Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Two People Document a Strange Blue UFO


Two New Yorkers took photos of a strange, blue, ufo flying above them. From Cryptozoologynews.com:
Two New Yorkers on Saturday released photographs of an unidentified flying object in the sky.

The Medina couple said they were walking outside their home on May 17 at around 7 p.m. when they noticed an unusual cloud.

“There was like a twister type cloud first. Then I grabbed my camera and took a few pictures,” the woman said.

As she circled the house, she was shocked to see a “blue glowing ball”

For more, . click here

120 comments:

  1. I said me and Sassy down by the school yard!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what did you do behind the school shed ?

      Delete
    2. You behind the paint shed. Stand still laddie? Russell, Russell, you behind the paint shed. Stand still laddie! How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?
      There something about Pink Floyd that say's somewhere deep in these songs hides an insane being that really is trying so hard not to show itself to the current of the deep dark rivers edge.

      Delete
    3. ^ clearly swept away by the flood waters

      Delete
    4. Clearly homosexual lyrics.

      Delete
    5. This is an NPR interview with former wildlife biologist and warden John Miocynski. He talks about his own sighting and the ridicule he took at his government job. We know John, he is ultra credible and this will be one of the best interviews you'll ever hear.

      http://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=498497075:498497077

      Delete
    6. Love John Miocynski.

      "Several hair samples collected from one of the 16 1/2″ tracks were analyzed at two institutions and found to be non-human primate after which it was sent to Dr. Walter Birkbe a respected primatologist and specialist in primate hair, well known at the time as a skeptic on the subject of sasquatch. His comments were not made public but unofficially he remarked, “you’ve sent me my first stumper”. It was definitely primate but not a known primate and not human."
      - John Mioczynski

      Delete
    7. Lovely, undocumented comments. The best. No way to follow up on those, are there? We just have to trust the paraphrasing was correct.

      What is the date of that Mioczynski quote?

      Delete
    8. There are allegedly 10,000 bigfoot in the US but no unblurry photos of a single one in the last 45 years. What are the odds of that? No, really. What are the odds of 10,000, 8 foot tall hairy creatures eluding focused cameras in the US for over 45 years? No deflections, no change of subject, no jokes. Mathematically, what are the odds of 10,000, 8 foot tall hairy creatures eluding focused cameras in the US for over 45 years?

      Delete
    9. There are an estimated 300 wolverines in the United States. This is an animal that is a fraction of the size of a bigfoot. Yet these animals show up on game cams, albeit rarely, and biologists do not fail in collecting physical evidence of their presence.

      300. In all the lower 48 states. You say 10,000 bigfoots? An animal that never shows up clearly in any photographic evidence; an animal that biologists, or enthusiasts, have never been able to gather conclusive physical evidence for.

      Hmm, 300 dog sized animals cannot elude detection, but 10,000 giant apes can? Takes a certain mindset to think that is legit.

      Delete
    10. The "experts", including Meldrum, believe that there must be around 10,000 bigfoot in the US. This is the same Meldrum who gave hoaxed plaster casts new genus and species nomenclature in a fringe pseudoscience tabloid. Shameful.

      Delete
    11. Looooove John Miocynski.

      “You’ve sent me my first stumper”.

      - John Mioczynski

      Oh, dear. Bigfoot is not a wolverine. (Cringe)(Shudder)

      Delete
    12. How long ago was that "stumper"? If it even happened. All we have is an anecdote to support that statement. But I would guess it to be about 20 yrs old. In 20 yrs we still have nothing more than "I'm stumped" insofar as bigfoot hair analysis.

      Yeah, that's some strong evidence.

      Delete
    13. I must digress a bit. We have had recent bigfoot hair analysis done. Sykes did a study where he found 0% of the alleged bigfoot hairs to actually come from a bigfoot. This was not done with the rather questionable science of hair morphology analysis, but with the more accurate, and precise, use of DNA testing. The results? Zero bigfoots. Lots of raccoons and bears and horses, but no unknown hominoids.

      I would say that has to trump any 20 yr old third hand statement by anyone.

      Delete
    14. If hair morphology was such a precise science, then why did Sykes decide to completely ignore morphology in his study? Not for a moment, did Sykes, a world beating scientist in your view, even mention hair morphology. Nope. He went straight to DNA. It's almost as if hair morphology can't prove anything. So, might as well go straight to DNA. He also, you will notice, didn't even do something like set a few aside and say, well hair morphology might provide different results. It's almost as if hair morphology doesn't even matter. It's almost as if hair morphology was something people cared about 20 yrs ago, and no one gives a crap about now.

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

      Delete
    16. And to elaborate on this old John up top, You don't have to trust anything, Donny boy. Nobody's pushing that statement as substance, you're on a blog for people who are interested in the topic. You've got far bigger fish to fry anyhoo! But one thing is worth noting; Birkbe has had plenty of time to contradict that statement. Oh... And if Sykes chose to "ignore morphology", it might be because (cough, cough), he's a geneticist? Don't you regularly harp on how much his "ancient hybrid polar bear" fibre was a sham for slipping through the net? You're like a yo-yo. Aren't you conveniently "forgetting" that one hair sample had consistency with 12 other samples that are all linked to their own sightings, physical evidence and general Sasquatch activity? That was verified to be that of a currently unclassified primate by Dr Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's department of anthropology, and Dr Paul Fuerst of Ohio State University & the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre? Of course... These were studied at length by Dr Henner Fahrenbach, a retired zoologist who has worked for thirty years as Chairman of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the Oregon Regional Primate Center in Beaverton in Oregon, who has published numerous papers in a variety of journals in the fields of histology and neurobiology, in addition to several analyses of Sasq'ets biology. Anyway Sporto, it turned out to be human, remember? That's because Sasq'ets are (surprise, surprise), human.

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

      Delete
    18. And I know it breaks Little Nicky up top to read my cut & pastes, but it's just too fascinating to watch him in pathological denial every time I do...

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

      They look like clear photos to me? Don't like it? Go grab a magic monkey suit, ya loon. Also... I don't know of any "fringe pseudoscience tabloid" that Meldrum has published in. Maybe you can point me in the direction of that, and hopefully you won't mess up in understanding the process you've been championing for that past few years of your life? You don't wanna look like an idiot like your hero. I would ask you to substantiate where hoaxing plaster casts have occurred. But we all know you're not the most prolific of sceptical thinkers.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    19. :Don't you regularly harp on how much his "ancient hybrid polar bear" fibre was a sham for slipping through the net? "

      Nope, never mentioned it. Try again.

      Delete
    20. For starters, basing an argument on even an educated assumption of alleged Sasq'ets numbers, isn't very clever. For someone who loves anything opposed to conjecture, you're using it to prop up an argument to the contrary. It's not very scientific, not very logical. What you need to do is contest the actual data, but we all know you like a little special plead, and good old fashioned strawman, don't we sporto? Nobody has studied a classified hominin in the wild before, therefore using a wolverine (cough, cough) as an example of what one would expect from such conjecture in Sasq'ets numbers... Well, I think anyone with a brain would get the picture. Plenty photographed/filmed;
      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
      http://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8
      http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQ
      http://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yI
      http://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4
      http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQ
      http://youtu.be/cjEWDkcqjXI
      https://youtu.be/31iMxiZUqVc

      ... None "in a zoo". Sasq'ets is not a wolverine, it's not a dumb (but beautiful mammal). It's a type of wild human-primate, and we already know that wild primates can achieve incredible feats of things like photographic memory. If something has photographic memory and has evolved in a wilderness environment (with tuned senses), it is easily able to spot the passage of civilised humans in erecting things like trail cameras. The data on primates having photographic memories = fact. Data on being able to track physical sign = fact. Reason to invest enthusiasm on the existence of a creature such as this = tracks, hair, audio & footage, all facts. Being warranted to theorise as to how such a hominin could therefore evade so successfully in line with this available data = logically scientific. Numbers to a viable breeding population are inaccurate until you can successfully track and research the subject in the wild and know it's exact social system. I think if someone as uneducated as you (not understanding the peer review process too well, bless) were to learn of the tracking capabilities of normal humans, notably native Americans, that would give you something far more difficult to be in denial about. And you might have a very "short memory" Sporto, but Sasq'ets is an animal that DOES show up in photographic evidence, and is an animal that biologists, or enthusiasts, HAVE done pretty well in gathering conclusive physical evidence for. Nobody in their right minds would have that continual mindset and have the audacity to write the words "special pleading" at anyone else. But I'll make an allowance, you are angry after all.

      Delete
    21. ikdummy says bigfoot is human(homo sapien) but continually cites Meldrum naming the fake creature's ichnotaxon based on plaster casts with a different genus and species than humans.

      Anthropoidipes ameriborealis is not a human genus, ikdummy. Modern and archaic humans are "Homo".


      North American ape foot? Scientists stopped referring to human fossils as apes after Australopithicus.

      Delete
    22. Hey ikdummy, the P/G hoax was over 45 years old.

      What are the odds of 10,000, 8 foot tall hairy creatures eluding focused cameras in the US for 45 years? No deflections, no change of subject, no jokes.

      45 years, ikdummy. Deflect or change subjects much?

      Delete
    23. Chimps and gorillas have never been captured or photographed because they have photographic memories.


      Ikdummy strikes again!

      Delete
    24. Who you talking to, Stuey? Your "world audience" you think you have? Silly delusional narcissist.

      "The casts form the basis of the ichnotaxon Anthropoidipes ameriborealis (Meldrum 2007), namely the “North American ape foot.” Ichnotaxonomy is a Linnaean system of classifying tracks and traces generally of as-yet-unknown extinct animals. In this instance, the living trackmaker is unknown, i.e. unrecognized or unacknowledged, but not extinct. The nomen applies to the tracks, not the trackmaker, and a description and diagnosis establishes the distinctions of these tracks from those of other species (Meldrum 2007)."
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/JSE-303-Meldrum.pdf

      You really are ******* clueless, aren't you? Stop worrying about what I think (it shows how upset and personal you are), I'd worry about the actual archaic foot that's being documented and now published in journals. Also...
      "Scientists have discovered that about one in thirteen people have flexible ape-like feet. A team studied the feet of 398 visitors to the Boston Museum of Science. The results show differences in foot bone structure similar to those seen in fossils of a member of the human lineage from two million years ago. Jeremy DeSilva from Boston University and a colleague asked the museum visitors to walk barefoot and observed how they walked by using a mechanised carpet that was able to analyse several components of the foot."
      http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/06/bigfoot-trouble-mid-tarsal-break-not-indicative-of-bigfoot-anymore/

      For the circumstances of recognised primates being photographed, these images are attained by professionals with professional equipment and are in a familiar, relaxed environments. I find it laughable that most trolls require " focussed photographs" when every photograph or footage has and always will be a "man in a suit" to them. This is the appliance of rhetorical methods to create the perception of a normal debate circumstance, where there is none. Even wildlife photographers are assigned specific instructions and are allocated specific areas that would imply specific results. You would have to know how to track a Sasq'ets for that. They erect little hideouts that don't do much for hiding against a hominin with the wilderness awareness of five Native American trackers, whereas the majority of this field are people from the general public who have to capture images of a far more evasive and intelligent primate than that of the projects of most wildlife biologists (the innumerable blobsquatches testify to this)." Chimps and gorillas (non-human primates) have been photographed, but lack the sentence of human-primates. Not to mention, "Bigfoot" HAVE been photographed.

      Silly Stuey... Can't get a break.

      Delete
    25. ikdummy, you idiot. You haven't addressed why Meldrum designates your Homo Sapien, not only a different species, but a different genus(based on hoaxed prints). Copy n pasting icnotaxon info didn't get you out of that one.

      That's why Australian aborigines, who have advanced photographic memories of the type you describe, have never been photographed?

      Shut your Welsh mouth with the "Sasq'ets". You sound like a pandering jack@ss.

      So, post your focused image of a bigfoot that was taken in the last 45 years, ikdummy.

      Delete
    26. Oooooooh, is this Stuey getting nasty now? I answered you. You stupid ****...

      "Ichnotaxonomy is a Linnaean system of classifying tracks and traces generally of as-yet-unknown extinct animals. In this instance, the living trackmaker is unknown, i.e. unrecognized or unacknowledged, but not extinct. The nomen applies to the tracks, not the trackmaker, and a description and diagnosis establishes the distinctions of these tracks from those of other species (Meldrum 2007)."
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/JSE-303-Meldrum.pdf

      Please tell me you're not too dense to understand the significance of that part of Meldrum's paper? I know I'm being trolled, but surely you can't be that thick?

      I've never heard of Australian Aborigines having photographic memory, and even if they DID, why would they need to evade other homo sapein sapiens? Honestly, did it take you 4 hours to come up with that response? Name one professional wildlife photographer who's able to track hominins in wildness areas... I can be rhetorical questions too see. Oops, I forgot, you don't know what that word means, do you?

      And here it is again, hosts to hack you off that little bit more, ya dumb ****.

      SASQ'ETS.

      Delete
    27. What did I lie about? The polar bear thing? Nope. I've barely ever even mentioned it.

      Prove me wrong if you think I'm lying.

      Delete
    28. Blind leading the blind...Nothing Meldrum says id true, he has no foundation, no field research, and everything he has, he either stole, or someone gave it to him. I'd like to ask him why he doesn't research, yet acts like he knows what the heck he's talking about! Is this like a Mormon thing or something, because Utah does the same thing!

      Delete
    29. BS Donny! You can't keep up with your own drivel!

      Delete
    30. Pasting the definition of Ichnotaxonomy is still not helping you explain why Meldrum does not believe bigfoot to be human. You're now looking for a way out, "bigfoot is homo sapien, bigfoot is within human height range". Meldrum is still off the reservation.

      Bigfoot has never been photographed unblurred in the last 45 years because they have a photographic memory? ikdummy strikes again!

      You don't have to be a tracker or a professional wildlife photographer to get a clear photograph of a human, ikdummy, especially when you've had 45 years. So, if neanderthal were still alive, they'd be hiding, homo erectus would be hiding, etc... all species of hominin just stay in hiding. ikdummy.......

      Delete
    31. Prove me wrong and back up your accusation. Otherwise, you're just a petulant child who makes up crap and never has to own up to it.

      Kind of like that time you said you like to go to the pond and fuC* ducks in the as$. Don't ask me to provide proof of that or anything, but trust me, you said it. Probably in anon mode.

      Delete
    32. When I can be bothered, Donny, I will. Luckily for you that's a lot of comment sections to file through, and I'm not ya dancing monkey. You know it, I know it... That's good enough for me for now. It's not like anyone comes here to read you look like an idiot, so it's fair to say nobody cares.

      Stuey, do you feel stupid now? It helps if you actually take the time to read the sources you're being rhetorical about. And actually take the time to read the big words published at you. Ask an adult for help with the big words if you must!

      Who cares what Meldrum thinks "Bigfoot" to be? Does that make the evidence for said hominin go away? I'm pretty sure Meldrum is of the stance that we're dealing with a hominin and doesn't believe it's giganto anymore. But I can clear that up. Either way, it doesn't matter. If your focus is to prove me wrong as to what Sasq'ets are, whilst allowing for the same hominin's evidence to go undisputed... Then you're an even bigger idiot than anyone could have anticipated.

      "Bigfoot" has been rarely photographed by trail cameras because it likely can see the passage of civilised humans making passage in wilderness areas to effect them. Try and keep track of your own drivel now, boy. Trail cameras are also usually erected on trails? Though there are many reports of Sasq'ets using roads and trails... If you're looking to catch a hominin that evades us to stay alive, probably NOT the most efficient method.

      Plenty of people have footage of what is commonly referred to as "Bigfoot". When you're confronted with something that you didn't even know existed, your mind is focussed on getting out of that area as safely as possible. And for YOU to rhetorically require a clear photograph of a "Bigfoot", it would have to be a professional or you'd ad hominem. You can harp on about 45 year all you like. The same time frame occurred with the likes of the giant squid. If the evidence I post is significant enough to be brought up after any serious length of time, however old it is, then that's your problem not mine. It merely suggests that it's lasted the special pleading of innumerable lazy pseudosceptics who haven't found a way around it. There is nothing in scientific theory that states that scientific evidence lessens the more it's substantiated over time. That is embarrassing logic.

      Delete




    33. So, ikdummy, one more time...

      Paste links to focused photos or videos that were taken of bigfoot in the last 45 years.






      Delete




    34. So, ikdummy, one more time...

      Paste links to focused photos or videos that were taken of bigfoot in the last 45 years.



      Delete
    35. You'll get footage from the emotionally inflicted general public, and like it...

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
      http://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8
      http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQ
      http://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yI
      http://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4
      http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQ
      http://youtu.be/cjEWDkcqjXI
      https://youtu.be/31iMxiZUqVc

      : )

      Delete




    36. Focused ikdummy, bigfoot in FOCUS, and don't sneak in the PG hoax on one of them.




      Nothing you posted has a focused photo or video of bigfoot taken in the last 45 years.




      ikdummy......

      Delete
    37. Sorry Stuey...

      You'd firstly have to show me a magic monkey suit, and secondly demonstrate why one clear photo in all this time equates to a debunking (in that pea brain of yours). Especially since you have multiple video sources showing subjects with movement outside of human capabilities, and doubly especially since there is as of yet not one consorted professional mainstream effort to track and film these hominins.

      ... Try harder.

      Delete




    38. Magical monkey suit? Your evidence doesn't even rise to the level of a man in a monkey suit. Do they make blur suits?






      Delete
    39. Well what are you waiting for? If the monkey suit I reference is that bad, why procrastinate?

      Let's see it!

      They certainly didn't make monkey suits with detail comparable to the biological tissue of the elderly in 1967.

      Delete
    40. You've got nothing ikdummy. Your list of videos is crap. You only have the grainy p/g hoax to read into and that's really it. Nothing else.

      Delete
    41. .............................................................................................................................................

      Bigfoot cannot be photographed unblurred because it has a photographic memory.

      -ikdummy

      .............................................................................................................................................

      Delete
    42. Sorry Stuey... In attempts at adult exchanges such as this, one requires a little substance. When the videos that demonstrate subjects' motion outside of human capabilities are labelled as "crap" by someone who follows people around the internet publishing words for men's genitalia... Nobody's about to induct you him into the JREF hall of fame.

      Delete
    43. Yeah... You keep pushing fake quotes, Stuey... You were smoked hours ago.

      Delete
    44. publishing words for men's genitalia?????

      what on earth are you talking about? ikdummy is a takeoff of iktomi. Dummy in the US means idiot. If Dummy means genitals in your country that is your problem.

      Delete
    45. .............................................................................................................................................

      Bigfoot cannot be photographed unblurred because it has a photographic memory.

      -ikdummy

      .............................................................................................................................................

      Delete
    46. In British slang Dummy is – A pacifier---
      not men's genitalia. ikdummy, you fruitcake sicko!

      Maybe to ikdummy men's genitalia is a pacifier.

      Delete

    47. Men's genitalia is a pacifier.


      -ikdummy/joe f1tzgerald

      Delete
    48. joe/ikdummy had been going this whole time under the assumption that "ikdummy" meant men's genitalia. It turn out that in British slang "dummy" means "pacifier" but, to UK joe/ikdummy, men's genitalia IS a pacifier so he forgot that he made that automatic leap in his mind and forgot that dummy doesn't mean what he wishes it did. BTW ikdummy, in the US dummy means idiot or fool, like joe f.

      ikdummy strikes......yet again. LOL

      Delete
  2. Oh my Joerrrrrrrg !!!!!!!!!!!!

    hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahah

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OHHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY JOERGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!

      Delete
    2. ^ Look at me ! Look at me !

      Delete
  3. When you dedicate your whole life to something but it turns out to be a bloke in a monkey suit...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duh, I spotted strange blue testicles, mine

      Delete
    2. Can you imagine dedicating your life towards trolling people online? I can... Psychologists are calling them sadists, psychopaths and narcissists.

      Can you imagine dedicating your life to trying to ridicule people about what allegedly is the equivalent of the tooth fairy and getting nowhere? I can... Psychologists are calling his like sadists, psychopaths and narcissists. What people can't label him, is remotely clever.

      Delete
    3. They are the good people, ikdummy. The evil people chase fake creatures and are passive as their country is invaded.

      Delete
    4. You're a racist who hides behind anon mode. There's a similar psyche to racists who hide behind religion. I'm pretty sure that qualifies you as evil. There is literally not one thing that you type that isn't either hate speech or lies.

      What a ******* p*ssy.

      Delete
    5. Didn't fancy responding to looking like an idiot up top? There's a good little coward... Know your place and that you never have even a remote clue about what comes through those sausage fingers.

      Delete
    6. Right DMaker, totally unsubstantiated! You might as well say you tested it DMaker, no difference! More BS posts from Ikdummy!
      No bush pics yet Ikdummy? What's the problem? I took a cell phone video the other day, and got 3 still pics, proving anyone can do it! You, PIB, and Vegas don't own cell phones, or have any bushes, plants, or walking trails anywhere within a thousand miles of you right?
      EPIC FAILURE!!

      Delete
    7. Who's the total non researching IDIOT that said there are 10,000 Bigfoot.....THAT'S THE MOST IDIOTIC UNDER ESTIMATED LIE OUT THERE!

      Delete
    8. You photograph images of trees and foliage. Hair samples are something you could only wish for... And I'm not talking about your pubic hair again.

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

      I'll find you one equivalent photograph of your "barkmen", as soon as you can find me one person who agrees with your photographs. You seem to obsess about me, purely because I appreciate Kelly Shaw finding ACTUAL evidence. But I'm no different to anyone else who thinks your images are utterly worthless.

      Delete
    9. Can you imagine dedicating your life to trolling people online?

      Delete
    10. Can you imagine being as dodgy as you are?

      Delete
    11. Can you imagine dedicating your life to trolling people online?

      Delete
    12. I'm a PhD sir, are you? I thought not you burger flipping git

      Delete
    13. Can you imagine dedicating your life to trolling people online?

      Delete
    14. I know, can you imagine dedicating your life to trolling people online?

      Delete
    15. Nothing but epic failure and excuses Ikdummy! Putting stipulations on your challenge now, what a total loser you are! You know who believes my pics are real? People who RESEARCH! Guess who the IDIOT TROLLS ARE WHO DON'T BELIEVE MY EVIDENCE....THE NON RESEARCHERS LIKE YOURSELF, AND PIB, AND MR TESTICLES!
      I could care less about Shaw, you're the clueless idiot who can't prove my pics wrong, and you never will!

      Delete
    16. The PhD's are in agreement, a peer review, fact

      Delete
    17. WHAT POSSIBLE EXCUSE COULD YOU HAVE IKDUMMY FOR NOT GOING OUT IN 5 MINUTES AND FILMING A BIGFOOT OR A DOGMAN THAT LOOKS LIKE A BUSH IKDUMMY???????????

      EPIC FAILURE!!

      KABOOM!

      Delete
    18. Yes DS, and unlike us he is not a Dr

      Delete
    19. Cool DS... So who's this researcher that believes your photos to be genuine? I'll get you that photo of a Barkman then.

      Delete
    20. I also believe him, I didn't really steal his hair samples though but I did neglect to give him credit for them so I would like to apologize to everyone here for that, ok, that's my bad

      Delete
    21. Ha, Ikdummy, you've run to ground like the worm you are, PhD's accepted my proof, what say you now worm?

      Delete
    22. That's fake DS at 10:47.
      I didn't say anything about a Barkman pic, I said a BIGFOOT OR A DOGMAN that looks like a bush, in 5 minutes!
      What researcher or PHD could tell me anything, I mean for real? They don't research!
      When everyone else catches up, or you actually research Ikdummy, then you'll see who's been nothing but 100% truthful, the entire time!

      Delete
    23. ikdummy claims bigfoot avoids steady cameras because he has a photographic memory. Such swill.

      Delete
    24. You see for yourself that people accept my proof so now it's up to you to put up or shut up, go on, put up your picture or shut up, you said so right here in front of everyone so show us your pictures

      Delete
    25. Ha, good luck with that DS, that crap talker won't post a shred of evidence to prove you wrong, all hat and no cattle as we say here in the great Pacific Northwest

      Delete
    26. See if you can get Real DS to find me one person, Fake DS.

      Delete
    27. So no pictures, you're a sad liar

      Delete
    28. Yep, a PhD, peer reviewed lying sack of crap

      Delete
    29. I told you he was a crap talker, ignore him, everything out of his mouth is worthless, now I have written a book about Bigfoot that will amaze and astound you, I've also invented a portal opening device, and like DS I have believers and witnesses all on my YouTube channel, whereas Iktomi has no YouTube channel or believers or witnesses, see folks, some of us do more than talk a load of crap, we provide real Bigfoot evidence

      Delete
    30. Woo, testicles please stop them

      Delete
    31. I've got a picture... I just wanna see if you can name one person who thinks your photographs are genuine first. If you can't name one single person, then it makes me no different to 100% of the people who've seen your photos, rendering your little obsession with me even more weirdo than first thought.

      Delete
    32. OMG, WHAT A LYING SACK OF CRAP, they're right,you're a worthless liar, I guess we should all run over to your non existing YouTube channel and see who's backing you because from the looks of things here you can't even find support on a site that promotes Bigfoot, sorry but I have a YouTube channel and support so burden of proof is on you,put up or shut up, come on all your buddies and detractors are looking, go ahead

      Delete
    33. LOL Iktomi's your bitch now DS

      Delete
    34. I don't have a YouTube channel and I don't make any claims as to evidence I've allegedly sourced. Just find me one person DS... One person. Is that so difficult?

      And there is no "they", DS. There is one troll who's your fake DS all at the same time.

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

      Ciao!

      Delete
    35. So you want to know one person who thinks that Doc's photos are legitimate? How about none other than the one and only -- wait for it -------- IKTOMI (AKA JOERG):

      IktomiThursday, December 29, 2016 at 11:55:00 AM PST

      "Personally, I think you have one or two decent images out of everything I've seen."

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2016/12/north-pacific-coastal-trail-bigfoot.html?m=1

      Delete
    36. ^ Ha haaaa haaa PERFECT ABSOLUTELY PERFECT!

      a.c.collins

      Delete
    37. Hitchens razor cut your lying mouth, such a worm Iktomi

      Delete
    38. I felt sorry for him... Always have.

      One name.

      Delete
    39. Stupid lying girl, put up or shut up

      Delete
    40. Felt sorry for me? so you admit you lied about that too then, lol.
      One lie after another out of your mouth Ikdummy! In your total ignorance of these creatures, you should feel sorry for yourself. Spreading misinformation daily, because you don't field research. You don't even realize how pathetic that is! You have online education, which is worthless!
      You don't have a pic of a Bigfoot or a Dogman Ikdummy, or you'd put it up in my face! Go ahead, lets
      all this bombshell you're going to drop on me....what's it been a MONTH NOW???? What happened to 5 minutes?? I've had at least 100 pics since the challenge started Ikdummy!
      Please tell me who's going to say my pics are real? Who's at my level ikdummy? Scott Carpenter is probably one of the only people that is doing what i'm doing.
      Don't put stipulations on the challenge Ikdummy, makes you look even more like a failed coward!

      WHILE YOU'RE AT IT IKDUMMY, TAKE A PIC AND PROVE YOU LIVE IN THE UK!
      WHERE'S YOUR UFO PIC, AND PROOF YOU LIVE IN PA, VEGAS?
      AND PIB FAILS TO POST A PIC TOO.....ALL COWARDS!

      Delete
    41. I'll show you a photo, just as soon as you give a name of one person who sees the same as you do in your photographs. It's really that simple.

      Surely you have at least one person who agrees with you, right?

      Delete
    42. You can't put a stipulation on a challenge coward! you said "A" photo, you mean you don't have several??? Why not? Real easy to take a pic of a bush in 5 minutes right?? You should have Dogmen & Bigfoot's coming out your butt, like i do!

      Your buddy AC sees my pics, and Dmaker! Can't forget about fake DS either! Better yet, i can tell you who DOESN'T SEE MY PICTURES...PEOPLE WHO DON'T RESEARCH, LIKE YOU IKDUMMY....HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU EXPECT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE CREATURES, IF YOU DON'T FIELD RESEARCH!! YOU ARE SO CLUELESS, AND YOU FLAT OUT DENY EVIDENCE, THAT IS RIGHT ON VIDEO! YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A TROLL, PERIOD!

      Delete
    43. THURSDAY MAY 25TH....LETS SEE HOW MANY DAYS GO BY BEFORE IKDUMMY POSTS A PIC OF A BIGFOOT OR A DOGMAN.....NO BARKMAN PICS, THAT WASN'T THE CHALLENGE.....BIGFOOT OR A DOG IKDUMMY IN 5 MINUTES.....EPIC FAILURE ALREADY

      Delete
    44. Forget getting any pic's from iktomi,And considering the fact "SHE" relates a pacifier to a C0CK that is in reality the term means an "idiot",!!, The only thing Ikdummy is capable of performing is a lousy BL0WJ0B !

      Delete
    45. My "buddy" F-AC is the same troll that makes fun of you as Fake DS. You're too silly to realise it... Whereas evegoje ekse can. And dMaKeR thinks your photos are genuine?

      I'll show you a photo, just as soon as you give a name of one person who sees the same as you do in your photographs. It's really that simple.

      Surely you have at least one person who agrees with you, right?

      Delete
    46. Hundreds of years of expert witness testimonyThursday, May 25, 2017 at 3:19:00 PM PDT

      He'll never show a photo because he's a liar

      Delete
    47. Yes Fake DS... You keep feeding his delusions.

      Wacko.

      Delete
    48. Hundreds of years of expert witness testimonyThursday, May 25, 2017 at 4:41:00 PM PDT

      It's no delusion, you're a liar plain and simple, or a mental case, either way you'll never show a picture so shut up

      Delete
    49. Yes... Now proceed to answer your own comments with anything up to five attempts at impressions.

      Only one of us has actual psychologists calling us a psycho. The problem is, you appear to enjoy that label. And you're gonna get angrier, and angrier, and angrier... I shudder at the thought of what depths you're gonna stoop to.

      Delete
    50. Hundreds of years of expert witness testimonyFriday, May 26, 2017 at 6:43:00 AM PDT

      Yeah right, how's it feel being consistently wrong, can't even get backing on a site promoting the existence of Bigfoot, who's the angry one here I wonder?

      Delete
    51. I've got you thinking of me 24/7... I think it's fair to say you're angry. I own you. I'm our ball and chain. When you prove someone wrong, you can chill and step away from the blog, a little satisfied that you've proved your point. Basically, the total opposite of what you are compelled to do.

      A backing? Didn't you like... Threaten to rape someone's kids around here because they didn't say hello to you?

      Delete
    52. Hundreds of years of expert witness testimonySaturday, May 27, 2017 at 8:47:00 AM PDT

      Yawn,I never threatened anyone so this proves you to be a lying slanderous retard, proves it, you have no idea who I am

      Delete
    53. Hundreds of years of expert witness testimonySaturday, May 27, 2017 at 8:51:00 AM PDT

      I See you returned time and again so I believe you're preaching to the mirror at this point, this all goes back to you being a mental case

      Delete
  4. This is an NPR interview with former wildlife biologist and warden John Miocynski. He talks about his own sighting and the ridicule he took at his government job. We know John, he is ultra credible and this will be one of the best interviews you'll ever hear.

    http://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=498497075:498497077

    ReplyDelete
  5. Duh, I like testicles, imagine that, dedicating your life to trolling people

    ReplyDelete