Friday, September 15, 2017

Cryptid Con Tour


From Brenton Sawin: 

From day 1 vendor area cryptid Bigfoot Monsters And Legends. Hope you enjoy. I will have good Bigfoot pictures and cool interview for you when I get to the computer to upload.

118 comments:

  1. hmm , No Black people there! Racist Bigfoot hunters!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that`s because they`re all busy cashing welfare checks

      Delete
    2. This is very interesting folks -

      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/grand-larceny.htm

      Delete
    3. Some quotes from people who knew Patterson...nice guy,huh?

      "Patterson was many things: an artist, woodworker, acrobat, rodeo-rider, filmmaker, author, and, above all, a con man. Long’s portrait is that of a small-time, back roads scam artist with dreams of the big score."

      "Patterson seems to have scammed everyone he met,

      One witness relates that Patterson, usually without a phone himself due to unpaid bills, once asked to borrow his phone. He then secretly ran up a long distance bill (in 1960s money!) of seven hundred dollars, which he flatly refused to pay.

      Apparently, Patterson cheated everybody. He may have run a regular check fraud routine, but his standard approach was simply to run up huge bills and then refuse to pay.

      He stiffed everyone from Safeway to the hospitals that treated him for cancer.

      Patterson, although small, was a life-long weightlifter with a reputation for having a violent temper."

      etc etc etc etc etc

      https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-04-12/

      Delete
    4. Roger Patterson was the first person to admit he probably wasn't the best person to have filmed a "Bigfoot". But if someone wanted to character assassinate you, there would be whole world of crap they could dig up on you. Still doesn't equate to someone being a "con man". Running up a long stance phone bill, being late to pay bills, being late in returning a camera... Does not equate to being a con man. And someone trying to tie up loose ends with terminal cancer will stoop to a lot.

      But since you like to invest so much in the character's of people, let's take a look at Greg Long, who's been known to exaggerate and goad people into saying things in their 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'. We already know that the source of this opinion comes from someone who's attempts at "research" are embarrassing;
      http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

      That Bill Miller link would normally be enough to destroy anyone's attempts at "research", but just take a look at this form a largely sceptical source;
      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/skeptoid-botches-analysis-of-patterson.html?m=0

      ... The list of inaccuracies in that link concerning Long's work is utterly embarrassing. And I just like "Roger Patterson isn't credible because he lied"... It is a double standard to then ignore a multitude of lies and p*ss poor research in Greg Long's ideas.

      Delete
    5. I heard Steven GoogleyEyess is going to have a booth on how to plant fake bigfoot evidence.

      Delete
    6. Looks like he made your hero Long look pretty silly, didn't he?

      Delete
  2. "Con tour" you cant make it up folks. Lets not forget the original con tour where roger patterson paraded around the US in a camper van plastered with bigfoot paintwork with an actor to play the role of gimlin. All to cash in on a film of his bumbling cowboy mate in a silly costume. Its shame the film doesnt have sound I can imagine a few beers down gimlin laughing in hysterics while roger shouts "look at them fake titties bounce". Must be some fond memories for gimlin looking back at the mischief they used to get up to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No magic monkey suit... No "con tour".

      Gotta love these internet trolls who harass people on the internet, who then believe they're on some moral pedestal; questioning why someone would want to make as much money as possible from filming a hominin. Essentially one of the greatest pieces of footage, ever.

      No magic monkey suit... No "con tour".

      Delete
    2. Complete obliteration by Iktomi by 7:43! The last few days have been very difficult on Stu and its all been adding up. The beat down has been beautiful to watch.

      Delete
  3. 1 person sees another person hoaxing a bigfoot.
    +
    1 person sees some other known wildlife and mistakes it for bigfoot.
    +
    1 person has some kind of hallucination that is interpreted as a bigfoot.
    +
    1 person who just bald-faced lies about seeing a bigfoot.
    +
    1 person impaired who sees a bigfoot

    = 5 eyewitness accounts. Each of the 5 shares their story with 10 close friends/family, and half of those become believers. Now we've got 25 people who'll swear on their graves that bigfoot is real because someone they trust implicitly claims an encounter. Let's say those 25 tell 10 other friends, and half believe the story (125 new believers of second-hand account).

    From the original 5 alleged witnesses, we now have 150 people convinced of their stories (now probably embellished to increase plausibility), and all without a single one reported to Cryptomundo, BFRO or whatever.

    Moral - we don't need any one plausible explanation for a bigfoot encounter to account for a large proportion of alleged encounters. It's word of mouth and copy-cats that allow the folklore to spread like wildfire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Flies in the face of innumerable first hand sightings reports from every credible pillar of modern society, who risk their careers by common forward. Thousands of years of native culture (anthropological data), the three databases of modern sightings reports, and the 60 years of accompanying physical evidence... Aren't explained away by hoaxes, misidentifications, hallucinations & lies.

      If you don't like it, address the evidence.

      Delete
    2. Wow the troll can count to five

      Any more and he would have to pull his other hand out of his pants

      MMC

      Delete
    3. You have no idea of what you are talking about 5:27. My cousin's boyfriend's mechanic's son said he saw one. He even goes to the same church I do so I know for a 100% FACT that bigfoot exists!

      Schooled!

      Delete
    4. Nargh! That's not a first hand account either.

      Delete
  4. So a guy with a dubious past decides to shoot a bigfoot movie. He has a friend dress up in an Indian costume but they don't have a bigfoot costume for this bigfoot movie. Later they are out not far from a logging road in an area frequented by a bigfoot track hoaxer. Without trying, they stumble upon a real bigfoot and shoot a few seconds of footage. When they get back home, the guy parades the film around like PT Barnum complete with an actor portraying his sidekick. The original film is then lost. Attempting to gather more evidence of bigfoot, they guy tries to return to the original location but misses it by 8000 miles.

    Seems legit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's always been my contention, how could there have not been a suit...they where making a movie about Bigfoot.
      One of the first things they would have done is show off their crappy suit compared to the real bigfoot on flim.
      Instead the film turned out so well they ran with "it's real" and fabricated a backstory to support it....done and done!

      Delete
    2. They definitely had a suit, or a few of them, imo. To what extent the Bigfoot would've participated in the original movie, Idk, but Roger would've have had a suit, and maybe he figured "less is more," and opted to show very little of the Bigfoot, or maybe it was supposed to feature quite a bit, but I tend to think otherwise.

      I don't buy the notion that he'd have used the suit again and again, it would defeat the purpose of it looking so "good," (of course, it doesn't look that good, it's just that from a distance, used sparingly, it looks effective. This is something we see in horror movies all the time, show as little of the subject as possible unless it's necessary, a bit like "Fiend Without a Face," you don't see the creatures in question that much, but when you do, it's effective.

      Speaking of Gimlin, it makes me chuckle that he's such a performer these days, as I reckon his involvement in the PGF was minimal at best... As in, Roger said "here, stick this damn wig on your head, Bob, and point that-a-way."

      Delete
    3. The documentary, which Roger intended to show historical reports in to educate the public, and the footage of Patty are different things, even one of your prophets, Kitakraze acknowledges this to be the case;
      "Roger's film Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman with Bob Gimlin, Bob Heironimus and other friends was taken, remade and adapted by Ron Olson and directed by Ed Ragozzino...
      http://upload.wikime...t_Sasquatch.jpg
      http://www.cryptomun...s/8eed5c421.jpg "
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/33571-roger-pattersons-bigfoot-documentary/

      Roger was never able to obtain funding to finish and/or distribute his documentary prior to his death. Also...
      "Roger Patterson apparently knew Bob Hieronimous before he obtained the footage in 1967. Patterson had been wanting to film a low budget documentary about the subject. He organized some people in Yakima for some stock scenes on horseback for his film. Bob Hieronimous was apparently one of those people, but that appears to be the extend of his association with Roger."

      Also... This is what Hollywood could manage with monkey suits in 1976, almost ten years after the PGF was filmed;
      https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ouHWkvU6xNs/WSXXtlizrmI/AAAAAAAAY5Q/zS1VMfgKHN0aJcXK-COqBRTBlmE8sHP9wCLcB/s1600/abi3.png

      ... Roger Patterson would have had a costume that would have trumped all known SFX fur cloth techniques to this very day, and they wouldn't have used it again? I tell you what makes me chuckle, the logic of the pseudosceptic. Now that's funny. And speaking of horror movies, and gorilla costumes in particular... These were never, ever shot in direct sunlight due to suit anomalies being easily spotted. They were always shot in specific studio lighting, which is in stark contrast to the PGF subject who was filmed in direct sunlight. And we don't see any suit anomalies, only impossible biological detail that can't be done even by today's standards of SFX fur cloth. I really don't think Roger would have been so detailed in his "costume", shooting in shakey 16MM. I don't think he anticipated the footage being digitalised and stabelised 45 years later and decided to put SFX defying detail to his costume just in case. Detail that could have got him a job in the most well paid of Hollywood SFX as opposed to "swindling about Bigfoot".

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
  5. If you think about it, one of the most damning circumstantial aspects of the PGF is that the creator of the film, with his history as a con man, would be almost uniquely qualified to put on such a hoax.

    How many people out there have a history of ripping people off, have written a book about bigfoot, have the leather working skills to build a suit, happen to be making a documentary about bigfoot, then luck into getting said film?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Roger Patterson was a con man. Only the word of Greg long, who's integrity took a major blow at the hands of the likes of Bill Miller here;
      http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

      ... Author David Murphy had spent 11 years writing the biography of Roger Patterson. In this time he interviewed over 70 people who had some acquaintance with Roger and Bob or people who knew them extremely well, and in that time he came across not one person who didn’t think highly of both individuals, not to mention endorse their credible nature.

      Roger Patterson had help from the likes of John Green, who encouraged him to go to Northern California based on the many sightings reports that at the time, went back as far as WW2.

      Leather skills (cringe), do not trump decades worth of SFX, to the point in which plastic surgeons can recognise biological tissue.

      Delete
    2. ^ Only his record of various illegal activity for which he was punished by the court.

      So much for there being "no evidence".

      Delete
    3. ikdummy: "Leather skills (cringe), do not trump decades worth of SFX, to the point in which plastic surgeons can recognise biological tissue."

      So, plastic surgeons can now look at a grainy 16mm film of a man in a costume and determine that the celluloid representation or the light-modulating liquid crystal display is biological tissue? LOL

      Delete
    4. Stu-wart is afraid of bigfoot

      Delete
    5. Grainy? It's odd... don't pseudosceptics claim they can see all sorts of things like zippers & such? They need to make their minds up... plenty enough detail to be able to make the most definitive of comparisons to known biological tissue here;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      Stuey... Considering you are very quick to publish racism and even rape threats, PLUS you are on record saying you've been in jail cells for being drunk (probably due to being antisocial)... AND that your diagnosis would suggest a life of various petty crimes, don't you think it's a little audacious to claim anyone else doesn't have any integrity?

      Delete
    6. ikdummy looking as everyone as the same person. Not everyone that knows P/G is a costume takes a position one way or another on a zipper. That still doesn't mean anyone can determine biological tissue from a grainy video.

      Ad hominem attack, ikdummy, and attributing nonsense to me. I'm surprised you haven't posted your random racist slurs in anon mode to distract from the corner you painted yourself in again. I guess you're just lazy this time, making reference to it.

      Delete
    7. I'm certain that if I went through old BFE comment sections, I could find an exact quote from you about zippers and all sorts of alleged suit anomalies. And yes, by the very method of photographic comparison, a plastic surgeon can, and HAS made comparative analysis. Analysis that I've published here more than a couple of times (and will do again should I want to make you look silly). Pages 9 & 12 here, you'll notice the easily comparability;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      Stuey, you're botching the meaning of ad hominem... AGAIN. I took your argument apart before insulting you. Racism in anon mode? Stuey... You don't have an audience that would believe you. Sorry!!

      Delete
    8. ad hominem
      ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/Submit
      adverb & adjective
      1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
      "an ad hominem response"

      If someone already addressed your argument, THEN insults you, it's not ad hominem.

      Delete
    9. You are lumping people together again, ikdummy. Regarding PS, of course a PS can and has made a "comparative analysis" but it doesn't mean that it's accurate. Another PS can refute it. Sheeessssh!
      ikdummy, you created a straw man argument and then directed your venom against your false portrayal of me rather than the topic at hand(ad hominem). And yes, you post in anon mode and come up with racial posts out of the blue to distract.

      Delete
    10. "... but it doesn't mean that it's accurate."

      And here in lies your burden... Prove it. Your unqualified opinion counts for zilch against that of a pioneering plastic surgeon. Even someone really stupid would tell you that.

      : )

      And nope. As above clearly states, I've taken apart your argument.

      Delete
    11. ikdummy, no one can sample biological tissue from an image. You can't extract DNA from a photograph. Your are grasping at straws. You must feel the need to post another anon racial post or ad hominem attack right about now.

      Delete
    12. Sampling tissue? DNA? You need DNA to substantiate an image of biological tissue? And I'm grasping at straws?

      (????????????)

      A pioneering plastic surgeon CAN in fact point to biological tissue in a photo rather easily, and has. If you don't like it. Do something about it... It's really that simple.

      Delete
    13. Do something about it? One can ignore ikdummy's gibberish for starters.

      It's really that simple.

      Delete
    14. I'll take that as a capitulation.

      If you're going to initiate things like this, Stuey, you must always ensure all your ducks are in order, dear boy.

      Delete
    15. ikdummy, anyone can look at a photo of a person and say that the person is composed of biological tissue. We are talking about determining that grainy imagery of a costume is biological tissue. It is one expert opinion against another. You chose a PS who agrees with your opinion. No mainstream science organization agrees that "bigfoot" is real, much less that the P/G is real, much less that the P/G shows actual biological tissue. Like 11:17 says, gibberish. In the meantime, work on extracting tissue from photographs to back up your supposition, ikdummy.

      Delete
    16. Anyone can indeed look at photo of a person and say that the person is composed of biological tissue... But not everyone's opinion holds weight like someone who has actually worked closely with biological tissue for decades, and even pioneered methods of doing working with it. Anyone can however open those links provided, and within two seconds realise that those "grainy" images in fact show CRAZY skin folds, muscle, all the things that shouldn't be there if it's a costume. The link is above... Pages 9 & 12. Just save yourself the bother of looking silly for not manning up and looking at other people's references.

      If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. If you believe that the pioneering plastic surgeon is wrong, you must demonstrate how. Here it is;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns%20&%20Meldrum%20Commentary_2013.pdf

      ... Get busy champ! Maybe you can look for some grammatical errors instead, eh?

      (Creased)

      I also believe that you were shown the research of a world expert on native American and western forensic anthropology only yesterday? You can keep all the mainstream scientists in the world, research is usually broadened by the best of the best. And those mainstream scientists usually end up lapping it aaaaaaaaaall up.

      Delete
    17. ikdummy, it's not a matter of anyone disproving a PS's opinion. The PS has not proven it in the first place. It was an interpretation of grainy imagery not examination of actual tissue.

      ikdummy, who can keep up with all your nonsense? Listen to your hero: "I should reiterate my acknowledgement that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species." ~Jeffrey Meldrum

      Delete
    18. Hurry up Stuey! You've got a pioneering plastic surgeon awfully worried somewhere!

      (Creased)

      Delete
    19. The idiocy you have to support to validate your beliefs. A PS can determine that a grainy film of a costume is definitively biological tissue. Case closed. No bought or biased opinions with experts or expert witnesses in court cases, right ikdummy? If someone supports your opinion, that's it. Case closed. Even YOU don't believe that.

      Delete
    20. An expert opinion can't stand because you can't find a counter argument, or an expert opinion to the contrary?

      Not my problem Stuey!

      Delete
    21. ikdummy, it's two-fold but primarily the first reason: (1) You cant test grainy imagery of a costume for dna. (2)Even a consensus of expert opinions can be false, much less one. Experts used to believe the world was flat.

      Delete
    22. 1. You don't need DNA to verify a photograph, Stuey. You must be confused.

      2. The possibility of a hypothetical consensus being wrong, doesn't prove this plastic surgeon wrong.

      Did you have the nerve to mention straw man down below?

      Delete
    23. 1. You do when the imagery is so grainy and controversial. We're not talking about a People magazine cover of Jennifer Aniston.

      2. It doesn't prove him to be right or wrong. It's his opinion. There is no way to validate his opinion without testing biological tissue. An opinion isn't a DNA test.

      Paste my straw man argument, ikdummy.

      Delete
    24. 1. Pages 9 & 12 here, you'll notice the easily comparability;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
      ... The more you pathologically deny those images are there the kookier you look.

      2. It's an expert opinion. The opinion of a pioneering plastic surgeon. You do not need to validate the opinion of a plastic surgeon looking at a 2D image, with actual biological tissue of what he's looking at. You don't need DNA, to prove that a skin fold in an image isn't a costume.

      That's silly.

      And I just did.

      Delete
    25. So, the medical experts that said smoking tobacco was good for you were valid, ikdummy?

      Paste my straw man argument, ikdummy. Uh oh, you are a debating expert but don't know what a straw man argument is? You surely did not paste an example of me using one. You're going to have to look "straw man" up, you may be thinking of something else or are struggling with yet another basic concept.

      Delete
    26. straw man
      noun
      noun: strawman
      1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
      "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

      Stuey, are you just typing anything with those sasusage fjnbers for company now? A medical expert saying smoking tobacco is good for you in the 1950's has absolutely no bearing on a plastic surgeon spotting genuine biologist tissue in a photograph in the present.

      That's a straw man argument.

      Delete
    27. That is not a straw man argument. It is an accurate analogy.

      ikdummy: "It's an expert opinion. The opinion of a pioneering plastic surgeon."

      tobacco company: "It's an expert opinion. The opinion of a respected medical doctor."

      Do you understand what opinions are? The P/G creature has never been proved real, much less been tested biologically. Your PS is giving his opinion.

      Delete
    28. That's actually an archetype straw man.

      You are misrepresenting a proposition by comparing analysis of a 2D photograph of a plastic surgeon, to that of a medical doctor & a dated, naive take on the long term affects of smoking... so that you might find it easier than simply demonstrating that clear biological tissue in a photo is bunk. You are not addressing the photograph and Guinn's analysis by harping on about smokers in the 1950's. That's embarrassing...

      And I'm sure you'll now proceed for 48 hours in telling me aaaaaaaaaaaall about how straw man works, yes? Projection. You're the court jester of BFE, Stuey... You'd be nothing without me making you look silly. You actually mean something by being used this way. That's actually pretty sad.

      Delete
    29. So, your plastic surgeon declaring grainy imagery, of what many believe to be a man in a costume, is NOT naive? LOL BTW, it's all pretty analogous, ikdummy. You seem to be missing the point that experts IN ANY FIELD, ON ANY TOPIC, can be wrong yesterday, today, and tommorrow.

      That "naive" line was a gem. You are supporting my analysis. Thanks, ikdummmy.

      Delete
    30. The footage is not too grainy that comparative analysis of elderly people can be achieved. The overstated "graininess" of that footage is coming from someone who needs it to be grainy.

      Many people believing that it's a man in a costume is cool... Those people also don't know that analysis like Guinn's exists too. Neither can they find a magic monkey suit.

      The possibility of experts in any field being wrong... doesn't mean that Guinn is wrong in this instance. That's a straw man.

      Delete
    31. So, ikdummy, you are agreeing with me that Guinn is just giving his opinion, like many experts give there opinion, and on this particular topic, and at this particular point in time, there is no definitive way to prove him wrong OR right on his opinion UNLESS there was more information like a biological tissue sample which could undergo more conclusive scrutiny.

      Right?

      Delete
    32. Read his analysis... Which I have pitied you too much to post. It's a slam dunk. You know it, or you wouldn't be reeled in like a fish shaped t*rd. A pioneering expert in plastic surgery has written an article pointing out so many different areas of biological tissue in Patty that it's funny... and it's not my problem. It's yours.

      Goodnight Stuey!

      Delete
    33. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZVTRU16uR_A/UIe93D1Av7I/AAAAAAAABp8/diR-PMffIw0/s1600/reel+fish-shaped+turd.JPG

      Delete
    34. You are hopeless, ikdummy. You agree with me, then, the next post you flip out. On grainy imagery, he is pointing out areas of a costume that represent anatomical regions, like any costume would. His OPINION is that it is biological tissue. So what? Meaningless. Inconsequential. Piffling. This is nothing but failed bob and weave(lots and lots of nothing) until you are ready to go back to plaster.

      I think you're ready for plaster, kid.

      Delete
    35. 3:44,

      I think he agrees with you but you keep calling him Ikdummy so he wants to try to restore his dignity.

      Delete
    36. You may be right but in good conscience I have to call him ikdummy.

      Delete
    37. 3:44 was creased, he wouldn't counter the argument. Just another day on BFE, Stu made to look like the clown he is.

      Delete
    38. Vegas the fop's impulse to white knight ikdummy underscores the commiseration "he" shares with ikdummy. LOL Two ineffectual dimwits.

      Delete
    39. STUEY WINS AGAIN!!

      Iktomi-w-sockpuppet vegasduhdog is nothing more than a masochistic dingbat!

      What a Joke!

      Delete
  6. I can put on my own tour with all the fantastic proof I have !
    Baby barkman approves of my evidence so much he gave me a thumbs up yesterday !
    All of you get a thumbs down from me because you aren't researchers and have never been into the woods
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuQwKTdJneE

    Epic Kaboom !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really doc? more tree bark
      Time for you to see a shrink dude

      Delete
    2. Wow Doc - Baby Barkman really DOES approve of your evidence!

      https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrSbm08FrxZ1DUABrFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyYmswcmxuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjQ0NTVfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=baby+groot#id=2&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.maxim.com%2F.image%2Ft_share%2FMTQ1NDA5NjgxMjg2NzY4NDAx%2Fbaby-groot-guardians.jpg&action=click

      I'm so sorry for doubting you.

      Delete
    3. Jealous douchebags !
      I have 15 years of research and thousands of photos that have never been proven fake!
      What do you have ?

      Delete
    4. LOLOLOLOL

      RIGHT ON PIB

      One of the best comments EVER. !

      MMC

      Delete
    5. Ha Ha !! Very funny PIB,,,
      ,,,,HUMPH,,,!!!

      Delete
  7. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 11:21:00 AM PDT

    Too bad those big skeletons feet don't match those plaster casts that you insist have special foot bones, maybe Meldrum and his PhD are dead wrong, oooh dilemmas, let's just present stories as proof for now,aaaaargh, yes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, so we're deflecting to this now I see?

      Not being able to provide information on a skeleton in a photograph, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's a negative proof fallacy. ESPECIALLY since the skeleton in question has an archaic skull, which when paired with its height is your biggest obstacle. We seem to keep having to highlight this logical fallacy you can't get your head around?

      But it's ok... I've got all the time in the world for you Stuey.

      Delete
  8. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 11:31:00 AM PDT

    Actually the skeletons you present as evidence are in fact classified as human and alas, so sad, they haven't got those special foot bones you talk about. Hmmm, you'd do well to pick the crap you throw against the wall more carefully since none of it is sticking

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know they haven't got those "special foot bones", Stuey?

      Delete
    2. Stuey... for example;

      http://woodape.org/images/stories/Articles/anatomy3.jpg
      http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/033.jpg
      http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/024.jpg

      Spot the difference champ!

      Delete
    3. ... And I think that puts that drivel to bed.

      Delete
    4. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 12:18:00 PM PDT

      Say, where are those special foot bones you talk about, show them, zoom in and circle them, show us all okay?

      Delete
    5. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 12:21:00 PM PDT

      That should put all this drivel to bed AND prove the existence of Bigfoot, take your time and make it thorough, we'll wait

      Delete
    6. http://woodape.org/images/stories/Articles/anatomy3.jpg
      http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/033.jpg
      http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/024.jpg

      Spot the difference champ!

      Delete
    7. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 12:51:00 PM PDT

      I already have, now show me those skeleton feet matching your plaster casts you submit as evidence of species, we can't wait, you seem awful quiet, why? I guess with all those Bigfoot skeletons with archaic sloping skulls that no one seems to verify but you that your really busy circling those special foot bones Meldrum your hero references. Oh boy, we're going to be presented with undeniable evidence of Bigfoot, I can't wait, oh joyous day for humanity

      Delete
    8. No, you didn't spot the difference... So asking someone to do the same, is just plain silliness. Even an archeologist wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless a thorough analysis of said feet was conducted. And just because that isn't in the initial excavation reports, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      Schooled.

      Laters.

      Delete
    9. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 3:11:00 PM PDT

      Don't be mad that I happen to know more about skeletons than you Mr. Archaic sloping skull

      Delete
    10. You didn't spot the difference.

      I'm going to bed. You'll have to troll someone else for company instead. Don't let today get to you too much. There's always tomorrow!!

      Delete
    11. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 5:56:00 PM PDT

      Sleep well, dream about non existent archaic sloping skulls and mid tarsal breaks that can't be distinguished without bone and muscle oh and Indian tribes that are classified as non human, you've really shown yourself to be quite clueless and you totally make things up and pull facts out of your ass, I'm glad this is here for everyone to see

      Delete
  9. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 11:38:00 AM PDT

    Unless of course you recant those plaster casts and you've yet to provide the source of the archaic sloping skull comment you just reference a tv show,all your evidence seems to come up negative, those pesky puzzle pieces, let's go with Dr Matthew Johnson and just classify them as spruce trees, he has all the things you accept as proof, plaster casts, stories, eyewitnesses, even giant turds, how could you ever prove him wrong? I think we solved Bigfoot today, isn't that great?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, that was in the initial report from the person who though unqualified, was able to take note of the strange archaic skull... Like many of us would.

      A logical fallacy isn't helping Stuey... Try harder!

      Delete
    2. The only thing ikdummy can gibber about is his archiac IQ
      LOGICAL FALLACY ??
      IKDUMDUM YOUR JUST A COMMON DULLARD!

      SCHOOLED!

      Delete
  10. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 11:56:00 AM PDT

    Skeleton classified as human, sorry, just a tall guy, nothing remarkable, not even the skull because there's no remarkable slope or brow ridge to it unless you're saying the picture was digitally altered, you seem to like to allude to that, smart escape hatch for you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry... If you could let me know where this skeleton was classified, that would be cool.

      Delete
    2. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 1:05:00 PM PDT

      You said the anthropological elites classified them as such, are you saying that you were lying or just making things up?

      Delete
    3. No, sorry, never said any anthropological elite classified skeletons. Just that they documented them and later stated that they would not study them.

      (Yawn)

      Delete
    4. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 3:09:00 PM PDT

      Yawn, classified as INDIAN skeleton, your words slick, you bored with your own words?

      Delete
    5. Native Americans refer to Sasq'ets as another tribe of humans too... Futile. They're indigenous humans. Large, hairy indigenous humans.

      Delete
    6. Oh... And referring to them as "Indians" during the excavation process, is not a classification.

      Delete
    7. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 5:37:00 PM PDT

      You said it, what other species is Indian?

      Delete
  11. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 12:01:00 PM PDT

    Try as you might you just keep deflecting because the evidence of species you submit seems to cancel itself out, I'd love to see that Bigfoot but you and I know that won't happen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deflecting?

      Didn't you start your meltdown today with the PGF?

      Delete
  12. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 12:31:00 PM PDT

    Ape feet and human feet are the same, ha, ha, of course not. Now even if we choose to classify Bigfoot as a human or archaic human None less than PhD carrying Dr Meldrum says they have special foot bones because you know that they're big and heavy, so it's logical that all skeletons presented as evidence of species must have these special foot bones or they'd be unable to walk and support tremendous weight, I'm not even going to bother talking about those long arms of theirs, even longer than humans, right Iktomi? I submit that not even anthropological elites would photograph such an amazing skeleton and have the nerve to classify it as human, right Iktomi?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ape feet and human feet aren't the same, my point being, you can't tell the difference between a midtarsal braak and a normal foot. Neither could most without thorough analysis on a skeletons.

      Delete
    2. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 1:03:00 PM PDT

      That's just you again isn't it, just like with archaic sloping skull, these feet are supposed to be drastically different but now you say they're not? I'm sorry but why do you keep making things up, this is just you saying this, you'll never put any meat on those bones

      Delete
    3. Show me where they're "drastically different", Stuey;

      http://woodape.org/images/stories/Articles/anatomy3.jpg
      http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/033.jpg
      http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/024.jpg

      Those are images from Meldrum and Krantz's research. Show me the difference.

      Delete
    4. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 3:06:00 PM PDT

      So we can't tell by looking at footprints that there's a mid tarsal break, only by looking at the feet of those skeletons can we determine this, so those plaster casts you submit as evidence of species are bogus

      Delete
    5. An expert, like an academic in bipedal evolution could... and and the track impression of a foot with MTB leaves a particularly print... But by the very examples of both normal and MTB skeletal feet up top, you wouldn't know the difference when flesh and muscle are stripped.

      Simple.

      Delete
    6. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 5:35:00 PM PDT

      That really takes the prize as stupidest most ignorant statement, everyone cut and paste it ,please

      Delete
  13. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 12:43:00 PM PDT

    Of course if you don't like it address the evidence, submitted by none other than a peer certified PhD Dr Meldrum

    ReplyDelete
  14. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 1:08:00 PM PDT

    Say, you'd better stop and go back and review your posts, you're ii 

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop this instant! We look up to lktomi and you are making him look like a fool. Pick on someone with a high intellect you bully!

      Delete
  15. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGFriday, September 15, 2017 at 6:15:00 PM PDT

    Ha, everyone look up mid tarsal break and learn Mr Bigfoot evidence expert on it, he's been referencing plaster footprints with no idea what he's talking about. Now here's a point I'm making, humans also possess mid tarsal breaks just like other primates though it isn't as frequent. If all those giant skeletons possess mid tarsal breaks then I think you have a good case for Bigfoot AND no you don't have to be a skeleton expert like Mr Sloping Archaic Skull to tell foot bones with mid tarsal breaks from regular human feet that a greater percentage of the population has, there is really something about ignorant fools preaching the Bigfoot bible with no knowledge of basic facts that just going to sink the chances of proving an actual Bigfoot, again, if all these referenced giant skeletons also have mid tarsal break then I would submit that the percentage chances would be too great to deny them as actual Bigfoot bodies, if Bigfoot actually exists and ALL of them have those special foot bones we're being told about constantly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How...HOW DARE YOU! I'll have you know lktomi gets all his information from Wiki and bigfoot sites so his information is 100% accurate.

      Schooled!

      Delete
    2. You couldn't tell the difference, Stuey.

      It's fun publishing that.

      : )

      Delete
    3. Shall we refresh on what we've learned today? Let's!

      • Greg Long doesn't have enough integrity to be character assassinating anyone else.
      • That not even an accurate negative character portrayal means a magic monkey suit.
      • That a plastic surgeon's analysis of biological tissue in the PGF is a slam dunk.
      • The meaning of Ad Hominem.
      • The meaning Straw Man.
      • That mid-tarsal breaks are hardly distinguishable from normal feet when stripped of muscle & flesh.

      Delete
    4. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGSaturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:19:00 AM PDT

      Glad you were stupid enough to write that twice about mid tarsal breaks, cements your idiocy

      Delete
  16. Iki -- Hate to break it to you, but even the Nordics aren't going to read all your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  17. YEP....STILL NO BIGFOOT BODY, SHOCKINGSaturday, September 16, 2017 at 8:07:00 AM PDT

    Yep, when evidence presented doesn't add up and gets punched full of holes be sure to trot out straw man, sorry loser, your evidence and your words, live with it chump, everyone sees it now, sweet

    ReplyDelete