Wednesday, November 16, 2016

These True Dogmen Stories Are Creepy


Bigfoot stories can be scary, but there's something about stories about dogmen encounters that are really creepy. Check these out:

43 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. You will soon be thanking me for the creamy golden shower you will get later.

      Delete
    2. I'm half way through reading Linda Godfrey's "monsters among us"....so far so good.Some amazing reports in there xx

      Delete
    3. I've been looking to buy one of her books, PIB, l'll give that a go.

      Delete
    4. This is the second one of her's i've read Iktomi.There's a really odd report in this one of a dogman sighting and the witnesses said it looked 2 dimensional.I've wondering about that and i wonder if it's possible that their eyes or their brain could only see part of it.By that i mean frequency wise.Maybe if it was a from another dimension but not here fully xx

      Delete
    5. woof woof ,leg cock - piss over Joe - woo f woof woof

      Delete
    6. Joerg loves that report because he has something in his knickers that's only two dimensional!

      Delete
  2. Why not call dogmen what they used to be called? And that was Werewolves!

    What's up Dr. Squatch?
    You are that dude in the Sasquatch field research world!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There seem to be several types! Here's a few i got in the last week.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBSlLA5ZrNk

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBSlLA5ZrNk

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yv4wj9U3Mo

      Delete
    2. Proves they are real...nothing blurs my camera except them!!

      Delete
    3. I don't see anything in those photos. You might need a better camera.

      Delete
    4. The problem isn't the camera, it's the fact that all he captures is blurry trees, leaves, and shadows. Oh, and the fact that bigfoot and dogmen aren't real.

      Delete
  3. http://tapnewswire.com/2016/11/donald-trump-takes-the-cbs-morning-crew-to-school/

    This is how I hope the future will be

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One good thing about Trump is that he's going to kick all the lazy unemployed footers (all of whom voted for Trump) off of welfare. They'll actually have to get off their fat asses and look for a job and won't have time to post rambling comments on bigfoot sites all day.

      Delete
    2. Yes... Now go and bother moma for another video game.

      Delete
    3. OHHHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYYY JOERGGGGGGGGGG!!!!

      Delete
  4. After checking in, glancing at the stories and reading the comments every now and then, it's readily apparent there's nothing really exciting going on in Bigfoot research. Yes, there is the endless parade of stories and pictures but what has that done to advancing the case for Bigfoot's existence? Most of the stories I have read here are quite frankly ridiculous and the pictures presented convince no one except for those already predisposed to believe. Most of the evidence presented comes from many years ago and I see nothing new on the horizon from any of the professional community lately. Is everyone now just content with the retelling of stories and repeating the same arguments over and over? It seems to me that even on this site the comments are dwindling and in general serious interest in Bigfoot seems to be waning. Now we have the dogman phenomenon seemingly growing although the evidence for it is even less than Bigfoot.

    What I would be curious about is this - is serious interest in Bigfoot growing or decreasing? From my perspective it seems to be treated more and more like a joke. Now twenty years ago I would have said the opposite but with nothing really being presented to capture the world's attention I think many are moving on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then the obvious question to you is why are you here ?

      Delete
    2. The obvious question is why are you such a moron?

      Delete
    3. Ha Ha - I'll try to respond more diplomatically than my alter ego at 8:58. I check in here because I'm fascinated with psychology of it all. The personalities of those involved in the search interest me and I'm curious about their different approaches and beliefs. I also think many enjoy the social aspects of it. It's a harmless hobby and I don't bear any malice to those who do believe - it's their life to do as they wish.

      Delete
    4. If the BFRO database is correct, there have not been any credible Bigfoot sightings in Florida in the past 12 months. If they did exist, they may be close to or have reached extinction.

      Delete
    5. Mr Curious, eyewitness reports do nothing to harm a subject's legitimacy. In fact, if something exists it is regularly seen. I've seen your assessments of "stories", and they're amount to mere cynicism. What's ridiculous for someone like you, is a source of interest for others.

      I'll agree that new evidence is needed, but what good would it be until mainstream scientists decide to investigate it? There is already every source of evidence required for that, but until a body turns up (extraordinary evidence), few academics will see past the howling and laughable pop culture.

      Oh... and the comments on BFE are dwindling because of trolls, nothing more.

      Delete
    6. Haints. Genuinely interested now and not picking a fight. Where in Florida have you researched excactly?

      Delete
    7. He's probably researched Fasano's arsehole quite a bit!

      Delete
    8. Not me haints - not me. Anyone is free to use the synonym curious but if the comment using that name is insulting someone it's probably not from me.

      Delete
    9. He's not just curious, he is bi-curious

      Delete
    10. WE NEED RICK DYER TO MAKE BIGFOOT REAL AGAIN!!!!!

      Delete
    11. Curious, you posted a similar comment a month or so ago....nothing has changed, Matt is still suppressing the truth, and my evidence is getting better and better!
      Total skeptic destruction! You want the truth, visit my Youtube channel!

      Delete
    12. Your Youtube channel sucks. Its a monument to stupidity and folly.

      Delete
    13. I'm afraid I will have to disagree with your assessment on a few points lktomi. Fairies were regularly reported being seen right into the 19th century and I would like to believe we can all agree fairies do not exist. So in fact if something is regularly "seen" it does not necessarily mean it exists. Much is in the eye of the beholder. As for eyewitness reports doing nothing to harm a subject's legitimacy, why do you not think there isn't more interest from the mainstream scientists? Do you honestly think I am the only one who finds some of these reports bizarre? Many of these reports do far more to make people skeptical than to convince them. You can read for yourself right here some of those reports. They may be entertaining but they stretch one's belief to the limits.

      I've checked into other sites over the past couple of years and it does indeed seem like there are less comments which translates to me as less interest. There may be more troll comments here because there seems to be nothing substantial to discuss as relates to new Bigfoot evidence and some of the reports are an easy target. In any case that is a moderator issue.

      Delete
    14. And by the way 9:40, is the fact that I'm bi-curious make my opinion less valid in some way?

      Delete
    15. If you actually pick up a book on Native legends or oral tradition, you'll know that culture and history have always been past down the generations from father to son to maintain identity and bonds, because written texts can always be manipulated. We have thousands of years of Native American culture (the natives say 50, Turtle Island is a term used by several North Eastern Woodland indigenous tribes, especially the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois Confederacy, for the continent of North America). Yes, thousands... wall paintings some 8 feet tall true to size and if you know anything about indigenous culture, you would know that ceremonies, dances, utensil designs like baskets, all these things indigenous people do to pass down historical events, identity and culture. There is an easily attainable timeline of Native American culture by the determining the age of settlement sites. Burnt wood and other means have in fact been used to carbon date areas where indigenous peoples who maintain the Bigfoot culture have resided. When cultural traditions manifest into modern day mediums to the extent of multiple databases of reports, that has physical and even biological sources of evidence to support, then only a huckster would try and pass it off with a fairy comparison... Nobody sees fairies, and though this topic is a part of popular culture it is in fact still too fringe and too ridiculed by egocentric naive-heads to be deemed a product of popularity. The point is, if we didn't have good evidences as a transition into contemporary mediums, then cultural references would mean little... But the evidence is indeed there. There are over 100 native names for Sasquatch in the US, all describing the same thing to which is then reported by settlers who found their customs undesirable. When you have so much cultural identity invested in this creature, then it's very, very hard to dismiss. People will draw on things like giant birds as myth and legend, but we also have eagles, bears, coyotes and beavers in myth and legend. We have archaeological discoveries of very large human skeletal remains in burial mounds in line with some native cultures who have legends of sharing such with Sasquatch, who they agknowledged to be giant human tribes. We can also reference a hominid skull paper with the exact morphology that would adhere to Sasquatch traits (brow ridge, receding forehead, large jaw, higher nose bridge, pronounced nuchal crest for more neck & shoulder muscles), from a place where the nearby native peoples have always stated that giant cannibalistic tribes resided. This in turn is exactly the same as nearly every native tribe in North America that have the same legends intertwined in their understanding of Sasquatch. There are 2,300 places in America named with reference to the many Native names for what is commonly known as "Bigfoot". 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.

      I wonder if fairies enjoy the same stock?

      Delete
    16. And no... Trolls have driven people away. I know A LOT of people who used to frequent here and who'd probably categorise your roundabout way of ad hominem as a far more interesting education in psychology than anyone remotely convinced by be evidence... And the trolling is what's driven them away. Nothing else.

      Delete
    17. No 10:07 , just checking

      There is a young boy named Barret Sanders who posts here. You have a lot in common

      Delete
    18. 9:49 the jealous guy who can't get a Bigfoot pic...LOL

      Delete
    19. Barrett Sanders is not a young boy. Hes an adult that needs to quit doing drugs and get the hell out of his mothers house. A damn loser.

      Delete
  5. "There are 2,300 places in America named with reference to the many Native names for what is commonly known as "Bigfoot"."

    Really? Each one of those names refers specifically to a hairy humanoid and not a supernatural figure in the shadows? The difference between a real creature and a spiritual one is often blurred in Native American culture. So to make that claim would require a lot more digging and translating I'm afraid. I think oral tradition is unreliable at best when you consider how garbled stories get even today with all our modern communication. You see - every one adds their own slant and perspective when retelling a story so it will always be in favor of their particular view so no - I don't think that is a lock-tight argument. Yes, they have legends referring to real creatures that exist today such as eagles, bears and coyotes but do those creatures talk, disappear into thin air or grant wishes such as the legends claim?

    I won't go into the claims of giant skeletons or hominid skull you bring up as it will just be a repeat of the same road we've all been down before. Suffice to say those claims are not accepted as proof of Bigfoot's existence.

    I myself think that those who use to frequent here may have left because there was nothing new being presented and they were bored with hearing the same argument over and over. For something to remain viable there has t be fresh stuff coming in and we just aren't seeing it . . . except for the crazy stories of course.

    Fairies did enjoy popular belief and seemed to be seen regularly but faded away as the modern era crept in. I wonder if Bigfoot will not receive the same fate 50 years from now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Each one of those names refers specifically to a hairy humanoid and not a supernatural figure in the shadows? The difference between a real creature and a spiritual one is often blurred in Native American culture."

      Yes, and yes... But again, if you pick up a book about Native legends and oral tradition, you'll know that the spiritual and physical are one and the same. Modern cultures do it all the same, just look at US currency. You'll notice influential historical figures and religious symbols side by side, but this in no way invalidates the former. Do you now see how obsurd your understanding of native culture is? Curious, you either don't know much, or have a seriously bad way of special pleading. You see, you can harp on about how oral history is "garbled and unreliable", but this is the most intimate method of maintaining culture and identity, and when it's substantiated by different cultures that find the former undesirable, then that's sheer anthropological consistency. Are we to believe that every culture has coincidentally put their own slant on an imaginary creature, to the point of coming up with the exact same behavioural traits and descriptions, from a time when people didn't even know what a non-human primate looked like? And just like later cultures, there is no bigger compliment to a creature's evasion than to attribute supernatural powers. Again, explained via sheer consistency.

      Though it is not proof, being able to reference 7-8 foot human skeletal remains from a country that has innumerable reports of 7-8 foot tall hairy humans does nothing but support my stance. The same with a skull that is outside known Native morphology, that fits that of widely reported Sasquatch facial descriptions. No... Trolling has rid people of this place, nothing more... And Fairies aren't leaving forensic evidence. No matter how strawman you want it.

      Delete
    2. You're right about one thing Joerg, the trolls certaninly have routed almost all of the dingbat footers off this blog. As one of the few buffoons left here, you must feel like Hitler in the bunker in the last days of the war!

      Delete
    3. You don't make me feel anything but pity for you. Who wouldn't pity someone who's preoccupied with hate every day of his life? Poor fella must have had his life ruined at some point by someone on the blog.

      (Cough, cough)

      However amount the BFE troll wants others to be agitated, there's clearly nobody more agitated than the BFE troll. Remember that.

      ; )

      Delete