Dyer, Sasquatch Ontario, Dr. Johnson and the like. The one thing that really bothers me about Utah Sasquatch is how quick he is to tell you what a poor "researcher" he his; therefore, squashing any possible future responsibility. He's setting a loophole for failure IMO.

      Delete