Sunday, January 29, 2017

Check Out These Scary Cryptid Encounter Stories


Check out these four, scary stories of some encounters with cryptids, brought to you by the Swamp Dweller channel on youtube.


66 comments:

  1. I especially like a tall glass of urine with a kidney stone in it. Cheers mates

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that Joe. You should share your thoughts less.

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

      Delete
  2. I think that there are too many bigfoot BS stories out there. Most people don't take bigfoot seriously because there is a lot of BS associated with bigfoot.

    Did you ever notice that people who believe that bigfoot is real see bigfoot in the blurry clips, and the people who don't think bigfoot is real don't see bigfoot in the blurry clips? It's as if people see what they want to see rather than being objective.

    The truth of the matter is that bigfoot, whether it exists or not, is a multi-million dollar industry. As long as people can make money with bigfoot, the sightings and blurry clips will continue to be put forth as evidence. If someone is buying, someone is selling. Heck, I wouldn't mind quitting my job and becoming a full-time bigfoot researcher. Instead of going to an office, I can go out in the woods and make bigfoot yells hoping for a response.

    Another thing I've noticed about bigfoot is that there is a lot of BS going on with regard to the "evidence." No piece of hair or scat has convinced science. Why don't bigfoot researchers drop the same old inconclusive BS evidence that has been around for decades and focus on collecting a specimen? An experienced big game hunter with a high powered rifle should be able to take out a bigfoot and bring it in for science. But that never happens. Instead, bigfoot people go out in the woods trying to collect the same lame-o "evidence" that will convince no one in science. It only convinces people who already think they exist.

    The moral of the story is that the bigfoot BS needs to stop. In this day and age, if all you can do is present blurry, out of focus footage, keep your footage. There is no reason that anyone who uses a modern video camera/cell phone camera should film nothing but blurry BS.

    It would seem that bigfoot is BS. Get a specimen for the world, for science, and prove the naysayers wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The truth of the matter is that bigfoot, whether it exists or not, is a multi-million dollar industry."
      Really? Maybe if you're Matt Moneymaker, but seriously... Who's making serious money from "Bigfoot"? Yeah, you've got people who write books, yeah you've got scientists charging money for lectures, yeah you've got people who make YouTube channels, but are they able to quit their day jobs? I'm always perplexed about this notion that "Bigfoot" is a "multi-million dollar industry", but where is the evidence for this? People still get ridiculed if they report seeing a Bigfoot, so isn't it a bit of a contraction to suggest these people are gonna benefit in any way from such?

      No piece of hair or scat has convinced mainstream scientists, science isn't a freethinking entity, and the scientific evidence is as good as any other biological creature has enjoyed pre-investigation. It's not that the evidence is lacking or inconclusive, but the idealism of mainstream scientists who have flag ships such as Not-Finding Bigfoot in their faces, who abide by requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary ideas. The professional mainstream won't investigate, leaving amateur researchers to attempt to find what only the professionals would be able to throw resources at. It's a very detrimental circle.

      Also... One of the main issues for gunmen who have opened up on one of these creatures, is the persistent details that they move too fast. You also have to consider that for these creatures to have evaded so well as they have, they would have to do so in social groups, with this bringing the added possibility of mama and papa coming along to see what the commotion is should one be shot. Plenty of missing hunters, remember. Could you look down the scope and shoot something that you both cannot quite identify, and looks so human? Personally, I'm glad that the majority of hunters can't.

      I'll agree that the blurry photos are rubbish.

      Delete
    2. Blurry photos prove Bigfoot Iktomi!
      What else Blurs 1080p HD

      Delete
    3. Regarding Bigfoot being a multi-million dollar industry I would have to agree with lktomi. True enough it certainly is a cottage industry with maybe a few individuals scratching a living off of it. I would venture to say those involved with the Finding Bigfoot series have done quite well but for most others I see no evidence of them getting rich off of it.

      There is no question in my mind that there is much Bigfoot "BS" out there as you say and in truth it hurts the whole field as a whole. I would be against a hunter taking a shot at a Bigfoot - not because I believe it exists but because some damn fool hoaxing in a gorilla costume or out wandering in a dark outfit would be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Remember, there are plenty of idiots out there with guns (cough Smeja cough).

      Sadly there are plenty of believers out there who support this weak type of evidence and as long as it's continued to be accepted by them you will have a profusion of it continuing.

      Delete
    4. Has anybody Hugged a Sex pervert today?

      Delete
    5. Only thing going to hug you today is your straight jacket.

      Delete
    6. There are no bigfoot made millionaires.

      Delete
    7. 11:08 asked a simple question
      then 11:22 responded, rather defensively,odd yet very telling.

      Delete
    8. For the record "this" Curious could care less about hugs, sex perverts and strait jackets but that sort of thing seems to be a hot topic here lately. But hey, if that sort of thing turns you on then more power to you!

      Delete
  3. See. Iktomi is a prime example of seeing what you want to see.

    Bigfoot IS a multi-million dollar industry. It's not just Matt Moneymaker who is making money with bigfoot, hardly. Go to Amazon and eBay and lookup at all of the bigfoot related merchandise for sale. Not to mention bigfoot seminars (that are not free), expeditions (that are not free), etc.

    There is zero bigfoot evidence that has convinced mainstream science. None.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Who you taking to bro?

    Bigfoot is free to use in any product, just as monkeys are, elephants, soccer, baseball, birthdays, Halloween... I could go on and on. But who's quitting their day job from making money from "Bigfoot"?

    Can you name someone? Or are you, "seeing what you want to see"?

    Researchers, scientists & authors have always toured seminars for their hard work, and if more people want to attend and pay then this is evidence of their ideas becoming more accepted. The finances to fund more research aren't coming from anywhere else. And I'll say it again... What mainstream science recognises or is even aware of for that matter, means little. If there's scientific evidence that not one from that mainstream can explain away, and it is substantiated with science, it falls into the bracket of pioneering which has always been in the minority. Plenty of the very best primatologists are happy with the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well 8:30, if there is zero evidence of bigfoot then you can move on from this blog in supreme confidence and tackle your next big boy subject- there is no Santa Claus Virginia
      good luck mate, nice of you to visit us. please send a postcard from your next destination love

      Joe

      Delete
  5. Zero bigfoots and joe fitsgerald getting blown the fu ck out. Standard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ zero common sense and you are still playing with your lego set while wearing diapers

      Joe

      Delete
  6. Do you really think there is an undiscovered hominid species roaming around the united states with the ability to evade all forms of confirmation with a 100% success rate? Do you really? ... come on now.. come on...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Enthusiast #1 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot in footprint casts”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #2 – “I have forensic evidence for Bigfoot in those casts”.
      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 in hair samples”.
      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 more 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 – “Do you really think there is an undiscovered hominid species roaming around the united states with the ability to evade all forms of confirmation with a 100% success rate? ”

      Iktomi – (Sigh)

      Delete
    2. Are you saying bigfoot has been confirmed? Must have missed that....

      Delete
    3. It's confirmed by ever mounting sightings reports, and the supporting physical evidence that people ten times cleverer than you can't explain away.

      You sure did.

      Delete
    4. Also you (joe f) forgot to tell 11:58 that bigfoot is homo sapien sapien! You know the hss that has physical attribute's FAR OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF A HOMO SAPIEN SAPIEN?

      AC collins

      Delete
    5. Your best Zana nonsense & lies smashed;
      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/new-interview-with-dr-melba-ketchum-and.html

      Your best HSS lies nailed;
      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/surprise-guests-on-thanksgiving-coast.html

      How Patty is human;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-teddy-roosevelt-bigfoot-story.html?m=0
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/dr-jeffrey-meldrum-removes-myth-out-of.html?m=0

      Delete
    6. Hey joe f it seems like you will say ANYTHING TO MAKE YOURSELF SOUND "STUPID"!!
      Lol!

      AC collins

      Delete
    7. ^ AC stands for Absolute crap. the name seems rather fitting .
      In England, Collins usually signified "son of Colin." Irish: "cuilein" = darling, a term of endearment applied to a whelp or young animal.
      Yes, agrees on all points. AC is a psycho troll or a whelp

      Joe

      Delete
    8. A "Joeboy" is a person usually used and abused by superiors as a fetch and carry labourer - a skivvy and useless person,oft viewed as a fool...so,shut it you Joeboy.

      Delete
    9. HEY MRS 12:57 .From now on just call me MR COLLINS!
      or NOT LATE FOR SUPPER!

      ac "COLLINS"!!

      Delete
    10. So fancy pants Perry shows up in defense of the troll
      Hike up you knickers lad, you are showing too much of your rather ugly side

      Joe

      Delete
    11. ^ lol, huh?

      :-))

      MR.ac COLLINS!!

      Delete
  7. I'd like to think that bigfoot exists. I've been waiting for proof since the 1970s. Unfortunately, there is no more inconclusive proof regarding the existence of bigfoot than there was 40 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've been in denial that long?

      At what point do you see the innumerable sightings reports, accompanied by track impressions, hair samples, footage, audio, etc... And think, "nargh, a steady flow of continuous evidence over 50 years must mean there's no such thing"?

      Delete
    2. a steady flow of everything.... apart from a single confirmation piece of evidence

      Delete
    3. "Krantz (1983: 71-72) writes: "Thus far, every specialist who has examined these casts [Mill Creek] agrees that their detailed anatomy has all the characteristics and appearance of being derived from an imprint of primate skin. These include thirty police fingerprint workers, ... six physical anthropologists ... four pathologists and two zoologists."

      Do you want some more?

      Delete
    4. ^ It`s just a pity there`s no actual proof though isn`t it ? - the "appearance" is neither here nor there as it is merely an opinion of what it appears it could possibly be...nothing more....shame for you huh ?

      Delete
    5. I dont know why joe persists to defend an argument that he can never win by definition. It is an objective fact that bigfoot is not a recognised species and certainly has not been confirmed by any means what so ever. Must be truelly disheartening to come here every day and get destroyed by a throw away zero effort comment like "bigfoot dont exist".

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

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

      Delete
    8. Um, no... You wanted scientific evidence that's confirmed by scientists, and you got it. You have physical evidence with forensic data in it, hair samples all morphologically congruent, footage, audio with vocal frequencies outside of normal human norm, thermal hits with subjects in the height ranges of 7 (two at once) and even 8.5 feet tall... Not to mention thousands of years of cultural and modern anecdotes from every realisable pillar of society... But according to you, "no actual proof". You've been in denial a long time my friend.

      If something doesn't exist, it doesn't leave evidence. Until mainstream scientists actually go and look and prove the subject either way, that's all I have to do is demonstrate why people like me are warranted in being enthusiastic about the existence of "Bigfoot". But what actually happens in the process, is the listing off of numerous sources of evidence that are not only impossible to hoax, but simply wouldn't exist if "Bigfoot" didn't. It gets to a point that it's a far greater leap of faith to deny all that, than it is to even entertain the idea that there is something out there.

      Delete
    9. So it took you 3 attempts to come up with, as predicted, nothing

      Delete
    10. Hmmmm... You can try and wish that list of evidence away, but when it comes down to it, you don't appear to have that safety net of "no proof" anymore, eh?

      If it's "nothing", prove it.

      : )

      Delete
    11. This buffoon finds "evidence" that has been thoroughly debunked and no one cares to even consider. It's a total waste of time to even look into it. I already did and it's laughable.

      Delete
    12. Argh yes! These "thorough debunkings" that are allegedly everywhere, yet nowhere?? If you've "looked into it", you won't mind posting at least one of these "thorough debunkings"?

      Delete
    13. I mean... I'm a buffoon after all, it should be easy to set me straight with at least one debunking.

      : )

      Delete
    14. @ 2:22 Haa Haa Haa ,such a horrific beatdown , hey this is getting too be a little much you think?

      EVEN THE BAFFOON IS CALLING HIMSELF "WHAT HE IS"!!

      Haa Haa Haa lol. too hilarious

      MR.ac COLLINS!!

      Delete
  8. If there is irrefutable proof of bigfoot's existence, then science would accept the reality of bigfoot.

    There is no proof, and until there is, science will not accept the existence of bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope!

      Science is not a freethinking entity that chooses what's believable or not. It's a tool that has been used to verify the physical evidence for something with the widely reported anatomy of "Bigfoot", leaving its sign on the environment of North America. "Irrefutable proof" equates to a body. Irrefutable evidence equates to what is scientifically repeatable and if the ridge characteristics in dermatoglyphics are consistent with other examples from Sasquatch footprints, are verified in collaboration with tens of scientists who have determined anatomy like heels, ankles, and Achilles' tendons... And are consistent with casts over a period of 50 years (after examining hundreds of alleged Sasquatch footprints), then this is repeatable scientific evidence.

      It doesn't matter how much you harp on about stance of mainstream scientists who aren't even aware that such evidence exists, it doesn't matter if mainstream scientists expect extraordinary evidence for such extraordinary ideas... If the evidence stands up and points to the same creature that's been reported for thousands of years then it's tough. Opinions are like rear ends... We've all got them. But unfortunately, opinions that are ignorant of hard data are all too common and it's data that makes the world those mainstream scientists live in go around and around.

      Delete
  9. Like I said. There is no irrefutable proof of bigfoot. If there was irrefutable proof, everyone would accept the bigfoot exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's physical evidence with forensic data in it, hair samples all morphologically congruent, footage, audio with vocal frequencies outside of normal human norm, thermal hits with subjects in the height ranges of 7 (two at once) and even 8.5 feet tall... Not to mention thousands of years of cultural and modern anecdotes from every reliable pillar of society... But according to you, "no irrefutable proof".

      You've been in denial a long time my friend.

      Delete
    2. All inconclusive things that do not prove that bigfoot exist. Again, if there was inconclusive proof, bigfoot would be accepted by science.

      Delete
    3. Nope!

      What's proven by repeatable scientific, is there are impressions of a bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates. Now if that's not "Bigfoot", I wonder what other bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates is leaving all that evidence??

      Sorry it burns.

      Delete
    4. And there are plenty of scientists who accept that evidence. They tend to be the ones who have actually looked at it.

      Delete
    5. ^ say's, "i'm a baffoon after all" ! STFU an tell us somthing we dont know.

      mr. COLLINS Esq!

      Delete
    6. Iktomi, I can buy Big Fake Footprints and walk around all day fooling people! Footprints are NOT PROOF, they can be faked!
      You can't fake my evidence! Every still picture i take, the time and video is posted where i found them. You said something the other day about Blurry pics....That shows that you've never been in the woods filming/researching. I'm not putting you down for that, because your area apparently is not Bigfoot friendly, but my research is untouchable by skeptics!

      Delete
    7. You can't fake forensic sign. Read my comments up top. And thoigj it's not proof (due to the requirement of extraordinary evidence), it's proof of a genuine impression. You can fake photographs... In fact, in this day and age... It's the easiest type of evidence to fake. Not that I'm calling your best photo fake.

      Delete
    8. How can i fake a photograph, when I'm filming and zooming, and giving people the time where to look?

      I found several tracks, but again, it's inconclusive. I have a 7'0 tall patient, and he actually has a foot impression on the bottom of his shoes, so when he walks, he leaves "Prints" Big one's too! I bet he could fool tons of people. Unless the prints are examined, and have dermal ridges, they aren't worth anything.

      Delete
    9. DS, you appeared to be looking in a public footpath in the video I watched. I think it's excuses to be honest. I'm not saying Bigfoot tracks are easy to find, some researchers take many years to find one so you shouldn't be disheartened. But I think it's fitting that you're willing to bend logic about what's more easily fakable when you haven't got physical evidence.

      Delete
    10. And I don't know what you think you get out of going after people who have looked out for you man.

      Delete
    11. The Bigfoot and Dogmen are all over this area Iktomi, I have hundreds of pics coming out of this area, ENORMOUS TREE BREAKS EVERYWHERE IKTOMI, WE DON'T HAVE HURRICANE WINDS HERE! I have tons of hair too!

      Calling me a joke is not looking out for me whatsoever! Not recognizing true field research, and giving me credit is a problem Iktomi! I have hands down the best evidence on the planet, no one even comes close, no one puts the time in that i do either!

      Delete
    12. DS... Are you aware of how many times I've defended you and stuck up for your efforts against trolls? How many times I have forwarded your efforts on to other researchers I know? You called me autistic because I congratulated Kelly Shaw on taking the time to chase up sightings locations. You've repeatedly been rude to me on a public forum and have sided with a person who quite frankly is the lowest life form on the planet. You are repeatedly unreasonable to other researchers to make your efforts seem more sincere, and to be honest, that's one of the biggest things wrong with this subject. If you were more supportive of others, maybe you'd have more people ready to plug out work and listen to your ideas. I'm amazed that I have to point this out to someone who abides by Christian morals, but there we go. I guess you'll have no qualms forgiving me anyway.

      Good luck for the future DS, I'd rather not exchange with you anymore if that's cool bro? I have enough respect for you to not want to do this publicly.

      Delete
    13. Please show me where i called you "Autistic," I would NEVER do that!
      I'm unreasonable with other researchers because they aren't researching, they repeatable have "NO EVIDENCE," and I will not stand for that, not for one second!
      Being a Christian is about TRUTH, it's not about wasting people's time.
      Once again, I do not side with anyone! If you supposedly support me, you would have voted for me in that stupid pole someone put up!

      Delete
    14. I don't get mad at people, so there would be no need to forgive you.
      I'm just merely asking questions about you, that don't make any sense to me.

      Delete
  10. Dermal ridges, bah, my pictures really are proof

    ReplyDelete