Friday, July 15, 2016

Bigfoot Witness Talks About His Strange Encounters


A bigfoot witness named John talks about his encounters with sasquatch in this episode of the Inspired By Bigfoot podcast. Enjoy.


107 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. In 9 foot apes that can with 100% success rate avoid all means of verification by science despite being seen everywhere?

      Think ill pass.

      Delete
    2. Every day you are shown the verified scientific evidence for 7-8 foot apes, that wouldn't be there if they were avoiding civilisation as much as your rhetorical drivel would have people believe. Why is it so hard for you to substantiate your conspiracy theory? Anyone would think you don't have any confidence in your ideas?

      Nothing but a troll.

      Delete
    3. ^ Oh,really?

      Why don`t you provide real evidence that is scientifically verified instead of wishy-washy speculatory drivel?

      Delete
    4. Go to yesterday's comment section, the ones from the day before that, the ones from the months before them and so forth. It's all here waiting for you to man up, grow a brain cell and address it.

      Now... How's about that conspiracy theory? One more comment without acknowledging that request, I'll assume you don't have an confidence in anything you spout, and are just an attention seeking troll (which we all know anyway).

      Delete
    5. ^ Nice job avoiding the question twerp.

      Delete
    6. Your question has been addressed every day for the past few years. The evidence, verified by scientists, has been rubbed in your face by me, for all that time and you have nothing but a wacko conspiracy theory as an expanation. You are nothing but a troll.

      Delete
    7. Classic iktomi. Throw out some lame evidence and put the burden on others to debunk the lane evidence. Good thing he/she doesn't do real science that counts for something.

      Delete
    8. I love to get my daily dose of Iktomi absolutely punishing the trolls on here. It's a blood bath ! sometimes i even feel sorry for the poor trolls . Actually no, I don't feel sorry for the trolls other than they are stuck in their basement with their playstations and xboxes
      What a lovely way to start off a morning then by reading the latest troll meltdowns courtesy of the number one troll killer sir Iktomi of the round table
      and BTW , got monkey suit lads ?


      Joe

      Delete
    9. Ha ha ha ha!!

      6:40... Start by trying to substantiate the word, "lame". Give it a go at applying it to the evidence presented. You really are just hopelessly out of your depth. You know nothing of real science, if you did... Then you would be able to reference it easily in explaining away what is allegedly such "lame" evidence.

      : )

      Delete
    10. Where is this scientifically verified evidence? You have no clue what you are talking about. Just because a small handful of scientists offer an opinion on alleged bigfoot evidence, does not mean that it has been scientifically verified.

      You extrapolate far, far too much.

      Delete
    11. "Extrapolate", wow! Big word for you, Don. Sorry, but isn't a "small handful of scientists offering an opinion" what you adhere to in the peer review process?

      Oops!

      If a scientist verifies evidence as being authentic, and that conclusion is further substantiated by a long line of scientists...

      Delete
    12. Iktomi has trouble perceiving length.

      Delete
    13. You need to be able to point to peer reviewed papers that include methodology and evidence and how the evidence supports the claim and then it has to pass peer review. Until that happens, you have a small handful of out dated opinions.

      You need objective review by other scientists subjecting the evidence to scientific scrutiny. Not just pro bigfoot scientists 20 years ago looking at something and saying, yep that might be bigfoot.

      You need a better grasp of science.

      Delete
    14. Iktomi dismisses the peer review process as flawed in favor of cherry picking. Cringe.

      Delete
    15. No Donald... What YOU need is a... "flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

      ... What I need is evidence that constitutes reason for the mainstream to finally investigate/track the creatures in question. It is a safety net, rhetorical argument to not only require a peer reviewed journal on the matter, but to expect to be able to peer review something that hasn't even been properly investigated yet. Not that that has any bearing on the quality of current evidence. I wonder if you would have required a peer review on Bili Ape tracks prior to them being tracked to finally film one in the wild?

      Pfffft!

      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.

      Delete
    16. If all else fails, attack science.

      It appears the idea of Bigfoot is all about special pleading.

      Delete
    17. You bypass the evidence because you are too dense to address what it allegedly so "obviously bunk", and anyone else is special pleading? I in fact celebrate science, there is nothing more brilliant and reliable than science... The peer review process does not appear to adhere to what is fundamentally scienific.

      Delete
    18. The evidence is obviously not as compelling as you believe it to be since there is no great interest or response from mainstream science.

      And here comes the conspiracy theory nonsense...

      Delete
    19. There is no conspiracy. 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
    20. Very poor response. If the evidence was so slam dunk convincing like you preach daily, then all of those reasons above would mean nothing to an objective scientist.

      The general public reaction to Finding Bigfoot has zero to do with a scientist facing compelling evidence. That is an absurd contention on your part.

      Again, why would a scientist when being presented with convincing evidence give a crap about any hoaxes? Surely the evidence is so awesome that the scientist will immediately be forced to push all thoughts of hoaxes from his/her mind?

      Your responses are ridiculous and sound like they were crafted by a fourth grader. You obviously have no clue how a scientist would reach to truly compelling evidence. None of the clap trap you prattled on about above would matter at all.

      Delete
    21. You are grossly unqualified, why should we listen to you?

      Delete
    22. Excuse me while a scoff at anything you claim is poor, 7000 posts and still not debunked "Bigfoot" and all. The reason that the evidence is not a "slam dunk", is because what that evidence entails. "Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence", remember Don? There is however three times the amount of evidence than the Bili Ape had at his stage of research. What "mainstream science recognises" means little if there's scientific evidence that not one from that mainstream can explain away, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority.

      And no... If the average uninterested person watches Finding Bigfoot, and is not privy to things like forensic evidence, then it's normal for them to feel that the topic is reduced to tall tales. That's basic logic and in fact factual. And that's it... A scientist concluding on the evidence as legitimate doesn't care about the hoaxes. It's the other ten that haven't even looked at that evidence but the hoaxing that's the problem.

      It's lucky that for the scientists I quote, none of the above DID dwell on the nonsense and actually looked at it.

      Delete
    23. You don't have to listen to me, take it from the scientists I reference... Or should we take it from a person who wasn't aware to use capitals whilst spelling their name? All too often that's responded with ad hominem though, isn't it Don? If that isn't a sure sign of an inferiority complex (your own qualifications), I don't know what is.

      Delete
    24. Three times the amount of evidence than the Bili Ape? Three times? How did you arrive at that amount? Do you begin to see why people think you write like a child?

      Delete
    25. What does the reaction of the average uninterested person watching Finding Bigfoot have to do with a qualified scientist examining evidence?

      Delete
    26. One funny thing I noticed was that Joerg, after repeatedly citing to Sarah Winnemucca as a source for native lore about giants, then admitted to Andy White that he hasn't even read Winnemucca's accounts! He's not only stupid, but he's also lazy.

      Delete
    27. Bili ape = tracks, eyewitness reports

      Sasquatch = tracks, dermals, eyewitness reports, hair, bones, audio, footage, thermal

      Because that's no doubt what the average person would conclude watching it, an academic, even more so.

      10:26... Joe stated he hadn't poured over said source, and then cited another two sources confirming the hairy tribes that she had allegedly alluded to.

      Delete
    28. Maybe it's time for you to start "pouring over" your sources so you can avoid looking like a buffoon!

      Delete
    29. Based on what I can read from the comment section you're alluding to, looks like Joe knows his subject matter pretty well.

      : p

      Delete
    30. Except for the fact that, in his words (and yours), all of his arguments were "eradicated"!

      Delete
    31. You could simply try and step up and devise your own argument against Joe, since you're obsessed enough to follow him around the Internet (shudder), but we all know you're a little out of your depth for that, don't we?

      There's a good little cheerleader.

      Delete
    32. Yeah, I'm out of my depth with someone who admits that he doesn't fully read the sources on a subject about which he is maniacally obsessed!

      Delete
    33. Like I said... Seems to me this Joe chap you're slightly obsessed with knows his subject matter pretty well, and you wouldn't have any words to twist if he wasn't honest about what he hasn't read from cover to cover. Maybe one day you'll come up with something yourself? It appears for now you're just a little too maniacally obsessed with this Joe.

      Delete
    34. Narghhh!!! By calling me obsessed, I guess you're attempting to shame me into going away so you don't have to debate me. I'll take that as an admission that you are "out of your depth" yourself!

      Delete
    35. Present at least one point against at least one thing I have presented as evidence, and you'll have a point.

      (Yawn)

      Delete
    36. If you had been paying any attention, I just did. You cited to Winnemucca as proof of centuries of native oral history and then admited that you haven't fully read her accounts! If I were as obsessed with this subject as you, I would have "poured over" the source scores of times! Maybe you're afraid of what you might find when you go beyond a cursory analysis of the subject.

      Delete
    37. "if you didn't notice"... Not only did Joe provide two different Paiute sources that supports what old Sarah allegedly claimed... But also provided hair sample analysis and an actual skull.

      Am I really stooping this low?? Looks like it.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    38. How do you know what "old Sarah" claimed if you haven't (as you admit) fully read the source? And your two other sources appear to be a statue of Chewbacca and claims from someone who joined the tribe three years ago. A few months ago, I conclusively demonstrated how you failed to understand the article on the Humboldt skull and proved that you hadn't even read it. Next?

      Delete
    39. Who cares! Ha ha ha!! I haven't read any less than anyone else commenting on her. What Sarah allegedly claimed is irrelevant, you're blithering about irrelevances when Joe's got an actual Paiute source, TWO in fact that attest to talk hairy tribes in the area that that skull was found.

      The curators of the Paiute museum, who happen to be Pauite if you didn't guess, have a statue of what's relevant to Paiute oral history outside of the museum. That... Along with a University of California archeological record of a 7.5 skeleton, a hair sample AND a skull. Well done pal, you're really good at this, aren't you?

      If you've take the time to actually read the anthropologists take on the Humboldt skull...
      "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."
      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.

      You conclusively did what??

      (Pffffft!!)

      Delete
    40. I'm glad that you finally understand the difference between a nuchal crest and an occipital bun! Apparently, you still haven't read the part of the article which grouped the skull with the historical Karankawas -- a tribe that survived until the middle of the 19th Century. I guess there was an entire tribe of bigfoots living in Texas and no one who met them seemed to notice!

      Delete
    41. It compares the skull to that of Otamid skulls... Unfortunately, the whole premise of the paper (hint: its title), alludes to morphological data not found in any other native tribe.

      I think you're just about toasted by now, right?

      Delete
    42. Try actually reading the article instead of relying upon Micah Hanks' faulty interpretation of it. There is no statement that the skull it's not found in any other tribe. It's specifically grouped with modern tribes! In fact, all of the "unusual" features are still found in some modern humans. And maybe you could trust the opinion of Andy White, PhD Anthroplogy!

      Delete
    43. Hey! If that's the case, find an example... It's as easy as that. Nobody is peddling an interpretation of the paper, those traits are paleolithic, end of, clear as crystal in images and writing, and I think based on the extracts I've taken the time to reference, there's only one of us that HAS read it. The anthropologists studying the skull in 1967 couldn't find a comparison. Andy White couldn't either.

      Hint (cough, cough)... It's in the title (cringe).

      D'you know what I think? I think you got a little stiffy, and now you're trying so desperately to hang on to that. You are a joke... And I've just about burnt you to a crisp.

      Delete
    44. The biggest problem (among many) with your approach is that you make a stupid claim and then declare that I have to find proof that you're wrong.

      Number one, I did your dance and found plenty of proof that you're wrong and you promptly ignored it and now demand more proof that you're wrong.

      Number two, you're doing things ass backwards. When you stumble upon a crackpot idea that you get a "stiffy" over, you should look for evidence yourself that disproves the idea -- not ask others to do the work for you.

      A 15 minute search would have satisfied you that the idea is insane. But I guess I shouldn't expect such an effort from someone who openly admits that he hasn't read the sources that he cites!

      It's okay to say "ouch"!

      Delete
    45. Wow... Bit of a meltdown there, old boy? I'll even help you... Take the morphological details provided in the extract up top, and go from there. Should be easy considering these features are in modern native Americans, right?

      Where's this proof? Your uneducated word isn't good enough, references, links... Anyone would think you've never cited a thing in your life. I'm not asking you to do anything but substantiate and be responsible for what you claim.

      : p

      Delete
    46. I posted multiple links to human anatomy sources that show that the skull features are not uncommon in modern humans. At the time I cited those sources, you didn't even know the difference between an occipital bun and a nuchal crest, so I patiently explained it to you and saved you from continuing to look like an idiot (you're welcome).

      Anyway, as stated above, you ignored the easily located sources. Otherwise, you wouldn't be blathering on now like a dumbass. But that's to be expected from someone who admits that he doesn't read sources.

      I'm noticing a trend here -- the less someone reads, the more that he tends to believe in Bigfoot. You just happen to be an extreme example!

      Delete
    47. Ha!! Where are these links? Who are you trying to convince? Where are the comment sections with these links?? Ha ha!! I think you're using Joe's mix up on the Andy White thread as you're own achievement... Are you living in a fantasy world? Ha ha!! Where is this link to your alleged Occipital bun correction?

      It appears Joe is so well read that he can make you get all angry about not being able to substantiate your ideas... Take the morphological details provided in the extract up top, and go from there. Should be easy considering these features are in modern native Americans, right?

      Chop! Chop!!

      Delete
    48. Hey wait, I have a better idea. How about you send me an x-ray of your own skull and I will go searching around for another skull with the exact same dimensions and measurements?

      If I'm unable to find such a skull, then we can agree to have you declared as a new freak species of sub-human. Now that is an idea I can really buy into!

      Ha Ha Ha! Thanks for the laugh!

      Delete
    49. No, no, no, no... That's not how it works! The skull in question is so easily a Native American skull, why is it so difficult to get you to be responsible for your ideas?

      You are not convincing anyone you're laughing. Don't worry, you've got "all those links" as a means of salvaging your self esteem, remember.

      (Creased)

      Delete
    50. Here we go! I found a comment section where I in fact had to steer in the right direction about nuchal ligaments in Neanderthals;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-teddy-roosevelt-bigfoot-story.html?m=0

      ... If ever I've need to use the word, it's now... OUCH!!

      Delete
    51. Oh... And here's a comment section where you learned a good amount!

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/dr-jeffrey-meldrum-removes-myth-out-of.html?m=0

      Sorry... I'm just being cruel now...

      Delete
    52. Neither one of those discussions involved me, but you certainly received an epic beatdown in both cases!

      One thing you are good at doing is finding old threads (maybe you should become a secretary), so use those talents and find the thread where I cited to AnatomyAtlases.com and gave you examples of Humboldt skull features in modern humans. Why you didn't make that effort before I did it for you is beyond me.

      There was also another thread in which you were in the midst of some confused screed about the Humboldt skull and I went through it line by line and explained it to you. For some reason, you thought I was talking about Khwit's skull and it took you about five comments to figure out what the hell was even happening. That was classic!

      Finally, I noticed that on June 17 on Andy White's site, you confused occipital buns and nuchal crests and he again had to explain it to you! So maybe I spoke too soon when I congratulated you for successfully working out the difference!

      Delete
    53. Took me a while but I found it!
      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/blowing-up-sasquatch-with-todd-neiss.html?m=0

      It appears that the best you had had to draw upon was the fact that the most morphologically similar skulls where found to be living as late as the Neolithic error... Not that the traits in question weren't paleolithic. This merely alluded to the fact that such traits are seen far later in modern himans than originally thought. Like I said COMMENTS ago, the anthropologists who highlighted that still maintain that the skull has paleolithic traits, as quoted to you up top. How about the next time you see me, you finally put your money where your mouth is?

      It appears that reading those threads I've linked you, I know what a nuchal crest is pretty well! Ha ha!! Like that little stiffy you had about Andy, the things you've actually accomplished are relegated to a typing mistake from Joe on a totally different blog. Nuff said.

      Keep up the good work pal!

      Delete
    54. Oh... And the very best I've ever seen anyone achieve around here, are singular examples of an archaic trait in a skull. Maybe you can get back on anatomyatlases.com and get me the Humboldt skull? Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
  2. "Bigfoot is a psychological phenomenon, not a physical one."

    So odd that it's still a fringe topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You proposed a reason as to why it's fringe, then questioned why it's fringe. Well done Einstein.

      Why worry so much about a fringe topic? Oh that's right... Because you don't have any satisfaction or self esteem for your time spent trying to ridicule that fringe topic.

      Poor fella.

      Delete
    2. It's called sarcasm (def: "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt"). I guess discernment isn't one of your strengths... like discerning whether or not I'm worried about bigfoot being a fringe topic. Cringe. That's ok, kid. You're learning.

      Delete
    3. Iktomi just got kicked in the nut sack.

      Delete
    4. I think you feel like a right twonk now, don't you? A contradiction is not sarcasm.

      Delete
    5. Coming from the guy who last week condemned hypotheticals as useless, then immediately proceeded to use a hypothetical to try to support a bigfoot point.

      Delete
    6. Stating that IF Gimlin came forward to reveal the "hoax" = hypothetical.

      Stating that every attempt to test the PGF with costume has failed = fact.

      Delete
    7. Zing !
      Donald gets pwned once again. oh this is getting so easy it's like taking candy from a baby , hahahahahahahaha

      Joe

      Delete
    8. That was not your hypothetical, though, Joe. What you said was that IF Gimlim was lying, he would have accepted the million dollars and exposed the hoax.

      That is a hypothetical.

      Delete
    9. It sounds like a hypothetical I've heard him say more than once.

      Delete
    10. Oh that's right, thanks for reminding me. Is that hypothetical? Gimlin was in fact offered $1M, are you sure you know what you're talking about?

      Delete
    11. The fact is this: Gimlin was offered one million dollars and turned it down.

      The hypothetical is this: IF Gimlin was lying, he would have accepted the money.

      Do you see now? Or are you going to wiggle some more and avoid admitting your mistake?

      Delete
    12. I'm sorry Donald, but you're blithering... If the facts are that Gimlin turned down that type of money, there is evidence for what I'm proposing and not a hypothetical scenario anymore.

      Delete
    13. I wasn't aware that you had a neural link into Gimlin's brain determining veracity of actions on a particular day in '67.

      Delete
    14. You either do not understand what hypothetical means, or you really are that shallow that you cannot ever admit when you have erred.

      Delete
    15. Daffy Donald duck !
      oh how rich, hahahaha

      Joe

      Delete
    16. Practically everything you say here is based on hypotheticals. Again with the Gimlin statement, it is hypothetical. You are saying that if the PGF is true that Gimlin would still not lie to try to claim the money. Or on the other hand, IF the PGF is fake, that Gimlin would rather the money than maintain the hoax. Again, it is all hypotheticals based on what Gimlin would, or not, do in each case. You simply cannot know. It is purely hypothetical.

      Yet you will say hypotheticals are useless, unless, of course you are so dim that you are blind to the fact that you are using a hypothetical to try to make your point. LOL

      Delete
    17. Weird how you say you're never here, but you're always here.

      Delete
    18. It's weird how you keep track of how often people are here.

      Delete
    19. Fluff Girl is always pointing how often someone is here or how butthurt they are. We get it. How about something else...

      Delete
    20. Donald... Please read my comment at 12:01. And you wonder why I copy and paste so much?

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    21. Donald is in full meltdown mode
      quack quack
      it's like watching a train wreck in slo mo

      Joe

      Delete
  3. Its amazing how a bunch of blind wankers with no imagination hang out on a website dedicated to something they do not believe can exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People also enjoy watching the amusing antics of monkeys at the zoo. Hanging out here is pretty much the same thing.

      Delete
    2. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/biscardis-group-searching-for-bigfoot.html?showComment=1424265382593#c7861569630984876498

      haints Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 5:22:00 PM PST
      Despite what Iktomi may think, I am an active Squatcher who worked with Biscardi and Fasano in Florida.

      Delete
    3. Is haints actually criticizing Bigfooting as a whole or some of the people here? Is he not allowed to criticize at all?

      In that thread you posted he doesn't endorse Biscardi. Also DS said he found Biscardi courteous and helpful- and you aren't trying to shame him.

      Delete
    4. Haints is a nasty little troll who hides behind anon mode and likes to belittle people for being enthusiastic about a subject he seemingly flopped as a researcher in.

      "Biscardi brought me along as a witness. I will say this in his defense: There was no hoaxing by him or Fasano."
      ... Sounds like a shining endorsement if you ask me. He "worked" with him, his words, that he's kicking himself over, no doubt.

      Delete
    5. Belittle people? Kind of like your earlier comment today?

      "You proposed a reason as to why it's fringe, then questioned why it's fringe. Well done Einstein.

      Why worry so much about a fringe topic? Oh that's right... Because you don't have any satisfaction or self esteem for your time spent trying to ridicule that fringe topic.

      Poor fella."

      And please, don't preach about hiding behind anon mode. Iktomi is hardly your real name.

      Delete
    6. If some anon troll gets an Iktomi styled b-slap after trying to be clever, then my choice of native name's slightly irrelevant. Like a good little troll though, only you could get sensitive about that.

      Delete
    7. Translation: Iktomi can criticize people for belittling people while he belittles people himself.

      Makes perfect sense!

      Delete
    8. If you call Iktomi a retard he suddenly gets offended for all the mentally handicapped people of the world. Meanwhile he will question your parentage or diagnose you with a personality disorder based on his google-fu.

      Delete
    9. 12:27... The troll that doesn't like his own medicine. If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.

      12:43... Let me know if you want that psychologist again.

      Delete
    10. Your efforts would be more fruitful if you researched information regarding the common psychological phenomenon of pathetic people who are total failures in life and who gravitate to fringe subjects about which they can pretend to be important.

      Delete
    11. He reality is, nobody is diagnosing my actions. Sorry nerd.

      Delete
    12. "He reality is"? I'm having enough trouble "diagnosing" any sense out of that last comment!

      Delete
    13. If I was getting my backside handed to me about a strawman argument that I'm desperate to hang on to... I'd be looking for typos too.

      Delete
    14. Looking for typos is "lame", right iktomi? ;-)

      Delete
    15. I'm sorry... Am I meant to know what that implies?

      Delete
    16. For Joerg, everything has to be spelled out explicitly, preferably in all caps and double bold, with pop up illustrations, and also someone else there to help him read!

      Delete
    17. The trolls are so butt hurt tonight. They are reaching so bad, it's pathetic.

      Delete
    18. I guess he doesn't need a nut shining cheerleader like you then.

      Delete
    19. 90 % of the anon comments are from Haints who likes to hide behind the anon label. what a bloody coward
      Later tonight his nanny will read him a bedtime story about how Iktomi shames him daily on here. it is sure to give the poor lad nightmares

      Joe

      Delete
  4. Is Iktomi a man or woman? I can't tell because as it turns out, he/she is anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Iktomi, criticizes science when it doesn't support bigfoot. Embrases it when it does. Contradiction that leads to no credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Iktomi, criticizes others for being obsessed but invests more time and effort on this site than anyone by far.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All you do is talk about Iktomi. You weirdo.

      Delete
    2. And you spend a lot of time pointing people out, Fluff Girl.

      Delete