Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Frog Hunters Spot Yellow-Eyed Bigfoot


There are many different descriptions of bigfoot, but one thing commonly mentioned are their eyes. In this report a couple of frog hunters report crossing paths with bigfoot that had yellow eyes.

“I was camping with my family and went frog catching at a tiny lake with my friends.

There was a lot of trees and tall grass around the lake area. All of a sudden I hear a branch being snapped or broken I looked back and there was a large brown hairy “figure” with long dropping arms and a smaller figure next to it. My friend also heard the sound but did not look back. There was a horrible smell and one of them made a really loud scream.

Nothing like I have ever heard I was able to see the face of both , their eyes were yellowish and they had very large foreheads and their hair was about 5 inches and very dirty knotty.

For the full report, click here.

65 comments:

  1. Why Hi Y'ALL???

    garggle Sack,Back,Yackity,"YACK"!

    HAAAA HAAAA HAAAA LOL!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jotomi is having a difficult time this morning clearing the clotted spunk from his asshole ... was a heavy night of custom for him.

      Yeeuuuch !

      Delete
    2. Waking up from your dream again?

      Delete
    3. Can you imagine what type of person writes that stuff and publishes it on a blog where children might visit?

      Someone who shouldn't be allowed to supervise children, that's who.

      Delete
    4. ^ It would seem that you`re the person with the sick imagination.

      And now - off to the local school for lunchtime duties.


      Delete
    5. Oh my - Iktomi has his moral sheriff sticker on this day.

      hahah haha hahaha

      Delete
    6. You're the classic narcissistic troll on the psychopathy spectrum... A walking contradiction that stoops far lower than the trivial reasons that make him thinks he's somehow warranted to abuse people behind anonymity. Highly likely a genuine pervert.

      "Since a sadistic person is characterised by being vicious and degrading toward others (sometimes physically), it’s possible that the internet allows them to redirect their energy. If they’re inflicting harm through anonymous words, perhaps it’s preventing them from doing something much more destructive in person. On the extreme end, and unsurprisingly, sadism is commonly seen in sexual offenders and serial killers."
      https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/25/internet-trolls-are-also-real-life-trolls

      Delete
    7. ^ ahaha hahaha hahahah

      cut n` paste moralizing ?

      You`re the classic bigot and hypocrite with not a friend in the world - and it shows.

      hahaha hahaha ... full of rage and anger eh ?

      Delete
    8. If I was to randomly post filth on a blog, behind cowardice... In an attempt to provoke a reaction to appease my sadistic, predatory tendencies... One MIGHT put me in the same ball park as "rage and anger". Unfortunately, this is projection on your part, and as mentioned previously a narcissist contradiction that stoops far lower than the stuff that's made you behave this way; notably the elephant in the room.

      Pervert.

      Delete
    9. ^ haha haha - you`re an ill educated bigot - an old bigot at that - we`ve all seen your "morals" and understanding of "respect" when interacting with other people - you`re a nasty old man who`s full of bitterness who attempts to project his own misery upon others - it doesn`t work and so the cycle of your abusive attitude continues.

      You`re a figure of utter fun and give me a good chuckle.

      Haha haha haha

      Delete
    10. IktomiJoe = full of bitterness and unreleased rage ?

      hahahahaha hahahahah hahahahaha

      Delete
    11. ^ Now that was "rage and anger", if ever have seen it. Anyone would think you're a little flustered?

      : )

      And someone "uneducated", which is what I think you meant to say, wouldn't know how to use spacing properly, not to mention understand the difference between chimps and monkeys.

      No wonder you don't attempt a subject that has semi-complex theories about primates anymore.

      Delete
    12. It's also not a good look when a troll can't think of his own insults. You can't even fulfill your one aspiration in life.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    13. Your reply proves just how ILL educated you truly are...

      ill-educated
      adjective
      having or showing a poor level of education.
      "the ill-educated rural poor"

      Delete
    14. Wow ,

      Joe just got blown the f*ck out

      He`s been given some basic and simple eddycashun.

      Delete
    15. i will agree with Iktomi- the trolls on here are not only sadistic perverts but i also think they may have pedophile tendencies by their language .Time for this blog to clean up the filth around here so we can all get back to enjoying our daily dose of bigfoot evidence sans the scum that has invaded this place

      Tally ho !

      Joe

      Delete
    16. I love when Joe tries to argue grammar and falls flat on her face. Notice how she shut up at that point?

      Delete
    17. Didn't it need to be pointed out that you should use capitals in your name? Notice how Don comes the the aid of the blog's sadists, racists and perverts?

      Delete
    18. ... And I'm multitasking, kind of like you with multiple desktop monitors. I'll always get around to responding.

      Delete
    19. It looks like 1:12 is projecting his filty thoughts as per!!
      go see a "SHRINK"!! ya Preeev!

      ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      Delete
    20. Haha, it's true. Donnie always comes to the aid of the bottom feeders on here !

      Joe

      Delete
    21. 6:09 = Multi special pleading!

      Is more like it!!!!

      ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

      Delete
    22. jotomi needs all the support "Don" can lend him,,,FACT!!

      Delete
    23. Sorry... What does "preeeev" mean? And let's not pretend that you know what special pleading means.

      Delete
    24. AnonymousThursday, October 13, 2016 at 8:36:00 PM PDT
      And say what?,Oh that's right, a.c.collins is a ,,
      ,LOOSER!!
      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/supernatural-sasquatch-on-mount-shasta.html


      Trolling himself. What a drunk weirdo.

      Delete
    25. look it up son!

      its all good ,You're learning.

      Delete
    26. "It's all good, you're learning"

      ... Would have been written by someone adequately educated. It appears learning is not something that's akin to your capacity.

      Delete
    27. ^^is your name sandy fitzgerald?

      Delete
    28. look at all the butthurt trolls today !
      Awww, it makes my heart content to see them all in a bloody tizzy

      Joe

      Delete
    29. ^ another ill educated fool that has been blown away more times than the trash that litters his mining village

      how`s the anger and bitterness today Joe ?

      Delete
    30. Bigfoot witness Charmaine Fraser Interview

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTaao-UhckY

      Delete
    31. 7:46... Learn how to write properly before you refer to anyone else's education, and there's only one type of person who's actions are the result of emotional issues. Take it from he experts;
      http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/11/world/internet-trolling/


      7:48... Thanks for the link.

      Delete
    32. 7:46- you've been schooled so many times on here i'm surprised your wall isn't filled with diplomas hanging all over.
      oh, you probably used the diploma paper to smoke your drugs with - total handbag you are

      Joe

      Delete
    33. ^ did you ever get further than CSE grade 5 in English ?

      It doesn`t seem so from your efforts.

      Anger playing you up much ?

      hahah hahah hahaha hahahahahahahahah

      oh you poor boy,you poor poor bigoted boy

      hahah haha hahah hahaha

      Delete
    34. Joe`s otherwise engaged at the moment - still digging the clotted cum from his ass

      Delete
    35. familiar Joe ?

      http://sucbud2.tumblr.com/

      hahah hahah hahah

      Delete
    36. the trolls are being triggered today !
      every time you come on here you get schooled and are on your way to another diploma
      don't let your education go to waste you pathetic knobs !

      Joe

      Delete
    37. I can only hope you're not in a position to have any influence around children. I would be very, very careful someone doesn't contact the police regarding those links you're publishing. In fact, I hope someone from your side of the pond does. What a total psycho.

      Delete
    38. ^ hahah hahah hahah hahah hahah

      you`re one to talk eh ?

      spending time in discourse with people you detest shows what utter idiots you are

      Delete
    39. Like I said man... Be very careful someone doesn't report the blog for publishing that filth. You're skating on very thin ice.

      Delete

    40. Hey Donald, how do you feel about the comment left by 8:37? I see that you did not address it. It came from one of your chums no? What is your stand on that comment Don?

      Delete
    41. Donald "Douchebag" Dmaker wrote a few posts and put "Anon" lately...I can tell by the words he chose.

      Delete
    42. Btw, the pic Matt chose for this article, closely resembles what they look like.

      Delete
    43. Yes DS- I knew it too. I was rolling my eyes and then guess who showed up. Tuna breath.

      Delete
    44. Ikky, take a step back and think for a moment what you are doing here.

      You have voluntarily jumped into a long, drawn out, stupid, TL;DR argument in a thread that started out with "yakkity yack".

      Seriously, why would you do that?

      Repeatedly trying to pretend human remains are evidence for bigfoot is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

      Ikky, for your own sake, stop feeding the trolls.

      Delete
    45. Putting a racist pervert in his place is a moral obligation. The fact that you would think that's far more worthy of highliging in comparison to what the psychos have done on this comment section; very telling. But you are sore as heck... And showing your scars beautifully.

      As I've told "dmaker" and you a hundred times... Throwing something out because it doesn't fit your expectations of something whose existence you don’t even think is credible, isn't very good logic. It means that nothing you claim can be taken as a substantial argument, because your original premise contradicts your methods of moving the goal posts. "Sasquatch not being an archaic human", demonstrates not only a gross level of ignorance of the subject, but a class A case in special pleading.

      Delete
    46. No Ikky. No.

      Feeding the trolls only makes you worse than them.

      And those human remains aren't thrown out because they "don't meet expectations" of being bigfoot. They are thrown out as evidence for bigfoot because they do, in fact, meet expectations of human remains.

      If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Not a goose. Yet here you are claiming duck skulls are evidence of geese. And whenever anyone points out that those are duck skulls, and therefore have nothing to do with geese, you lamely try to claim that's only because they "don't meet our expectations" of geese. Because you have no concept of a standard of evidence. To you something it "evidence of bigfoot" merely because you want it to be.

      That's not good enough.

      How can you not see the failure of your own logic?

      But then I guess I can't expect any better from someone who so compulsively feeds trolls.

      Delete
    47. Don't be a hypocrite... You name drop me on plenty of comment sections. And like I said... Standing up for ideals that are important to me, on a social forum that might mean people are subjected to filth, is a moral obligation. If I wanna b-slap someone but offend you in the process because you have beef with me, really, what you gonna do about it? Stop being a god damn hypocrite.

      Allow me to start addressing your point by saying you have no pedestal to throw anything out. You don't know enough about the subject and if you wanna "throw something out", it has no bearing on the weight of said evidence. It's just a figure of speech for what is essentially special pleading on your part.

      Now... Sasquatch are archaic humans. What we have in the Humboldt skull is a that of an archaic human. Not only does the skull morphology of what has been widely reported in contemporary eyewitness statements for the past 50 years fit that skull, but there is no known example of modern human skull with those collective archaic traits known to exist in the US, and it is found in a place with rich oral histories of large, hairy, cannibalised tribes.

      (Still with me? You sure?? This is the tenth time now... So try and keep up!)

      If you wanna claim that a Sasquatch is not an archaic human, it in fact flies in the face of innumerable sightings reports that attest to it being so, and there is simply no bigger example of special pleading. You then have the perverse audacity to claim that anyone else has a poor idea of the concept of evidence. Brushing aside innumerable reports that are supported with physical evidence like foot bone structure similar to those seen in fossils of members of the human lineage, is not putting two things together because I want something to be so... It's the most basic of biological, anthropological methods of piecing together two very readily available sources of data. And that doesn't even begin to draw upon the instances where DNA has verified that we're dealing with a type of human.

      So please don't condescend anyone about logic, or be a hypocrite when it comes to anything a troll does. Being sanctimonious about my actions is, just like the troll up top, a walking contradiction that stoops far lower than the trivial reasons that make you thinks anyone is somehow warranted to abuse people behind anonymity, essentially cowardice.

      I'll be back around tomorrow to respond to any special pleading that's left here.

      Delete
    48. Telling you you're wrong is not trolling you, Ikky.

      The humbolt skull is robust, but not archaic. If you knew anything about human anatomy or anthropology you would understand why.

      And forget the sightings and reports. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, especially in a field dominated by fools and hoaxers. Besides, we have video evidence of the thing. It's called the Patterson Gimlin Film. Perhaps you've heard of it?

      The very things which argue for the legitimacy of Patty are also the very things that show it's not a human, archaic or otherwise. Patty, assuming it's not a clever hoax, clearly branched off the human line before Homo. It's a human relative, but not actually human, archaic or otherwise. The same pre-human characteristics can be seen in the Hoffman footage, but are NOT present in the Humbolt skull.

      We've been over this many many times, but you refuse to pay attention and you refuse to learn anything because you're a gullible "true believer", just like those idiot creationists.

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

      Delete
    50. There is not one modern example of skull that matches what we see in the collective archaic traits of the Humboldt skull... not only have far more qualified people than yourself not delivered... But you also have never once in the past, nor in your comment demonstrated just how the skull is not that of a Sasquatch... And it's my anthropological short fall?

      "However, witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

      ... All of which is 100% applicable to the state of evidence for this subject. If eyewitnesses make missidentifications regarding key information of an incident, they rarely make missidentifications of the actual incident. For example, multiple witnesses to a giant hairy human stepping out into the road may make missidentifications regarding weight, height, whether it had hair on its face... But not that the giant hairy human stepped out into the road. And it's a far greater leap of faith to claim that all these reports over hundreds of years (and that's just considering modern European cultures in the US), is the result of misidentification. A leap of religious proportions in fact. So! Are we to believe that for thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing conspirators all out to get your money? These people, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what a non-human primate looked like, have in fact managed to cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too?

      There is NOTHING in Patty's anatomical make-up that cannot be attributed to ancient humans over time. Here's a very simple method of demonstrating just how human Patty is;
      https://sasquatchchronicles.com/this-is-a-3d-digital-image-of-patty/

      ... And to suggest that something of the sort can't be within the genus homo, and then suggest that anyone else doesn't know the basics of anthropology is seriously embarrassing. And the Hoffman footage is a hoax. There's too many comment sections to count where I've dissected every last angle you can conjure on Patty allegedly not being human, so think about that before starting this. What's more... Is you're not a troll, but just as bad when you focus on my actions as opposed to those which have occurred on this comment section. But you are sore after all... And how could anyone argue against that idea when you're so ready to bring up your scars when the immediate topic has nothing to do with it?

      Bum sore for sure.

      Delete
    51. You're lying Ikky. Or you're too ignorant to know what you're looking at in the Humbolt specimen.

      Learn some anatomy. Robust is not the same as archaic. I am tired of repeatedly trying to explain this to you. Do you even know what the foramen magnum is?

      Patty's cervical angle and clear lack of a nuchal ligament cannot be attributed to ancient humans. That particular suite of features predates Homo.

      Oh, and that "3D reconstruction" is a joke. There is not enough detail in the PGF to make such a reconstruction. That's an artist's fantasy, not science. Please try to learn the difference.

      Delete
    52. Do I know what the foramen magnum is? It appears I'm familiar with it (cough, cough), just a little... Remember this?

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-teddy-roosevelt-bigfoot-story.html?m=0

      In that link, you'll also see that your nuchal ligament query can be attributed to HOMO Neanderthalensis. Aside from the robust jaw, there is a prominent brow ridge, glabellar development, the notably strong nuchal crest, low retreating forehead with post-orbital construction, os inca, divided occipital or interparietal bone, accompanied by generally high sutural complexity with several Wormian bones. The simple fact remains that some singular elements of that archaic morphology do indeed exist in contemporary examples, but not to the highly pronounced and collective frequency as we see in the Humboldt skull. Robust is not the same as archaic. For example;
      "These traits are caused by testosterone, which is responsible for bone size/density and muscle mass. Just because your testosterone levels are above average, it doesn't mean you have the neanderthalis traits. If so, your facial bones would look strange. Broad and outwards zygomatic bone(cheek bones), short frontal and parietal bones(forehead, top of skull), wide yet short nose, wide and thick supraorbital(eyebrows) bones and so on. If you have all of these traits, I recommend you to see a doctor."
      http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4871217/1/

      Lastly... Plenty of detail here to draw up an adequate 3D reconstruction;
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg
      ... Open your eyes for once. You'll bury some demons and you won't be so quick to whine about me being able to reference things that I actually know what I'm talking about.

      Delete
  2. I suppose frog hunters can be forgiven for not collecting a bigfoot specimen. I don't know what is used in hunting frogs, but I doubt it's anything capable of taking down a fully grown bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Wildman Captured on Dartmoor 1948: Dartmoor 1948 - Possible capture - While working as a nurse at the Royal Western Counties Hospital, Devonshire, in 1982, Britain’s leading cryptozoologist Jonathan Downes (of the Center for Fortean Zoology) was told a strange tale by one of the staff doctors who, at the time, was then approaching retirement. According to the doctor, he had been on duty one morning in the winter of 1948 when he received several unusual telephone calls from local officials, and all informing him in a distinctly cryptic manner that a highly dangerous patient, who had been captured on the wilds of Dartmoor, would be brought to the hospital within the hour, requiring specialist care and an isolated room. Within 45 minutes a police van arrived at the hospital and backed up to a side door. Seven policemen jumped out of the vehicle while simultaneously trying to hang on to what the doctor said resembled a hair-covered caveman. The policemen dragged the creature along the hospital corridors and into the already-prepared isolation room. The door was quickly slammed shut behind it. The beast stood slightly over six feet in height and was completely naked, with a heavy brow, a wide nose, and very muscular arms and legs. In addition it was covered with an excessive amount of body hair that enveloped its whole body apart from the palms of its hands, the soles of its feet, and its face, and had a head of long, matted hair. Over the course of the next three days, telephone calls bombarded the hospital from the police, the Lord Lieutenant of the County, and the Home Office in London. Then came the news that the man-beast was being transferred to a secure location in London for examination. Again late at night, the creature was removed from the hospital by the same group of policemen. This time, however, they succeeded in holding the thing down long enough for it to be heavily sedated by the doctor, whereupon it was tied with powerful straps to a stretcher and loaded again into a police wagon with an unidentified doctor in attendance for the journey that lay ahead. Less than 20 minutes after they had arrived, the police departed into the night and the creature was gone forever.

    http://ukwildman.blogspot.co.uk/2016_08_01_archive.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Discovering The Swedish Bigfoot Part 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CUz0C6rZX4

    ReplyDelete
  5. yellowed eye ones eats U fer shure

    ReplyDelete
  6. Man armed with assault-style weapon with a drum magazine tried to 'assassinate' 2 Vallejo officers at Starbucks, police say .... NO WAY ...
    Them types of weapons and magazine are illegal in California

    ReplyDelete
  7. Those statue things are lame and too glossy!

    ReplyDelete