Monday, December 12, 2016

This Place Looks Squatchy!


The PSR posted this teaser trailer video to an upcoming video release of an investigation they conducted in Lorane & Robeson, Pa. Man does it look squatchy!

24 comments:

  1. Your mother's basement looks squatchy.

    Does a bear squatch in the woods?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have to say I'm pretty skeptical they will find anything after using Google Earth and seeing the area around Lorane & Robeson, Pa. It looks like a highly populated area with small towns and houses surrounding the forested areas. I would think it wouldn't give such a creature much room to maneuver without being regularly spotted. I can entertain the thought of a Bigfoot roaming the vast woods of the Pacific northwest or the swamps of Florida but areas such as PA or OH just seem to populated for something that large to remain hidden.

    But to those who feel something is really there I would suggest this. Sooner or later areas of OH & PA will get snow. I would be interested in someone actually following (after a fresh snowfall) tracks for more than a small distance. All creatures need to sleep and if you follow the tracks far enough you would discover where it has rested and there would be the possibility of hair or droppings to be collected and analyzed.

    That is, if the creature actually exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...People squatch where they live, and manage to find "something"(save an actual bigfoot)..Enthusiasts never question or discourage each other, so we end up with this ridiculous ubiquitous bigfoot scenario...eeg

      Delete
    2. DS finds Bigfoot all the time in populated areas of PA. The trick is pan your camera around some bushes then analyze the film afterwords. You just have to squint real hard to "see" them.

      Delete
    3. Gee which of my 2,800+ video's did i do that in.....Every video, with the time frame i found them is posted on youtube,.....MAN YOU LOOK STUPID.....I can see why you post as an Anonymous coward!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMlurxLmGH0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX8M9wuktGs

      Curious, you need to change your name to "Clueless".....I've proven time and time again, these Bigfoot are not deep in the woods!

      Delete
    4. Dr. Squatch, do you have a video of you following what you presume is Bigfoot tracks in the snow? You operate out of Ohio is that correct? You get snow in that area right? If you have such a video please link it as I would like to view it. Thanks.

      Have you ever followed such tracks for more than a hundred yards?

      Delete
    5. Sorry for the "Clueless" comment, like i said before, I feel if you were really interested, you would be on my channel everyday, but that's just my opinion.

      I'm in Pa.
      I found a set that i followed for about 80 yards once bear hunting, but that was before i believed. The prints were 12" but wider than my boot, and bare foot...the prints ended at a tree.
      They use the trees during the winter, so they won't leave prints....they aren't stupid.....I believe they hibernate to a degree....They do not migrate south, as i previously thought.

      Delete
    6. Aww, come on doc !
      Why am I not allowed to see your pareidolia ?
      i'm going to cry into my pentagram towel :(

      Delete
    7. No! You've only got one eye and it doesn't work that well.

      Delete
    8. Curious, earlier that morning I expressed to my PSR group that I didn't care for the area because it was so confined. But it is a state forest I've been wanting to check out, if for nothing else the views. There isn't a history of sightings on that forest either. We usually head up north a little in pa to do most out hiking. But as for PAs population. There really isn't much between Philly and Pittsburgh. PA is around 350 miles wide and that is probably 80% - 90% forrest. (Guesstimate)

      Delete
  3. If it looks "squatchy," they should bury dozens of land mines in the area. When a bigfoot steps on one and gets blown to pieces, there should be enough remains to prove that bigfoot exist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you look at google earth you can see that the forest of the Pacific Northwest and the swamps of Florida really aren't all that vast. They too have become checkerboards of logging and development. There are no great wilderness areas any more to pretend bigfoots live in, so you might as well pretend to find "evidence" in the city park down the street. It's all the same bunkum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 73 aircraft since WW2, from Northern California to Alaska have been totally lost. That's an official Federal Aviation Administration figure.

      Do you honestly know what you're talking about?

      Delete
  5. Plenty of reports from places like Ohio too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was waiting for you to make that same tired old excuse, Ikky. Once again you fail to disappoint by completely missing the point. I would ask if you knew what you're talking about, but once again you prove that you don't.

    Here's a quick refresher for you. Do try to pay attention for once.

    Airplanes are not living creatures. Airplanes are not dependent on habitat.

    Oh, and if bigfoots somehow did exist, they would be unlikely to ditch in the ocean and lakes, where most of those aircraft are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Listen smarty pants- Iktomi was trying to use the missing planes as an example of just how vast the wilderness truly is and how it's impossible to find stationary things like airplanes so creatures who like to move around a lot like bigfoot will make it even harder to find .
      That concludes this lesson for today.
      You are dismissed lad
      so go enjoy your xbox and cream soda

      Joe

      Delete
    2. Ha! Airplanes are not living creatures, they do not move around and do not evade calculatively, and are 20 times he size. Therefore, using your beloved Google Earth, you should be able to find them easy peezy! Your excuse kind of puts your intelligence into perspective.

      Oops!!

      Delete
  7. Once again completely missing the point. and making bad analogies with flawed math, too.

    Aircraft ditched into lakes are not expected to leave an impact or make use of their environment. Bigfoots supposedly are. And 73 is not a large enough number to sustain a hypothetical population, especially spread out over that range. And that's just the number of missing planes, which, as I have already mentioned, most of which are presumed underwater. You make no mention of the numbers of aircraft that have been found. Which is still smaller than the number of bigfoots necessary to sustain their hypothetical population.

    If there were thousands of airplanes going missing over the pacific northwest, don't you think it would be a little likely that we would find at least one of them? Especially since many fewer than that actually do go down, and yet still manage to be found.

    And yet for all the THOUSANDS of bigfoots that are supposedly out there, you nitwits can't come up with so much as a single tooth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Wild conjecture! So are we to believe that all these aircraft have all somehow landed in lakes all over the PNW? Ha!!
      Enthusiast #1 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #2 – “I have forensic evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #3 – “I have video evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #4 – “I have thermal evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #5 – “I have biological evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #6 – “I have audio evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #7 – “I have more physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #8 – “I have even MORE physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #9 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #10 – “I have physical evidence that amounts to repeatable, scientific evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      … Pseudosceptic – “If these creatures were real, people would be collecting evidence for them all the time!”
      Iktomi – (Sigh)
      I can't for the life of me fathom why you are harping on about 73 Bigfoot as a comparable hypothetical population. And retrieved aircraft, by no way whatsoever, has any bearing on those aircraft that are still lost that are not living creatures, that do not move around and do not evade calculatively, not to mention 20 times the size. It's one thing to rhetorically pretend that "Bigfoot" leaving its sign on the environment hasn't been rubbed in your face a million times before... It's another to outright lie that there are no ancient forest in the US, a lot of which humans have never set foot. And you've been given a skull.

      Delete