Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Bigfoot Drains Batteries - Causes Electronics to Malfunction!


Can bigfoot drain batteries? Many bigfoot researchers experience a strange phenomenon while out in the field, where their electronic equipment seems to malfunction for no reason, devices stop working, brand new batteries seem to go dead instantly. Is bigfoot somehow causing this?

73 comments:

  1. Seems strange that the believers accept the existence of bigfoot (yet have no real verified evidence) but refuse to believe the many reports of the effects of an encounter upon items of electrical functioning ... neither will they accept the whole of what is told to them by the native Indians ... yet they will select certain "facts" told them by these same people ... seems they like to pick and choose which "facts" they wish to believe .Does it really work that way ? but we`re rather overreaching aren't we,as there`s yet to be conclusive evidence they even exist.

    Shucks !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Stuey/F-AC! Are you having trouble using Google to source that verified evidence? It's simple... Just type in "Bigfoot Evidence Iktomi Verified" and you have any number of BFE comment sections where you've been provided forensic experts & primatologists who have analysed things like dermatoglyphics and hair samples. It's obvious that are pretty hell bent on spamming up these places, nobody on the planet could possibly be as forgetful.

      The paranormal side of things is interesting to a lot of people. Most have a natural curiosity for it, but you'll find no bigger theory group than the people enthusiastic about this subject, scoffing at the ideas presented in this immediate article. Furthermore, there is no bigger compliment attributed to this hominin's evasion than to mention the supernatural. In many ways, it really is. The Native Americans were no different to us in that respect, but they differ in that the physical & spiritual worlds. You can pick up any book regarding Native American spiritualism to find this out... Unfortunately, there might not be as many illustrations in these books for you. You should however be focussing on what CAN be measured by science, Stuey. Your existence appears dependent on whether this creature exists or not, after all. Everything regarding the paranomal is irrelevant when the creature you're trying to sensationalise is by scienific methods being shown to be leaving its sign on the environment.

      Delete
    2. You really need to work on making your writing more concise.

      Delete
    3. You really need to work on a counter argument.

      Delete
    4. ^ You really need to explain your pick `n mix fantasies.

      Delete
    5. Five long years and you haven't been able to explain away what according to you, is the equivalent to the tooth fairy? What a failure... You'd think someone as obsessed as you would get better arguments for these "fantasies".

      Delete
    6. Just because someone has analyzed and offered an opinion, does not mean it is verified.

      Anything outside of peer review, particularly when found online from bigfoot friendly sources, is useless.

      Delete
    7. Then there is evidence that is hard to question, like the London trackway

      Delete
    8. What? Peer review and unbiased sources? Why...why...your a monster for even suggesting it. We'll have none of that here. Be gone Troll!

      Delete
    9. A scientist can verify evidence without the need of peer review, especially when that evidence should be used for further investigation, leading to a conclusive means of research worthy of peer review. And it's expert opinion, that which props up your shabby peer review process, that makes the scientific world go around. And Don, don't you get all your best arguments from your online Bigfoot hostile source, the JREF? Other than that. I'm not entirely sure where one would read anything on the subject, King Rhetorical.

      Delete
    10. It always makes me chuckle when some troll suggests a Bigfoot source is unbiassed via ad hominem.

      Delete
    11. You got it right the first time. Bigfoot sites are biASSed

      Delete
    12. I typed in a search for bigfoot evidence and Iktomi and it came up with 20 hits for threads on this blog in which a troll absolutely throttled you regarding the subject matter. It was fun reading g your past meltdowns!

      Delete
    13. Hey, why don't you copy & paste some of these "throttlings", Stuey? Surely you shouldn't struggle so much when you have such a library so readily accessible?

      Delete
    14. He's rifling through his peechee folders to access that information right now. :)

      Delete
    15. You sure mention this "Stuey" person quite often. He must have laid down a serious beatdown on you for him to be in your mind so much!

      Delete
    16. Again! You've got access to these "throttlings", why don't you post a couple of instances? Poor Stuey... For five years of obsessive, emotional investment, he's not got anything to show for it.

      : (

      Delete
    17. Now I have to teach you how to do a Google search? No wonder you suffer such regular throttlings! Ha Ha Ha!

      Delete
    18. Sweetheart, I'm not the one needing an argument, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    19. This one's a real howler. Iktomi proclaimed that Khwit's skull had an "extra bone" and when a troll corrected him, Icky stubbornly refused to admit his stupid mistake for about 30 messages! LMAO!

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2015/06/this-looks-so-wrong.html?m=1

      Delete
    20. “But that theory would not explain her extraordinary features, described by reliable eyewitnesses. There is an even more intriguing alternative theory. Having carefully studied the skull of Zana’s son, Khwit, Professor Sykes believes there are some unusual morphological skull features – such as very wide eye sockets, an elevated brow ridge and what appears to be an additional bone at the back of the skull – that could suggest ancient, as opposed to modern, human origins.”

      Oh yes, of course... This was the subject of one of your "Follies", correct? Tell me, can you copy and paste an extract from that comment section where you demonstrated that Khwit's isn't archaic?

      Delete
    21. These "throttlings" are like these alleged "thorough debunkings"... Everywhere, yet nowhere...

      Delete
    22. Wow, an extra bone on the skull sure would be archaic! Was it a human/unicorn hybrid? ROTFLMAO!

      Delete
    23. You can add this thread to the long list of throttlings that you've suffered!

      Delete
    24. Archaic would account for things like very wide eye sockets, elevated brow ridge, pronounced occipital bone, being bigger all round, bigger teeth and a bigger jaw bone...

      (Whispers)

      ... Everywhere... Yet nowhere.

      Delete
    25. So the eye sockets were "very wide" and not just "wide" huh? So what's the definition of "very wide"? And please don't mention your own arse checks as a reference! LMAO!

      Delete
    26. Not much of a list there Stuey? Something tells me you ain't laughing really.

      : )

      Five years... Wow...

      Delete
    27. Maybe if you look in your backpack Stu? Or your cubby at school? :)

      Delete
    28. Don't, he'll get his "Follies of Joe" out again!! Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    29. Okay, I'll consider Icky to be "very stupid" and not just "stupid" -- don't bother to ask me what that means, just accept it because I said so! That's Icky's method of applied science!

      Delete
    30. What, you want exact measurements? Please dip into your vast knowledge of science and explain to me what's so unscientific about eye sockets being "very wide apart", as a collective morphological trait?

      Ok... So far, as a list off of these "throttlings", you have a self admitted mistake as to where the occipital bun is on a skull, which was not scrutinised for almost three years around here by the likes of you who claim to better know about it now... All the while I'm STILL referencing the skull in question that has archaic skull morphology... Correct? Something tells me you don't wander too far for the scientific debate.

      Come on Stuey, you must have something more for that kind of emotional investment? Do you remember when you argued that Neandertahs weren't human, not knowing what "Homo" meant? How do you put it, "lol"?

      Delete
    31. Why stop at "very wide"? Perhaps they're "very, very wide"! I think I'll go ahead and consider you very, very stupid!

      Delete
    32. You're not helping your cause, Stuey!

      Delete
    33. I do recall when you argued that Khwit's skull had Neanderthal traits after Sykes already definitively proved that Khwit was NOT a Neanderthal. That one had me screaming with laughter! Thanks for reminding me of it! LMAO!

      Delete
    34. Sorry Stuey! I've never claimed that Khwit's skull is Neanderthal, care to dip into this library of "throttlings" to quote me? Come on now Stuey! You're letting everyone down here!!

      Delete
    35. Just a few months ago, you compared a whole range of Neanderthal traits to Khwit's skull. And then you produced this literary gem:

      "Nothing in regard as to Neanderthal DNA in any percentage in Khwit's mother's side has been divulged, however considering with his father being European, that light indeed be the case."

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2016/11/man-chases-possible-bigfoot-on-video.html?m=1

      LMAO! I'm going to have to stop, this much laughing can't be good fur me!

      Delete
    36. Sure, certain archaic traits are shared between a lot of archaic humans... I've never claimed that Khwit is out and out Neanderthal. Ok... So to recap on what we've got as "throttlings" to this point...

      1. A self admitted mistake as to where the occipital bun is on a skull, which was not scrutinised for almost three years around here by the likes of you who claim to better know about it now... All the while I'm STILL referencing the skull in question that has archaic skull morphology.

      2. A grammatical error.

      ... You sound like you're trying to convince at least someone you're laughing there, dear boy?

      Delete
    37. Let me respond with this eloquent rejoinder:

      "Nothing in regard as to Neanderthal DNA in any percentage in Khwit's mother's side has been divulged, however considering with his father being European, that light indeed be the case."

      ROTFLMAO!

      Delete
    38. Yes, yes, I'm sure you're rolling about the place... But come on Stuey, surely you've got more in that backpack?! That's not a very inspiring list so far.

      Delete
    39. Well, I'd say that it's at least as inspiring as Khwit's eye sockets are wide. And let me tell you, that would be VERY, VERY inspiring!!!

      Delete
    40. Recap of "throttlings";

      1. An occipital bun slip.
      2. A grammatical error.

      Wow... It must mean I'm totally throttled and "Bigfoot" doesn't exist. Keep up the good work Stuey.

      Delete
    41. Hey, I'm glad that you enjoyed my use of the word "throttling" to describe the innumerable vicious beatings that you've endured here. My expansive vocabulary has certainly become one of your biggest assets! It's my pleasure sweet��.

      Delete
    42. Stuey... If only you were as obsessed with finding a logical case against this subject, as you are for acquiring attention, you'd be dangerous.

      Laters!!

      ; )

      Delete
    43. Righto, I hope that you recover soon from your latest throttling!

      Delete
    44. Sure thing Stuey! I'll check on the comment sections in about ten hours from now to see you meltdown on every comment section about it (usually in F-AC mode). You sure know how to get some satisfaction, alright!

      Delete
  2. Bigfoot also have the ability to make cameras go out of focus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg

      Delete
    2. 7;46 has the face of a bigfoot - think asshole and a clinker beard - that ought to about do it.

      Delete
    3. Wow congrats 7:59! That is the stupidest thing I have read here in a long time. Your sickeningly detailed description gives away the reality that sits upon your own face. Projection at its finest. Time for a paper bag to cover up your secret. Way to go chump!!

      Delete
    4. ^ Talking in the mirror AGAIN?

      Delete
    5. 9:47 - I voted Trump buddy - you`re one of those who can`t bear the truth - so shut up ,clinker face.

      Hahah haha

      Delete
    6. LOL. Iktomi. All you can do is provide links to stills from the 50 year old Patterson film?

      Let's see a more recent CLEAR photo of a bigfoot. As in sharp, in focus.

      Delete
    7. That's moving the goalposts, rhetorical boy... You want clear photos from the present when they'll just be special effects to you? So predictable... If you want something that stumps idiots like you, check out the Russian Leaping Yeti.

      I'll check in to read your excuses.

      Delete
  3. Prior accuse Bigfoot, which is a nonsense, verifie your equipment. Sudden battery discharge can be caused by many problems like the age, the battery memory phenomenon or climatic conditions. In that last case, the cold weather can make drop battery power suddenly and no need to be under 32F. Keep in mind that any electronic equipments, camera, camcorder stay fragile equipments in any conditions and not just for the battery. The misfunction must be documented before conclude that bigfoot is concerned. As far I'm concerned, no mystery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What? That makes too much sense. We'll have none of that here. Be gone troll!

      Delete
    2. I have almost 4,000 video's and this have never happened!
      Not true in the least bit!

      10 footer!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a352UNUP5dc

      Delete
    3. doc squat is in his own little beach tanning with the rays of delusion.

      you have 4000 videos of pure garbage

      Delete
    4. Vegas = asshole face with clinker beard -

      what a picture of disgusting reality

      Delete
  4. lol how convienent for bleevers

    I thought cloaking was ridicules a reason for no bigfoot evidence. 'draining batteries' and gadgets malfunctioning. This myth will ever go away if bleevers are going to go down these road

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, great grammar pal. I'm wondering if you could use it to one day substantiate your special pleading that there is no evidence... I won't hold my breath. Better to deny something exists than to end up looking silly trying to explain it away, I guess.

      Delete
    2. Bigfoot drains my wife's and my sex toy batteries. Can any Bill Brock, Matt Moneymaker or Mike Green type person offer suggestions on how we can stop these pesky creature's from ruining our or gas station? God bless.

      Delete
    3. @ 1:32 "I keep said objects inserted at all times"-Joe Fitsgerald

      Delete
    4. I prefer the real thing I have to say - modern battery operated dildo`s can be such a frustration at the worst of moments.

      Joe

      Delete
    5. Remember folks - Ikky "no`s" all about "grammer" -

      ha ha ha ha hahaha

      Delete
  5. LOL get a battery tester you idiots!

    Researchers can't manage their batteries. Must be bigfoot!

    ReplyDelete