Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Minnesota Bigfoot Chases Investigators


Sasquatch Watch Radio with special guest Abe Del Rio. Abe is a researcher out of Minnestoa, and talks about some of his experiences with bigfoot in his home state. He recounts one experience where he was actually pursued by a bigfoot.

158 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Is it a long process to join farmers only?

      Delete
    2. Some day Stuey if you EVER know love you will find that country girls are the best

      MMC

      Delete
    3. The poor bugger needs to love himself before anything of the sort happens.

      Delete
    4. I wonder if there is like a combination deal with other fat lover websites? A 2 for 1 kinda thing. And what are you talking about MMC, your a black man. What do you know about "country girls"? lol

      Delete
    5. ^ too long in his mama's basement

      Delete
    6. Queen - Fat Bottomed Girls (Lyrics): http://youtu.be/OUwauaE0zEE

      MMC

      Delete
    7. I wonder if there is a website where other fat, racist, never-been-kissed psychos can congregate?

      "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

      Nargh... Actually, no place that evil exists.

      Delete
    8. Stuey is a couple steps away from acting out in the real world

      I hope he doesn't have any living pets. And that poor teddy bear !

      MMC

      Delete
    9. 2:44

      not interested in women

      he`s a men only kinda "gal"

      Delete
    10. Clinton Staff Panics As Journalists Capture Video of Gurney Being Wheeled Backstage...
      Nothin to see here move along

      Delete
    11. Country girls are overrated.

      Delete
  2. Real bigfoot researchers don't get chased by bigfoot.

    Real bigfoot researchers carry guns.

    Any bigfoot chasing a real researcher would soon become the specimen we've all been waiting for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you've probably never been near any woods . stay in your basement mate, it's a lot safer there

      Joe

      Delete
    2. ^ trailer park resident

      Delete
    3. Maybe if moma hugged you some more, you'd be less sadistic.

      Delete
    4. Your mother should stop beating the humanity out of you

      Delete
    5. Maybe a ******* good clip would do you some good? What's for sure, is you don't get on the psychopathy spectrum if you've been hugged and cared for.

      Poor bugger.

      Delete
    6. That's right Iktomi...say do you fancy young lads?

      Delete
    7. Don't be scared, everyone loves a clown like you

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

      Delete
    9. Iktomi is such a DINGBAT!
      That his lame brain can't comprehend the diffrence between "NO" and "KNOW"!!!

      WHAT A DOPE!!
      AC collins.....LOL!!

      Delete
    10. Nobody who regularly endures that level of poor grammatical awareness should have the audacity to point out other peoples' typos.

      But he is angry for not knowing humans are apes, I guess.

      Delete
  3. Does this sound like a made up story to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Argh yes!! For thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing conspirators all making things up. These "story makers", 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!

      Delete
    2. Wanna go with the billi ape again today? Or did dmaker embarass you enough yesterday?

      Delete
    3. Did I miss something?

      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...

      A sure way of embarrassing a "Bigfoot" proponent, alright.

      : )

      Delete
    4. GNERRKLE FART GNERRRRF GUNFFFUMPH FART FART

      Delete
    5. There will be proof,any day now,any day now

      Delete
    6. Teamsquatchingusa -Dr JohnsonTuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:54:00 AM PDT

      Bili ape mindspoke to me and told me he does not exist in Bigfoot world

      Delete
    7. Hey Joe, did you find something to support your claim that Anna Nekaris proved a new species of nocturnal primate using only a single hair sample?

      That is your claim. Don't tell me to go find something to support your claim. That is not how these things work. Your claim, you provide something to back it up. Shouldn't be too hard for you. We know you love to copy and paste.

      Delete
    8. https://youtu.be/AwjZxP4_NIk

      12mins mark.

      Cue the special pleading...

      Delete
    9. That's a pubic hair so you know it's special and magical

      Delete
    10. dmaker, i always wondered what you do for a living ? i'll assume by your name you make Ds ? what are Ds ? dumplings? Dioramas ? dungarees ?
      Or is it just dirt ?
      in any case your special pleading today has been extra painful to watch

      Tally ho !

      Joe

      Delete
    11. It does not state in that presentation that a species was proven to exist based on a single hair sample.

      As usual, you have misunderstood or exaggerated something you viewed or read.

      Delete
    12. Watch... The... God... Damn... Link... You... Patoot.

      No paper? Dunno... But I think you'd better find one, because if their isn't... Then bang goes your journal requirements, eh?

      : )

      Delete
    13. I did watch the video. No where does it say any species of bush baby was classified using only a single hair sample.

      Delete
    14. (Sigh)

      She used a single hair sample to differentiate between species. Something tells me you weren't very good at observational exercises at school?

      AND ANYWAY! Stop deflecting Donny... You've got a paper to source, or your latest rhetorical crud has come around to bite you in the butt again.

      Delete
    15. She did not use a hair to prove a new species. That is what you said yesterday. She used hair, along with vocals and other things to identify between the species. That is a far, far cry from what you claimed yesterday.

      Why would I need to source a paper? Your claim has been proved to be false.

      Delete
    16. That's right dMaker, he also fancies young lads,nothing improper there

      Delete
    17. Ha ha ha ha ha!! No, it was classification that occurred due to a hair sample, Don. For any newly discovered species, you need various evidence. And even so... what do Sasquatch have as accompanying evidence?

      : )

      Nope! YOU need to source a paper, because if a new species of nocturnal primate has been classified without one, then your safety net rhetorical rubbish about the evidence for Sasquatch being irrelevant without a published journal, has come back to bite that Canadian backside of yours.

      Chop! Chop!!

      Delete
    18. Hmmmmmm, I thought it was an established fact that they are tall hairy native Americans

      Delete
    19. Good! You're learning! But the whole basis of this latest schooling is Donny's requirement for journal based evidence.

      Delete
    20. Joe, you have it wrong as usual. Yesterday you claimed that Anna Nekaris proved a new species of nocturnal primate using a sing hair. I simply asked for some legitimate proof of that. You provide a youtube presentation that does not support your claim. No where in that presentation does Nekaris say she has proven a new species based on a single hair morphology.

      There is no need for me to source a paper since the video does not support your claim. You exaggerated as usual. Had Nekaris said in the video that she used the morphology of a single hair to classify a new species, I would have been surprised and would have looked for a supporting paper. But she did not claim to do that. So need for a paper. I don't doubt that she has found new species of tiny primates. I just don't think it would have been done using the morphology of a single hair, as you claim.

      Once again, when called on something, you have empty hands.

      Delete
    21. Sorry Donny... In the link provided, she clearly states that a hair sample was used to differentiate species. It's actually there in the link I provided. Anna Nekaris has found many species of primate, your stance is that "Bigfoot" can't be considered legit until it's published... Well you're not doing a very good job of substantiating where an example in Anna's case stands.

      If that's the case, your rhetorical drivel falls flat.

      Chop! Chop!!

      Delete
    22. That is not what she says. You should watch the video again. She says, after explaining the different hand pads and vocals, that she ALSO used hair morphology.

      That is nowhere near what you claimed yesterday.

      Stop being dishonest. You are simply wrong on this one. You're just going to have to admit it.

      Delete
    23. So you see... your "50 rhetorical questions and hope for the best" technique has actually opened the proverbial can of worms.

      I'd be searching the Internet like mad if I were you.

      Delete
    24. Sorry Donald... As was put to you earlier, only one out of that list you wrote has the ability to define genetic species.

      Delete
    25. "In 2012, two taxonomic synonyms (formerly recognized as subspecies) of N. menagensis—N. bancanus and N. borneanus—were elevated to species status, and a new species—N. kayan—was also distinguished from the same. Rachel Munds, Anna Nekaris and Susan Ford based these taxonomic revisions on distinguishable facial markings" Wikipedia

      Delete
    26. LOL. You really make me laugh, Joe. You are so stubborn that you will obviously fail at something, or be wrong on a point, and you just carry on as if you are not wrong.

      Delete
    27. Here is the paper, Joe, in a respected journal:

      R. Munds, S. Ford, K.A.I. Nekaris. Taxonomy of the Bornean Slow Loris, with New Species Nycticbus kayan (Priamtes Lorisdae). American Journal of Primatology, December 2012; DOI: 10.


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

      Delete
    29. My face plant? You claimed something that was not true, and demanded a paper.

      I showed where you were wrong and provided the paper from a respected journal.

      How is this my face plant, exactly?

      Delete
    30. Not really... Your initial demand that I present you a case where a nocturnal primate is classified via a hair sample stands! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

      : p

      Delete
    31. They used facial markings to classify, not hair. And it was published in a proper journal.

      Maybe you should be more familiar with the crap you spout in the future. You could not have been more wrong on this one if you tried.

      Delete
    32. Basically... Your "50 questions" technique put you in a situation where you were eventually gonna end up validating my argument for me.

      That's gotta sting.

      : )

      Delete
    33. I never asked you for that. You stated it, and I simply asked you to support your statement. In the end, you were proven to be wrong.

      I never once asked you for a case where a nocturnal primate was classified via hair sample. You said that was the case, and it was not. They used facial markings. So, you're still wrong.

      Delete
    34. Not according to Anna in her presentation Don! Subtle variances in fur markings don't determine a separate species... DNA dose.

      Delete
    35. Sorry Donny! You attempt so many questions you really forget what's going on in the end, don't you?

      Delete
    36. She talks about how to differentiate the species using the distinct facial markings. Have you even watched the video?

      You just can't admit when you're wrong, can you? It's quite funny to watch you squirm, however.

      Delete
    37. Here is the abstract from her paper. Note how she says she used facial markings:

      More species of nocturnal primates are now recognized than in the past, because many are cryptic species. Subtle morphological disparities, such as pelage pattern and color variation, vocal cues, and genetics have aided in elucidating the number of diagnosable species in a genus. The slow lorises (genus Nycticebus) once included only two species, but recent taxonomic studies resulted in the description of three additional species; further incompletely explored variability characterizes each of the currently described species. The Bornean loris in particular is characterized by pelage and body size variation. In this study, we explored facemask variation in the Bornean loris (N. menagensis). Differing facemask patterns, particularly influenced by the amount of white on the face, significantly clustered together by geographic regions, separated by notable geographic boundaries. Our results support the recognition of four species of Bornean lorises: N. menagensis, N. bancanus, N. borneanus, and N. kayan. Genetic studies are required to support these findings and to refine further our understanding of the marked variability within the Bornean loris populations. Am. J. Primatol. 75:46-56, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

      Delete
    38. So we don't need DNA to classify a nocturnal primate a Don?

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Isn't that your best argument down the pan?

      You've walked straight into this one mate.

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

      Delete
    40. dMaKeRMonday, October 3, 2016 at 9:00:00 PM PDT
      Seriously, do you not think two steps ahead? You trap yourself in your nonsense constantly.




      Beautiful.

      Delete
    41. ^ IktomiMonday, October 3, 2016 at 8:16:00 AM PDT
      7:43... I at least no the difference between monkeys and apes.


      ^ = imbecile

      Delete
    42. You seriously got blown out of the water Iktomi, now you're just acting like a retard

      Delete
    43. IktomiMonday, October 3, 2016 at 10:48:00 AM PDT
      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."

      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/leprechaun-bigfoot-caught-on-camera.html?showComment=1475569048791





      2:57... Did you ever go fishing and reel in a t*rd?

      Delete
    44. Joe, yesterday you said Nekaris proved a new species of primate using hair morphology. You did not say DNA. So, if a species cannot be proven without DNA, why did you yesterday say that a new species was proven using only hair morphology?

      Delete
    45. So, which one is it, Joe? Did she, or did she not, prove a new species of primate? She does not talk about DNA from the hair in the presentation, she talks about the hair morphology.

      It seems you were saying one thing yesterday, and a different one now.

      Delete
    46. This is what you said yesterday:

      "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. "

      To support this claim, you provide a link to a presentation where Nekaris discusses hair morphology, not DNA. So, it is clear you were not referring to DNA yesterday.

      Delete
    47. And, again, for the record, she used pelage, not hair morphology.

      Delete
    48. I know I will be accused of just being a cheerleader for Dmaker because like him I do not believe in Bigfoot but having read all the posts just now I have to agree with him. Even using the broadest of interpretation it's quite clear to me she did not use a hair alone to prove a new species.

      Delete
    49. Eh Don... Do you feel a bit daft now? Turns out that you can't really demand a peer reviewed DNA study for Sasquatch evidence anymore. What rhetorical nonsense will you have to fall back on now? What's the funniest thing, is that this all started out by you demanding I source a published study!! Cartwheels isn't the word.

      I'm not wrong... Anna Nekaris used a hair sample towards the classification of a nocturnal primate species. Which ever way you want to spin that, Sasquatch have twelve samples from twelve different specimens. It's a highly relevant, highly profound peace of comparative data.

      You're flogging the deadest of horses now Don.

      Delete
    50. Argh Curious! What took you so long? It really doesn't matter... If you want to focus on irrelevances, there is three times the evidence that the Bili Ape had at this stage. Whether you're comparing it to Anna's little bush babies or the Bili Ape... The comparison does not begin to lack in any shape or form.

      Delete
    51. She used hair morphology along with facial markings, hand pads, and vocals. But that is not what you said. You said she used a single hair to prove a new species.

      You were wrong, plain and simple.

      Why, exactly, should I not expect a peer reviewed DNA study for sasquatch? I asked you to support your claim. You failed to do so, and demanded that I find a paper supporting your claim. I found the appropriate paper, but sadly for you, it does not support your claim.

      Delete
    52. Wow. Your wrongness is staring you straight in the face and yet you just pretend you're right. No wonder you welched on that bet.

      I never had much respect for you to begin with, but today you have truly demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty. An honest person admits when they are wrong. A petty man like you will just act like a child and deny the reality. You're really quite a sad case.

      Delete
    53. Later on tonight when I get some free time (rare for me) I would like to comment on the subject of Bigfoot physical evidence and why with all the abundance of that evidence it does not get taken seriously by the majority of the science community. Be back later.

      Delete
    54. The irony of all this is that Joe insisted that a single hair could prove a new species of primate. And then crows about how there are 12 bigfoot hairs. Well then, why is no one using these hairs to write a paper proving the existence of bigfoot? Once again, Joe fails to see the obvious and makes a fool of himself.

      Not a good couple of days for you, chap.

      Delete
    55. Bush babies = one hair sample, anatomical features, audio recordings, fur markings = different nocturnal non-human primate.

      Sasquatch = twelve hair samples, anatomical features (castings) audio recordings = footage = thermal = different species of nocturnal human primate.

      You're missing the boat... Who gives a spin about what I said the hair sample! Ha ha ha!! Even if I was totally and utterly wrong about the listed traits that were factors to proving a new species, the fundamental basis of this entire exchange that started yesterday was that which was required to warrant reason to investigate Sasquatch... When by the best comparative examples of Bush Babies and the Bili Apes, there's not only ample reason to do that, but ample evidence without the requimemt of DNA for your beloved journal.

      Try and keep up gents!

      Anyways! I've got all sorts of robot questions coming up and all... I'm gonna catch some Z's! I'll be back tomorrow!!

      You take care now!

      ; )

      Delete
    56. Ooooooh Don, you seem a little agitated there, dear boy? Why haven't twelve hairs been the focus of an equivalent study?

      (Curious... Take note when you're special pleading later)

      Even though you don’t have a means of classifying what that primate is, the objective outcome is you still have the anatomical impression of an unclassified bipedal primate that has not only been falsifiably tested to your standards, but requires the same level of further investigation as the Bili Ape had. However, AND WHAT'S VERY IMPORTANT HERE, is 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.

      And trust me Curious... I'll be along tomorrow morning to answer to that.

      Adios!!

      Delete
    57. "An honest person admits when they are wrong"... Just like that holy grail, journal published DNA, eh Don?

      When the dust settles here, and you realise that's 90% of what you have to offer at the best of times gone up in smoke... remember to take a chill pill.

      Ha ha ha!! Gotta go now, honestly, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    58. "Bush babies = one hair sample, anatomical features, audio recordings, fur markings = different nocturnal non-human primate.

      Sasquatch = twelve hair samples, anatomical features (castings) audio recordings = footage = thermal = different species of nocturnal human primate. "

      There is no comparison. In the first instance, we're talking about a scenario where the animal can be studied. Where there are live, wild specimens to observe. Nekaris was not trying to prove that small primates exist. She was pointing out that what was once considered one species was found to be distinct enough to have it's own classification.

      That is nothing like bigfoot. There are no live specimens to observe. There are no bigfoots classified. We're not talking about classifying an Eastern bigfoot vs a Western, or whatever.

      The two examples are not similar at all.

      Delete
    59. I can still hear you!!

      And that's when the Bili Ape comes in, Dear Don! And the comparative frequency of data for the Bush Baby does nothing but prop up the evidence for the Sasquatch. For example, when a primate that is yet to be successfully tracked has the same level of comparative evidence for one that is successfully studied in its environment... What does that tell you?

      Delete
    60. It tells me that one is real and the other one is the fantasy of dingbats.

      Delete
    61. Fantasies don't leave comparative evidence to that of primates studied in their environments... Sorry!

      I'll be band in the morning!! Goodnight!

      (Genuinely now)

      Delete
    62. For the Bili Ape we had skulls. We have no bigfoot skulls. We have no physical evidence at all.

      Delete
    63. This thread has been left in the dust (topics move fast here) so I will post tomorrow in a new thread. Looking forward to an interesting conversation.

      Delete
    64. Um... Actually Don. From what was explained as a chimp skull with subtle differences (subtle gorilla characteristics), in comparison we have human skulls with subtle archaic characteristics. There is also 50 years of physical evidence in track impressions. It really all amounts to a big sh*t sandwich of comparison.

      Mr Curious = wimp = and you had a comment section that was "left in dust" as the perfect platform, look.

      : )

      Delete
    65. pass the sauce, donnie boy just got BBQed again !
      mmmm , i'll take a rib

      Joe

      Delete
  4. I guess Abe left his cell phone or camera at home that day.

    UNREAL!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. #1 in Bigfoot Crapturd research -Squatch (not a real Dr)Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:44:00 AM PDT

      UNREAL! Every photo I've ever taken

      Delete
  5. Zero bigfoots.

    Really makes you think

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Zero bigfoots" leaving 50 years of physical evidence, being witnessed and filmed.

      A troll having to preach about what's allegedly so obvious, every day of his life; now that makes you think.

      Delete
    2. So sweet to see a troll cry about getting trolled-poetic ^

      Delete
    3. Someone who waits around to hate all day, who follows others around using their names and insults them;

      A troll that didn't like his own medicine.

      Delete
    4. Weep, weep ,it's like a mirror, so sweet to see a troll cry about getting trolled-poetic ^

      Delete
    5. Just remember who ain't talking **** about "Bigfoot" anymore.

      ; )

      Delete
    6. 7:01- there's more more great evidence in the past while than ever before . it's not like they will just waltz out of the woods and pose for tourists ya know. get out of your basement and go into the woods. you never know when you'll see one and they might be right in front of you without you ever knowing

      Joe

      Delete
    7. Native American bones,big injuns

      Delete
    8. Are they? What do you base that statement on?

      Delete
    9. Based on there being no question that they exist via the evidence, that their DNA is human... And that since the oral histories of the people who have lived on the continent for 12,000 years have been validated... I'm not going to argue with them.

      Delete
    10. Iktomi, they are shameless whiskey drinkers and scalpers, don't believe everything you hear

      Delete
    11. Did you walk, head down and scared of everyone when you got your McDonald's breakfast this morning?

      Delete
    12. Mmm McDonalds breakfast. Best coffee on planet Earth for a buck.

      Delete
    13. What a savage you are Iktomi, siding with shameless whiskey drinkers and their ape man stories, that's just to scare pale face into the casinos, you really know nothing about America, it's a good thing you know a squaw with a penis like me

      Delete
    14. I wonder why you never put your name to your racist posts? Do you think it might be because you're a coward?

      Delete
    15. I just admitted to having a penis, that's why you like me on Facebook you twat

      Delete
    16. "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
    17. the fake Khat should get together with the fake joe although i think they are one in the same miserable basement dwelling x-box playing cheeto eating person who has no life other to come troll on here

      Tally ho !

      Joe

      Delete
  6. Oh dear - no bigfoot proof again - really makes you think they don`t really exist outside of the minds of the mentally flawed.

    Oh dear !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "NO proof" meaning, "no body"... But not equating to a lack of evidence. Someone who applies a thousands year old conspiracy theory to explain away all that = beyond mentally flawed.

      Delete
    2. Thousands of years, no body, the fairies take them

      Delete
    3. Actually... There is 150 years' worth of very large human skeletal remains documented in the US, by sources such as the Smithsonian Institute.

      Delete
    4. Documented as native American, is this correct or are they actually documented as something unknown, please enlighten

      Delete
    5. Well considering Native Americans have over a hundred names for "Sasquatch", and refer to them as another tribe of humans... It really doesn't matter what they were documented as by culturally European archaeologists. Furthermore, the fact that 7-8 foot skeletons have been discovered in the US for a 150 years, it isn't much of a leap to imagine living/breathing hairy versions residing in deep wilderness areas to this day.

      Delete
    6. In other words human skeletons, wonder what Shaq would say about a 7 foot skeleton, meh perhaps

      Delete
    7. Sasquatch are large ancient humans... And like I said, it isn't much of a leap to imagine living/breathing hairy versions residing in deep wilderness areas to this day.

      Delete
    8. Well, just for the record, you said that

      Delete
    9. I shot two of 'em

      Delete
    10. Sasquatch are an ancient human based on the anatomical evidence found in physical sign and video evidence... I'm just the messenger.

      Delete
    11. So we can look them up in a scientific record

      Delete
    12. Sure! There'll be a record of the science applied in determining that on the internet. Use it for something other than ******** off for once and find out.

      Delete
    13. So we can look up Sasquatch skeletons in the scientific record, a factual record? Maybe on that bollocks Google you use? Nothing on American Google

      Delete
    14. No, you can look up the interpretation of those remains by archeologists... But the remains are documented all the same. All accumulated by the anthropological elite of the past 200 years.

      Delete
    15. ^ anthropological elite ?

      ... please refrain from speaking nonsense.

      Delete
    16. I guess you haven't heard of the Smithsonian, as well as not knowing the difference between monkeys and chimps?

      Where are all the adults gone?

      Delete
    17. So that's a no...I win,thanks loser

      Delete
    18. Oh dear... Your list of stupidity just keeps growing eh?

      Delete
  7. Nice 10:17, that sums it up as short as it can be expressed.

    I've been looking at them all morning. They are quite alive and well:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/y4zb9fnkmd76c4e/vlcsnap-9697-01-21-14h26m01s582.tiff?dl=0

    We're going to haul our camera/telescope lashup to this area for a last trip before it starts snowing. The place is really full of them but not a sound day or night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That looks something like the Scott Carpenter image.

      So Sasquatch is a smooth-faced boy with a 1000 lb hairy muscular body?

      Hmm.

      Delete
    2. That is a gypsy, a roma woman.

      You've got pikies! lol

      Delete
    3. Has to be another hiker or camper.

      As someone mentioned yesterday a single frame can look like something then the next frame can look like nothing. Its a good still image but stills just aren't convincing. You need a good number of frames with the image remaining consistent and maybe showing some motion. That is a beautiful area though.

      Delete
    4. 11:23, is that a 4k camera by chance? And was this taken from a picture, or a video still shot...Thx!

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

      Delete
    6. Got something to say, say it!

      I have a similar pic, and the better the camera, the more blurry the Bigfoot will be, imo...I bet this fella has a 4k camera!
      It's possible both were taken at a distance, which make the pics even more blurry.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG8zubXvIE4

      Delete
    7. #1 In Bigfoot Crapturd research-(Not really a Dr )SquatchTuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:03:00 PM PDT

      Yes,even the trees and background, but that's from the Keebler elves

      Delete
    8. Again putting your foot in your mouth, they blur the trees around them too, happens in so many of my video's, probably have at least 1,000 video's showing this.
      You lack research, just like the rest!

      Delete
    9. I don't see anything in this image!

      You people took too much acid in high school. Its frightening to know I share a planet with such weirdos.

      Delete
    10. ^^ You lack research too!

      You see this one?

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

      Delete
    11. #1 In Bigfoot Crapturd research-(Not really a Dr) SquatchTuesday, October 4, 2016 at 5:22:00 PM PDT

      Yes, bigfoot blurs everything, not me and the camera's fault, isn't that convenient

      Delete
    12. You really are that stupid! You see, you've never been in the woods, and you don't have a camera, yet you know all about Bigfoot, and Bigfoot research.....WOW!

      Like i said, i have at least 1,000 video's showing this, and your utter stupidity!

      Delete
    13. Also, i manually focus my camera for the best, clearest shot, you can see me doing this in EVERY video!

      Man you look even more stupid!

      Delete