Thursday, August 18, 2016

New Possible Bigfoot Photo Released


Bigfoot or a man in a suit? Which one do you think it is? Check out the video for the story that goes with this image.


46 comments:

  1. My dad had a brown, lined mechanic's jumpsuit that he would wear when he worked on our family's cars in the cold of winter.
    This looks like one of those jumpsuits that was stuffed with padding.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Follies of Joerg Part II

    Thick headed Joerg regularly cites Sarah Winnemucca in support of his inane argument that there were "European red haired giants" living alongside the Paiute Tribe for centuries. Here are two examples.

    http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-struggle-is-real-for-oklahoma.html?m=1

    http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-struggle-is-real-for-oklahoma.html?m=1

    Notice how the dishonest crumb Joerg begins the paragraph declaring that the Paiute have a long history of stories involving a group that was a "very tall, reddish haired tribe, occasionally cannibalistic." And then he cites Winnemucca as part of that tradition.

    The problem is that Winnemucca never mentioned anything about giants or tall people! So once again the boob Joerg outright lied about a source in a dishonest attempt to fool Bigfoot believing rubes.

    But wait, there's more. Andy White pointed out this fact to Joerg and the buffoon openly admitted that he had not even fully read the source!!!

    Joerg: "I've yet to pour over the Sarah Winnemucca stuff."

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

    That's right folks, this imbecile Joerg cites sources that he hasn't even read (except for a few cherry picked sections posted by Micah Ewers -- the source of over half of Joerg's half baked arguments)!

    So to sum up, dishonest and lazy Joerg misrepresents sources that he hasn't even bothered to read. Good job idiot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol. Haven't see Joe/Iktomi round these parts since he was utterly GAPED by Andy White's scientific mastery.

      Fool retreated with his tail between his legs and is probably combing the Internet looking to find new blog links for his excel spreadsheet so he'll have them at the ready when he's back to spam these comments sections.

      Delete
    2. The Paiute have a long history of stories of a reddish haired tribe popping off their heads like a soda bottle cap. That's a fact.*

      *Source: Joerg

      Delete
    3. you lads really don't know when to ever give up eh ?
      Please get yourselves an education, a girlfriend and a life and stop trolling on this site

      Tally ho !

      Joe

      Delete
    4. Just what kind of nut shiner^ are you FAKE JOE F??.
      HOWEVER some of your quips are ...Not bad!

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

      Delete
    6. Talk about "citing sources you haven't even read", ha ha!!

      Delete
    7. So!!

      To date... My "follies" that I can only assume are meant to discredit me and my arguments once compiled, are as follows;
      1. A self admitted mistake as to where the occipital bun is on a skull, which was not scrutinised for almost three years around here by those who claim to better know about it now, and even though I'm still sitting on the skull in question that has archaic skull morphology.
      2. Admitting that I've not studied Sarah Winnemucca, which appears to be no less than most internet "sceptics" who aren't aware there are easily accessible sources that demonstrate the Pauite, THE SAME TRIBE, have a rich oral history of tall hairy cannibal tribes.

      Good job. I can't wait to see number 3 on this list, ha ha ha!! As long as you're happy to put in the effort, I'm happy to laugh.

      Delete
    8. I'm glad that you're enjoying your humiliation. By the way, I have an update to Part I. In your rambling response, you mentioned that a "polite anon" corrected you on the occipital bun issue.

      That exchange was anything but polite with you referring to the "polite anon" as "fricking dense" and him calling you "drunk" -- some polite conversation that was!!! You can't even be honest about your own past posts on this very blog!

      The truth is that you got all your information regarding the Zana saga from other sources and, without reading them carefully, you copied and pasted them without understanding what they meant. As recently as two months ago, you were still confusing occipital buns with nuchal crests!

      Delete
    9. Oh the humiliation! Ha ha ha!! You're a very angry person aren't you? It's actually incredible how much you fit the psychologists troll diagnosis. Can't be a good look then that someone like me, who doesn't know basic human anatomy, should show you a thing or two about nuchal crests here (Feb 2016);
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-teddy-roosevelt-bigfoot-story.html?m=0

      ... And again here (Jan 2016);
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/dr-jeffrey-meldrum-removes-myth-out-of.html?m=0

      ... It doesn't appear I have an issue with differentiating the nuchal crest in those comment sections, does it? But let's be honest with ourselves, this is the reason you're a little angry, isn't it?

      AnonymousWednesday, June 3, 2015 at 4:20:00 PM PDT
      What extra bone in the neck?
      An extra vertebrae?

      AnonymousWednesday, June 3, 2015 at 4:24:00 PM PDT
      If what 3:12 says is true and Zana's body was never found, how would you know she had an "extra bone in the neck"?
      Are you certain that you don't mean bony landmark or formation on the back of the skull instead of "an extra bone in the neck"?
      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/man-talks-about-his-childhood-friend.html?showComment=1471521952841&m=1#c6796712241791564453

      As I've stated on the previous comment section regarding the occipital bone, I have no issue in admitting my mistakes. I'm human after all. A couple of years ago when I first watched Sykes' analysis of Khwit's skull on TV, I listed them off whilst watching it and accidentally wrote "extra bone in neck" as opposed to "back of the skull". This was at a time when my knowledge of skull morphology wasn't great (this also should have actually been described as "pronounced", but blame Sykes for that). considering I pasted the same list of archaic traits for about three years afterwards, nobody around here including you knew any different until a polite anon in the link pointed it out for me.

      Recap... My "follies" so far, that I can only assume are meant to discredit me and my arguments once compiled, are as follows;
      1. A self admitted mistake as to where the occipital bun is on a skull, which was not scrutinised for almost three years around here by those who claim to better know about it now, and even though I'm still sitting on the skull in question that has archaic skull morphology.
      2. Admitting that I've not studied Sarah Winnemucca, which appears to be no less than most internet "sceptics" who aren't aware there are easily accessible sources that demonstrate the Pauite, THE SAME TRIBE, have a rich oral history of tall hairy cannibal tribes.

      Great work!! Um... Here's a rookie's tip... Don't you think you should be preoccupied with a bit of the evidence I reference?

      Delete
    10. This really looks like quite a polite exchange you had with Mr. "Polite Anon":

      AnonymousThursday, June 4, 2015 at 5:48:00 AM PDT
      You are hopeless. You were clearly in error but can not admit it. More pronounced bone in the skull is not an "extra bone in the neck"' What the F U C K is wrong with you?


      IktomiThursday, June 4, 2015 at 5:56:00 AM PDT
      Inca bone darling. You're so fricking dense that you can't see that all these collective morphological features are relevant to being no other example of skull in any known modern human. Ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    11. Yeah... Look at the time stamps compared to mine, Sporto. You do realise people can read when you're angrily attacking my character, right? And like I said, you didn't have a clue until the anon drew my attention to it.

      So!! How about actually addressing some of the evidence I reference?

      Delete
    12. The "Polite Anon" pointed out your stupid error regarding the position of the occipital bun and you fought him tooth and nail for dozens of post and personally insulted him on multiple occasions. You even copied and pasted selections from the two Russian anthropologists who studied Khwit's skull and who correctly described the skull prominence.

      So you watched a TV show and took Sykes' word for the position of the occipital bun, continued to cite that for years, and all the while you repeatedly copied and pasted the selection from
      the Russians that was accurate?

      The obvious conclusion is that you copied and pasted the Russisns' report from the Bigfoot Junction or wherever and never even bothered to read it. If you had, you would have known that Sykes was wrong and the occipital bun was not on the neck.

      More proof that you're stupid and lazy.

      Delete
    13. SIMMER DOWN !! Capt Angry ^

      99% of the folks, Are just trying to teach you (politely)..
      Peace !!

      Delete
    14. ... And like I said, you didn't have a clue either until the anon drew my attention to it. What's your excuse? It's very difficult to differentiate between a troll and a human being around here at times and I'm subsceptible to being defensive; simples. Oh... And those skull prominences remain as facts that you should be way more preocupied with (are you starting to catch on with what's actually important yet?)

      “But that theory would not explain her extraordinary features, described by reliable eyewitnesses. There is an even more intriguing alternative theory. Having carefully studied the skull of Zana’s son, Khwit, Professor Sykes believes there are some unusual morphological skull features – such as very wide eye sockets, an elevated brow ridge and what appears to be an additional bone at the back of the skull – that could suggest ancient, as opposed to modern, human origins.”

      This indicates that Sykes wasn't wrong about it. When I was a little excited that I was about to rub the trolls' faces in it, I wrote it all down as "back of the neck" before publishing. An easy mistake given my knowledge of archaic skull morphology at the time. And there is no direct usage of the words "occipital bun" in the link you allude to with the Russian anthropologists;
      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/zana2.htm
      ... Which clearly indicates you hypocritically haven't read the source you're crying about.

      "Stupid and lazy"... Um... How about addressing the evidence?

      (Your next comment is pivotal to your abilities in that respect, Sporto)

      : )

      Delete
    15. "A hypocrite despises those whom he deceives, but has no respect for himself. He would make a dupe of himself too, if he could."
      - William Hazlitt

      Delete
    16. Where did I say that the Russians used the term "occipital bun"? You're too stupid and lazy to even read the comments you're responding to! The phrase "increased development of the contour of the skull" should have alerted you -- that is if you had actually read it!

      But at least I got you to withdraw your idiotic lie about the "polite anon." But what troubles me is that, if you would lie about something as trivial as that, what wouldn't you lie about? Think about that!

      Delete
    17. I didn't, but you tried worming a situation where my listed archaic traits contradicted that of the Russian anthropologists... Reading by that, I'm guessing only now you've read the article? Ha ha ha!!

      And sorry... I know it's so desperate for you in regards to the evidence (what actually counts), and you need to feel some sort of ground being made for the hours you've no doubt put in to attacking my character... But there is no admission, which is more than what I can say for you given your comment above which was pivotal to demonstrating your capacity to do so. Hence having the belly to acknowledge what's repeatably put your way. There is no lie.

      D'you know that I think? I think someone so preocupied with my character other than the evidence is both a little butthurt and.. (Cough, cough)... Lazy and stupid?

      Delete
    18. By the way Joerg, as a show of good faith, I will acknowledge that over the last few months, I've noticed that your writing abilities have improved markedly. I won't be so pompous as to take complete credit for the improvement, but I'm happy that I provided you with some inspiration!

      Delete
    19. Oh dear... (Cringe)... It appears my comment above is substatiated. So a recap!

      My "follies" so far, that I can only assume are meant to discredit me and my arguments once compiled, are as follows;
      1. A self admitted mistake as to where the occipital bun is on a skull, which was not scrutinised for almost three years around here by those who claim to better know about it now, and even though I'm still sitting on the skull in question that has archaic skull morphology.
      2. Admitting that I've not studied Sarah Winnemucca, which appears to be no less than most internet "sceptics" who aren't aware there are easily accessible sources that demonstrate the Pauite, THE SAME TRIBE, have a rich oral history of tall hairy cannibal tribes.

      Is that it??

      Delete
    20. I guess so... Oh well, eh?

      ad hominem
      ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
      adverb & adjective
      1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
      "an ad hominem response"
      2. relating to or associated with a particular person.
      "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

      Delete
    21. Its about time you ^ start understanding my lessons to you "SONNY BOY"!

      Dr.B Sykes!!

      Delete
    22. Go away you drunk. You got owned on the previous comment section, I'd worry about addressing that if I were you.

      Delete
    23. Simmer down loony tune !!
      your low IQ is showing as is your lack of veracity!!

      so easy :-))

      Delete
    24. What isn't easy to understand, is the time somebody wasted in an attempt to discredit an individual on all things, a comment section of a Bigfoot site. You are a stage 1 weirdo. I mean, the damage this Joe character must have done to you is truly astounding. It's almost as if your mind belongs to him.

      Delete
    25. "To date... My "follies" that I can only assume are meant to discredit me and my arguments once compiled, are as follows;" iktomi responding to a comment meant for Joe. Proof for anyone who has wondered.

      Delete
    26. He is some creep whose real name is Joerg

      Delete
    27. What Everybody on this blog understands Vegas ,,is that your ALWAYS DEFENSIVE. However me AC,,is only stating THE FACTS! ,ANOTHER THING ! nobody has ever seen you discuss the subject matter!! wich is to expected from . thin skined SHILL!
      AC collins,,, :-))

      Delete
  3. Suit! Arms are way too short, bulky back and legs with absolutely no muscle definition with a ridiculous pinhead.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you've got the time to take a pic then you've got the time to take video. But given the subject matter, I don't blame them for only capturing one really poor photo of a terrible costume.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like how the foot is back, like they are trying to replicate the Patterson bigfoot.

    This is so obviously a hoax/joke that it's ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. its a guy in a poor costume. why 1 pic,as usual, why not press your camera button 5x

    ReplyDelete
  7. Some more hoaxing by Alex MW!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Unless you can prove beyond any doubt that the figure there is wearing some sort of suit (in fact, you must be able to provide the suit if that is the case), then it is obviously NOT a person wearing a suit and is, 100% DEFINITIVELY BIGFOOT!

    -Cucktomi

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
      - Bertrand Russell

      Delete
    2. Smoking my neighbors Joerg pipe always makes me happy
      - Bertrand Russell

      Delete