Sunday, March 5, 2017

Man Releases Photos of Chupacabra


From cryptozoologynews.com:

Christopher J. Kubash, a 31-year-old seasonal resort employee, told Cryptozoology News that he was hiking in the Arizona wilderness when he came upon the body inside a cave last Friday.

“I decided to do a little off trail exploring. I was about a half of a mile off the trail when I found some really well preserved centuries old cliff dwellings built into the natural caves,” he said. “I took my time exploring each dwelling in detail when I came to one small room isolated from the rest. I shined my flashlight inside and could see something lying in the corner,” he added.

What he found, he says, was the carcass of an unidentified creature that was “almost perfectly mummified”...

...“They looked like kangaroo legs. It also had a long slender body with a tail almost just as long, short front arms and legs and a small head sitting on a stocky neck. There were also a few tufts of spiky grey hairs on the back of its head and between its shoulders. It was approximately 3 or 4 feet in length and appeared to be as preserved as a mummy,” he explained.

He says its “demon-like head, long legs and tail almost as long as the body” make him believe it could be the body of the infamous Chupacabras.

For more, click here. 

124 comments:

  1. "It's not that scientists are out there looking for it and can't find it... Scientists are looking the other way. It's not the Sasquatch which has eluded the scientists but the scientists which have chosen to elude the Sasquatch. They don't want to hear about it."
    - John Bindernagle, PhD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I like about iktomi is I can Piss on his face and shove his face in mud every day and he just lives for it, I mean he just Loves it!



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

      Delete
    3. "When we talk about the Sasquatch as just another North American mammal, you know I always think of my work doing wildlife surveys, & especially mammal surveys, where we are able to determine the presence of a mammal in an area on the basis of its tracks. Mammals are not like birds, they're not so easily seen. They're elusive, they're often nocturnal so we look for sign. We look for tracks, we look for scat, we look for feeding sign. On the basis of bear tracks we say, "yes there are black bears in this area or grizzly bears", and this is [in my opinion] the same with the Sasquatch."
      - John Bindernagle, PhD

      Delete
    4. ^ yea yea,We have all heard it before while you are in Anon mode. Pizza,Rape,racist,,ect...
      fock off!

      AC Collins

      Delete
    5. "I've read all the accounts and it's dismissal and so on & so forth, and not convinced by any of them. I still feel that the evidence, that what we call evidence, the cannon of evidence should include the Patterson Gimlin film."
      - Robert M Pyle, PhD

      Delete
    6. ^haa haAAhHaa hAa lol

      Delete
    7. Dr. Samuel "Webb" Sentell is neuropsychologist with a Ph.D from Vanderbuilt University and has been the principal as well as co-author on publications regarding animal behavior. When he is not in his Bossier, La, clinic, he may be found on a mule or in a canoe exploring habitats where anomolous, large, hair-covered hominids have been reported. He concentrates his research in a area known as the Big Piney Woods, which stretches from Fouke, Arkansas, through Northern Louisiana, East Texas and to the Big Thicket of Texas. Webb has made numerous excursions to locations where sightings and reports occur. Webb does not consider himself a 'bigfoot researcher. He is an ethologist who happens to be interested in not only participating in the scientific recognition but also the cognitive development of Sasquatch. Check him out!

      Delete
    8. A few spare minutes this morning so I can finally join in on the fun.

      Now lktomi likes to reference that I am an embittered researcher because I made a trip down to Carter farm and found nothing of substance and I always have to gently refute him because I don't consider myself a researcher but merely made the trip to satisfy my curiosity and - well, for fun.

      It seems that Dr. Samual "Webb" Sentell and I have something in common! Dr. Sentell does not consider himself a researcher either but wait . . . at the annual Bigfoot Conference and Festival at Honobia, OK in October of 2015 he was one of the featured speakers. In fact here is the description from that event:

      9:15 a.m.: Neuropsychologist Dr. Samuel Webb Sentell, who has published peer-reviewed papers on animal behavior, will share scientific ideas on how to conduct Bigfoot field research for positive results.

      So he claims he's not a researcher however he gives talks on how to conduct Bigfoot field research?

      LOL - I love this stuff! I should change my comment name to "Amused" instead of Curious.

      Delete
    9. Sarcastic or Pompous would fit much better.

      Delete
    10. Elk Wallow casts-
      Made in Loess soil, which Meldrum's student Lon Erickson found also creates casting artifacts. One has a double tap human fingerprint that Chilcutt initially discounted as a hoax, but when discovering the pattern on the Onion Mtn. cast he came back to and found legitimate because it had the same pattern as found in the Onion Mtn. casts the same pattern the casting artifact tests have produced.

      Delete
    11. LOL - is the sarcasm that obvious?

      I puzzled by that statement but imagine Dr. Sentell said that to imply that he's impartial and not prone to look at things with bias. However his mind is clearly made up and for him to go to that much trouble says (to me at least) he fully believes.

      There's no harm in that but why make that statement at all? Does he feel it helps his credibility?

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

      Delete
    13. I love how Joerg referred to the school as "Vanderbuilt" University! He's always good for a laugh at least! LOL

      Delete
    14. Well, if Dr. Sentell is finding this kind of stuff I would call him a researcher even if he doesn't.

      If your at the pub than I envy you as I'm off to do some work. I will check in periodically to respond if needed.

      Delete
    15. Joerg is busy investigating the "anomalous scat and hair" in the men's room at the pub!

      Delete
    16. "Made in Loess soil, which Meldrum's student Lon Erickson found also creates casting artifacts. One has a double tap human fingerprint that Chilcutt initially discounted as a hoax, but when discovering the pattern on the Onion Mtn. Cast he came back to and found legitimate because it had the same pattern as found in the Onion Mtn. Casts, the same pattern the casting artifact tests have produced."
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/2150-debunk-the-debunking/&page=33#comment-27092

      ... Neither does Crowley cite these cast as consistent with his casting artefacts, nor does Chilcutt cite these casts as consistent with his biological traits. So where has wolf dude got this drivel from? The only thing I can find after reading all the available literature and internet sites, is Chilcutt firstly identifying human contamination in the Elk Wallow... Nothing more.

      Curious, I'll respond properly later (I'm in the pub), however;
      "Dr. Sentell said he has personally “found anomalous scat and hair as well as other anecdotal evidence supporting the possibility of Sasquatch.”

      Delete
  2. Keep up the good work JOE FITZGERALD! Your pal.

    AC Collins

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haa haaz haaz lol!!

      Im sorry, CAN'T help myself!


      AC Collins

      Delete
    2. Thanks REAL AC Collins!! Hope you are well!!

      Delete
    3. WHO'S a.c.collins? Im new here and i find the topic of bigfoot totaly mind numbing, like Dude?


      Delete
    4. “[I] am much more concerned with addressing ecological questions such as how it overwinters in the colder regions of North America, than with dwelling on the controversy of whether it does or does not exist.”
      - John Bindernagel, PhD

      Delete
    5. "There were no roads into the bluff creek area".....Patterson and Gimlin.

      AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Big ol 18 inch Joerg stick all down your throat Joergy.

      Delete
    6. Your words are far more cryptic than "Bigfoot" ever was... Jail lingo?

      Delete
    7. " It's not the Sasquatch which has eluded the scientists but the scientists which have chosen to elude the Sasquatch."

      THE MOST IDIOTIC QUOTE OF ALL TIME!

      BINDERNAGLE YOU'RE SUCH A DOUCHEBAG!

      Delete
    8. DS... Are there any "Bigfoot" proponents you don't have contempt for? Do you feel that you're the only honest person in the whole world?

      Delete
    9. I can't stress it enough. Joe you are a very ugly individual.

      Delete
    10. Bindernagel has done absolutely nothing to prove Bigfoot, nothing! Has he ever been in the woods? Claims he found a print, does he video to prove it?

      Delete
    11. If you don't have evidence, don't even bring it up, is my motto!

      Delete
    12. DS, have you actually looked at his work studying physical evidence?

      Delete
    13. DS, your "evidence" is a total joke.  Not to mention you're a complete idiot.  You are the laughing stock of the Bigfoot community.  You are the laziest hoaxer in history.

      Delete
    14. Who's physical evidence is he studying? Certainly not his own that he collected! Whatever he's doing, it's wasting people's time! With the statements he makes, you can tell he's clueless about them!
      To answer your previous question, I don't have time to look at others research, but the only honest researchers I see are Scott Carpenter & Colorado Bigfoot, only 2 others the planet I see looking and finding them.

      Delete
    15. 8:20 just bringing up my name shows how jealous you are!
      Love it!

      Delete
    16. Doc is hilarious if you don't mind having a laugh at the expense of someone who is having delusion issues.
      Get back to your MSN paint , Doc, we are waiting for more of your fabricated daily dose of "evidence"

      Delete
    17. As Subscriber,all I gotta say is your doing "A GREAT JOB DR.SQUATCH"!!!


      AC Collins

      Delete
    18. DS, watch Bigfoot's Reflection documentary on YouTube. He presents a cast that he himself and his wife found in Canada. It's like, in the first 20mins of the documentary. He's a PhD, by the way.

      Delete
    19. Pay no attention to these negative comments DS. Those are Joe/lktomi posting anonymously. I don't know if you witnessed dmaker catching Joe posting under other accounts, but he did a few days ago. So its no doubt that these insulting anon comments are coming from Joe who is now in anon mode. Keep up the good work DS! You are an inspiration.

      Delete
    20. PS 9:02 is probably "V D"!!

      in anon mode.



      AC Collins

      Delete
    21. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

      Delete
    22. I just thinking the same thing

      Delete
    23. "“[I] am much more concerned with addressing ecological questions such as how it overwinters in the colder regions of North America, than with dwelling on the controversy of whether it does or does not exist.”
      - John Bindernagel, PhD

      In other words, let's just pretend that bigfoot exists since no one can seem to prove that it does.

      Delete
    24. "dMaKeR", have you actually looked at his work studying physical evidence?

      Delete
    25. DS, iktomi, have fun! Im off to Church!


      Big Doris

      Delete
    26. 7000 published comments, and you've never managed to explain it away.

      : (

      Delete
    27. 9:16... Are you gutted that the REAL AC Collins chimed in today?

      Delete
    28. He may not have explained it away. But in those 7000 comments he sure did expose you for sockpuppeting! LOL

      Delete
    29. "It's not a matter of belief or faith in something here. It's a matter of scrutinising the evidence and finding it adequate & realising that others are unaware of a lot of this evidence, or of most of this evidence. Our problem is to attract scientific colleagues to scrutinise that evidence."
      - John Bindernagle, PhD

      Delete
    30. I have never posted Anonymously, I would tell DS to his face. He knows how I feel about him and his "evidence".

      I find it fascinating that DS find Scott Carpenters work credible. They both try to pass obvious cases of pareidolia as credible evidence, and will fight tooth and nail with anyone who says otherwise. I'm starting to think it's a mental condition, and these people can't help themselves or see the obvious.

      Delete
    31. Yes, I have Joe. I bought a copy of The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010) about 3 years ago.

      Delete
    32. Joe, I have told you countless times that it was not 7,000 posts when I left the BFF. I was mistaken, it was 5,000. Still a lot of posts, sure. But you persist on inflating the number despite being told over and over again what the actual number was. This can be seen as nothing other deliberate dishonesty.

      You have far more bigfoot related posts than I do, and you still haven't managed to prove anything at all.

      Delete
    33. Well you'd know that he's not investing his professional opinion on mere pretences.

      That number came from none other than yourself.

      Without being able to cite a single long term scientific study to use the evidence Bindernagle cites, then the best I can do is reference to evidence that's waiting to be chased up.

      Delete
    34. If DS was hoaxing, it would be one thing, but the guy REALLY thinks he's filming these "creatures". He thinks ninjas are walking (with their dogs) the woods of western PA. It's 100% a mental condition.

      I personally believe it has something to do with religion, because both Scott C and DS are deeply religious, and they both allow their whacky beliefs to cloud their "research".

      Delete
    35. Evidence would be responded to by the scientific community if it was presented in the proper channels. It never is. Books are great, but they are not the proper channels. Publish all the books you want, but if you want a proper response, publish in peer reviewed journals as well. Exactly like how Dr.Sykes did with his study initially.

      Don't expect anything to be "chased up" when all you do is publish a book of your opinion with no supporting evidence.

      And yes, the number came from me, and as I have said numerous times, it was incorrect. You choose to ignore this and be deliberately dishonest.

      It's no wonder you are so dislikeable. You go out of your way to be a di ck head.

      Delete
    36. VD @10:02 & iktomi @ 10:02 × laptop + cellphone = 1 DINGBAT named Joe Fitsgerald!!


      Whatever

      Delete
    37. "Proper channels", meaning peer review, before anything is available for peer review? Books are good. Books inform and educate. If books from PhD's didn't exist, you'd demand hem and scoff that nothing of the sort existed. If you want a peer review of he current state of evidence, then I would be encouraging your beloved mainstream to get looking for something that warrants it, because no primate before has ever been peer reviewed on the basis of its tracks... Or even if they have, they've never amounted to a scientific repercussion like an extant hominin.

      Some colourful language there, old boy?

      Delete
    38. Also... "7000 comments"... It begs the question, what else that comes from your fingertips is another exaggeration?

      Delete
    39. It was a rough guess as I wasn't looking at my BFF stats at the time. I then later confirmed and corrected. Something you should learn to do, btw.

      Oh, you never exaggerate? With statements like the bili ape had ten times more evidence..etc..etc?

      Mine was an incorrect guess that I took the time to confirm and then correct. You just make crap up on the spot and don't care if it's true or not.

      Delete
    40. ""Proper channels", meaning peer review, before anything is available for peer review? "

      If there is all this wonderful evidence, Joe, then why is nothing available for peer review?

      Delete
    41. Dmaker obviously exaggerates at times, but one thing he sure didn't exaggerate about was you getting caught a few days ago sockpuppeting. That sh#t was halarious!!! To watch you try and squirm your way out of it was the highlight of my week.

      I wonder if Joes statement about the Bionic Bigfoot being the best special effects possible at the time was an exaggeration? or just a flat out lie??? LOL

      Delete
    42. "With statements like the bili ape had ten times more evidence..etc.." Is that you "paraphrasing" again, Don? Or have you now turned to exaggerating the comments of others as well as your own?

      Even the post grads that analysed Melba's DNA through BLAST stated that DNA would be useless without a type specimen to fully classify. One even went as far as to reference a particular primate that was late in classification through DNA, because it's numbers were too endabgered to harvest a type specimen. "Extraordary evidence requires extraordinary evidence", remember Don?

      Delete
    43. 11:05... What was funny, was reading the real AC Collins chime in today and show you up... Priceless! Oh, and I've only waited over a year for you to address the points I made here regarding the Bionic Bigfoot;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/have-you-seen-this-funny-meme-about.html?m=0

      Delete
    44. Nice job schooling the cement heads. Keep up the good work lktomi!

      AC

      Delete
    45. Joe, you are saying there can be no peer reviewed bigfoot papers until a specimen is available?

      Delete
    46. Joe you fool, 11:27 was me lol. Just like it was earlier.

      Delete
    47. It's funny watching you scramble around, trying to be AC Collins. The real one should chime in more often, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    48. I can see the humor in that Joe. But it was even funnier watching you think you were talking to the real AC. LOL

      Delete
    49. Fancy that... You flogging the dead horse of my alleged sockpuppets, only to be tucked up by the real AC Collins who you've been pretending to be for about a year!

      : )

      Delete
    50. Please don't try to spell it out, that could get ugly!

      Delete
    51. Not as ugly as me explaining the meaning of genus Homo to you.

      Delete
    52. Yes, it was quite ugly when Andy White had to explain basic terminology to you!

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2016/08/radio-host-shares-his-bigfoot-encounter.html?m=1


      Delete
    53. Terminology, it was pointed out, that the majority of people without a PhD would use.

      Delete
    54. Iktomi is as much of a problem as Bindernagel. How can you conduct field research in Europe?

      Delete
    55. Keep up the great work lktomi! You are the man my brotha!

      AC Collins

      Delete
    56. I've never claimed to have participated in field research, DS. But I'm lucky to regularly speak with people who collect physical evidence in the US all the time though.

      Cheers AC!!

      Delete
    57. Iktomi would simply point out that he referred to himself in the third person when he forgot that he wasn't using a sock puppet!

      Delete
    58. Keep up the great work lktomi. You are schooling the cement heads!!

      AC Collins

      Delete
    59. The dunce must have finally passed out on his cheetos stained keyboard. He'll wake up later with a bright orange smear on his forehead!

      Delete
    60. I see donny boy is back . He must love getting humiliated by Iktomi on here. Never seen someone who is such a glutton for punishment

      Joe

      Delete
    61. Although I'm a real glutton for punishment from cute blokes !

      Joe

      Delete
    62. Yes F-AC, that makes total sense. He wanted to be sure his comments matched up time stamp wise OR we are two people.

      Delete
    63. Holy crap. AC Collins said cement head. I used that term yesterday.

      Now Joe is going to think that AC and I are the same person.

      Delete
    64. Cavalier dismissal is probably not an appropriate appraisal in this context. The facts are that there is simply not a single iota of evidence for the existence of bigfoot, or any other large, previously undiscovered primate roaming the remote forests and hills of North America. Even if you ignore the fact that no-one has ever produced a body or a carcass or a skeleton (or even parts of a skeleton), there is the issue that there simply could not be just a few of them. In order to account for the large number of sightings over such a wide area, there would have to be many, sustainable populations. It is a fact that every primate species known to man lives together in groups, and if bigfoots really existed, such groups would have been discovered by now.

      IMO, "sightings" of Bigfoot fall into three main categories.

      1. Hoaxes, perpetrated either by pranksters or genuine bigfooters trying to make up evidence to support their case.
      I mentioned black bears as one source of claimed bigfoot sounds.

      Orangutans are solitary coming together only to mate.

      2. Misidentified humans at a distance or optical illusions created by light and shadow

      3. Misidentified sightings of North American Black bears.

      In support of No. 3 above...

      a. it is known that the location of sightings of Bigfoot coincide to a high degree of precision with the known habitat of the North American black bears. There are black bear remains routinely found throughout their habitat... but no bigfoot remains are ever found.

      b. the term "black bear" is somewhat misleading. Black bears come in a range of colours - black, brown, cinnamon, blond, blue-gray, and white. Coincidentally, this is the same range of colours that Bigfoot sightings are reported in.

      c. Black bears are known to stand up and walk on their hind legs.

      Delete
    65. How many bear bones did they find? Let me help you out, ZERO!

      You can't get around my Evidence!

      Orangutans, Misidentified sightings,....LOL....What's this?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOhofM7LKo

      Delete
    66. The author of the comment up top would have us believe that for thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing hoaxers and pranksters all out to get your money. These people, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what a non-human primate looked like, have in fact managed to cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too. They've managed to missidentity the exact same anatomical and behavioural traits across geographiwfla dvicide and from a time when there was no popular culture and therefore any powers of suggestion.

      If eyewitnesses make missidentifications regarding key information of an incident, they rarely make missidentifications of the actual incident. For example, multiple witnesses to a giant hairy human stepping out into the road may make missidentifications regarding weight, height, whether it had hair on its face... But not that the giant hairy human stepped out into the road. When bears start walking with a stride, lose the snout for a flat face and grow crazy width in their shoulders... Then the drivel will apply. Do you know how many professional, long term experienced hunters, forestry officers, etc, have reported full frontal, very distinct features to the anatomy that account for nothing that looks like a bear? Put it like this, bears are clumsy when they walk bipedally... They don't run and jump. The problem for psuedosceptics is there are reliable sources of professional eyewitness testimony and embarrassingly for them, the legal system accounts for much of it. When you have people from walks of life like long term experienced hunters, geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, wildlife biologists, anthropologists, wildlife consultants, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners and forestry commissioners reporting the exact same thing from unprovoked and impartial circumstances you have an issue to deal with in credible consistency. Mo so when these people report the same thing at the same time.

      More so when you put occasions of multiple eyewitness accounts where physical and biological evidence had been accumulated from one site. When there is steady level of reports that span cultures, then mediums, then into physical and biological evidence, then the reports by reliable professional people hold weight. The truth is that sheer frequency of professional people who are accustomed to decades worth of experience in wildlife and the wilderness account for much of the opinion and accounts to which from the basis of this field. Police officers are also trained to develop a heightened attention to detail. To suggest that these very reliable people are merely seeing upright bears is an overly cynical and typical statement to make, that's obviously either rhetorical of ignorant of the very detailed accounts that span into the tens of thousands. When bears start walking with a stride, lose the snout for a flat face, grow crazy width in their shoulders and grow hands... Then the suggestion that trained, long term experienced professionals are being mistaken will hold weight. These people who account for hunters, forestry officers, etc, who have reported full frontal, very distinct features of the anatomy that account for nothing that looks like a bears, will always point out to you that very obviously, bears are clumsy when they walk bipedally.

      Delete
    67. And as for being no evidence... There is in fact so much of it that measurements and estimates on Sasquatch dimensions, collected over the last 40 years in the Western U.S and Canada, have been subjected to statistical analysis and extrapolation by scaling laws appropriate to primates and mammals. The study has yielded average population values for foot length and width, scaling factors of foot length to height, values for weight, plantar pressure, walking and running gait, speed, and a tentative growth curve as a function of time for the female of the species. The results suggest a substantial population with traits different from those of other higher primates and humans. Desperate special pleading doesn't make that frequency of data go away. And no body, with not one single consorted mainstream effort to use that data, is what it is. It has nothing on the legitimacy of the creature leaving that immense level of physical evidence.

      "There is no pervading model of anthropology & zoology, I would suggest, that eliminates the possibly, let alone the likelihood of Bigfoot. Not on an evolutionary ground, not on a biogeographical ground, not on an ecological ground, not on a metabolic ground... The only thing that keeps scientists, I think, from putting their necks out and saying this is something worth our looking into, is their own fear of ridicule."
      - Robert M Pyle, PhD

      Psedusceptics NEED to reduce this subject to mere sightings, because it's easier to explain away. That's gotta tell you something.

      Delete
  3. I'm not an expert but the thing seems very close of jaquarundi.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dead dogs and no Bigfoot. Cryptozoology is exciting!

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

      Delete
    2. You need to change your name to, "Vegas the ignorant non researching put his foot in his mouth idiot!"

      Man you're as bad if not worse than Kekky! And key makes them, because he doesn't have any proof either!
      You couldn't be any more naive about the creatures. Like AC once said, if you don't have any proof, you don't have any business commenting. He actually gave good advice, because in your ignorance, you make yourself look even more stupid!

      Delete
    3. Wow Doc, you really laid the smack down on Vegas the Dolt!

      Delete
    4. ^ lots of words but little said.

      A.) if you know so much, and your evidence legit, why does nobody publish your drawings?

      B.) you would back a scumbag like F-AC who posts rape threats to women.

      C.) you demonstrate poor judgement, daily.

      D.) Science scares you.

      E.) Your lips preach a much different message than the tenets of your supposed religion. You are a fake christian.

      I could keep going, but your flaws are deep.

      : )

      Delete
    5. Why did you spell the word "judgement" in the British fashion?

      Delete
    6. Hahaha, I have you pouring over my posts looking for clues.

      Delete
    7. Well, you do refer to Iktomi in the third person, so I guess that means you're not him -- oh wait a second -- OOPS!

      Delete
    8. By the way, it should be "poring over" and not "pouring over." You made the same mistake on Andy White's blog:

      6/30/2016 03:31:37 pm

      "I've yet to pour over the Sarah Winnemucca stuff . . . "

      http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/bigfoot-researchers-still-insist-native-american-skull-is-not-human#comments



      Delete
    9. Doc is the most respected looney toons out there. As a bigfoot researcher he's a big fat zero.
      He takes blurry photos of trees and tries to pass them off as creatures than attacks fine upstanding posters like Vegas who merely try to expose his nonsense
      Doc needs help ASAP

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

      Delete
    11. Oh and 5:10, you appear to use the same "--" as Haints does here;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/bigfoot-new-evidence.html?m=0

      Delete
    12. Since when does Vegas at 3:16 care who's here and who isn't? And Vegas at 4:25, yeah right, has Iktomi written all over it! Like i said, i really don't care, but it's beyond obvious!

      Keep up the jealous rants, i'll keep throwing evidence in your face! Expose this Kekky!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-yddbcBRTI


      Delete
    13. A) It's only a matter of Time.
      B) Something Iktomi said, that makes no sense, and is a Satanic Lie!
      C) I scout everyday, while you sit on your Butt.
      D) You're clueless about Science, or a Scientific approach, by saying I have Blurry photo's, and neither researching, or proving them wrong, in any way shape or form, shows your ignorance.
      E) Nothing at all wrong for asking fake researchers where there evidence is! Nothing wrong with calling out Liars, you know, like the Satanist calling me a fake Christian...LOL!

      Delete
    14. You are quite simply, utterly crazy.

      "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
      - Hitchens' Razor

      Delete
    15. Utterly crazy would not being able to recognize true field research, which you and Vegas have in common!

      Delete
    16. How can you expect anyone to believe you when you lied about changing your name?

      Delete
    17. I recognise physical evidence, I don't recognise blurry photos that need drawing around. Is that your idea of science, DS? Everyone knows who I am and I've never hidden away from that fact to people who address me respectively. The day I used the Iktomi account, which was never meant to distance myself from my name, I saw how two trolls jumped all over it and are still to this day painfully easy to wind up over it. You're as dense and defensive as the other trolls around here for not recognising that gleamingly obvious fact. Even when I'm blatantly responding to my name, you're maintaining that I'm trying to be deceitful. It's a big joke, and you didn't get it. Probably because you're too busy bringing fire & brimstone down on anyone who doesn't lick your backside clean, or finds other researchers interesting.

      Delete
    18. "You are quite simply, utterly crazy."

      Bigfoot believers and skeptics both agree that DS is a loon.

      KABOOM!

      Delete
    19. Once again, you don't HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THEM! You don't do any field research, so for you to even say ONE of my pics are blurry, shows how totally ignorant you are of them joe, TOTALLY! I don't mean any disrespect, but it's a FACT! Vegas clearly doesn't get it either, hence no research, and Kekky too, you see how it all adds up?

      "The day I used the Iktomi account, which was never meant to distance myself from my name"....Thedn why did you say, "Who's Joe?" Why didn't you just admit you changed it, why not admit it now?

      Once again, don't call yourself a researcher, and not have any evidence to show for it! This sin't about licking my backside, it's about proving Bigfoot! Who would find a researcher interesting, that repeatedly has NO PROOF....You & Matt apparently.

      Delete
    20. I say it, because people who have issues with me like you get wound up about it.

      Delete
    21. I just had a problem with you lying about it.

      Delete
    22. No, you missed the wind up and fell for it.

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

    ReplyDelete
  6. Y'all, please show some respect. That is a photo of Iktomi's dog, Leg Humper. It died in Iktomi's mom's basement. Iktomi knew he should feed it and give it water, but he did not know he should do it more than once or twice a month.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its your dog Haints. He died of shame when he learned about you and Biscardi.

      Delete
    2. go ride your sybian, Haints

      Joe

      Delete