Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Woman In Ohio Spots Giant Bird-Like Creature


From cryptozoologynews.com, an Ohio woman spots what appeared to be some sort of bird of gigantic proportions. The woman said the bird was large enough to carry off a child.

“I live in the back of a mobile home park,” she said. “I turned around and walked a few steps away from my husband and friend to light a cigarette. While pulling one out i looked up to see what looked to be a giant bird take off from behind my home… I think it was perched on a tree.”

The woman described the black animal as having a wingspan of 13 feet.

“It only needed to flap its wings twice to raise itself up to above tree level, and the wings seemed to bend or fold like as if they were too long mimicking elbows. It seemed to glide downward before it attempted to go up,” she added.

Kovacs believes the bird was “big enough to pick up a 10-year-old kid”.

For the full story, click here.

66 comments:

  1. Awesome show on Coast tonight. The guy is talking about bigfoots emitting red light from their eyes. Stories of this go back along way BOOOOOOOOOO!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ that`s a really neat trick but I know guys who can emit brown and stinkin` wind from their ass..think Joe

      Delete
    2. that's a kinda thing you should keep to yourself.

      There is know good explanation for you knowing such a thing.

      Delete
    3. ^ well we kinda bond every now and again if ya get ma drift .. Joe likes to "catch my drift" in his you know where regularly.

      Delete
    4. NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT "RICTOR"SAID THAT TROLL KILLER WAS BORN TO SUCK CAULK!!!!

      :-)) :-)) :-)) :-))

      Delete
    5. Forget this nonsense.CHICK!UNO! Brad Pitt is up for grabs! :) xx

      Delete
    6. make sure the kids go to her or THROW HIM BACK IN THE POND QUICK PIB. Ain't nobody got time for that!

      Delete
    7. Well,

      I'm off to Brads webpage. I have of stuff to catch up on with brad

      Stuey

      Delete
    8. You're being creepy again fake Iktomi and BB.

      Delete
    9. ^ BB = big black c0ck eh?

      Delete
    10. Brad Pitt....Ohhh yummy! Uno!

      Delete
  2. The important detail Ishihara told me was that the Kodachrome 2 movie-film development team worked overnight—say from 8 P.M. to 4 A.M. or from midnight to 8 A.M. (I think it was the latter.) They didn’t work weekends; in other words, they didn’t work Friday night or Saturday night. So if a person brought in such a film for development on Friday or Saturday, he wouldn't get it back until Monday.

    I didn’t take any notes when he was talking, and I didn’t write them up afterwards, thinking I’d type up an article in a day or two (which I didn’t do) and thereby avoid the need for an intermediate step. I’m a bit fuzzy on other details but what he told me indicated that it wouldn’t have been possible for a rogue employee to do unauthorized development because:

    1) Only the leader of the development team had a key to the store (which was closed by the time the team arrived);
    2) The machine and its troughs took hours to warm up;
    3) The troughs would have had to be filled with expensive developer, using as much as processing much more film would have required, in order to work at all;
    4) The amount of developer powder needed would have cost a lot (certainly over $100);
    5) That fluid would be useless after 36 hours (or sooner)—it decayed, in effect;
    6) If the machine had been used or powder had been taken, Frank would have been aware of it.

    Like other experts on the Kodachrome development process I talked to (e.g., Herb Blisard at Yakima Community College and Mike McCoy (whose affiliation isn’t 100% clear to me from my notes)), Frank was emphatic that homebrew development was impossible.

    The above information has convinced me that the film was very likely developed before October 21. I suspect that it was not developed at a Kodak lab, but rather at Technicolor in Seattle, because of what Ed Watton of Forde labs (which made copies from the original) told Greg Long (TMoB, p. 285; but see Richard Vedvick on page 284):

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is very strange! Its almost like bigfoot dont exist!

      Delete
    2. Yes... there's a Kodachrome sticker on the reel, which means that 48 years of SFX defying costume attributes are suddenly not important, and Roger Patterson simply had to be a hoaxer. Who, instead of using these skills to elevate himself to one of the most pioneering costume makers Hollywood has ever seen... reclined to making money via lying about Bigfoot for the rest of his life. Even though he was desperate to make money for his family, dying of cancer and all.

      Not to mention, that if that's true... it must mean that thousands of years of contemporary & cultural anecdotes that are supported by video, audio and physical evidence, must all be bunk.

      Logic... you Pseudosceptics sure know how to use it. Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    3. Ask Khat Hansen, she says she has the film*liar*,

      Delete
  3. Bigfoot is so real that the best evidence we've got in 2016 is that grainy 16 second piece of 16mm film taken by a crafty flimflammer and his own cast of merry pranksters in 1967? That's inconceivable. How come we've not been inundated with a thousand more pictures and videos of the exact same thing in the subsequent years? The beast obviously exists according to the PGF so where are the rest of them? They're nowhere mon frere!

    Ergo why the PGF has been discussed to death, there's nothing else to discuss. Okay fine, we also talk about the sheer tonnage of the **** for brains Don Meldrum owns and why the name of special needs Sasquatch tracker Thomas Steenburg keeps cropping up, but that's just unexciting "reality" stuff and not near as fun as fantasizing about the still missing beast.

    Now, I'd reckon that the notion of "what" and "where" a camera is in the present is not the same as it was in 1967. In some aspects it's probably not even close. And back then you only took a camera on vacation, to birthday parties and to film Bigfoot. Nowadays a camera is an almost universal human possession and literally numbers in the billions of units; hundreds of billions in the amount of pictures taken by such. Yet not a single clear picture of Bigfoot, dead or alive. Still. At least Roger Patterson had the ba lls to actually pick up a camera and show you a monster worthy of discussion for 50 years. He wasn't stupid enough to think you'd believe he saw a big hairy beast without some kind of "evidence".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get f-ucked!!!! Special pleading blah blah blah culture hopping blah blah blah. I'm so sick of you skeptards. I would go into this more but somebody just put their veiny slong through my glory hole. Gotta take care of business.
      SLURP!!!!!!

      Joe

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

      Delete
    3. Grainy? It's odd... don't pseudosceptics claim they can see all sorts of things like zippers & such? They need to make their minds up... plenty enough detail to be able to make the most definitive of comparisons to known biological tissue here;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      Make sure you open the link now, be brave! I really don't think Roger would have been so detailed in his "costume", shooting in shakey 16MM. I don't think he anticipated the footage being digitalised and stabelised 45 years later and decided to put SFX defying detail to his costume just in case. Detail that could have got him a job in the most well paid of Hollywood SFX as opposed to "swindling about Bigfoot". Not to mention, that the subject in the footage was shot in direct sunlight. And regardless of how much of an obstacle this is for denialists, they want more footage? They actually want more? Isn't every piece of footage that's presented to them a "hoax"? In basic psychology... Rhetorical approaches such as this are a trait of denial. It means that these people are subconsciously confirming their fears about such sources without even realising it. Oh but there's plenty to discuss! I'm sure pseudosceptics would love for enthusiasts to forget about the PGF, but the facts remain, that if that was a fake piece of footage with a man in a costume, at least one of the long line of award winning SFX artists would have provided a fur cloth technique for what we see. I mean... these are people who want to be known as the best in their respected field. And... it's not like people like the author up top could muster the intelligence to actually counter the research of these "**** for brains-esque" people now. No, that would be thinking for themselves, and it's straight out of the pseudosceptics handbook to ad hominem. The reality is that this would require them to be honest people, they're not even honest with themselves... spending all their time around complaining about subject that should be offering them heaps of satisfaction doesn't equate to that. Nargh, scientifically substantiating their ideas amounts to a couple of quotation marks regarding the evidence that's "beneath them", and a whole load of illogical special pleading.

      When it's all said and done, these people are either too dense to conclusively explain away what according to them is so damn obvious... or it really isn't as obvious as these people would plead for people to believe.

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

      Delete
    5. The film couldn't possibly have been developed between Friday night and Sunday. By definition, it's a hoax. All the rest is just noise.

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

      Delete
    7. And please explain... In fine detail... how a false timeline equates to the film being a hoax? Please... let's see how this amounts to a "definition".

      You need to address what's in front of your eyes. A suspect timeline is utterly irrelevant when you have a creature in the footage that possesses biological muscle tone, skin folds, etc. It's like the troll around here who focusses on portals, mindspeak, etc. All the sensationalist stuff is futile when the vey creature he's trying to sensationalise is by the physical evidence shown to be leaving its sign on the environment.

      Delete
    8. It raises the question that if they lied about the timeline, then what else did they lie about?

      And the skin folds,etc that you mention are not universally seen as such.

      Delete
    9. Argh right... So they lied about the timeline, how does this suddenly mean that 48 years of SFX defying costume attributes are suddenly not important, and Roger Patterson simply had to be a hoaxer? Who, instead of using these skills to elevate himself to one of the most pioneering costume makers Hollywood has ever seen... reclined to making money via lying about Bigfoot for the rest of his life? Even though he was desperate to make money for his family, dying of cancer and all?

      It's a leap. Open the link;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... Comparative muscle tone, skin folds, etc. And all that Hollywood defying detail when the footage was not meant to be stabelised and noticed.

      Delete
    10. You explain it -- why would they lie about when it was filmed unless it was a hoax?? If you admit that it's a hoax, then you have to acknowledge that that other crap is bollocks and you've been a total twonk for years. That's not likely to happen for someone who has so much emotion invested in it.

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

      Delete
    12. Why would Bob Gimlin decline touring with the footage? Anyone would think he wanted to distance himself from the whole thing... Maybe from something that happened in 1967 at Bluf Creek that required "forgetting" about, putting the timeline out of joint? Anyone can speculate, anyone can add all sorts of versions and wild ideas to how this footage came about... When enthusiasts try and fill in the blanks it's scoffed at, when pseudosceptics do it, it's "definition". What's important is the data in the footage, conveniently, everything else takes the focus when that can't be shown to be bunk. There are a number of head scratching occurrences surrounding the footage, that doesn't suddenly manifest a costume that can't be replicated to this day. When you have in front of your eyes something that so blatantly is biological tissue, it's all irrelevant. The fact is, that there is nothing that you see in that footage that could be replicated with even the best Hollywood budgets 30 years later. To this day even, nothing comes close and there is simply no fur cloth technique known to any award winning SFX artist that accounts for what we see in the PGF. But coming from someone looks for anything, contradictions, typos... Anyhing other than substantiate your points, all this is expected. There was reports and physical evidence of "Bigfoot" way before the PGF... And has been the case since with nothing but more and more science confirming what enthusiasts aren't afraid to acknowledge.

      So I'll say it again... Got monkey suit??

      Delete
    13. The fact that the film could not have been shot when it was claimed is not speculation. Even you seem to be finally admitting it. They lied about when it was filmed; ergo, it was a hoax. No matter how much flim flam you throw out, you can't change that fact. But I do understand that it's a difficult thing for you to accept, so you have my sympathy.

      Delete
    14. There's one reason why I seem a bit more open to the idea that the timeline is not accurate, and it's because I know the person with the reel in question and it does indeed have the Kodak sticker on it. But that's assuming that the Kodak film couldn't have been developed over the weekend, and we already know that the source of this opinion comes from someone who's attempts at "research" are embarrassing;
      http://sasquatchresearch.net/

      Just like "Roger Patterson isn't credible because he lied"... It is a double standard to then ignore a multitude of lies and p*ss poor research in Greg Long's ideas. But let's look at the leap... "The timeline is not inaccurate = 48 years of advances in SFX that haven't amounted to what we see in that footage suddenly isn't important". It's pretty much the most audacious thing in the world to accuse anyone else of using "flim flam" when the anything other than addressing what you see in that footage is used as an excuse.

      Logic = not the pseudosceptics' forte.

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    15. Sorry, here's the proper link...

      http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

      ... Now, considering there are so many holes in Long's work, by the same standards the three of you adhere to, surely a proper sceptic would question the validity of such a source? Hang on... What was I thinking? Only proper sceptics question their own ideas... apologies.

      Delete
    16. You know who has the original reel?

      Delete
  4. Why should we care about the Phoenix? This is not for all criptids this is all about " Bigfoot evidence" right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only when I post evidence!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqh3q0rRycs

      Delete
    2. That is the worst bigfoot video I've ever seen. You need a better camera or something. Have you heard of pareidolia?

      Delete
    3. Thats bigfoot?

      It looks like a ham and cheese omlet to me! Now I gotta root around in the kitchen.

      Delete
    4. Did you draw eyes on that? LOL

      Delete
    5. 10:15, LOL, SHOW ME A BETTER PIC!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1TxezY3Hng

      Delete
    6. Funny how you idiots never comment on the BS that Matt posts, but when i post a pic, yeah, you get all flustered!
      LOL

      Delete
    7. What is simultaneously funny and sad is you thinking your really really bad videos actually are bigfoot.

      I look at a Mark Zaskey bigfoot video and I see a bigfoot with frightening clarity (his camera is superb). I look at a Dr. Squatch bigfoot video and I see some blurry bit of forest debris with eyes and a mouth drawn on it.

      The difference is vast.

      Delete
    8. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:52:00 AM PDT

      That is correct. . Dog and squirrel closeups presented as Bigfoot evidence, ta da

      Delete
    9. Zaskey has one of the worst cameras in all of Bigfoot research.
      I'll give you $1000 for every Zaskey Pic that's better than mine!
      You got one hour, start posting!

      NOT A SINGLE PIC WILL BE POSTED!

      Delete
    10. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:34:00 AM PDT

      Every picture is better than mine,so sad, demented too

      Delete
    11. Given your character, Dr. Squatch, nobody here believes you will pay up of otherwise honor your word.

      Delete
    12. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:47:00 AM PDT

      I'm not a Dr and of course I'm broke

      Delete
    13. Agree, the Zaskey videos are the best evidence in all Bigfoot research.

      Delete
    14. I don't know Doc, his camera captures clear images and your seems to catch blurry stuff. His camera produces quality 4:2:2 video and several times I've been able to see bigfoot far in the background. Your images seem to break down just beyond the focal point. Not your fault, its just junky gear that you can easily upgrade or maybe spend the money on therapy. Either way its all good.

      Delete
    15. Ha,Zaskey rules Dr Squatch drools,look how jealous he is

      Delete
    16. You don't see naked jealousy like that very often. Dr. Squatch simply cannot stand the fact that Mark Zaskey has clearly documented the bigfoot in his area.

      He is willing to betray his own stated principles to falsely denigrate someone else's research.

      Character counts.

      Delete
  5. Hmm drawing eyes and a mouth on an amorphous piece of decaying tree stump hardly qualifies as "evidence". Its difficult to see how you can criticize other work when you are putting out such dreck.

    I'm going to start giving these videos a thumbs down when you post a link to them and they turn out to totally suck like the others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Squatch you should google "pareidolia" because that is what is coming through in your videos. You need to discriminate by looking for the image to persist through angular change, by looking for the image to persist over a short period of time (couple of days) and looking for others to screen your work.

      Delete
    2. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:53:00 AM PDT

      If others screen my work I'll be locked up

      Delete
  6. Try my delicious chocolate cereal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. enough with the count chocula you fool...this is a boo berry crowd for crying out loud...btw i got a blue bag if you know what i mean dr squatch..

      Delete
    2. Boo berry killed you, you a ghost for crying out loud, at least I'm a reanimated corpse living off blood and delicious chocolate cereal

      Delete
    3. Dr Squatch my cereal has chocolatey marshmallows, you will love it

      Delete
    4. Hate to break it to you guys but Fruit Brute was the cereal preferred by Dogmen everywhere.

      Delete