Parabreakdown takes a look at a video that claims to be of a tiny alien hiding in a garage. Is it a being from another planet? Or just some Tom Foolery?
"The Humboldt skull is that of an anatomically modern human. It is robust, but it is a human skull that has features that are found in many other anatomically modern human skulls."
Since you've clearly got that comment section on bookmark, I'm sure you'll forgive me for not spamming up this comment section with my responses to that comment.
I notice your "skinwalker/paranormal" explanation for "Bigfoot" didn't even command a response.
Because apart from correcting me on a couple of terminologies that half the world also makes in error... The skull in question still doesn't have a modern example to reference.
So where are they? Shouldn't that mean they're easier to source? You seem to be getting a little angry there buddy... Aren't you supposed to be the troll?
"As far as the terminology, I'm not trying to be nit-picky or pedantic. Words mean different things, though, and "Paleolithic" and "Archaic" are not inter-changeable. It's honestly difficult for me to know what you're getting it if you conflate those two terms."
It was a rhetorical question... the second time you've flunked the meaning. But I expect as much from someone who didn't know humans are primates. I wonder what Andy would think of that? I'll happily take a PhD's expertise, just as soon as one of these "many" skulls show up.
The ugly truth is that someone with a doctorate in anthropology made you look like an uneducated moron. You plainly demonstrated that you are not even familiar with the most elementary concepts in the field and that you haven't the slightest clue regarding anything regarding the subject.
Made me look like an "uneducated moron", with what example of modern Humboldt skull?
If by mixing up various terminology, the same terminology that can be seen to be misplaced by innumerable sources on the internet, amounts to being an "uneducated moron"... Then what does that say about someone who doesn't recognise little things like rhetorical questions?
Hey 2:34 , Google the afro-American actor Hawthorne James (known as the 1st bus driver in the movie SPEED) So much for your skull theory! Yes folks its ever so simple!
"Just because your testosterone levels are above average, it doesn't mean you have the neanderthalis traits. If so, your facial bones would look strange. Broad and outwards zygomatic bone(cheek bones), short frontal and parietal bones(forehead, top of skull), wide yet short nose, wide and thick supraorbital(eyebrows) bones and so on. If you have all of these traits, I recommend you to see a doctor." http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4871217/1/
http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/assets/images/comparison1.JPG ... Who does stuff like that and passes it off as accurate? Someone who was given a PHD in Packham. No wonder he had to edit a phone call from Gimlin to make it look like he's admitted to hoaxing.
Sykes who attests to eyewitness reports of Zana, has already theorised that she was a subspecies of Homo Sapien that left Africa 100,000 years ago.
In Evans' last documentary, he revealed he's had an interest in the Yeti since he was a young boy and suggested a theory of Denisovans living in high altitudes in the Himalaya's many thousands of years later than previously perceived (not too dissimilar to Sykes' theory about Zana).
Andy White agrees that there are reliable sources that have documented 7-8 foot human skeletons in early woodland mounds in the US.
And Greg Long; he's been caught out falsifying interviews that were published in his book. The 'costume expert' that 'made the suit' has no record of Roger buying anything from him and had to hire a costume expert to make a gorilla suit that looked nothing like Patty. Bob H has more contradictions about the suit he wore than anything I've heard and can't even find the 'film site'.
An illiterate dimwit who doesn't know the difference between "too" and "two" is giving a lecture to an anthropology PhD on the subject of human skull features. Now that's funny!
Google Iktomi and "two"... Unfortunately there's no such evidence for proving you are able to recognise a rhetorical question.
Oops!
I think you meant to substantiate your ideas, but your try-hard typo hunting in the wake of looking dense makes your inferiority complex about that a little too obvious.
Hey you got it right this time. Congratulations and I'm glad that I could help! Now you should work out the proper usages of the words "effect" and "affect"!
You apparently asked a rhetorical question at 3:50... Then asked where my response was 4:04. It's in black & white buddy. It stopped getting cringey comments ago... Now it's just cruel.
Yeah, I think you know what happened but are too humiliated to face it. Do you really think I expected you to explain how you became so unimaginably stupid (rhetorical question)?
Did something happen to you Joerg (rhetorical question)? In the past, you've at least been able to present a modicum of intelligent debate to diststact me for a few of my spare minutes. But you appear to have degenerated to the point where you cannot understand extremely simple concepts, haven't you (rhetorical question)?
Given how badly you've embarrassed yourself, don't you ageee that it would be cruel of me to continue this dialogue (rhetorical question)?
I'll join the dots for you Joerg. (1) I asked a rhetorical question, (2) you declared that it was not a rhetorical question, but you did not answer the question, and (3) I replied that you did not answer the question, proving that what I stated was in fact a rhetorical question. And to make you feel like an even greater fool, I did so by stating another rhetorical question.
Little did I know that this was all too complicated for your small mind to comprehend. That's right, it's all in black and white. You're welcome!
AnonymousWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:18:00 AM PST There is no such thing as portals and mindspeak dummy
IktomiWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:19:00 AM PST By what authority? Science can't even show that to be the case, so how can you??
AnonymousWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:30:00 AM PST Cant prove a negative and noone has shown they exist. Checkmate retard.
IktomiWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:38:00 AM PST This comment has been removed by the author.
IktomiWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:40:00 AM PST And it was a rhetorical question...
AnonymousWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:44:00 AM PST Retard^
IktomiWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:45:00 AM PST I think you'd better google the meaning of a rhetorical question before calling anyone that, ha ha ha!!
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell
Editor's Note: This is a guest post by Suzie M., a sasquatch enthusiast. Crypto-linguists believe that the species known Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti/Yowie ect speak and understand a complex language, which by all accounts seems to stem from Asia. When one listens to it there is definitely a sense of it being Chinese or Japanese. It is a very odd mix of sounds, clicks and what could be actual words. This is the reason some experts are looking into the Asian dialect theory, some have said it could be a lost dialect, which was carried from Asia by the Bigfoot species that colonised America.
Rumors abound on whether or not Finding Bigfoot will continue, but hopeful news is on the horizon. Snake Oil Productions, the production company responsible for Finding Bigfoot, is seeking a permit for filming in the Monterey, Virginia area. Monterey lies between the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests. Definitely a good place to look for bigfoot. We can only speculate if this means Finding Bigfoot has been signed on for additional seasons, or if perhaps a new bigfoot show is in the works. We'll keep you updated on any further announcements for sure.
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from
Who's Tom Foolery? xx
ReplyDeleteFIRST!!!!
ReplyDeleteBigfoot is bulls1t
Unlucky Bill on both counts xx
DeleteI love Bill Miller. He took Greg Long apart beautifully.
Deletetranny alert x 2
DeleteSchooled by Bill Miller... Hence the use of his name. What a predictable patoot you are, ha ha!!
Delete@ 1:19. Nice "pedo-cure" to your Face.
Delete"The Humboldt skull is that of an anatomically modern human. It is robust, but it is a human skull that has features that are found in many other anatomically modern human skulls."
ReplyDeleteAndy White, PhD
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSince you've clearly got that comment section on bookmark, I'm sure you'll forgive me for not spamming up this comment section with my responses to that comment.
DeleteI notice your "skinwalker/paranormal" explanation for "Bigfoot" didn't even command a response.
"2 + 2 = 5" - Iktomi
DeleteHmmmm... That actually sounds like the formula to your "skinwalker/paranormal" jig to be honest.
DeleteHow can you take that statement from an experienced anthropologist and think you know better?
DeleteQ: what's red and white and useless as a broke dlck in the springtime?
DeleteA: Ginger
Because apart from correcting me on a couple of terminologies that half the world also makes in error... The skull in question still doesn't have a modern example to reference.
DeleteI'm sorry, what's this stuff about "ginger"?
Because he didnt give you a single specific example? Christ you are dim.
Delete"Joe,
DeleteI'm not trying to be derogatory.
As in your comments on my blog, I find that you sometimes conflate terms in a way that makes it difficult to understand exactly what you're saying."
Andy White, PhD
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BLOWN THE FU CK OUT
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1:40... Um, yeah. That means that my proposition that there is no modern equivalent stands.
DeleteHe said there are "MANY"... jesus fu.cking christ at least read what the fella says before spewing your garbage.
DeleteSo where are they? Shouldn't that mean they're easier to source? You seem to be getting a little angry there buddy... Aren't you supposed to be the troll?
DeleteWhy are you asking me? Go ask andy. I will take his word for it as it is, well, his area of expertise.
Delete"As far as the terminology, I'm not trying to be nit-picky or pedantic. Words mean different things, though, and "Paleolithic" and "Archaic" are not inter-changeable. It's honestly difficult for me to know what you're getting it if you conflate those two terms."
DeleteAndy White, PhD
It was a rhetorical question... the second time you've flunked the meaning. But I expect as much from someone who didn't know humans are primates. I wonder what Andy would think of that? I'll happily take a PhD's expertise, just as soon as one of these "many" skulls show up.
DeleteThe ugly truth is that someone with a doctorate in anthropology made you look like an uneducated moron. You plainly demonstrated that you are not even familiar with the most elementary concepts in the field and that you haven't the slightest clue regarding anything regarding the subject.
DeleteMade me look like an "uneducated moron", with what example of modern Humboldt skull?
DeleteIf by mixing up various terminology, the same terminology that can be seen to be misplaced by innumerable sources on the internet, amounts to being an "uneducated moron"... Then what does that say about someone who doesn't recognise little things like rhetorical questions?
Hey 2:34 , Google the afro-American actor Hawthorne James
Delete(known as the 1st bus driver in the movie SPEED)
So much for your skull theory! Yes folks its ever so simple!
P,S. Hope all is well Andy White PHD.
No need
"Just because your testosterone levels are above average, it doesn't mean you have the neanderthalis traits. If so, your facial bones would look strange. Broad and outwards zygomatic bone(cheek bones), short frontal and parietal bones(forehead, top of skull), wide yet short nose, wide and thick supraorbital(eyebrows) bones and so on. If you have all of these traits, I recommend you to see a doctor."
Deletehttp://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4871217/1/
^ bookmarked comment - from Jotomi the wanker
DeletePwned by packham, sykes, evans, matthews, white, and long.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bigfoot-lives.com/assets/images/comparison1.JPG
Delete... Who does stuff like that and passes it off as accurate? Someone who was given a PHD in Packham. No wonder he had to edit a phone call from Gimlin to make it look like he's admitted to hoaxing.
Sykes who attests to eyewitness reports of Zana, has already theorised that she was a subspecies of Homo Sapien that left Africa 100,000 years ago.
In Evans' last documentary, he revealed he's had an interest in the Yeti since he was a young boy and suggested a theory of Denisovans living in high altitudes in the Himalaya's many thousands of years later than previously perceived (not too dissimilar to Sykes' theory about Zana).
Andy White agrees that there are reliable sources that have documented 7-8 foot human skeletons in early woodland mounds in the US.
And Greg Long; he's been caught out falsifying interviews that were published in his book. The 'costume expert' that 'made the suit' has no record of Roger buying anything from him and had to hire a costume expert to make a gorilla suit that looked nothing like Patty. Bob H has more contradictions about the suit he wore than anything I've heard and can't even find the 'film site'.
You are too easy my little pet monkey:)
DeleteThat took me too seconds... Got any more? I'm bored...
DeleteI guess now...
DeleteYawn.
"Too seconds"?
DeleteYeah... Too few...
Delete^ = loon!
DeleteAn illiterate dimwit who doesn't know the difference between "too" and "two" is giving a lecture to an anthropology PhD on the subject of human skull features. Now that's funny!
DeleteGoogle Iktomi and "two"... Unfortunately there's no such evidence for proving you are able to recognise a rhetorical question.
DeleteOops!
I think you meant to substantiate your ideas, but your try-hard typo hunting in the wake of looking dense makes your inferiority complex about that a little too obvious.
Hey you got it right this time. Congratulations and I'm glad that I could help! Now you should work out the proper usages of the words "effect" and "affect"!
DeleteAgain... Google it. Maybe you can learn "rhetorical question" while you're at it?
DeleteGood to see the cement head iktomi getting smoked. I mean really hes getting absolutely destroyed!
DeleteHere's a rhetorical question for you: How could someone like Joerg be so unimaginably stupid?
Deleterhetorical question
Deletenoun
a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
Your comment achieved neither... Oh deary, deary me.
You didn't answer the question, did you? Hey, there's another rhetorical question!
DeleteIf your comment at 3:50 was meant to be rhetorical, then (cough, cough) I didn't need to answer it?
DeleteOh dear... it's like one step forward & then two steps back with you, young man.
That was my point you boob. You proved that it was a rhetorical question yourself! Do try to keep up with me.
DeleteYou apparently asked a rhetorical question at 3:50... Then asked where my response was 4:04. It's in black & white buddy. It stopped getting cringey comments ago... Now it's just cruel.
DeleteYeah, I think you know what happened but are too humiliated to face it. Do you really think I expected you to explain how you became so unimaginably stupid (rhetorical question)?
DeleteDid something happen to you Joerg (rhetorical question)? In the past, you've at least been able to present a modicum of intelligent debate to diststact me for a few of my spare minutes. But you appear to have degenerated to the point where you cannot understand extremely simple concepts, haven't you (rhetorical question)?
Given how badly you've embarrassed yourself, don't you ageee that it would be cruel of me to continue this dialogue (rhetorical question)?
That read like a meltdown... And it's in black and white buddy.
Delete: p
I'll join the dots for you Joerg. (1) I asked a rhetorical question, (2) you declared that it was not a rhetorical question, but you did not answer the question, and (3) I replied that you did not answer the question, proving that what I stated was in fact a rhetorical question. And to make you feel like an even greater fool, I did so by stating another rhetorical question.
DeleteLittle did I know that this was all too complicated for your small mind to comprehend. That's right, it's all in black and white. You're welcome!
AnonymousWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:18:00 AM PST
DeleteThere is no such thing as portals and mindspeak dummy
IktomiWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:19:00 AM PST
By what authority? Science can't even show that to be the case, so how can you??
AnonymousWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:30:00 AM PST
Cant prove a negative and noone has shown they exist. Checkmate retard.
IktomiWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:38:00 AM PST
This comment has been removed by the author.
IktomiWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:40:00 AM PST
And it was a rhetorical question...
AnonymousWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:44:00 AM PST
Retard^
IktomiWednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:45:00 AM PST
I think you'd better google the meaning of a rhetorical question before calling anyone that, ha ha ha!!
https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/paranormal-researchers-have-run-in-with.html
^ more evidence that you don't know what a rhetorical question is.
DeleteMore meltdown in 5... 4... 3... 2...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIktomiMonday, February 6, 2017 at 5:15:00 PM PST
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI simply realised I was just repeating myself... The damage was done at 4:37.
DeleteIt's a shame you don't realize that more often!
DeleteI realise when the damage is done often enough thanks.
Delete"The earth is 6000 years old and luckily noah took a couple of bigfoots on the ark" - Iktomi
ReplyDeleteAnonymousMonday, August 15, 2016 at 7:16:00 AM PDT
DeleteIm starting to think somthing along the line of skinwalker ranch paranormal..
AC collins
^ Silly cunt
DeleteLearn to spell you cheap piece of shite.
Got tiny alien in garage suit? Unless you can produce the tiny alien in garage suit then tiny alien in garage is the real deal!
ReplyDelete"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
Delete- Bertrand Russell
^ you,mr. "who's Joe"need to look in a mirror!!! bro your wrecking yourself!!!
DeleteHave another drink... Maybe you'll get so drunk that you'll make sense by accident?
Delete^ there`s the stupid man
Delete