Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Countdown List Of The Most Believable Bigfoot Sightings Footage


Check out this list published by youtube user HorrorBasement of the Top 6 most believeable bigfoot sightings caught on video.

28 comments:

  1. Alright get along and make nice!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just sighted a big hairy animal with a huge slong. Hope he visits my glory hole. I feel like a glazed donut and hopefully I look like one too.

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  3. Marble mountains footage: mistaken identity. The logs making up the "bigfoot den" were clearly cut with an axe. This is a video of a bunch of kids mucking about in some back to the wilderness survivalist hippie hobo hermit human, not bigfoot.

    The Freeman footage: Resolution too low. Not enough detail to draw any conclusions. Worthless as evidence.

    Kitsap 911 call: Large prowler in black clothes like prowlers are wont to wear. Worthless as evidence.

    Alaska "jumping bigfoot": Poor quality footage combined with pareidolia. Worthless as evidence.

    Sierra audio footage: Coyotes or bigfoot callblasters. Intrigued dogs are not evidence. Worthless as evidence. Even the presenter can't take this seriously.

    Patterson Gimlin film: Bob Gimlin insists it's legit, but then Bob Gimlin has been recorded thanking invisible woo woo forest friends in the company of bat guano crazy Thom Cantrall. I literally cannot think of a more effective way to destroy one's credibility. Hoax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Marble Mountain footage is the biggest load of bigfoot BS. The "bigfoot" is so obviously a hiker with a backpack that it's ridiculous to believe otherwise.

      Delete
    2. Would any cute blokes fancy giving me a nice "backpack" ?

      Joe

      Delete
    3. The second leap of faith of the day; Bob Gimlin speaks to "woo-woo forest friends", therefore the PGF is a hoax.

      Keep up the good work!!

      Delete
    4. Why am I not surprised Ikky lacks the mental capacity to follow a chain of reasoning and instead assumes it's a "leap"?

      I'll spell it out for you Ikky:

      The PGF solely in itself cannot be proven to be legitimate. No matter what artifacts people think they've discovered in the footage, the film quality is simply not good enough. All the people directly involved in the PGF are either dead or claim it was a hoax, the sole exception being Bob Gimlin. The character of Roger Patterson himself is also highly questionable. Bob Gimlin alone claims it's legitimate, and while his claim sounds sincere, it's entirely probable he was brought along to be a witness and therefore unwitting victim to the hoax. However, his unwillingness to shoot the subject to acquire incontrovertible proof argues that he was in on the hoax. So the film's legitimacy depends entirely on Bob Gimlin's reliability as a trustworthy witness. Going woo woo with Cantrall clearly demonstrates he is not a reliable witness, therefore his testimony is worthless for establishing the PGF as legitimate. Without Bob Gimlin's support, the vast preponderance of the documentable evidence on the PGF is that it's a hoax. Just because it has managed to fool a large number of gullible people, yourself included, does not change that.

      And now, like a one trick pony, you'll try to trot out your sad, pathetic "magic monkey suit" fallacy. Again.

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

      Delete
    6. Nope!! The PGF is actually proven to be legitimate as the years role by and no magic monkey suit materialises with the advances in SFX. The film quality is in fact good enough to make comparative analysis such as this;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
      ... You'll notice that the "costume" mimics biological traits that were not found in any Hollywood monkey suit for decades afterwards.
      Lie #1. "All the people involved agree it was a hoax"... You do realise that people around here actually know a thing or two about the subject, right? All the major players that took the time to analyse both the footage and the physical evidence & film site at Bluff Creek, all agreed that the subject in that footage was legitimate.
      Lie #2. "The character of Roger Patterson is questionable"... Yes, according to the lies of Greg Long, the efforts of a dying man trying to tie up lose ends is enough to warrant the labelling of a con man.

      Pretty daft hoaxing someone who had a loaded weapon pointed at the subject. Do you ever pause to read over what you type? There are innumerable accounts of hunters not being able to pull the trigger, notably due to the subjects they have in their sites being too human-like. I've never fired a gun at anything in my life, but considering I know plenty of people who have... it's Internet "tough guys" like you who have quite clearly never done anything of the sort, and have an embarrassing naivety about it to boot. As stated before, the film's authenticity lies in the data within it. Having a "woo-woo" opinion might merely equate to someone having a spiritual belief, or being religious... none of which has ever or ever will amount to a blip on a person's credibility, and to state such is quite clearly an indication of how few people from different cultures you've had the opportunity to meet in your life. That's not me trying to be personal, it's merely drawing upon what's very obvious.
      http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/brilliant-scientists-are-open-minded-about-paranormal-stuff-so-why-not-you/
      There is nothing thus far that demonstrates that the PGF is a hoax. Not Greg Long's lies & shoddy research, not Gimlin talking to forest people, and certainly not by your little tantrums.

      Delete
    7. And there it is, as expected: the "magic monkey suit" fallacy.

      You are so predictably wrong Ikky. Like a broken record. Or a poorly trained parrot.

      Delete
    8. The only fallacy regarding the costume, audaciously, is the maintained drivel that it's applicable to that footage. It's your claim after all... Take some responsibility for it.

      Delete
    9. got magic monkey suit ?
      i highly doubt it because the fallacy is directly from the skeptoids who can't come up with a reasonable recreation and they never will

      Tally ho !

      Joe

      Delete
    10. Gimlin talking to the forest people, no idiot that stupid could make a suit...CASE CLOSED!

      Delete
    11. Anon: 6:32 - concerning your statement that you literally cannot think of a more effective way to destroy one's credibility than that video of Gimlin with Thom Cantrall - I completely agree. I posted much to that same effect after viewing the video of that outing in which Gimlin can be seen agreeing with Cantrall. For the record and I have posted before on this - I think Cantrall's statements are pure fantasy with nothing solid to back them up. Mr. Gimlin seems like a nice guy and he has seemed reasonable and intelligent in videos I have seen of him at conventions where he has talked but this video did him or serious inquiry in Sasquatch no favors.

      Although I personally no longer believe I can understand how some may be convinced by some of the points lktomi makes. But when one goes down the "woo woo" road with Bob Cantrall and like-minded folk then you completely come across as delusional people to me.

      Delete
    12. Hi Iktomi, I actually just said that crap about how people might be persuaded by your points to try to be nice. In actuality, I can't fathom how anyone with half a brain cell still working could possibly be persuaded by any of your "points."

      Delete
    13. Just to clarify (as confusing as it seems) the above was not written by this "curious". I suppose I can understand how logical and intelligent people can be persuaded by arguments that Sasquatch does indeed exist especially if they are prone to wanting to believe. What I cannot understand is how people can be persuaded by outlandish stories given by those such as Thom Cantrall or Matthew Johnson without absolutely nothing to back it up. Sometimes you have to draw a line even if you are the most fervent of believers.

      Any further comments here will not be by this curious'. I'm done for the day.

      Delete
    14. Ikky's problem is that he keeps making the same tired old disproved arguments based on ignorance and fallacies. Over and over and over and over. And when he gets called out on them he always falls back to insults and crying: "nu-uh."

      He's so predictable it's just sad.

      And then there's his support for liars and idiots like Kelly Shaw (who claimed to have found "tons of bigfoot evidence" at an obvious hoax site and then lied about it). Point out that Kelly Shaw has produced less actual bigfoot evidence than any armchair bigfooter and watch Ikky go on the attack.

      Basically Ikky has no concept of a standard of evidence, and attacks and insults anyone who does (just like Kelly Shaw - who found a "ton of bigfoot evidence" at an obvious hoax site). He's as bad a "true believer" as any of the woo woo crowd.

      Delete
  4. The second best piece of bigfoot footage after the PGF is the "Hey Bigfoot" footage shot by a kid in rural Georgia out of a back window at his house. And this footage isn't even in the clip.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a pretty interesting piece of footage. Here's my list;

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
      http://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8
      http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQ
      http://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yI
      http://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4
      http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQ
      http://youtu.be/cjEWDkcqjXI
      https://youtu.be/31iMxiZUqVc

      Delete
    2. Yes... "Bears" that walk with a stride and lack all the anatomical features that bears usually enjoy.

      Delete
  5. Ugh. Why did he have to include that ridiculous Patterson Hoax video on this list?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hoax experts! Able to define all from their parents basement!

    ReplyDelete