Friday, September 2, 2016

Possible Bigfoot On Hill Top Caught On Video


According to NvTv, this video was shot by a couple on the side of a highway in California. They filmed what they believe is a bigfoot walking along a hilltop in the distance. Check it out:


99 comments:

  1. Zero bigfoots and a blown out welshman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... Says the angry troll trying to pray "Bigfoot" away...

      Delete
    2. No prayers required for imaginary creatures. You could probably do with some.

      Delete
    3. When you have to express faith-based circular reasoning ten times a week to explain away an "imaginary creature"... There's nothing more ironic.

      Delete
    4. Nothing more ironic than accusing others of using faith-based circular reasoning when you believe in Bigfoot.

      Delete
    5. When there's physical evidence to reference, there's no reason to use circular reasoning.

      Man, I stoop low.

      Delete
    6. Hey Iktomi, Get the note?

      I know EXACTLY where this footage was taken. There is a travel corridor in this area for them. It was over 100* up there and there had been fires north of there near Kernville. But the sightings are usually in the fall. Their is a closed community near here that has taken a lot of sightings. I went and drove around the area to get the lay of the land. But the community is gated, and I couldn't get on the exact spot where the sightings where. probably 5-10 miles from this video. This footage is from the highway heading East out of Bakersfield Ca. heading up the mountains to Tehachapi Ca. Look at the BFRO for those sighting reports Kern. Probably 2500-3000 ft elev.

      Delete
    7. Looks pretty damn interesting. Can't rule out a hoax, but I guarantee nobody was up there in a coat. Way to hot by June. And where this was shot. There is nothing up there but the old roads to support the Power transmission lines. There maybe some cattle grazed on that land, but I think I had only ever seen them on the opposite side of the highway. To the videographers back. Looks pretty good.

      Delete
    8. Hey TK!! Expect an email back next few hours.

      Delete
    9. Hey Troll Killer, if you catch up with that bigfoot ask him what kind of cigarettes he was smoking when that was filmed.

      Delete
    10. I'd rather know what the 2 Dogman in suits were smoking at skinwalker ranch, ha ha ha ha ha ha

      Delete
    11. Your Stupid if you think the pixilation around him is cigarette smoke. That's hazy as hell here to start with and hot. There is all kinds of light distortion in this vid. The size of the distortion's, if it were cig smoke, is ridiculously large. A human set of lungs aren't that big, it's continuously happening, camera likely wouldn't even pick it up at that distance, it wouldn't be a good idea to be up there hot-boxing cigs standing in the middle of a tender-box---, not utilizing the road, wearing all black when it's probably 103 out there, shall I go on?

      It still may not be a bigfoot, but lets not take false claims either.

      Phil, make yourself useful.

      Delete
  2. Just chilling out with a beer while reading andy white destroying joe on his blog. Good times:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Please Andy?! Please take note of this baiting and come and comment on this comment section?!"

      Delete
    2. ... Blown away with your tantrums more like...

      Delete
    3. Having a relaxing evening and having a good old laugh at you trying to argue an imaginery creatures existence with an anthropologist is hardly a tantrum. Your response on the other hand...

      Delete
    4. Yeah... By the way... Andy White states that 7-8 foot skeletons have been found in woodland mounds. I wonder if you'll acknowledge that fact in the next comment?

      : )

      Imaginary creatures don't leave physical evidence.

      Delete
    5. 7 to 8 feet humans? Great stuff.

      Delete
    6. 7-8 foot humans are in the range of possibility but even if it was true it has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of Bigfoot.

      Delete
    7. Well according to joe its 100% proof of bigfoot (this is the level of delusion we are dealing with)

      Delete
    8. I don't think you'll ever find me using that as proof of "Bigfoot", but considering the average height of Sasquatch are 7-8 tall based on 40 years of studies into track impressions... If these skeletons were acknowledged to exist and in museums today, most people wouldn't have an issue with wild, hairy versions residing in wilderness areas today.

      Delete
    9. ^wild unfounded speculation

      Delete
    10. I did - and it has nothing to do with you.

      Delete
    11. Maybe in your expert logic sourcing, you can find a reason for anyone around here to believe that you're capable of using the Internet for anything other than porn.

      Delete
  3. I got about a minute in with the sound down. Was there any explanation as to why the camera was pointed in that general direction (from a apparently moving car} in the first place? I have Rush's Red Sector A going through the earbuds. Ain't pausing that for a sketchy video.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Trolls and haters, trolls and haters. If you don't call every stump in the forest a Bigfoot, and if you don't call every tree that falls or every stick that falls across another stick a Bigfoot structure, you are a troll and a hater.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. No... If you name-drop someone twice a week looking for a reaction; you're a troll. You sign in with an anon account to do the same; you're a troll. If you poste irrelevant racism; you're a troll. If you post irrelevant sexism; you're a troll. If you steal people's avatars; you're a troll. If you insult people and post vulgar, sexually explicit comments where children may read them; you're a troll.

      Ive yet to ever read a civil, thought provoking, sceptical comment from you that would attract a civil response, so stop crying like a little girl, it's not becoming of a troll.

      Delete
    3. And if you pretend to believe in bigfoot you are a troll

      Delete
    4. So relevant racism is okay to post?

      Delete
    5. ... Like you pretend to know the first thing about "Bigfoot"...

      Delete
    6. like living in Wales and pretending to be a expert on a AMERICAN sub culture from information gleened from google and a few "KOOKS"!!

      AC collins

      Delete
    7. AC collinsThursday, August 4, 2016 at 5:04:00 PM PDT
      Its not bigfoots fault we(hss) cannot catch them, or consistantly film them!!
      IT'S OUR FAULT THAT OUR 3D PERCEPTION ISNT Designed to pickup entities that are multi dimensional!!
      sounds crazie huh ??
      Well most of you Dullards will still be making up EXCUSES 10YRS FROM NOW!!
      AC collins



      "kooks"... Indeed...

      Delete
  5. Face it people. There is no such thing as bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No faith required for the non belief position ironically

      Delete
    2. 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.

      Delete
    3. Theres no such thing as "scientifically shown to be false". What there is however, and this is how science works in the real world, is scientifically showing something is true. You have yet to do this. This is the same burden of proof argument that gets you flustered every week. I dont think you are dumb enough to not understand it so I can only imagine that you are intentionally ignoring it, because by the very definition of it you simply can not meet your burden.

      Delete
    4. You might have "forgotten" about the first ten million times you failed to demonstrate otherwise, but what the evidence has demonstrated, is that their is forensic evidence for something with the same widely reported anatomy as is being reported in "Bigfoot". Not only that, but these are in fact traits that have been found in other sources that transcend States and almost 20 years... This is repeatable scientific evidence.

      In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. Your extraordinary claim is that there is nothing to thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports, that have physical evidence to support. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

      Please don't condescend anyone about how science works... You struggle using it to explain away what according to you is so obvious every day of your life.

      Delete
    5. Did you copy paste that directly from the last time you tried to explain burden of proof? Embarassing.
      You keep saying I am making an extraordinary claim. I am not. I am not even making a claim. None what so ever. I bear zero burden.
      I can understand your hatred of the scientific method. Its the same hatred i see in religous fanatics, ghost fanatics and ufo fanatics. Science weeds out the nutcases and rightly so. Science works.

      Delete
    6. Evidence? You always refer to the same dated material by the same people who have probably retired from their profession by now. Where is the new evidence coming in to be examined by better educated people using new techniques? The last big thing was the Sykes study which concluded....there was no proof of Bigfoot.

      Delete
    7. I've got plenty more pastes in me to make you look like the resident science theory-fumbler. So if you are not making a claim, then you are not trying to refute the evidence and you agree it stands. By this, you now retract the million times you've attempted to insult people for being convinced by the existence of Sasquatch, because you are now not critical of the evidence put forward to warrant being so convinced. The scientific method is what's sending you over the edge now mate.

      Since you can use science so well to weed out nutcases, you'll have no problem lifting this burden of yours then, eh? Pseudoscepticism is a fundamental, quasi-religion.

      Delete
    8. Given that these dermatoglyphics were accumulated in track impressions in 1982, the exact same biological traits surfaced again in September 2000, almost 20 years later;
      "The ridge characteristics (in the Skookum Cast) are consistent with other examples from Sasquatch footprints Meldrum has studied in collaboration with officer Jimmy Chilcutt, a latent fingerprint examiner with the Conroe, Texas, Police Department. The anatomy of the heel, ankle, and Achilles tendon are also distinct and consistent with models of the Sasquatch foot derived by Meldrum after examining hundreds of alleged Sasquatch footprints.
      Hair samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself and examined by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a biomedical research scientist from Beaverton, Ore., were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. However, based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as “Sasquatch.”
      http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.pdf

      Repeatable scientific evidence.

      Delete
    9. News flash: science already weeded out bigfoot nutcases and we are laughing at you

      Delete
    10. Sorry, you must be mistaken... Science isn't a freethinking entity, it's a tool and been used to measure the psychical evidence for a creature with the same widely reported anatomy as "Bigfoot".

      Don't like it?

      Lift that burden... Chop! Chop!

      Delete
    11. Sorry but you cant redefine the scientific method for your imaginary creature. Its the same method for everything. Bigfoot doesnt work? Then the issue is with bigfoot not science.

      Delete
    12. LOL - I note that he always refers to the same dated material by the same people who have probably retired from their profession by now and he goes and DOES IT AGAIN!

      Delete
    13. Sorry, circular logic might work around your peers, but you're with semi-intelligent people now... And I do believe the ball is in your court to apply this method that you know so well to lifting that burden... Remember, this is "so obviously imaginary", should be easy...

      Chop! Chop!!

      Delete
    14. 5:49... Learn to read. Repeatable scientific evidence... And there is nothing in scientific theory that states that scientific evidence lacks the longer it is still substantiated.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    15. Anyway... Gonna catch some Z's. Don't let that burden eat away at you now, dear boy. You never know... By the time I check back here in a few hours, you might have applied this superior understanding of the scientific method into substantiating at least one of your arguments for once... You never know!

      ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

      Delete
    16. jeorg is a poo poo face!!

      Delete
    17. Wrong. That "evidence" can be challenged by newer, updated, modern methods done by professionals who have accumulated more experience and education. Would any new evidence stand up in present day? Well if the Sykes DNA study is any indication - no. No one except Bigfoot advocates is paying any attention to that old dated stuff - those who claim to have the evidence MUST bring it forth to be tested by impartial parties using modern and new techniques.

      Delete
    18. That's ok then... Challenge me with these, "newer, updated, modern methods done by professionals who have accumulated more experience and education". If there is little reason to believe it can't stand up in the present day, you'll have no issue sourcing an example of how, right? And Sykes has only just now completed studying Zana's DNA lineage, that's unless you know something the rest of us don't?

      What are these modern techniques compared to those that have verified forensic evidence, I'm intrigued to know? You have such a superior understanding of forensics, I think I'm about to learn something... ... ...

      : )

      Delete
    19. My dear boy - it's already begun! The Sykes DNA study so anticipated by bigfoot advocates such as yourself was the most recent scientifically backed endeavor in which bigfoot COULD have been proven. The result was not one - NOT ONE - of the 30 DNA samples submitted provided any evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Do you really think any serious professionals would want to waste their time after that? I'm no expert in forensics but neither are you and there is no doubt in my mind the techniques have improved since your dated material. Trust me, I would love it as much as you if this dated "evidence" was seriously put to the test using present day standards. Would it hold up to the scrutiny? I'm betting not and in truth there seems to be no reason for doing so. With all the sightings we read about here every day there should be a mountain of evidence to submit. Where is it all at?

      Now go back and post like you always do the same old stuff over and over...or get some sleep like a sane person.

      Delete
    20. Leaving aside the fact that the Skookum debacle was one of the biggest embarrassments in the history of Bigfoot "research," Joerg has blatantly lied about Fahrenbach's opinion. Here is what he really thought about it:

      "The Skookum story is a long way in the past and all I remember [is] that the one or two hairs that came to me from it had no compelling value. I don't even remember if it came out as Sasquatch hair, but I dimly remember that it didn't. In any case, my Sasquatch hair collection, which contains only what I consider authentic examples, does not contain the Skookum case."

      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum-cast-hair.htm

      About 90% of what Joerg posts here contains similar misrepresentations.

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

      Delete
    22. There were many numbers of recognised animals not found in the 30 samples submitted and tested the first time around by Bryan Sykes... Does that mean they don't exist too? Is this your idea of logic? The only known researchers that I can find who submitted samples were Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja and Derek Randles. The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples.

      So even though having an expert eye analysing data known to be primate skin against casting artefacts was done in 1982... And then done again in 2000... What methods of being able to analyse primate skin against casting artefacts via an expert eye do you think have improved in 16 years?

      (Creased)

      Sorry... You having a decent bet on things doesn't stand up to the scientific method. What I can safely bet on... Is that I'm not gonna laugh as much as this in a long time. With all the sightings & such, amateur researchers have three times the evidence that the Bili Ape had at this stage of research. All without a consorted effort from mainstream science to investigate the matter.

      8:58... You'll notice that the extract I posted was not written by me... It was from here;
      http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/index.asp
      ... That's a BFRO site page. If you click on the first of related links at the bottom, you'll see here;
      http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.pdf
      ... The exact extract that I referenced. The information does not come from me but the BFRO, and quite frankly was not my focus. The dermatoglyphics (hence mentioned forensics almost ten times in this comment section?) are the one piece of evidence that has been consistently verified by experts across a 35 year period, to have been that of uniform primate skin. Now I know you make reaches in logic all the time (look at your hundreds year old conspiracy theory to explain away the evidence for example), but using a portion of an incorrect BFRO extract as evidence that 90% of what I post are misrepresentations is typical of someone far more preoccupied with my character as opposed to what counts.

      Thanks for playing though.

      Delete
    23. It also appears that he BFRO are merely going by Henner's original analysis of the hair fibre, which is on record via email as being far more enthusiastic than his head scratching recollection ten years later. This is in the BF Encounters article you sourced.

      "Misrepresentations"... Crazy audacity.

      Delete
  6. Wow... The three resident trolls have really got their knickers in a twist lately, haven't they?

    (Creased)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's hard to make a suit on an anon coward... They could look like anything.

      Delete
    2. HA HAA HA HAW NAW ,^,MY freind
      we's got a real good idea whut day look like!

      AC collins

      Delete
    3. Two's company, three's a crowd
      ac----digg?

      Delete
  7. it could be but i'd like to see a size comparison and also the background story of how they started filming when it was behind trees . i'm sure this happens often but because it's a distance away it's hard to tell in this video

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, Iktomi -- You ready to search for Bigfoots somewhere other than your mom's basement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coastal areas of Florida are flooded right now. Should have driven all the Squatches inland.

      Delete
    2. I'll get a plane ticket and you'll put me up for a couple of months, eh?

      Delete
    3. The best place to look for imaginery creatures is on the computer in your basement

      Delete
    4. ... Until you come up with forensic evidence for these "imaginary creatures"... Then it sends trolls into panic mode.

      Delete
    5. Ah yes this forensic evidence that was so good they didnt even bother submitting it to nature journal.

      Delete
    6. Considering it's not "journal worthy", you'll have no issue in explaining away such "shoddy science" then, eh?

      Delete
    7. Why would I need to? Thats what the experts at the journals do. Submit the paper and if it truelly has the forensic evidence you claim then voila published. Why dont you email these people and ask them to submit their papers to journals?

      Delete
    8. "Journal Accepts Paper Reading “Get Me Off Your F*****g Mailing List”

      https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list


      Yeah!! Sure thing!! Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    9. Okay?
      So did you email them or are you trying to evade that request?

      Delete
    10. Who'd want to email them based on that?

      (Pffffft!!)

      Oh your beloved journals, eh?

      Delete
    11. Yeah, stupid scientific journals - who needs them? Not when you have Bigfoot blogs such as this to convince the weak-minded.

      Delete
    12. YEA WHUT IKTOMI SAID!!

      TK

      Delete
    13. 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/

      ... I certainly don't need em.

      Delete
    14. I don't think TK signs at the bottom. Only in the Author line.


      Everybody knows that the Illuminate are the pieces of shit destroying the world. These people are demonically infected Satanists. Their rational is not normal. They can't control themselves. They have a bloodlust and a Strong Sexual perversion. I believe they are infected. You can go look up the Bloodlines with little effort. Yes, they're the really sick people in the world.

      Ironically ----- The sir name Collins appears in the list. Sure spend a lot of time trying to make this place un-friendly Mr Collins! Don't want people to learn?

      Nephilim via Hawaii!

      Delete
    15. It's "surname" and you are a nutter.

      Delete
    16. Thanks, never used the word before in my life. We just have one name.

      Delete
  9. If you look closely at the stabilized and enhanced version it appears that the Bigfoot is smoking.

    WHAT THE ?????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like to "smoke" but folks need their pants down for the speciality I perform.

      Joe

      Delete
  10. No, Iktomi. I will not put you up for a few months. If Bigfoot is as ubiquitous as you claim, you should locate one in a few days;.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Hanging out with Haints for a few days should make you smell bad enough and cover a normal human scent, that Bigfoot may come check you out.

      Delete
    2. I'm worried about far more than smelling badly...

      Delete
  11. It's a human in the cell phone video. That's it! End of story!

    ReplyDelete
  12. NVTV seen to be hoaxers as there is a clip at the end of an early video titled "search for Santa". It's since been deleted but were they trying to give us a wink and a nudge? Not saying SAS does or doesn't exist but this channel is highly suspicious ....

    ReplyDelete