Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Sasquatch Evidence Found In BC


From the BC Squatchers youtube page:

Rich is joined by Brandon and Jenaya in another new area. This area has beautifully large deciduous trees and some hundred year old second growth conifers. Compelling sasquatch sign is found in the form of arched trees, stick structures, organized packing, asterisk arrangements, hangers, and an impressive pair of parallel leaners. There's always fun crossing the stream!

33 comments:

  1. Evidence is a loosely defined term in bigfootery.

    Random patterns found in sticks are evidence of gravity and natural forces, not unclassified primates.

    Here is a crazy idea. How about bigfoot "researchers" actually try to prove the existence of bigfoot instead of harping on about random crap that could be anything?

    Call me crazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your not an advocate of the blue bag theory?

      Delete
    2. I won't call you crazy but I will say that you exhibit "unjustified certitude" in your words.

      Dunno about this video, I didn't even watch it but I will tell you that not only do archaic humans exist they exist in numbers nobody will believe and they are in locations that nobody will believe and engaged in behaviors that nobody will believe.

      The rabbit hole goes very deep. If I was sitting at a bar with you drinking a cold beer and trying to explain it rationally to you I might have better luck than here. What I'm telling you is that there are a handful of regular people that know what is up now and I don't see how anyone will prevent the truth from coming out. Most of what will come first is imagery and while that may not be a basis of proof it will certainly change the perspective of the entire modern human race, the ones that believe their eyes anyway.

      Delete
    3. ^ Posting anonymously doesn't look good on you Joergy.

      Delete
    4. That's all fine, but what can you show to back up your assertion? I don't wish you any ill, but you are anonymous and this is the Internet. The quality of evidence has to be very high to justify taking your claim seriously. To my way of thinking there is a handful of evidence that merits consideration, but none that compels anyone who is not already convinced to take you at your word. I'm sure I'll take a few lumps for saying this, but I don't find the Patterson film or the Freeman footage especially interesting. At this point we need footage on par with the work wildlife photographers regularly obtain ( and even that is often staged ). Crystal clear. Plain detail, not something that has to be interpreted by the viewer, but hair, anatomy and facial details that are sharp and easily distinguished to the point that people can agree that they are seeing a real creature. The hallmarks of this should be obvious. Look through National Geographic.

      Delete
    5. How clear?

      Clear enough to discern say, eye color, eye movement and other facial articulations?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg64ZRR7vHQ

      Clearest face I've seen. Difficult to attribute to vegetation or misidentification. Also the footage has a pristine chain-of-custody having come from a wildlife documentary that is unrelated to bigfoot.

      My next two are Barrington Tops, Australia and Sumatra, Indonesia. As I said it proves nothing but it will be hard to explain it away.

      I mean, what are huge hairy dirty naked white dudes doing in the Sumatran jungle in somebody's wildlife documentary that has been out for 2 years, has 28,000 views and not a single comment regarding cryptids?

      Delete
    6. Clear footage would be great. On a par with the footage that NG gets of rare animals like the ghost leopard. That would be awesome and would, no doubt, move the needle forward in favor of bigfoots existence. What should be easier to obtain would be DNA results. I don't care how elusive an animal may be, they will always leave behind some evidence of their existence that can be tested for DNA. Hard to photograph? Just saw one? Found a nesting area? Those are opportunities to gather conclusive evidence that footers ignore. How many times have we been presented photos of bigfoot "nesting areas"? These areas are where the creature supposedly lays down and eats, procreates, defecates, etc, yet all we get are pictures? Those areas, if indeed bigfoot nesting spots, would be rife with biological evidence. Do we get that? No, we get pics of depressed twigs and grass. Why nothing else? We are to just believe these are nesting areas? Talk about opportunities missed. Now either bigfoot researchers are the dimmest bulbs in the bunch, or someone would rather play the game than provide tangible, and more importantly, testable evidence.

      You decide.

      Delete
    7. You see?

      I give you a direct link to clear imagery and you do the classic pseudo-skeptical move and ignore the evidence and instead pontificate about other stuff. You have no answer to that clip because anyone who views it can clearly see an archaic human. It is non sequitur, you are simply unable to process it.

      You asked for clear imagery and you got it. Now what?

      Delete
    8. You and I have different definitions of "clear" I'm afraid. If that is an ancient human his nose would put Jimmy Durante's to shame. Also from my point of view wouldn't that "face" be positively huge in relation to the elephants in the foreground? Sometimes the image is in the eyes of the beholder and I certainly wouldn't rule out pareidolia. I agree with Lobster Trouble and Dmaker. An open and shut case it is not and talking like you have secret knowledge without backing it up does not bolster your contention.

      Delete
    9. Are you kidding? You are ignoring the stems. That is, as usual, pareidolia.

      Delete
    10. HAHA that video is crap why does the leafs move with the bigfoot. It's foliage try again!!

      Delete
  2. It's easier to film rocks and sticks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. It's easier to ooh and ahh over ambiguous and completely normal events and suggest it might be bigfoot. And it's way more fun, I'm sure. Added benefit, the legend endures.

      Delete
    2. How can you doubt bigfoot and dogman evidence? Dr. Squatch just released his clint eastwood catman footage! That proves it all!!! And Joe, i mean Joerg, believes it. Remember when Joerg claimed that he didn't know anyone who endorsed portals, mindspeak, zapping, cloaking, etc. LOL!!!!!

      Delete
    3. I can't say as I blame him for admiring such a sexy bloke !

      Joe

      Delete
  3. I saw a pile of crap in the yard, turns out that it was the dog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DS saw some trash. In his mind it turned out to be a Bigfoot signaling system.

      Delete
    2. DS also claims that he just capture footage of a catman who looks exactly like clint eastwood!!! You can't make this stuff up folks! Oh wait, when your Dr. Squatch, you just make it up out of thin air for youtube hits!!

      Delete
    3. You demon, you! How dare you doubt my coerced nephew! Testimony is never wrong!

      Delete
    4. coerced testimony often is

      Delete
    5. Not what I asked. So there is no quality testimony?

      Delete
    6. Good job BC Squatchers!!

      Looks like a BF at 10:10 looking right at you, then the footage stops? Might want to re-check that spot.

      Delete
    7. Vegas, these idiots in denial of my Blue Bag theory, are in such denial that they think i coerced my 6 yr old nephew to climb trees, and tie Blue bags.....wow, kid can't even climb a tree, and like i would put my nephew in jeopardy, WOW!
      I Had 6 researchers contact me all over the USA, telling me how they have bags tied at their habituation sites! My 6yr old nephew sure gets around huh!

      Delete
    8. They didn't say anything about coercing him to climb trees. It was regarding telling his story.

      Delete
    9. Why would i encourage him to lie? No one believes him, except me, and i do because of the way he describes what the creature did when they made eye contact...he said that it stood up, non chalantly turned around, and walked away......this is what a lot of others describe, and he would have no way of knowing that.

      Delete
  4. Sighting of Sasquatch New Brunswick Canada yet person doesn't want to officially report

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. typical ,,,that region doesn't publicly discuss those things,,,especially near the national park areas

      Delete
  5. DS has some good stuff, I think he knows what he is looking at

    ReplyDelete