Monday, October 3, 2016

Leprechaun Bigfoot Caught On Camera


Is this the face of a leprechaun bigfoot? One man thinks so. We hope it's not true. If one of these little guys got angry, and decided to bite your toe while you were asleep in your tent, it could be a catastrophic incident.

A man who says he enjoys exploring the woods and looking for Bigfoot around the Blue Mountains foothills of the Pacific Northwest claimed on Sunday to have found evidence of a “juvenile Bigfoot”. But, he clarifies, it was not on one of his videos that he spotted the mysterious creature.

“I was watching a friend’s channel on bottle digging in Alaska, by Daniel Camacho, and spotted a juvenile Bigfoot watching him and his buddy dig bottles,” said Dave, founder of Paranormal and Sasquatch Research. He believes this alleged creature is “the perfect example” as to cloaking is done.

Cloaking is a form of camouflage many Bigfoot researchers make use of in order to explain the lack of strong evidence needed to demonstrate the existence of the hairy biped. Some supporters of these theory also believe that, just like the alien from the movie Predator, Bigfoot can become translucent. Such is the example of the “Dwarf Bigfoot” video taken in 2014.

And, even though Dave believes the face on the mysterious image could be a Bigfoot, he also has a different theory.And, even though Dave believes the face on the mysterious image could be a Bigfoot, he also has a different theory.

“Daniel Camacho does bottle digging and relic hunting,” says Dave. “I was thinking about the bottles I have found by the lake that are partially filled with water… and I thought about the water spirits that are contained inside of the bottle. When it gets discarded on the ground. I’m constantly picking the bottles and dumping out the contents… and releasing the spirits that are in the bottles. And I wonder if the tree spirits, the sentient beings are not being buried properly and eventually get buried in the ground,” he says in his 11-minute-long video adding that it could be what many paranormal researchers refer to as Jinn.And, even though Dave believes the face on the mysterious image could be a Bigfoot, he also has a different theory.

For the full article, click here.

165 comments:

  1. They say they want my Joerg
    And they say they want my slime!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bigfoot's always after me lucky charms.

      Delete
  2. Man....it never ceases to amaze me how "out there" people feel like they need to wander to rationalize the presence of bigfoot or any other crypto creature. Water spirits? Gimme a break.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mr.doe they"re out there man !! all around ,and everywhere, drop some acid,,
      you'll see "BRUV"!!!

      Delete
    2. Very true, but this is not uncommon Jeffro. Bigfooters do it constantly when it comes to the fact that bigfoot can't be found. Why aren't more people seeing them? Bigfooters have to come up with something, so they came up with "cloaking" and "portals". Its the same type of crap that now has spawned commonplace ideas in the bigfoot realm such as "zapping", "mind speak", "lazer beam eyes", "infrasound", and the list goes on and on.

      When you can't find an explanation for the narrative you want to push as a bigfooter, you simply attribute bigfoot with another fantastic ability.

      Lets go ahead and propose a theory, based off of this article, that a bigfooter would gladly endorse. Lets say that the reason bigfoot can't be readily found is that bigfoot only walks on land in the open at night on indian reservations. Then, during the daytime, the bigfeet go down by the river, and pray, which brings up mystical water spiritis who whisk bigfoot away, via portals, to an alternate dimension. Once there, the bigfeet can hang blue bags in trees all day, mindspeak freely to one another, and zapp other bigfeet for fun with there lazer beam eyes. To a footer, this could make sense. Ask Khat Hansen and DS.

      Delete
    3. Jeffro , would you like to visit my glory hole. You can find my mouth spirit in there.

      Joe

      Delete
    4. There are three databases of contemporary reports from a culture largely descended from Europeans, that found the previous culture's ways undesirable and pretty much subjugated them as best they could, wiping away as much of their culture as they could. What's telling is that these contemporary reports transition thousands of years of cultural anecdotes and oral histories from people they were trying to subjugate. There are over 100 Native American names for the creature commonly known as Sasquatch and if these names are put into the US government’s geographical names and informational system, you’ll get 2,300 places in America named with reference to these Native names. On a map, these places follow the summit ridges & peaks of all the mountain ranges in America, particularly in Oregon and Washington. The Native place names and contemporary reports of Sasquatch follow the summit ridges and peaks of the coastal range, the summit ridges and peaks of the Cascade range, and in particularly, the highest density is between the three mountains of Mount St Helens, Mount Adams and Mount St Rainier… With the triangle within those three places having the highest density of Native American place names that have reference to these creatures. Reports of these creatures are literally as old as the hills. It's harder to image that all these tribes were imagining the exact same characteristics and attributing them to an imaginary creature, across such a vast geographical divide.

      Now though all this would still be very interesting, it would pretty much be useless as evidence for the existence of this creature... If it weren't for the evidence. One of the oldest native names for this creature is "Shoonshoonootr", one of the few native words to literally translate as “big foot”. This suggests that track impressions, physical evidence for his creature, has been sourced for literally thousands of years, and the contemporary equivalent data is far from lacking. Measurements and estimates on Sasquatch dimensions, collected over the last 40 years in the Western U.S and Canada, were subjected to statistical analysis and extrapolation by scaling laws appropriate to primates and mammals (Fahrenbach). Such studies have yielded average population values for foot length and width, scaling factors of foot length to height, values for weight, plantar pressure, walking and running gait, speed, and a tentative growth curve as a function of time for the female of the species. The results suggest a substantial population with traits different from those of other higher primates and humans... This is how much physical evidence there is. Pair this with the eyewitness testimony that 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 (dermatoglyphics). All of which is highly relevant to his field and sourced by largely amateur researchers who don't have the level of expertise that a consorted mainstream effort would demand.

      Delete
    5. So, what I'm trying to say (admittedly in a long winded way), is that ancient hominins have been found to exist in the United States and Canada... They just haven't been TRACKED to classification yet. To attribute paranormal attributes to a creature that's evaded classification from civilisation for this long is typical and probably the best compliment you can give a creature as incredible as this. But if it were all that "paranormal", we wouldn't have the data extrapolated from the physical sign that it leaves. Apart from the sensationalised stuff that pseudosceptics enjoy highlighting, it's funny how in all these lists they never seem to highlight the physical, biological, audio and video footage that makes all their focus a little pointless? They should be focussing on what CAN be measured by science; their biggest obstacle to peace of mind. Everything else afterwards is irrelevant when the creature they're trying to sensationalise is by scienific methods being shown to be leaving its sign on the environment. What's even more hilarious, is when attempting to point out that alleged paranormal attributes are a convenient excuse, that they'll peddle a thousands year old hoaxing conspiracy. Is there any bigger excuse on the planet?

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    6. Nobody suggests a thousands year old hoaxing conspiracy. That is your own invention for rhetorical purposes.

      Delete
    7. Iktomi, have you ever run this evidence by anyone other than on this blog? You might get some more constructive criticism- just saying.

      Delete
    8. Iktomi (joe fltzgerald) wont even discuss the topic on a moderated forum lol

      Delete
    9. 2:26... Don't you very regularly claim that this subject is the product of hoaxing? Be accountable for your drivel now, it's what adults do at least!

      2:31... I really don't take myself all that seriously, and would much rather these hominins be left alone to be honest. It's also too much fun sending the trolls round the bend.

      2:43... Such a statement always makes me chuckle. If you can't substantiate your stance here where literally anything goes and you're literally allowed to post any vile crud, what can a moderated forum off you?

      Delete
    10. Well you get obliterated here, daily. You of course declare yourself the victor but that makes you look even more desperate and you usually resort to ad hominems and strawmans which would not be tolerated in any arena with even a shred of self respect.

      Delete
    11. "Rhetorical", "ad hominem"... All words you didn't know before you followed me around on the internet adding to those self esteem issues. It's pretty simple... The day I get "obliterated" is the day you present a decent case against the evidence I reel off. And considering people who are ten times cleverer than you haven't managed to do that yet, I'll just sit back and laugh at your empty claims.

      Just like that conspiracy theory.

      : p

      Delete
    12. You still havent provided any evidence. Yes your claims are empty.

      Delete
    13. Have a little read through my comment properly. You might broaden that vocabulary a little more, and catch that boat you missed.

      Delete
    14. When you dump a bigfoot body on my doorstep ill take a look. When you link to a published paper in a real journal ill take a look. You have absolutely nothing and you know it.

      Delete
    15. looks like the haters are out in full force today. iktomi must be doing something right to get them all riled up, haha

      Tally ho !

      Joe

      Delete
    16. Itkomi did something right in my mouth earlier. It was creamy and warm. Try and guess. Hehe

      Joe

      Delete
    17. 3:27... Your journals are the probably the most anti-scientific medium you can reference;
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

      ... And the Bili Ape's tracks didn't need a journal before it was classified. In fact, I can reference three times the amount of evidence the Bili Ape enjoyed at this stage. Your capacity to fathom what that means isn't really my problem.

      Delete
    18. ^ Gets wiped out on bigfoot forums.

      Delete
    19. I've never posted on the BFF, sorry bro.

      Delete
    20. GHUURRFF GNERRRRKLE GNERRRRK GNEEERRUUUFFFF
      FART SPUTTER FART GNERRRRF FART FART.

      --- stench of hypocrisy ... oh it`s the joerg fellow again ... what a c0ck sucker he is

      HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHSAHAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    21. Native American people FART BELCH BURP GLUG GLURG FART BELCH GLUG GLURG FART BELCH

      Delete
    22. injuns abouts shure is

      Delete
    23. injuns heers fer shure

      Delete
  3. 3 databases... yet zero actual bigfoots.

    Really makes you think

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem like you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone else that the physical evidence isn't there? Lucky for you that the Internet doubles up as a cheap therapy exercise, eh?

      Delete
    2. ^ gets his daily dose of therapy via the web every day ----- where his ass his handed to him on a platter every hour

      ha ha haha haha ha ha haha

      Delete
    3. Great apes include chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, bonobos and humans. There are several differences between great apes and monkeys. Great apes don't have tails, while most monkeys do. Apes generally have larger bodies and bigger brains than monkeys.
      Chimp Facts | Chimphaven
      www.chimphaven.org

      Delete
    4. ^ biggest monkey of `em all - and still hasn`t produced ONE image or instance of verified evidence that 10ft hairy monkeys roam the woods

      what an unremitting imbecile he is

      heh heh hehehehehehe

      Delete
    5. Great facts. Nothing to do with a mythological creature but still, great.

      Delete
    6. http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg

      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhair4.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhairroot.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg

      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/

      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      ... And just for you, 4:25;
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

      ... Start off with the basics look. Mythical creatures don't leave all that evidence, and the average height taken from 40 years of track castings amounts to 7-8 feet in height.

      Delete
    7. Mythical creatures dont leave that evidence. Correct. Either humans leave it or humans identify it as evidence incorrectly.

      Delete
    8. Argh yes! The 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!

      I take it that all the primatologists, anthropologists & wildlife biologists who have looked favourably upon this evidence are all mistaken too? Or are they a part of this conspiracy? I'm intrigued...

      Delete
    9. Quite a delusion narrative you spin for yourself there.

      Can you name all these primatologists, anthropologists and biologists please?

      Delete
    10. Actually, these are your claims, not mine. For all the evidence to be the product of hoaxes and misidentifications... This is what it would take. I'm glad it finally appears to be dawning on you of how ridiculous a proposal that is. A "delusion narrative"; correct.

      How about you go and do some homework on the subject? Even a ten year old who's invested ten minutes knows about some of the experts who've looked favourably on the evidence. I'm always filling in the blanks because you're too ignorant & lazy. Here's a start;

      "I am convinced that the Sasquatch exists, but whether it is all that it is cracked up to be is another matter altogether. There must be SOMETHING in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints. The evidence I have adduced in favour of the reality of the Sasquatch is not hard evidence; few physicists, biologists or chemists would accept it, but nevertheless it IS evidence and cannot be ignored."
      John Napier MRCS, LRCP, DSC(Lond.) "Bigfoot- The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality"- Sphere Books Ltd.

      Delete
    11. Physical evidence FART BELCH BURP GLUG GLURG FART BELCH BURP GLUG

      Delete
    12. Put "anonymous" to that comment and it's pretty much a standard comment from you... Minus the words "physical evidence" of course. That's a bit out of your league.

      Delete
    13. http://sucbud2.tumblr.com/

      Joe

      Delete
    14. ^ Oh Joe - really ??? sheesh.

      GNERRRUURRRMPH GNERRRKKKK KNEEEFFFURP FART FART FART FART FART GNUURRRRRFFLE GNARRRP

      Delete
  4. Littlefoot, best pet a guy could have

    MMC

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Journal editors are great big meanie pants because they wont allow papers on imaginary creatures" - Joe Fltzgerald

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "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/

      Oh... And the Bili Ape's existence wasn't published in a journal until the evidence for it was used and tracked.

      (Cringe)

      Delete
    2. But it was published in a journal when the evidence was suffient. No such luck for old footie.

      Delete
    3. That evidence being the product of using the trace evidence appropriately... Not before.

      (Man, this is kids level stuff).

      Delete
    4. So you admit you have no decent evidence? Cool

      Delete
    5. Learn to read, you insufferably dense soul. The only reason the Bili Ape's classification was published in a journal, was because the trace evidence for it was used to track it. The trace evidence for the Bili Ape didn't suddenly materialise after it was discovered.

      (Man I stoop low)

      Delete
    6. It didn't take that long to track the Bili Ape. And that was in warn torn, remote areas of Africa.

      Why has no one been able to track a footie successfully in North America?

      Delete
    7. *insert joe special pleading here*

      Delete
    8. Please Iktomi, stop associating me with yourself

      Delete
    9. Sorry Don... It seems that for the tenth time you need reminding that it took a whole year to track down that Bili Ape. I'll no doubt have to post this again another ten times in your direction l, but I'm happy to do it of course.

      Why hasn't anyone managed to track a "footie"? Why hasn't there been a consorted effort to do so by professionals?

      Delete
    10. Hmmm, a whole year, you say? People have been looking for footie for almost 50 years now.

      Delete
    11. ... And none of them of the level of expertise the Bili Ape acquired.

      Delete
    12. Might I add, that for 50 years... Amateur researchers have a lot of physical evidence.

      Delete
    13. Dmaker, i'm the only one that knows where they hide, and that's why i have hundreds of pics of them!
      People have no clue where they are, they aren't putting the time in, and that's why their research yields NOTHING!

      Delete
    14. How would you define someone looking "properly" as opposed to whatever everyone who has been looking for bigfoot for the last 50 years has been doing?

      Delete
    15. Joe, please describe the level of expertise that was used to discover the Bili Ape and how that expertise increased the chances of discovery.

      Delete
    16. So, you are saying that the enthusiasts are competent enough to identify and find the evidence, they just don't know how to follow the evidence to an actual creature?

      That does not make any sense...as usual.

      Delete
    17. My word Don, did you just ask that? Have you seen the names and credentials that were associated with the Bili Ape discovery? Finding trace evidence is what hunters do all over the country, have done for a long time... So it's no wonder hunters, hikers, etc, come across "Bigfoot" tracks. However, using a consorted team of mainstream primatologists means you would devote funded experts with no time restraints, with the resources required to adequately follow the trace evidence in question. It would also mean that you wouldn't be able to ad hominem them should they turn around and state that their is something to the evidence they were following... Which is typically rhetorical on your part.

      Delete
    18. You did not come close to addressing my question: what resources are missing that would be brought to the effort with the introduction of professional primatologists? What is missing from the current amatuer effort?

      You claim that enthusiasts have found everything short of a type specimen. This, in your opinion, included hair, scat, tracks, etc. So, why no actual specimen? Do you believe enthusiasts can find evidence, but are incapable of following that evidence? Once again, you have blabbed off too much and have painted yourself into a logical corner.

      Delete
    19. I think I answered you aptly, Don. Take your time with it, the whole day if you like.

      No, this is actually the case. Hair samples all uniform in morphology which rules out hoaxing and misunderstanding. Dermatoglyphics across different samples that rules out casting artefacts. Audio recordings both above and below human primate capabilities. Why no specimen? Why no Bili Ape specimen? It's pretty simple, if amateur researchers had the training, resources and time to conduct the level of research the Bili Ape enjoyed, then maybe we'd have a specimen. Plenty of missing hunters and hikers, who's to day that they didn't successfully follow those tracks? You harp on about credentials being everything, and now you can't see how an amateur researcher can't deliver as good as an expert? Would you have said the same of the indigenous woodsman of the Congo?

      If you do too many rhetorical cartwheels, you'll make yourself dizzy.

      Delete
    20. 7:42... I did. Get an adult to help if it's a little tricky.

      Delete
    21. You're not making any sense, Joe. And you are certainly not directly addressing my question.

      This is not a surprise, however.

      So now you are saying that amateurs have tracked the evidence to a bigfoot, but then the bigfoot ate them?

      Yeah, that doesn't sound ridiculous at all...

      Wow,this is possibly my fourth post in three weeks and I've already got you dancing and looking the fool.

      Thanks for the entertainment, you clown.

      Delete
    22. BURP FART GLUG GLURG CRAPTURD LATRINE GLUG GLURG FART BELCH BURP GLUG

      Delete
    23. No Donald, I think anyone with the most meagre of literary maturity can draw an answer from what I've written. No, what I'm saying is, if you run into a hostile version of what's widely reported, maybe a hostile version who's tracks have been followed... Then there's a good chance you'll go missing. And there's plenty of people who've gone missing, and plenty of evidence to suggest that such a creature indeed exists. That's about as ridiculous as hypothesising based on the readily available data.

      Dancing? Fools? (Cringe) Dear Donald, how about this... Why is it that the credentials of an expert delivering evidence is suddenly not so important to you? Surely this is something you demand all the time, right? And you didn't really address the fact that nobody would have a better knowledge of the Congolese terrain than the resident indigenous peoples. Why was it that a consorted team of western primatologists could rock up and find the Bili Ape? When it's all said and done, you're just an angry troll who's far more concerned with a reaction that substatiating your drivel.

      : )

      Delete
    24. ^ Fool doesn`t know (see that word,Joe ?) how to use the words "no" and "know".

      Hahahahah hahahahaha what a prick JoeTomi is.

      Delete
    25. Yeah, ha! Type in the word "know" and "Iktomi" into a google search engine. On the other hand... There doesn't appear to be an evidence of you knowing the difference between monkeys and apes.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

      Delete
    26. Know, no BURP GLUG GLURG FART BELCH BURP GLUG GLURG FART BELCH BURP GLUG GLURG CRAPTURD LATRINE

      Delete
    27. Yes, you keep at it there... You're doing well.

      Delete
    28. Yes,you keep BURP GLUG GLURG FART BELCH BURP FART GLUG GLURG

      Delete
    29. Dmaker has officially put the final nail in Joergs coffin!!

      Delete
    30. Dmaker gets blown out of the water once again. He must be into S&M to take so much beatings on here . The man is seriously deluded in his way of thinking that it baffles my mind to even think about it
      Have some sweet Bili ape dreams donald

      Tally ho !

      Joe

      Delete
    31. You're actually not far off the standard response from your peers.

      Delete
    32. Yes Joe BURP FART GLUG GLURG FART BELCH BURP FART BELCH BURP FART GLUG GLURG CRAPTURD LATRINE GLUG GLURG

      Delete
    33. Once again, Joe, you are not addressing my question. You say "...nobody would have a better knowledge of the Congolese terrain than the resident indigenous peoples." Then you go on to say that this knowledge and experience was insufficient and that it took a team of Western primatologists to discover the ape.

      So, again, I ask you. What is this expertise that you think the primatologists brought to the effort? According to you, we have a similar situation in North America. Amateurs and non-primatologists are in the woods and are able to identify and collect genuine bigfoot evidence, but they cannot actually locate one until primatologists get involved. This is your claim. So, please explain exactly this missing expertise that primatologists bring to the table that suddenly allow one to actually follow the evidence to a creature.

      Please keep your monster story nonsense about bigfoot being responsible or missing persons in the woods. There are many other things in the woods that can be lethal. Aside from predators there are accidents that lead to fatal injuries, there is expose, hunger, thirst, etc. Let's try to keep this discussion out of the spooky monster story realm. K? Thanks.

      Delete
    34. dmaker i am 100% convinced that joe is a troll portraying a bumbling deluded believer and hes just really fu cking good at it

      Delete

    35. (Sigh)

      You clearly stated that if amateur researchers can't track something like "Bigfoot", then what do expert researchers have... This being an attempt to counter the fact that a consorted professional effort to track "Bigfoot" hasn't happened and therefore bears no detriment to the quality of the same evidence that the Bili Ape had.. Correct?

      You dense patoot, I've answered your question. There is nothing BUT similarity of the two situations.... Indigenous peoples who have an exceptional knowledge of the terrain they live in, both in Central Africa and North America, have reported man sized primates to which have yielded physical evidence (with "Bigfoot" yielding far, FAR more) for decades! The whole sodding point of me saying that, is because it obliterates your rhetorical nonsense. Your nonsense that if amateurs can't find it then trained primatologists can't has already been shown to be totally false by the very example of the Bili Ape! What expertise would trained primatologists bring? Ask them you clown, ha ha ha!! The proof's in the pudding... Do I really need to point you in the direction of the most basic of zoological literature to show how efficient primatologists can be?

      And oh no! Does a "monster in the woods scare you Donald? Unfortunately Don, there are three books with the collaboration of experienced S&R personnel, people with far more but wilderness experience than you, that attest to a crazy number of cases that fall outside of recognised animal attacks.

      Delete
    36. Wow, looks like your n*t shiner just chimed in, Don. Guess he dropped the Joerg-racist stuff for a second so he could pick up the pom poms.

      Delete
    37. Mental illness is no joke folks

      Delete
    38. ... And now proceed to tell us how many is on the magic airforce base...

      Delete
    39. They say they want my Joerg
      And they say they want my slime.

      Delete
    40. How many on the magic airforce base today?

      Delete
    41. The Bili Ape really is a poor choice for you to use. It was, in fact, evidence gathered by Dutch colonists, specifically odd skulls, that sparked the interest in the Bili Ape in the first place. That lead to an expedition where they "...finally managed to capture clear images of the Bili apes. DNA tests, meanwhile, confirmed that the apes were in fact chimpanzees, not a new species. The mystery had finally been solved..." ( http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/search-mystery-apes-bili-forest-n568751 )

      You see, they started the search with actual physical evidence. The skulls. These skulls were originally found by Dutch colonists, not aboriginal Congolese, as you would have us believe. Futhermore, clear footage was obtained and DNA testing proved they were chimps.

      None of this has happened with bigfoot. No North American explorers have provided strange primate skulls. No DNA tests have provided anything other than common animals. Now, tell us all again how the history of the discovery of the Bili Ape is similar to bigfoot.

      Delete
    42. Joerg calls me on the line
      He does it all the time
      He says he wants my Joerg
      And he says he wants my slime

      OHHHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYYY JOERGGGGGGGG!!!!!

      Delete
    43. "Your nonsense that if amateurs can't find it then trained primatologists can't has already been shown to be totally false by the very example of the Bili Ape!"

      Nice try, but that is not my point at all. I am asking you to describe this expertise you keep mentioning. This missing expertise allegedly being the main reason bigfoot cannot be found.

      Delete
    44. Aaaaaaaaaaand what does "Bigfoot" have in comparison?

      Clear photos;
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg

      Skull;
      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/

      Also... The DNA studies show that we're dealing with a human. Damn you have a poor (selective) memory. No, you're essentially flogging a dead horse. I know I'm sharp, but I'm not remotely clued up tracking techniques of expert primatologists.

      : )

      Delete
    45. donald will be having sweet dreams about Bili apes tonight as opposed to his regular dreams of being thrashed regularly on here . sorry donny but you really need to get a life or a nice hobby- i would recommend something like knitting or skeet shooting pal

      god save the queen !

      Joe

      Delete
    46. Wow,talking to himself now,serious mental illness ^

      Delete
    47. That is truly funny. As if to substantiate your unsubstantiated claims, you offer links to more unsubstantiated claims from bigfoot enthusiast sources.

      Added to which you claim you have no knowledge of the expertise a primatologist might bring to the effort, but in the same token you are positive it is a lack of this "expertise" that is holding up the discovery of bigfoot.

      Not doing so well today, are you chum?

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

      Delete
    49. You are welcome to try and demonstrate how unsubstantiated my sources are, of course. Maybe you can apply your "50 questions & hope for the best" technique you've applied here to try & save face? Hopefully you won't end up contradicting yourself this time.

      I merely admit I have no knowledge of the methods that a primatologist might bring to such an effort, but don't doubt that the efforts of a team of primatologists would be fruitful, given the time and resources. They would have ample physical sign to use after all, just like the Bili Ape had.

      Primatologists are very clever people. Far more accomplished and professional than you can ever dream of being. And I have the most very basic of zoological literature attesting to how effective their expertise is in discovering new species of primate.

      I am genuinely embarrassed for you.

      Delete
    50. Another dodge by you. So, what is it that a primatologist might bring to the table that enthusiasts lack?

      According to you enthusiasts have successfully been able to identify and gather bigfoot sign and evidence. Enthusiasts can recognize bigfoot sign as in tracks and stick shelters. They have also produced, according to you, bigfoot hair, scat, DNA, vocals, and even photographic images and video footage. What else remains? What is there that is lacking? Surely, you must have some idea about this mysterious "expertise" that you constantly claim to be the reason for no bigfoot discovery yet? So, what is it, champ? Or is this just another blind excuse by you in an attempt to plead away the lack of a bigfoot specimen?

      Please, this is your contention. Surely you can back it up with something?

      Delete
    51. I have no doubt that primatologists are clever and accomplished in their field. That is also why none of them give bigfoot the time of day.

      Delete
    52. Your "sources" are from bigfoot enthusiast articles on websites, for the most part. Show me even one scientific paper published in a real journal by a primatologist that supports the existence of bigfoot. You cannot do this, of course. This is what lack of substantiation looks like, numnuts.

      Delete
    53. Now cue Joe's "well peer review is flawed" response. Probably followed by my favorite Joe response when he is backed into a corner, the ever popular, "Are you getting upset now?"

      LOL. Joe, face it. You are an idiot who prattles on daily about things of which you have no idea.

      That is your schooling for today. I'll leave you to nurse your wounds now.

      Delete
    54. CORRECTION! The above should read:


      That is your schooling for today. I'll leave you to scrub the smell of diseased shark vaginas away from this site now.


      - dMaKeR

      Delete
    55. ^
      It's ok, anon Joe, I promise to leave you aone for another few weeks. It's no fun to come here everyday and smack you down like that. Who knows, you'd likely hang yourself.

      Go on, rest peacefully little twonk. I'll stay away for awhile again.

      Delete
    56. What's lacking?

      (My word... Do I really have to stoop this low? Looks like it)

      TRACKING it, Donald. This word "tracking" was used in my very first comment of the day. Go and take a little looksy up top. Just like the Bili Ape that accumulated sightings and track impressions before hand, the Bili Ape needed a team of primatologists to track the creature for it to be classified. These aren't excuses, this is embarrassingly obvious. Your "50 questions" technique is just getting terrible now. My sources are from reputable primatologists, anthropologists, etc, especially when it comes to hair samples. And just for context, it takes one hair to classify a species. Anna Nekaris has done it regarding nocturnal primates with one hair sample. Sasquatch have twelve.

      AAAAAAAAARGH and now you want the old chestnut journal? You bust his out when your back's against the wall. What YOU need 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?

      Sorry, your version of science may special plead, but there is nothing in any of the historical scientific breakthroughs you can list that dictates that biological research has to start being acknowledged at conclusion. There is nothing more profound at this stage than forensic evidence.

      Delete
    57. Oh Don... You don't seem like you're having very much fun, ha ha ha ha! I think your blood pressure would benefit from the break away more than anything.

      (Creased)

      Delete
    58. If Anna did it with one, and sasquatch has twelve. What is the problem?

      Delete
    59. I'll tell you why. Anna would have done that through proper channels, such as peer review. Now I know you don't like peer review, but at the same time you will happily mention Nekaris proving a species based on hair samples. Ok,fine. Sounds good. Could you please kindly refer us to the paper where she proved a nocturnal primate species based on a hair sample. Now, either you won't be able to do this, or it will prove to have been done in a peer reviewed journal. Either result makes you look like an idiot. Seriously, do you not think two steps ahead? You trap yourself in your nonsense constantly.

      So, again, where did Nekaris classify a new species of nocturnal primate based on hair samples?

      We're waiting...


      Delete
    60. Not only do not enough enthusiasts even know of it, but the extraordinary nature of what this evidence entails is in fact what's holding back the requirement of subsequent mainstream investigative measures. It means that until extraordinary evidence surfaces (a body), the subject isn't going to draw the attention of a majority of mainstream scientists who would only THEN be in a position to become aware of the many evidences that preceded it. Without this, few will see beyond the hoaxing and pop culture. It's a very detrimental circle that can be simplified as the requirement of extraordinary evidence without the extraordinary effort it would require to source it. The cart before the horse.

      Delete
    61. I'm not your dancing monkey, lazy boy... Go watch an Anna Nekaris presentation and find out. You're getting desperate now Donald!

      : )

      Delete
    62. And "we" is just you, not even your n*t shiner's hung around to cheer you on, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    63. I'll be back later Donny! Gotta catch some Z's!

      Delete
    64. Oh, so it's been proven in some "presentation" somewhere? Hate to break it to you boyo, science is not substantiated in presentations. There always must be a paper to follow. If not, you are no better than Melba.

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

      Delete

    66. If there is always a paper to follow, then go use your incredible computer skills to go and source it. Nobody would doubt that Anna's documented new species, stop letting your emotions get the better of you boio.

      Delete
  6. Good job on taking the pic Dan! I have several that resemble this pic, I think this species looks more like a "Lion" than a Leprechaun, imho.....Pic is blurry, and most people won't see anything here, but it's a legit pic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:17:00 AM PDT

      Legit pic of a tree stump

      Delete
    2. Yes, yes the "Lion" species of Bigfoot.

      Delete
    3. ^ http://sucbud2.tumblr.com/

      Joe

      Delete
    4. You really don't have a clue Vegas, and shouldn't be commenting, you need to get a camera and get in the woods.

      "Joe" i really feel bad for you.

      Delete
    5. HA!, How ironic you telling me I don't have a clue.

      Delete
    6. Show me just ONE pic of something you took in the woods!

      That's EXACTLY what i thought!

      Delete
    7. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:46:00 AM PDT

      Dogs and squirrels submitted as Bigfoot evidence

      Delete
    8. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Monday, October 3, 2016 at 8:26:00 AM PDT

      You know you can't, oh well

      Delete
    9. Bernie Sanders revealed he was bothered by Hillary Clinton's characterization of his policies as 'false promises' in a hacked audio clip, but remained adamant about his support for her. ...
      go back to your new $600,000 cave

      Delete
    10. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:12:00 AM PDT

      Blurry is the new evidence

      Delete
    11. 6:26 is the fake joe at it again. the lad simply has too much time on his hands . i see he's sharing the link to one of his favorite sites Can we please ban that cretin from this site ?

      Tally ho !

      Joe

      Delete
    12. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:27:00 AM PDT

      Yes Joe, thank you for supporting my dog and squirrel closeups presented as Bigfoot evidence

      Delete
    13. ^ loves his nuts

      Tally ho !

      Joe

      Delete
    14. 9:12, you can't even take ONE blurry pic...LOLOLOLOL!

      You don't even own a camera huh!
      LOL

      Delete
    15. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:37:00 PM PDT

      My camera only takes blurry pictures, why are even the trees and background blurry, hmmmmmm

      Delete
  7. Ironically the bili ape is an excellent argument against the existence of bigfoot so its always funny when joe wheels that one out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are ZERO arguments!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LedtIJiFY5o

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q2lkcqNFV4

      Delete
    2. A man sized primate... Reported to exist by indigenous peoples for the past few decades... That was largely ignored by western scientists... Only to be discovered in the late 1990's when these scientists eventually made a consorted effort... Does nothing but prop up my argument. Only a considerably dense person would try and twist that any other way.

      Delete
    3. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:46:00 AM PDT

      There is no correlation between squirrels submitted as Bigfoot evidence and Bili Apes and dogs

      Delete
    4. 7:43... I at least no the difference between monkeys and apes.

      Delete
    5. ^ 8;16 - yet not the difference between the use of "know" and "no" ...clever boy,eh?

      Delete
    6. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA JOE'S LACK OF EDUCATION JUST GOT EXPOSED

      Delete
    7. BURP FART GLUG GLURG CRAPTURD LATRINE GLUG GLURG FART BELCH BURP

      Delete
    8. Hahahaha hahahaha what a complete "Wally",Joe is ... what an ill educated jerk ... hahahahahahahahaha

      Delete
    9. Oh - shock - Joe has gone away !!!

      I wonder why ???

      heh heh heh hahaha

      Delete
    10. With that grammar, I really wouldn't be drawing upon the typos of anyone else.

      Delete
    11. Grammer BURP GLUG GLURG FART BELCH BURP FART GLUG GLURG

      Delete
    12. keep it up iktomi- you are getting under their skin with your superior logic . They can't take it anymore and the meltdown of all meltdowns has begun

      Tally ho !

      Joe

      Delete
    13. Yes Joe , thank you for supporting my delusional ranting as evidence

      Delete
    14. "In most cases, misogynists do not even know that they hate women. Misogyny is typically an unconscious hatred that men form early in life, often as a result of a trauma involving a female figure they trusted. An abusive or negligent MOTHER, sister, teacher or girlfriend can plant a seed deep down in their brain’s subcortical matter."
      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mysteries-love/201502/12-ways-spot-misogynist

      Delete
    15. ^ Doesn`t "no" what he`s talking of as ever.

      Remember Joe - "know" = a thing you apparently don`t "no" how to use.

      Hahahaha hahahahah what a wanker you are

      hahahaha hahahahaha

      Delete
    16. I know I'm stopping, but using Google Chrome? Type in "know" and follow the authors of comments with the word "know" in. You'll notice four comments that are mine in this very comment section.

      "Chimpanzees aren’t monkeys. Chimps are instead great apes, belonging to a family of mammals known as Hominidae. Other hominids include gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, and humans."

      Delete
    17. Stooping to blow Khat, she has a penis^

      Delete
    18. Aaah guh guh guh guh. . Penisk

      Delete
    19. Yes, Khat is no lady Iktomi, and she has a foul mouth for a supposed Christian

      Delete
  8. LOL

    Obvious compound face, 3-4 faces stacked.

    Really. The first rule in 'footery is:

    #1) Its never one face.

    Ugh. Rank amateur play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok a pro is here...

      You people can disperse now. Its under control.

      Delete
  9. Where is Brandon Boogardigger????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're holding him hostage until you people release Anthony Moffett.

      Delete
  10. Ok I'm not usually a huge Doc Squatch supporter but the truth of the matter is that many Bigfoot *are* somewhat leonine in appearance.

    Don't make me trot out imagery 'cause I have thousands of frames of it and by know you should know that when I say I have imagery I have imagery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is a lion looking guy on Sumatra:

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/t7ahlxarriuavz8/Bukit_Lawang.png?dl=0

      Got a long clip but I haven't included him in a video for a few reasons. The imagery is a bit dark, there is an adult female behind and just to the side which confuses his image somewhat and then there is the weird leonism.

      Delete
    2. You and Dr. Squat should both be waterboarded.

      Delete
    3. Aaah guh guh guh. . . Penisk DS sucks

      Delete
    4. According to DS, bigfoots look a lot like trees.

      Delete
    5. Please quote EXACTLY what I claim dmaker....I said they replicate what they touch, like a chameleon...if they are touching a tree, yes the will appear as a tree. I have PLENTY of evidence to back up my claims.

      Delete