Saturday, September 3, 2016

Bigfoot Ambush How Sasquatch Hunt


In this video, Utah Sasquatch believes he has found an area bigfoot have constructed to use as an ambush spot. They drive game into these areas, and then attack them using the element of surprise. That's the theory at least.

81 comments:

  1. And Utah Sasquatch has constructed a revenue stream where by he takes people's money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your panties and your jealousy are showing, again and again and again and.....

      How exactly is he taking people's money?

      Delete
    2. So Utah has been on the scene for a few months right? So he now is some authority on the life and times of the Sasquatches? Bitch please. Not like this theory hasn't been proven or talked about since the early days of the 1970's for Matt Moneymaker sake. Hey Bigfoot Evidence quit star gazing or at least quit trying to make someone something they are not! And in this dudes case a go to kind of quy in the research of the Sasquatch. He's your basic mooch like so many have already pointed out. I never heard of Dr. Krantz bumming money or pan handling as they say for equipment. Enough with this tool already. Right Dr. Squatch?

      Delete
    3. @1:28 I wasn't suggesting he was taking money as in stealing their wallets.

      Then again it's amazing how he's started his little cult of personality and is soliciting donations. But hey if some newb comes in asking for cash I suppose it's ok in the Bigfoot world. And no I am not a Bigfooter nor am I jealous- nice try though.

      Delete
    4. I thought it was pretty funny how fast Michael Merchant jumped on US's crotch. I guess Mikey saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to get in on the next big thing.

      Delete
    5. I think he gets a hard time. He never claims to have all the facts, questions his own ideas and regularly explains he could be very wrong about what he proposes. I think he discusses some very thought provoking things and gets way out in the wilderness. He is also TOTALLY transparent and willing to take ANYONE out with him... That's gotta mean something. I suppose that if you can't afford the most important of thermal tech in order to prove to people slating you that you're not hoaxing, then I can understand why you might do a kick starter. There's only a handful of enthusiasts who are gonna commit to that and be more then happy to hand over their money, so who really gets hurt?

      The one problem I have with what he does, is that I would expect more physical evidence for the videos he does. I would be far more prepared to endorse his videos if that was a bit more forthcoming. I truly hope that he makes more of an effort in this area, as he'd have little doubt in the likes of me about what he does.

      Delete
    6. Yes Zabo, he lacks evidence, and loves to be in front of the camera, more than actual research, i see that as a major problem!

      Merchant's little buddy...lol

      Delete
    7. Merchant claims Utah walks 5 miles in......AND UTAH STILL HAS ZERO EVIDENCE!

      I WALKED LITERALLY 50 FEET, AND GOT THIS ONE YESTERDAY!!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1b7djVrZNE

      Delete
    8. THOU SHALL NOT SPEAK BADLY OF A FELLOW BIGFOOT BELIEVER.

      Isn't that right Joe?

      Delete
    9. I'm all over researchers who claim to be a researchers, yet lack proof of it!

      Delete
    10. ^HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

      Delete
    11. Pope Francis: Global Warming a ‘Sin,’ Man Can Atone by Recycling and ‘Car-Pooling’....
      the POPE would know all about Global Warming ....

      Delete
    12. .....yeah about as much as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do.

      Delete
    13. The biggest sin is that the pope is still breathing xx

      Delete
    14. Wow! Puss In Boots hates the Pope! Who knew!

      Delete
  2. Iktomi is the premier authority on Bigfoot. Love him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5:11 I think he has much more than just a "friend" in you...probably a length of girthy friendship stick.

      Delete
  3. Iktomi is the premier authority on Bigfoot. Love him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ The above comment has to be the most pathetic and stupid comment of the week..Iktomi isn`t an "authority" on bigfoot..nobody asks him his opinions for wider dissemination to the bigfoot world..no researcher has ever even heard of him..he`s never even been to visit the woods for any research..and so your assertion is nonsense as he has merely gleaned the little knowledge he has from the web and the stories found therein..and most of what he gives comment upon is based on nothing more than conjecture,assumption and hoax.

      Delete
    2. And you wanted people to believe I'm having a rough time of late?

      Delete
  4. Still no bigfoot?

    This guy still hasn't captured a bigfoot image?

    Man, this is getting embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have the audacity to question Brother Nathan? How....HOW DARE YOU! Prophet Reo will capture an image in good time. Meanwhile content yourself with his soothing voice and handsome features. You will soon grow to love him as we all do. Now if you will, please drop a ten spot in the offering plate - eh, I mean his kickstarter account.

      Delete
    2. ... Yes, now put all your faith in that conspiracy theory of yours.

      Delete
    3. As you do in anyone who says they have seen Bigfoot.

      Now go pray for Bigfoot to exist and lift your burden.

      Delete
    4. Lovely grammar. Didn't you provide your own betting odds as an example of the scientific method yesterday? Keep up the good work, you'll explain away the evidence in no time.

      Delete
    5. Evidence? Oh you mean that stuff that you keep peddling that only believers in Bigfoot recognize. You see laddie, your "evidence" has not been recognized by scientific community standards and until it does your Bigfoot does not officially exist and until you produce a body it does not exist period. That's just the way it works.

      It's so easy - just produce a body and you win! It's all over, no argument, confirmed, undeniable, end of story. With as many Bigfoot running around as all these stories here indicate, surely someone can produce just ONE.

      Okay - cue the excuses.

      Delete
    6. What mainstream scientists recognise, or to be more specific, are even aware of for that matter, means little. If there's scientific evidence that not one from that mainstream can explain away, and it is substantiated with consistent scientific means, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority.

      No... The way it worked for the Bili Ape, you had track castings and indigenous eyewitnesses. The Bili Ape didn't need a body before there were consorted efforts in place to track it, that's the cart before the horse. But I AM talking to someone who uses his own betting odds as an example of the scientific method, after all.

      With as many "Bigfoot" running around indicated by the sightings reports and physical evidence, you'd also think there'd be at least one effort on the part of mainstream science to investigate the matter? D'you know, you have a way of repeating the vocabulary and phrases of posters around here which is pretty creepy, regardless of how pleased I should be that a young man like you is learning.

      Delete
    7. 1;43 can`t deal with the points raised and so needs to use a diversion tactic in a pathetic attempt to attack and thus avoidance...yet he still can`t raise the flag of proof.

      Delete
    8. I think you'll find nothing but points being decimated... Now please proceed to tell everyone how much of a bad person I am... Your slacking lately...

      Delete
    9. "and it is substantiated with consistent scientific means".

      BINGO! Thank you for that. That's the problem. There is no consistency. Even those who believe have different ideas on what is considered evidence.

      Well I have to admit, I have thought the same of you "Joe".

      Delete
    10. (Sigh... It's like stooping to a ten year old's level)

      Only yesterday, you were invited to demonstrate via the scientific method (as you claimed to know it so well), as to how the forensic evidence I reference isn't valid by consistent scientific means. Forget what amateur researchers think about god knows what... Focus on what the experts I reference think about the evidence of dermatoglyphics. And as a reason to denounce those dermatoglyphics as a flag ship for this scientific method you know so well, you provided your own betting odds as opposed to anything substantial.

      You really don't even deserve the response. It's embarrassing.

      Delete
    11. I'll be back tomorrow to see what jokes have been left for me.

      Delete
    12. Okay - I realize I am dealing with a fanatic here who has a belief in Bigfoot that borders on religious dogma but I will do my best.

      The evidence you state is not valid because it has not been submitted thru a peer review process. Just because a few say it is so does not make it such. If they have such confidence in their findings than they can submit their evidence and a paper detailing such thru the proper channels, But it seems it's easier to convince those who WANT to believe and not risk ridicule from others who are experts in that field Melba Ketchum is a great example of what happens if you submit something to those who ARE knowledgeable. It's gets examined by impartial parties as it should be. The Sykes study gave every opportunity for Bigfoot to be proven thru DNA and the results were negative. Let's see how that dated evidence by your experts that you champion would hold up under those conditions. The burden is on them to submit it if they want it to be recognized and validated.

      If you think that by submitting the same old links over and over is going to convince anyone than I am afraid you are a victim of your own joke.

      Delete
    13. I see in an earlier thread you were trashing peer review again. That is so hypocritical when you condemn peer review and then on the other hand, you tell us all that Sykes is coming when he publishes his promised peer reviewed paper on Zana.

      You can't have it both ways, Joe. If peer review is so unimportant, then why do you constantly tout about Sykes upcoming paper? Surely nothing in it, pro bigfoot or otherwise, will truly matter since peer review, in your opinion, is so flawed?

      Delete
    14. I'm fairly sure you are going to come back with something like it gives people like me ( those that still recognize that accepted science takes place in peer review) no outs. But why would that matter? If Sykes publishes something pro bigfoot in his peer reviewed paper, would you stand behind the results? That would be hypocritcal of you, would it not? Since peer review is such a bad thing, in your opinion? So, even if he publishes something in your favor, you've painted yourself into a corner, now, where you cannot tout it as a win since the results were published in peer review.

      Delete
    15. I guess the peer review process should be scrapped, so we can return to the days when church dogma resolved scientific questions.

      Delete
    16. Or scientific claims should be vetted on fringe blogs.

      Delete
    17. There are ton's of things right in science face. They don't dare approach what would highlight the foolishness of long-taught BULLSHIT theories.

      And Melba is the PERFECT example!

      Delete
    18. Joe will happily malign peer review when he can find a few quotes that support that as long as it helps him prop up the weak evidence and lack of bigfoot peer reviewed papers. But on the other hand, he will get all googly about Sykes upcoming peer reviewed paper. A paper, I might add, that has yet to see the light of day after a couple of years.

      And as much as Joe condemns peer review, he offers no alternative. Which is no suprise, as Joe has no understanding of science whatsoever. He simply cherry picks quotes that help whatever point he is trying to make at that moment. A congruency of thought is not one of his strong points.

      Delete
    19. Yes indeed - let's just accept the results of a few professionals who are pro-Bigfoot and use them as the golden standard. We don't need no sticking peer review.

      Delete
    20. Unless it is Sykes, then peer review will be wonderful. As long as the results are pro bigfoot, if not, then Joe will just fall back on his peer review is flawed nonsense.

      Delete
    21. Now if Sykes ever gets around to publishing his scientific paper on Zana (which I highly doubt will ever happen), and the results are pro bigfoot, suddenly Joe will forget how flawed he thinks peer review is and he will crow about it to no end. The hypocrisy of which will escape his limited intellect, of course.


      Delete
    22. Tick tock, tick tock - Sykes is coming - pretty soon now - he's working on it - just around the corner - any day now - you'll see - tick tock, tick tock.

      Delete
    23. Ok... Referencing Sykes' efforts to get the Zana study published down the usual channels, for me has no bearing what so ever on the legitimacy of that research. Even though this has been put in writing to Rhetorical Don-Donz at least five times already, should this occur with a positive result as to Zana's ancient lineage, then you won't have any excuses. Your idealist, faulty process would have been adhered to and you would only have Sykes' character left to attack (mark my words, that will come next as the usual Pseudosceptical method).

      What YOU need now is a peer review... 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? Cart before the horse logic.

      CONCLUSION
      So peer review 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/

      ... That's your beloved peer review process in pieces. And that's just one source of many. Why would anyone expect real science to come from that process? The main illogical Pseudosceptical mantra, is that the evidence can't stand because there are examples of said evidence being manufactured. Not only does this fly in the face of any source of evidence that can be and HAS been hoaxed in any judicial and scientific arena to manipulate those processes (not bringing down the reliability of those two processes one bit), but we also have examples where the peer review process has been used to lie to the general public. By your logic... Surely the peer review process should be cast aside now?

      I'll say it for the second day running... Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence. How this is relevant to my situation, is that there is reason to invest enthusiasm in the subject matter based on the accumulated data that accounts for the experiences of tens of thousands of people, spanning different cultures, that is supported by means of physical and even biological evidences that can't be scientifically shown to be false. Religions include revelation, faith and sacredness, and how this is relevant to your situation is that you have nothing but dataless opinion void of any scientific factual basis, with a requirement to be devoted in expressing your sentiment at every opportunity.

      Sykes is coming... Indeed.

      Delete
    24. You wrote:

      "What I need is evidence that constitutes reason for the mainstream to finally investigate/track the creatures in question."

      I thought you wanted them left alone?

      Delete
    25. It's not so much my alleged hypocrisy as it is merely what you've rhetorically requested all along. Incredibly, to focus on me as opposed to what such a result would imply, is a sure sign that I'm a little more important to you than the subject matter itself...

      I wonder why that is, Don?

      When one requires deflecting from addressing the evidence that is above them, it's pseudosceptics 101 to refer to the Ketchum study that enthusiasts themselves exposed as fruitless, and have the audacity to claim it as an example of research incompetence.

      Now... How about those betting odds as scientific method?

      : p

      Delete
    26. @ 9:33 Of what ancient lineage are you refering to ,, YOU DINGBAT!!,,,,HAAA HAAAA HAAA LOLZ!!!!
      That's..MR.AC collins to son!

      Delete
    27. 9:40... In a hypothetical sense. I've never ever wanted any of these creatures tracked or hunted, it's just an effort to demonstrate how contradictory, or in your case how naive your take on the current state of comparative evidence is. I think you meant to substantiate your ideas, but your try-hard contradiction hunting makes your inferiority complex about that a little too obvious.

      Delete
    28. To the drunk... As has been typed at your bird brain 100,000 times before... That ancient lineage would come from Syke's conclusions, as he's already loosely theorised that a migration of subspecies homo sapiens could have emerged from Africa 100,000 years ago.

      Delete
    29. I just love how iktomi thinks ALL YOU FOLKS ARE AS LOW IQ AS HE IS!!!

      UNO who

      Delete
    30. Yes, now tell everyone how you think "Bigfoot" is paranormal... You pitifully mixed up drunk.

      Delete
  5. Only white people see the magic monkeys of the forest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/check-out-these-creepy-bigfoot-stories.html

      Delete
  6. "Life has a particle of risk"

    Alardyce T. Meriweather

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/black-panther-spotted-chasing-deer-8460712

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's one back at ya!

      https://youtu.be/1GCYqauLhCg

      Delete
    2. That was really good Iktomi.I've got a feeling the SAS man was a bit disappointed to be beaten :) xx

      Delete
    3. The whole black panther theme has about as much probability as bigfoot, which is very little.

      Delete
    4. Got hate manual Pope hater?

      Delete
    5. http://m.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Exclusive-Experts-DNA-proof-big-cats-living/story-13169998-detail/story.html

      Delete
    6. Yet not one black panther body produced. Thats odd. Kinda like bigfoot.

      Delete
    7. DNA is just as good... But you'd know that, being an authority on the scientific method and all, right?

      Delete
    8. And here's further reading... Mr Method;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/man-hears-crashing-sound-and-finds-elk.html?m=0

      Delete
    9. So Khat and I just finished the first one ------

      Iktomi knows ---- ha ha ha

      Chick And PIB, I'd give you the heads up but, I don't know your e-mail.

      Iktomi ----- Did you get it? What happened? What the stain was? Wow!

      Delete
    10. Leon, I'll check my emails and get back to you ASAP!!

      Delete
    11. So this time, when it happens again, I'll film it. Big pool of blood and A.C. LOOKING FOR HIS TEETH. Getting CLOSE A.C. YOU COMING BY??? HA HA HA HA HA HA

      I THINK I'll make A.C. apologize to all the ladies around BFE for his rude behavior, before I let him leave.

      Delete
    12. WELL,WELL,WELL! IF it ain't joes little COPSUCKER,, troll asskisser!!
      EMAIL BITCH???

      AC collins, HAAA HAAA HAAAA HAA LOL!!

      Delete
    13. HERE IT ID!--------friscosnitchbitch@gmail.com
      ha ha ha ha ha ha

      Delete
    14. "here it id"??????WTF!!!

      TK IN DA HOUSE BABY!!!
      HAAA HAAA HAA LOL!!
      AC collins

      Delete