Thursday, July 7, 2016

Bigfoot Spotted Eating Mussels


From SasquatchChronicles.com:
Sasquatch eating mussels on the Ninnescah River
The bigfoot was breaking open mussels or clams or whatever and then eating them, which made me think ‘Who would eat that raw from this dirty river where there is trash laying around?’. That’s when it fully dawned on me that this was not a human. It was covered in a brown hair/fur. It was squatting with its back towards me the whole time, it never looked back at me, and I didn’t move until I turned and left to go home to try to get my phone to take a picture (which it was dark by the time I got home and there was nothing there when I got back).

It just kept opening mussels and eating them, and it would hit them on the rocks to break them open. It had long arms, and it squatted flat footed, which I thought would be a difficult position to hold, as I squat with my heels up off the ground. It’s hands were shaped more like human hands, but the color was darker and the texture was kind of like gorilla/ape hands. I couldn’t say for sure how tall it was, but it seemed younger, probably 6+ foot or 7 foot tall, but I’d have to have someone help me determine how big it really was.

To read more click here. 

98 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Interesting read.I'm sure bigfoot would like this xx

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuJ1AefhWzE

      Delete
    2. I witnessed a Bigfoot getting BBQ from L.C.'s on Blue Parkway in K.C. Can't blame him. It's world class stuff.. Just don't pay too much attention to the gentleman slicing the meat. It's 115 degrees back there and he has the sweat to prove it. While he's leaning over your food.. If you can get past that you're in for a treat!

      Delete
  2. Woot! Boots is in the House!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just catching up on joes obliteration by dmaker yesterday. Wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a bit of dReSsMaKeR dripping from your face.

      Delete
  4. Stories (lies). Just stories (lies). Nothing but stories (lies).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! Thousands of years of "lies" from a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing conspirators all out to get your money. These people, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what a non-human primate looked like, have in fact managed to cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too!

      Delete
    2. Quite a fantasy world you live in. Excellent quote for my psychology paper actually though thanks.

      Delete
    3. Why is it so difficult for you to add substance to your conspiracy theory? Anyone would think you have no confidence in the rubbish you spout? Here's a REAL psychologist on yours;
      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

      Enjoy!

      Delete
    4. Does that psychiatrist chase ghosts like your pioneering plastic surgeon?

      Delete
    5. They might do! It's lucky that that would have no bearing on his/her expert opinion.

      Delete
    6. So having a hobby such as the paranormal, automatically cancels your expertise in a given field? That's ridiculous.

      Delete
    7. It's called ad hominem. Pseudosceptic 101.

      Delete
    8. Iktomi should know about ad hominems. He uses then constantly.

      Delete
    9. Remember who taught you those words.

      Delete
    10. You're the fool with the conspiracy theory, Ikky. No one else.

      Everyone else has an independent redneck hoaxer theory. It doesn't need a conspiracy. It's proven. And you don't need to wear a tinfoil hat to know it's jocular rednecks acting independently.

      Rick Dyer couldn't conspire his way out of a paper bag.

      Delete
    11. Argh yes!! For thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing Independant rednecks all out to get your money. These people, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what a non-human primate looked like, have in fact managed to cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too!

      Was your conspiracy theory proven?! Would you like to source me where this has occurred?

      Delete
  5. "to which I would add no DNA, and no definitive photographs in spite of literally millions of trail cams, cellphones, point and shoot cameras and "GoPros". Meanwhile, there are so many footprint hoaxers that that the only "Bigfoot professor" hardly bothers to examine reported "bigfoot" trackways. Instead, he follows the rubber chicken circuit of bigfoot "conventions", collecting big speaker fees from the dedicated believers, while citing badly done "studies" and decades-old casts of a variety of sizes, shapes and numbers of toes, many obtained by shady characters, while avoiding real research on the subject. The "canon" of historical bigfoot stories includes obvious tall tales told by old men, tabloid journalism and and misused tribal folklore. "Researchers" "investigate" 'reports" of what "witnesses" say, but never do psychological, substance, or perceptual testing, or background checks, on "witnesses." Those who claim these "encounters' are simply deemed "credible" by some imaginary and exceedingly loose standard known only to bigfoot believers. Profiteers take credulous folk on weekend "snipe hunts", where the powers of suggestion, sleep deprivation, Stockholm syndrome, normal woodsy phenomena, and a pinch of fakery are sufficient to convince the "marks."


    "Evidence", to the average believer, can include not only these "encounters" but almost any noise, broken tree limb, or animal or human just out of identification range. Out of their melange of "data" (none ever confirmed as "bigfoot" related) they construct, incredibly, pie in the sky theories of life expectancy, size, diet, migration, hunting strategies, communication, language, shelter, range, populations, and other physical, demographic and anthropological characteristics. It's just pseudoscience piled on top of superstition, ignorance, and exploitation. Literally hundreds of poorly written books have been published, recounting story after poorly documented story, and ranging into the realms of paranormal, romance, and even erotica. Meanwhile, reasonable publications attempting bring sanity to the subject and to explain the bigfoot phenomenon are "shouted down" by down-rating of these books at Amazon."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Owned on the previous comment section. Maybe "dmaker" can source you your next rush of blood?

      Delete
    2. As one of the participants you can not simply claim yourself the victor. I know you love to do this a lot but it just shows your lack of confidence in the topic.

      As a spectator (non participant) who has read both sides of the argument, participated in by yourself and dmaker, it is my opinion that dmaker obliterated you on every single point.

      Delete
    3. Yeah... If you didn't notice, I'm waiting for a counter argument on the previous comment section for the stuff up top... And on yesterday's comment section with "dmaker". My confidence comes from that very fact which occurs again, and again, and again...

      You're not a spectator, you're Don's n*t shiner. Name drop him some more, he might come and help you again, ha ha ha!

      Delete
    4. Here's a counter argument: Where's the bigfoot body?

      Not a human body. Don't try to pass off those fully human skulls again. You might be too ignorant to know the difference, but the rest of us aren't. A BIGFOOT body we need.

      Or just a tooth (preferably with an accurate location where it was found and pictures of it in situ). I could identify bigfoot from just a single tooth. That's all I need to submit a paper for peer review. Make it the holotype. Naming rights. Published in any journal I care to submit to. Get on the cover of National Geographic. Grants for more specimen collection. Taunt Louise de Merode. The sky's the limit to what I could do if only you could provide even a single tooth.

      Why can't you produce even one tooth?

      Delete
    5. You've got a skull;
      https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/

      Sasquatch are ancient human.

      Delete
    6. Ikky, Ikky, Ikky please try to read before responding in such a predictable and knee-jerk fashion.

      You were told not to try to pass off those fully modern human skulls as bigfoot skulls. And what did you do? You tried to pass off those fully modern human skulls as bigfoot skulls.

      Like a bad broken record you do this every single time. You keep trying to push those fully modern human skulls. Why? Because you don't have any actual, real evidence for bigfoot.

      It's like we keep asking for a cheeseburger and you keep serving up burritos claiming it's the same thing. Just because you are too ignorant to know the difference doesn't mean everyone else is too.

      Culturally motivated cranial deformation does not make bigfoots.

      Also you keep promoting the Patterson Gimlin film as "proof of bigfoot", but then you say things like "sasquatch are ancient humans." Surely by now someone with the knowledge you claim to have would understand those are two mutually exclusive claims. Patty, if not a hoax, is not human. A potential hominid, yes, but not homo. Not even on par with erectus (and yes, I know the trolls are going to make crude jokes about erectus and homo). Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of physical anthropology or human anatomy would know that.

      But you don't.

      Pretentious fools like you are one of the biggest reasons why bigfoot "research" will NEVER find actual proof of bigfoot. Because instead of going and finding actual, real proof in an actual, real specimen, instead of educating yourself on what a specimen would actually be, you instead arrogantly and ignorantly and repeatedly and lazily try to promote human remains, wild speculation, nonsensical conspiracy theories, and blatant apologetics and call that "evidence".

      You are the reason why bigfoot will never be proven because you don't know what you are looking at and you don't even know what to look for.

      You think you do, you pretend that you do, but you don't. And you make yourself and the whole clownshow that is bigfoot "research" look all the more foolish with every single post you make.

      Delete
    7. Wow, long winded much? Ha ha ha!!

      If you've take the time to actually read the anthropologists take on the Humboldt...
      "Unusual features of the Humboldt Sink cranium, aside from the prominent brow ridge and glabellar development and the notably strong nuchal crest, are the low retreating forehead with post-orbital construction, and the true os inca, divided occipital, or interparietal bone, accompanied by by generally high sutural complexity with several Wormian bones in the lambdoid suture."

      If a pronounced nuchal crest in a skull is accompanied by many other morphological features that are consistent with palaeolithic specimens, then it's at least more warranted. To elaborate on this, the anthropologists studying the skull in 1967 drew upon many other unusual features, as well as the nuchel crest, that according to them is not found in anatomically modern humans. The brain case lacks frontal lobe capacity and the manner in which the skull narrows behind the eye sockets and sloped forehead are examples of these. Also, you'll notice that the anthropologists states that;
      “... Eastern Asiatic subdivision of the general Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens.”
      ... That's profound. You'll notice that the ideas posed about the unusual features of the skull have been consistent with the things that anthropologists DO know about palaeolithic specimens (the evidence). This totally eradicates the lie and special pleading that these traits are culturally motivated cranial deformations.

      Throwing something out (Sasquatch being human) because it didn’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
    8. "Also you keep promoting the Patterson Gimlin film as "proof of bigfoot""

      Prove it. Source a direct comment from me where I have made that claim. As has been stated to you time and time and time again, there is nothing in Patty's appearence that cannot be directly attributed to both modern humans and ancient humans in our lineage. In the following link, you'll notice a discussion about the origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens;
      http://youtu.be/XdP-Wjd1qSY
      ... Here, Chris Stringer explains on the 4mins mark that in the lineage of both Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, we see anatomical and morphological traits in their fossil and genetic data that are linked to their far, far, earlier emergence from Homo Heidelbergensis. These are modern scientists conducting research on the theory that same species hominids can and DID have varying anatomy and morphology, yet were the same species.

      Sasquatch are human. And you were given a skull. Deal with it son.

      : p

      Delete
    9. Oh! While you're looking for a direct quote from me about Patty being proof... Would you also like to source me one conspiracy theory I've used?

      Chop! Chop!

      Delete
    10. ─░ktomi getting obliterated as always. And him calling someone else "long winded" lol - you really are a special kind of retard.

      Delete
    11. There is absolutely no way you read my comment, ha ha ha ha!! It's ok Stuey, nobody expects you to understand that big words.

      : )

      Delete
  6. There is absolutely nothing joe can do to prove that bigfoot exists. Wonderful!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Bigfoot" exists in the physical evidence that's given you your four year meltdown.

      Delete
    2. Here's a question for you, Joe. Do you recognize that it is possible that bigfoot does not exist?

      Delete
    3. To recline on the idea that there is no such thing as Sasquatch would be to lie to myself about the frequency of evidence there is, and I would lessen myself as a result.

      Delete
    4. That would Iktomi's long winded version of saying no.

      Delete
    5. When you're bombarded with a hundred rhetorical approaches a week, you try and articulate yourself so as to be a few steps ahead. Kill multiple birds.

      Delete
    6. Donald, do you recognize that maybe you don't exist . i mean that you are some crazy ghost like Bruce willis in the sixth sense and you're really dead but don't know it and your ghost continues to post drivilous stupidity that borders on insanity here ?
      Go scare some kids and leave us alone mate

      Joe

      Delete
    7. You demonstrate your lack of scientific objectivity when you won't even acknowledge that it's possible that bigfoot does not exist.

      Delete
    8. Not when there is solid evidence to be convinced by.

      Delete
  7. I've been waiting for proof of bigfoot since the mid 1970s. There is no more proof today than there was 40 years ago.

    This leads to one logical conclusion. Bigfoot is nothing more than folklore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you'd really been following the topic for that long, you'd know the frequency of evidence gathered in that time means it's far less likely a mere matter of folklore than it is legitimate.

      Delete
    2. The frequency of "evidence" in the face of there still being zero actual bigfoots anywhere ever is actually damning to the cause.

      Delete
    3. The evidence falls within the range of the psychological.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, your version of science may special plead, but there is nothing in any of the historical scientific breakthroughs you can list that dictates that biological research has to start being acknowledged at conclusion. There is nothing more profound at this stage than forensic evidence.

      4:46's statement doesn't demonstrate how this topic is a psychological phenomenon. Words are wonderful, it's scientific data that makes the world go around. You'd think a group of people so obsessed with this topic would have better data, eh?

      Delete
    5. Prove to the world, not just enthusiasts, that it's not just psychological. Use testable data, not just your words.

      Delete
    6. 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
      Fossil trail;
      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/
      Forensic;
      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

      No, no... The pleasure's all mine.

      Delete
    7. ^ Sorry pal but you don`t seem to comprehend the most basic of instructions.

      Delete
    8. I don't think you have the capacity, nor the b*lls to attempt to test that data, you rhetorical loser.

      : )

      Delete
    9. Blurry photos are not testable data.

      Delete
    10. Agreed. But if you actually open the links you'll notice they're hardly blurry. If images didn't exist, you would require them. Pseudosceptics discredit people for finding what they set out to look for. When aligned with other evidence sources that are testable; game changer.

      Delete
    11. ^ Corr , futt me m8, futt me.

      Delete
    12. "Blurry photos are not testable data?"
      Really? What blurs 1080p besides these creatures??
      NOTHING!
      Donald, getting blown out by Dr Squatch, EVERYDAY!

      Delete
    13. It's amazing that you are able to hold a job.

      Delete
    14. Its amazing you have to say something about me, and not my evidence..says a lot!

      Delete
  8. Well if this ghost hunting surgeon says so....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A ghost hunting surgeon who is board certified as a Plastic Surgeon by the American Board of Plastic Surgery. He is also a published author in both medical texts and journals, including articles on breast reduction techniques that he personally designed.

      Delete
    2. Yep. He represents 0.015% of all board certified plastic surgeons.

      I'm so impressed.

      Delete
    3. Oh yeah, he is also a paranormal investigator.

      Excuse me while I laugh my arse off.

      Delete
    4. He's got the skills to pay the bills Donald! While your "laughing" at the desktop, his expert opinion remains. The concepts and theories behind quantum physics and things like String Theory are far crazier than anything anyone can conjure up on a paranormal level.

      Delete
    5. What does string theory have to do with bigfoot?

      Delete
    6. Does Dr.Johnson have the skills to pay the bills?

      Delete
    7. What does ghost hunting have to do with a pioneering expert opinion on the biological tissue of Patty? Johnson's expertise is outside of any possible appliance to Patty, sorry.

      Delete
    8. What does plastic surgery have to do with a costume?

      Delete
    9. Because a plastic surgeon can identify physical characteristics not commonly known outside of the medical community, destroying any notion of a costume.

      Delete
    10. Costumes can sometimes appear life like.

      In other news, water is wet.

      Yes, breasts are only known in the medical community.

      Delete
    11. Costumes that defy 47 years of the most expensive Hollywood SFX methods go way beyond "life like". For defying 47 years of SFX, why didn't Roger simply partake in a career in Hollywood?

      Plastic surgeons who have pioneered breast reduction techniques are far more qualified than most.

      Delete
    12. Especially if they also investigate the paranormal. I always love when my surgeon believes in ghosts and dogmen. Makes it more sciency.

      Delete
    13. Ghost hunting's fun! Some people partake in far stranger & confusing hobbies... Just look at career denialists like you!

      Delete
    14. Stranger hobbies like banging sticks on trees and howling in the woods at night?

      Guess you're right.

      Delete
    15. Do you ghost hunt a lot, Joe? You said it's fun, so I must assume you enjoy doing it. Find any ghosts?

      Delete
    16. ^ there's a ghost right here. Donald is playing the Bruce willis role in sixth sense today and everyday
      BOO !You're hardly scary mate. in Fact i'm getting a good chuckle at your bollocks today

      Joe

      Delete
    17. Yes Don, I've caught them all with my proton pack, ghost trap and PKE metre.

      Delete
  9. When you're an ISF'er you lie, you pretend and you sock puppet. It's what you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't quite get that. What do you do if you're an ISF'er?

      Delete
    2. When you're an ISFer, you get touchy about the same factual remark being posted that exposes your actions.

      Delete
    3. When you're a semi literate bufoon you say the same thing over and over again.

      Fish, barrel, shot.

      Delete
    4. Iktomi = semi literate bufoon who was exposed long ago

      Delete
    5. 8:12 = Don's n*t shiner who's incapable of having an original thought and who's on record as finding what he says "spiritual".

      (Shudder)

      Delete
    6. You've got the wrong guy as usual.

      The "superfriends" is nothing more than a collection of mutual masturbaters, so you shouldn't talk cupcake.

      Delete
    7. Those "Superfriends" took away your cyber playground, kid... It's understandable you're a bitter nerd now. Remember Non-Archaic Hominin? Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    8. They didn't take away anything. I was simple pointing out that you have a much more "enthusiastic" set of supporters yourself. I have no idea what you're referring to, but then again you often get confused.

      Delete
    9. Iktomi is the heavyweight champion and poor don is playing kissy kissy with the canvas once again.
      Who is this tomato can they keep pushing to face the champ ?

      Joe

      Delete
    10. See Iktomi, Joe is one of your own personal n*t shiners.

      Delete
    11. ^ I don't shine anyone's pecans. sorry bro but you live in a delusional world filled with cream tarts and sex toys

      Joe

      Delete
    12. ^ Regularly talks about sexy blokes.

      Delete
    13. ^ hi fake Joe/dmaker !
      What color are your panties today ?
      Go sod off

      Joe

      Delete
    14. ^ Can't figure out which personality to be today.

      Delete
  10. This is worth a look.
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/bob-gimlin-explains-why-releasing-his-bigfoot-footage-was-one-big-mistake-he-wished-he-could-undo/news-story/4dc66f0e7adaf352fc19a5fe0262cb6a

    ReplyDelete
  11. let's see. Big hairy thing with its back to you on squatting done, back feet flat on ground breaking open shells with front "paws" and eating, never stands up, never turns around, BEAR with me now; MAYBE IT WAS A BBBBBB BEAR !!

    ReplyDelete