Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Best Bigfoot Photos Ever?


From Brenton Sawin Mysteries To Search:

Pictures or proof Bigfoot is real as. Sasquatch man shows his pictures at the cryptid show. Bigfoot eyewitnesses also share their stories at the town hall meeting.I brenton sawin gets this proof for you fans at the CryptidCon meeting in Frankfort Ky. Enjoy the show.

67 comments:

  1. It's getting pretty cringey when ikdummy starts harassing innocent people like Barret Sanders on their YouTube channels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do know that people can easily just go and see for themselves and realise nothing of the sort has happened?

      The level in which you project is pathological. Did you not like the cyber-stalking reference? Nwah...

      Delete
    2. No one ever believes what the troll writes about you, Iktomi. We all know the truth!

      He is so jealous of you, Iktomi, that he'll write anything to try and bring you down.

      Delete
    3. We ??? iktomi and uno and mmc,

      What a Trifecta of delusional stupidity!!

      Delete
    4. Aren't you like, scared to make your own blog for fear of being exposed for having a phoney troll army?

      Delete
    5. Ha ha ha ha Ikdummy never fails to disappoint,gobbles up the fishhook and bait each and every time LOL!!

      Delete
    6. Maybe if you didn't feel so guilty about cyber-stalking people, then you wouldn't have to project your crazy ways on to normal human beings.

      Delete
    7. Joe F, Do you actually consider yourself Normal?

      Delete
    8. Self admitted Spectrum Man Barret Sanders. ^

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oATMQy0C5uc

      Delete
    9. What was ikdummy saying about how you're not harassing Barret Sanders?

      Delete
    10. Thanx for subcribing and commenting Chick & Pib!

      on the other hand,IKTOMI I had to erase your sick racist Rant!

      Delete
  2. Iktomi, you often use the word "source" or "sourced" in relation to bigfoot like "nobody has sourced bigfoot yet". What does "sourced" specifically mean to you in that context? Located the source of, as in area they populate? What specific meaning are you giving "sourced" when you say "nobody has sourced one yet"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. source
      sɔːs/Submit
      verb
      past tense: sourced; past participle: sourced
      obtain from a particular source.
      "each type of coffee is sourced from one country"
      find out where (something) can be obtained.
      "she was called upon to source a supply of carpet"




      Basic English language.

      Delete
    2. Obtain from a particular source and finding out where something can be obtained are two different meanings. Which do you mean when you say sourced as in "no one has sourced one"?

      Delete
    3. A source of physical evidence, like the PNW.

      Basic English language.

      Delete
    4. That's a noun definition. You were using source as a verb.

      Delete
    5. source
      sɔːs/Submit
      verb
      past tense: sourced; past participle: sourced
      obtain from a particular source.
      "each type of coffee is sourced from one country"
      find out where (something) can be obtained.
      "she was called upon to source a supply of carpet"

      Delete
    6. Okay then, back to:

      Obtain from a particular source and finding out where something can be obtained are two different meanings. Which do you mean when you say sourced as in "no one has sourced one"?

      Delete
    7. Ah, the pitfalls of the copy and paste sophist.

      Delete
    8. A source of physical evidence, like the PNW.

      Delete
    9. ^ You are back to nouns. Noun is a person place or thing. The PNW is a place. You used the VERB "source".

      Which definition of the verb "source" do you mean when you write "no one has sourced a bigfoot"? You copied and pasted two definitions of the verb and, whenever I ask which one you mean, you post the noun definition. You were using it as a VERB. Which on the two definitions of the verb "source" that you copied and pasted do you mean when you use the word source in the context provided?

      Delete
    10. It's a shame you weren't as dedicated to debunking "plaster" as you are with publishing troll bait. You'd have so much more satisfaction in your life.

      Delete
    11. You can't discern the difference between two different definitions of the same word or the use of the same word as a noun vs a verb.

      You use "source" so often that I decided to prove that you don't even know the contextual definition of your use of the word.

      Like I've said before, education-wise, you've skipped over the basics and decided to try your hand at copy and paste scientist and debater. It is SO clear that you lack a fundamental education and have trouble processing basic information.

      You certainly do not have a degree beyond high school, which is okay, but you try to frame yourself as a know it all and you clearly are below average.

      Delete
    12. Argh of course... Like claiming I didn't know concepts that had already made you look stupid days prior. Stop procrastinating Stuey, surely you can debunk plaster when up against such an uneducated so-and-so like me?

      What's the hold up?

      Delete
    13. Did ikdummy just learn "procrastinating"?

      You clearly are an idiot. You should have stuck to pasting other people's words. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.

      Delete
    14. "Similarly, in South Africa at one medical school, unclaimed bodies sourced from government mortuaries provide 77.8 per cent of all bodies used for dissection."
      Speaking for the Dead: The Human Body in Biology and Medicine, By Maja I Whitaker, Professor D Gareth Jones

      Delete
    15. Stuey, I've only ever used "sourced" in relation to sourcing a cadaver. You come across so angry when you try and deflect from your real issues.

      Anyway... back to that elephant in the room...

      Delete
    16. You have no idea what just went down. Re-read the entire exchange until you get it. All I ever asked you was your definition of the word "source"(which you used as a verb) in the context that you used it in. You then gave me two different definitions of the verb "source". I asked you which definition you meant. You then gave me a noun definition. I then said your contextual use of the word was as a verb. You then AGAIN paste 2 different definitions of the verb. I AGAIN ask which definition?

      Are you really that dense?????????

      Delete
    17. ikdummy, you have Chick Chick levels of confusion. You are the new Chick Chick.

      Delete
    18. Yes, yes, yes Stuey... I'm sure you've proved me to be a total uneducated so-and-so. You're particularly angry today Stuey... Was it the cyber-stalking reference?

      Delete
    19. You're avatar is smarter than you, ikdummy.

      Delete
    20. 11:10,It is possible that all of Ikdummys Forced "Britishisms"just might have Popped that one last brain cell allocated for situational
      Awareness,,Hence the confusion???

      Delete
    21. You've been provided with every possible context that I could have used to word in... And you're still flogging this dead horse?

      Elephant... Chop, chop!

      Delete
    22. 11:27, with all the idiocy swimming between ikdummy's ears there had to be a tipping point.

      Delete
  3. its official bigfooters are the ugliest people in the world. There issomething in this.they are socially awkward, lonely people wh find happiness in their shared belief in something mysterious
    There are never cool,good looking diverse groups of people looking for bigfoot. They are all obese,white people. The fact they are obese tells us the spend zero time off trail.There pics must be 100yards from parking lot. I didn't get past the first 'peek a boo' pic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha Ha Ha Ha you must know ikdummy personally!

      Delete
    2. Looks like "red men" needs his good looking pop culture types before associating "coolness" with YouTube channel personalities. That's indicative of too much TV, not someone who gets 100 yards from the parking lot too often.

      And what brings you here? Seeking out reassurance about something mysterious?

      Delete
    3. Still need some work on capitals, I see?

      Delete
    4. HAHAAHAH!! YES, ikdummy is cement head.

      Delete
  4. There is so much BS related to bigfoot that NOTHING but a specimen, living or dead, will prove their existence. If you are seeking to prove the existence of bigfoot and are not concentrating on obtaining a specimen, then you are wasting your time. Anything else will provide no proof.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "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

      Um... Nope. There is nothing remotely BS about physical evidence that is in such abundance, that it is seen replicated across continents. There is in fact nothing more profound, as far as field biology is concerned. Enthusiasts have a level of physical evidence that would be good enough for any other animal on the planet. And just like any field biologist conducting a wildlife survey, the main method of documenting the presence of mammals in an area is casting track impressions. And until scientists use that level of physical evidence and put in the resources to find a body, then it is left to amateur researchers who still need their day jobs, to locate the cadaver of THE most elusive creature on the planet.

      "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

      Delete
    2. Coincidentally, my "meltdowns" seem to occur, only when you don't have a counter argument?

      Hmmm...

      Delete
    3. You have no real physical evidence of bigfoot. You have confirmation-biased bigfoot fanatics keeping the myth alive through bigfoot-filtered glasses. There are no 10 foot tall apemen hiding in the woods.

      Delete
    4. Why waiste the effort iky

      The trolls an idiot

      MMC

      Delete
    5. Hey Stuey, why the procrastination about debunking it all then? Surely you wouldn't struggle so much with mere "confirmation bias"? Surely, if you have 60 years of physical evidence of 8-10 foot tall bipeds, and you have thousands of years of cultural and modern anecdotes of 8-10 foot tall hairy bipeds... Then nobody is merely interpreting evidence as confirmation of one's theories. Do you even understand what that means?

      There appears that there is indeed 10 foot tall apemen hiding in the woods, based on thousands of years of native culture, the three databases of modern sightings reports, and the 60 years of accompanying physical evidence.

      Delete
    6. And I have all the proof, which you deny.

      I don't read the back and forth with this Stuey person, but if he's a skeptic, i challenge him to my evidence.

      Delete
    7. ""It's not that scientists are out there looking for it and can't find it"
      Name ONE Scientist that is out looking.

      Delete
  5. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGWednesday, September 13, 2017 at 2:58:00 PM PDT

    Nice Bigfoot body...oops, no Bigfoot body yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Steelville, Missouri, 1933 - 8ft Skeleton
      While reading through the microfilm at the Steelville library three reports of the find where uncovered including the photo that shows Les Eaton, a 6-foot man, laid out next to the 8-foot skeleton in Dr. Parkers office."
      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_ciencia2/gigantes15_10.jpg

      Short memory. Oh... And no expedition, no body.

      Delete
    2. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGWednesday, September 13, 2017 at 6:04:00 PM PDT

      Wow an 8 foot person, or did they label that skeleton a Bigfoot because it had those special foot bones you talk about, did it have those and get labeled a Bigfoot? I missed that

      Delete
    3. Is that the excuse you'll use when that expedition finally sources a Bigfoot cadaver?

      Sad little man.

      That's an 8 foot skeleton with a sloping forehead & archaic features.

      Delete
    4. "sources".... uneducated ikdummy found a word and will not let go. Capture? Locate? No, source because I was in prison or in a coma all my life and now scramble to try to sound like a scientist even though non-copy and pasted things I type are idiotic.

      Delete
    5. "Similarly, in South Africa at one medical school, unclaimed bodies sourced from government mortuaries provide 77.8 per cent of all bodies used for dissection."
      Speaking for the Dead: The Human Body in Biology and Medicine, By Maja I Whitaker, Professor D Gareth Jones

      Such a wealth of grammatical knowledge, eh Stuey?

      Pfffft!!!

      Delete
    6. ... "A body sourced from one of many Sasq'ets burial grounds"... "Sourced from the abundance of physical evidence that is the PNW"... And "until someone sources that body"... And so forth.

      Stuey... Are you ok?

      Delete
  6. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGThursday, September 14, 2017 at 8:30:00 AM PDT

    So I'm guessing it didn't have those special foot bones you talk about, nice way you tried to deflect but shouldn't the skeleton feet match up with those wonderful plaster casts you submit as evidence of species? Maybe this Bigfoot skeleton is even more special because it has foot bones like a regular person, wow, we are Bigfoot, you're winning now, guess I'll get a plate to eat crow on

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The report doesn't go into detail about any number of the skeleton's anatomical features... But an 8 foot skeleton with an archaic, sloping skull is good enough for anyone who remembers that 8 foot hairy hominins with archaic sloping skulls have been reported in the US for thousands of years.

      I take it you've given up on "sourced" now you look silly?

      Delete