Sunday, February 19, 2017

Are These Strange Bigfoot Stories True?


Made up stories, over-active imaginations, or truth? Some things you hear in the bigfoot world seem out of the realm of possibility. But then again, so is bigfoot.

13 comments:

  1. https://www.dropbox.com/s/rpg2ha1chs85hfx/Screenshot_2017-02-18-01-39-11.png?dl=0

    ReplyDelete
  2. At this point, nothing but a bigfoot specimen for science will do. That is the ONLY thing that would prove the existence of bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry... A specimen is needed for classification, but only a denialist would look at the eyewitness reports that are substantiated by 50 years worth of physical evidence, and assert that Sasq'ets doesn't exist until a body is found. Science encompasses a lot of different fields which can be applied to the testing of various sources of evidence that at present, points to an unclassified bipedal primate leaving its physical sign on the environment of North America.

      Occam's Razor.

      Delete
    2. ^ Doesn`t know how to use Occam`s Razor.

      Delete
    3. It's a logical principle. Scientists use it as a heuristic that leans on the simplest explanation that is consistent with available data that points in the same direction...

      • Eyewitness reports of a large unclassified bipedal primate.
      • Track impressions of a large unclassified bipedal primate.
      • Footage of a large unclassified bipedal primate.
      • Hair samples of a large unclassified bipedal primate.
      • Audio recordings of a large unclassified bipedal primate.

      ... Occam's Razor when applied to that data would lean on the heuristic that there is currently a large unclassified bipedal primate leaving its evidence on the environment of North America.

      Delete
    4. LOL. A "denialist" is a denialist because there is no proof.

      Delete
    5. No "proof", meaning no body. There is however repeatable evidence of a large unclassified bipedal primate in North America. Someone who gets reminded of that every day of his life, is the archetype denialist.

      Delete
    6. ^ Homo sapien sapien are already classified!! You Brain dead Stoodge!!
      HAAA HAAA HAAA LOL!

      AC Collins :-))

      Delete
    7. Extant archaic Homo Sapiens aren't.

      Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    8. ^ total Idiot!

      AC Collins

      Delete
    9. @1:45 Extant archaic homo sapien,would be a Pygmy or a Bantu,
      Sorry,All Classified,
      I was wrong call you a idiot,in reality you are just plain Retarded.
      ps homo Idaltu was a mere 5-5 tall (Fossil size)
      and went extinct approx 160-180,000 yrs bp
      it's ok your handicapped!

      Mr.Collins

      Delete
    10. Nobody knows how tall Idaltu were, and I only ever use that fossil evidence as an example of subspecies of Homo Sapien that lived around the same time Sykes' theorised subspecies lived on the planet.

      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

      Now, let's just say at a hypothetical level that I'm wrong about Patty or Sasquatch being an archaic Homo Sapien... Sasquatch is still being shown to exist (which is a major fundamental reason behind your little hate campaign from when you're in "zero bigfeets" mode), with human anatomical features that can be pointed to in humans in our distant lineage.

      Open the links F-AC!! You might need it explained to you 50 times before it even starts to sink in, but I'm not in the mood to spam for your intellectual shortfalls. But I expect as much from someone who didn't know humans are primates. And I'll also take your fake AC account, and fake enthusiasm for the "paranormal Bigfoot" as a capitulation. Instead of failing to explain away the existence of "Bigfoot", you now have to pretend to be an enthusiast so you can settle for trying to aggravate people with their theories instead. That's pretty sad and desperate.

      Oh... And there are no bears in the UK.

      Delete
  3. Ok so they are nocturnal. Why do you do night investigations hoping to see one. I know you do day investigations as well and its why I watch your channel. Unlike not finding bigfoot they have to sleep so why not do ridge searches but half way down one in daytime? Special Forces in our military do this so a squatch most likely would too. Just a question.

    ReplyDelete