Sunday, April 1, 2018

Lost in the Woods


What's scarier than being lost in the woods? Being lost in the woods and realizing you aren't alone. Check out these scary stories of losing your way in the deep, dark forest.

84 comments:

  1. Yo yo yo diggidy doggs, what's crackin? It's the G to da ingo. Biggie be playin dem games wid da lost peoplez yo. He clownin em!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSaturday, March 31, 2018 at 1:25:00 PM PDT
      I believe in Biggie but this is FAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKKEE!
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/todd-standings-bigfoot-exposed.html?m=0

      Delete
    2. Nice cut n paste yo. Is it supposed to mean somethin dogg? Youz a weird unit G.

      Delete
    3. Role-play it away. Just like the last 8 years of your cyber-existence.

      Delete
    4. I'm feelin ya dogg. Stuey psychosis!! Stuey sure has gotz in ya head homie. Makes you look a bit crazy yo.

      Delete
    5. Stuey publishes a comment, Iktomi published one back.

      That’s the idea of a comment section.

      Delete
    6. The skeptards have been trolling for 8 years. Meanwhile, the evidence keeps growing and more people are looking at the evidence. If Stuey would actually listen to the video he would have to accept it as true.

      Delete
    7. Gotz ya dogg but the truth is. Anybody posts a comment and Itkomi replies to the comment thinking it's Stuey. Stuey psychosis!! He clownin ya Itkomi. Makes ya look crazy dogg.

      Delete
    8. Nargh! “Traffic is low”, remember Stuey? You can’t assert loads of peoole still come here and then state that the traffic here is low. That’s indicative of you knowing damn well who’s publishing what... And your “troll army” is no more.

      “Crazy” is publishing that you know Bigfoot is real whilst in 24/7 role-player mode. Now that’s crazy.

      Delete
    9. Do you see stuey all the time? Walking down the street, at mens bath houses or at the local shops. Does Stuey dominate your dreams? Stuey psychosis is real people!

      Delete
    10. This coming from someone who believed we were all attacking him with a psy-ops experiment?

      Looking for some new “material”, are you Stuart?

      Delete
    11. Stuey psychosis is real people!

      Delete
    12. Sure it is Stuey.

      Stuey doesn’t like being called Stuey.

      Delete
    13. Yet i keep saying Stuey. Think about it. Maybe you can't because of the psychosis.

      Delete
    14. Were you trying the write a sentence that made sense?

      Capitals, Stuey.

      AnonymousTuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:06:00 AM PST
      Lol i bet bob g and roger couldnt stop laughing when they put the breasts on.
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/group-of-teens-have-encounter-with-8-9.html?m=0

      Delete
    15. "Stuey" is simply a catch all response because he has no idea who is commenting and how many. Obviously there is more than one person commenting. If he really thinks otherwise then there is something seriously wrong with him.

      Delete
    16. It took you almost three hours to come up with that, Stuey? You’re desperate to cling to this sockpuppeting facade because you’ve done it for so long. It’s gone, you have nothing but your shoddy understanding of science left. You’ll have to simply get better arguments now... something that’s way above you.

      Delete
    17. I guess there is something seriously wrong with him.

      Delete
    18. So, Joe admits that there is no troll army, which means he willingly comes here day after day after day to argue with the same one person?

      That is pretty messed up.

      Delete
    19. Joe, you really shouldn't be lecturing people on capitalization when you've been harping on the same thing for years and been incorrect the whole time.

      Delete
    20. There could be gnomes or trolls but the evidence needs to be reviewed. The hands prints can not be denied. There may be winged little people in some areas as well but we need more evidence. There are insect sized people by the way. Cheers!

      Delete
    21. We have to go with the evidence. There are little human prints deep in the woods where no babies go plus the hands are adult but small so they are not babies. Scientists must examine the plaster casts of little hands and publish their findings and have them reviewed by other scientists. Only then can we know them to be real if scientists say they are because the evidence is convincing to them.

      Delete
    22. Yeah, I come back here multiple times daily to cyber-thump your cheerleader, does that upset you? You come here every now and then just to insult me, does that make you holier than thou? Baby-D’s bitter because there’s an archive of his grammatical errors after he chased me around pointing out mine. Cheer up Baby-D.

      I can’t really attest to understanding the two comments published by Stuey. I THINK they were attempts at a comparison to 60 years of Bigfoot footprints, three of which found over three decades that have the exact same morphological congruency before particular replica casts were made, and before things like mid-tarsal breaks had attention drawn to them... aligned with trackways that show that a genuine biological foot has made contact with the ground, and found by government employees.

      What a sorry sight these two are.

      Delete
    23. I used to see insects flying and not even consider that they could be small flying humans. They are so small and fast that I'm not always sure if I'm seeing a bug or a human. Short of a body, I'm not sure how to prove small flying humans are real. Their feet are too small for prints and there has never been a concerted effort to capture one. The ones I catch turn out to be bugs and some charge at me when I try to catch them so I give up.

      Delete
  2. "I can’t really attest to understanding the two comments published by Stuey. I THINK they were attempts at a comparison to 60 years of Bigfoot footprints, three of which found over three decades that have the exact same morphological congruency before particular replica casts were made, and before things like mid-tarsal breaks had attention drawn to them... aligned with trackways that show that a genuine biological foot has made contact with the ground, and found by government employees."

    Can you even count how many grammatical errors you made in this one paragraph?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe makes constant style and grammatical errors almost with every post.

      On the other hand, he makes up a grammatical error to harangue me about for years that is not even correct.

      It takes a truly "special" individual to persist continue to pretend to hold the high ground in a situation like that one.

      Joe has never been discouraged by appearances, however.

      Delete
    2. (Proper meltdown in 5... 4... 3... 2... )

      Delete
    3. “[T]he exact same morphological congruency . . .”

      He’s trying to say that the morphology is identically identical! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    4. IkkyJoe doesn`t "no" how to spell or use punctuation correctly...he is a 7 lettered (fucking) idiot.

      Delete
    5. Sure Baby-D! You’d love for someone to believe that were the case, but the facts are you and your fanboy started chasing me around for grammatical errors because I bounced you both around on the subject matter. Hence you’re doubly perturbed when someone points out you’re not so grammatically perfect.

      The proof’s in the pudding in the way you’ve whined about this for a week.

      Delete
    6. ‘Ello mate, I’d fancy tasting the proof in your pudding !

      Joe

      Delete
    7. You live in a fantasy world, Joe. You've never bounced me around on anything.

      Delete
    8. The only reason I brought up grammar this week was because you insist on hypocritically accusing others of poor grammar--usually while making errors in your correction.

      Delete
    9. If you'd keep your trap shut about grammar, I would never say anything. But when I see you writing out a correction that includes further errors, then it needs to be said.

      But you just can't resist. You see an area where you perceive you are superior and you just have to blab off about it. What is the most cringe worth part is that while you do so, you commit the same errors, or more.

      You refuse to see that you have the poorest grammar of anyone on this site. By a large margin. Your sentences run on and ramble to the point of incomprehensible as you struggle so hard to make your writing sound intelligent.

      I would stay away from correction the grammar of others if I were you.

      Delete
    10. Nope!!

      Your first comments here in a while (as far as I know) was on March 22nd regarding my alleged “language skills”, when you were actually caught out not reading my comment properly... AND when the immediate topic was about peer reviewed evidence;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/shocking-bigfoot-sightings-in-uk.html?m=0

      And here again on the 28th when the immediate topic was about ad hominem;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/soldier-returns-home-and-encounters.html?m=0

      You know damn well of course, that Stuey likes to follow me around running grammar correction apps on my comments, because your little fanboy makes you glow inside. Isn’t that right Baby-D? And that’s how it’s always been... When you’re looking like an idiot for being unable to debunk what is allegedly the equivalent of the tooth fairy, it’s grammar checking to maintain self-esteem. When the archived comments suggests yours ain’t too hot anyway.

      Delete
    11. And I could very easily go back on old comment sections and prove my case... and make you look like a lying sack of crud. It’s all there.

      Delete
    12. He be ikdummy:

      "A body can simply materialise once further research has commenced off the back of that peer reviewed study."

      Delete
    13. Yeah, it’s called taking apart your argument from ignorance. Another logical fallacy you like to use when trying to prop up your religion.

      Delete
    14. He's still our ikdummy:

      "A body can simply materialise once further research has commenced off the back of that peer reviewed study."

      Delete
    15. AnonymousThursday, February 22, 2018 at 11:42:00 PM PST
      Using ,,, or ... doesn't magically make you the same person. Try it. Start using ,,, you still will be ikdummÿ. Did you not process that ,,, is used in different regions as is ...? You may want to reread that. If you travel another country and see many people wearing turbins, brace yourself, they're not all the same person. Same concept, so relax, different people can ,,,, as well.
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/the-future-of-squatching-is-here.html?m=0

      Delete
    16. He's forever our ikdummy:

      "A body can simply materialise once further research has commenced off the back of that peer reviewed study."

      Delete



    17. ikdummy will make bigfoot materialize:



      "A body can simply materialise once further research has commenced off the back of that peer reviewed study."

      Delete
    18. Does reposting that magically make your logical fallacy go away?

      Delete
    19. Materialize
      məˈtɪərɪəlʌɪz/Submit
      verb
      verb: materialise
      1. become actual fact; happen.
      "the forecast rate of increase did not materialize"
      synonyms: happen, occur, come about, take place, come into being, transpire, arise, be realized, take shape

      Delete


    20. ikdummy will make bigfoot materialize:



      "A body can simply materialise once further research has commenced off the back of that peer reviewed study."


      Delete
    21. You’re the goddess after all.

      Ha ha ha!!

      Delete



    22. Your definition isn't making bigfoot materialize. I see you finally learned how to spell "materialiZe", so there's that....

      Delete

    23. goddess ikdummy will make bigfoot materialize:



      "A body can simply materialise once further research has commenced off the back of that peer reviewed study."

      Delete
    24. Well, well. I would have thought that such a well travelled grammar sponge like you would have known the differences between UK and US spelling, Stuey?

      Delete
    25. It’s fascinating to see how Stuey gets so irate when Baby-D gets set straight.

      Delete
    26. How does a body "simply" materialize as opposed to materialize? How does simple materialization differ from standard materialization? ikdummy?

      Delete
    27. “Simply” following the same process of tracking any other primate.

      I never did seem to get an example of the “,,,,,,,,,” well travelled grammar?

      Delete


    28. The idea of bigfoot will became real? It already is to you, ikdummy. The body needs to be produced.


      Delete


    29. Won't hold breath waiting for you to track bigfoot into existence.

      Delete
    30. Does this extra spacing make you feel like your drivel is somehow more significant? “Bigfoot” is real to me purely because the evidence is too great for it to not. A body would make the hominin real to many more people. Unfortunately I’m not a tracker, and I don’t live in the US.

      I never did seem to get an example of the “,,,,,,,,,” well travelled grammar?

      Delete


    31. You believe in an idea called bigfoot because you choose to. Others have heard the same evidence but don't believe. You are entitled to your own bigfoot religion.

      Delete
    32. I have no need for mere belief, I am at least intelligent enough, as well as honest enough, to have looked at the evidence and be convinced by it and express that. There are essentially three camps with respect to this subject;
      • A minority who have looked at the evidence and find it credible.
      • A majority who aren’t aware of the evidence but still hold an incredulous approach.
      • A small group who are aware of the evidence but deny it for shortfalls in logic and scientific principles, because of their personal issues.

      And you Stuey, are in the last. A joke who’s obsessed with this subject 24/7, but who’s too lazy to actually try and research the subject properly. Who therefore believes that if he drives people away from commenting, his opinion stands unchallenged and is “gospel”. When in fact he simply reiterates shortfalls in logic and scientific principles via conjecture, contradictions, circular logic and conspiracy theories.

      Debunk the evidence... Klutz.

      Delete
    33. Goddess Klutz ikdummy,


      As far as 10 foot tall hairy humans go, I see no evidence to debunk. We're not talking about something microscopic or intangible.


      Delete
    34. It’s always better to deny it’s there, rather than look silly trying to explain it away... eh Stu? You have to be the most incompetent, laziest pseudosceptic on the internet. Even more so than Baby-D (and his self-confessed 7,000 comments)... In that you spend every day of your life harassing people on the internet about a subject you’re neither intelligent enough to explain away or sane enough to fathom.

      For the existence of “10 foot tall hairy humans“, there is repeatable scientific evidence over at least a 30 year period.

      Delete


    35. A bigfoot will never be produced during your lifetime but believe what you wish.



      Delete
    36. IktomiSunday, March 25, 2018 at 11:59:00 AM PDT
      Insults don’t cut it.

      IktomiMonday, April 2, 2018 at 3:10:00 PM PDT
      You have to be the most incompetent, laziest pseudosceptic on the internet.

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

      Delete
    38. Bigfoot has already been “produced” in the repeatable scientific evidence I’ve referenced. That’s unless can tell me what other creature is leaving archaic footprints that are twice the size of ours? And since I’ve delivered on my burden, I can insult you in confidence.

      How’s debunking Bigfoot going for you, Stu?

      Delete

    39. Why are you always deleting your posts, goddess klutz iktomi? It's not like the undeleted ones aren't meaningless.



      Delete
    40. 4:36, after I’ve viciously beat down ikdummy innumerable times, he’s become like a dog that’s been whipped too much. As a result, ikdummy is nervous about posting anything and he regularly deletes comments before I can humiliate him further. Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    41. "That’s unless can tell me what other creature is leaving archaic footprints that are twice the size of ours?"

      That's an easy one - MAN...with a little creative and artistic license.

      Delete
    42. Yet you keep coming back, with four comments over almost a four hour period, to try and get some satisfaction.

      Creative? I would day. Since hoaxers would have to place fake footprints in places where some people might not trek for many decades, hoping that someone some day would stumble across them out of miles and miles of wilderness. Since nobody has that type of patience, or time to wait to trick someone... Far quicker results would need planning as well as the information on strangers’ whereabouts to predict the exact day and the exact yard out of hundreds of miles of wilderness. That would require a shed load of creativity. Different hoaxers would have to to be SO creative to have guessed up the same Sasquatch foot, anatomically accurate to bipedal evolution that only very few educated people understand, and before things like mid-tarsal breaks were even identified (1999). This would require a consorted effort to between hoaxers and academics to manufacture and make convincing enough to fool biologists as well as anthropologists.

      So creative. So artistic.

      Delete
    43. “Refresh, refresh, refresh...”

      It’s a shame you can’t be as creative about your conspiracy theories, eh?

      Delete
    44. ^ “Refresh, refresh, refresh...”

      Schooled.

      Delete
    45. That’s not very creative. I noticed the latest comment section’s all about me again... something on your mind Stu?

      Delete
    46. Isn't it more flattering to you if you admit that there are multiple posters posting anonymously? Your lie makes it seem like only one person is giving ikdummy attention.

      Reality time, ikdummy. You have posted 41% of the posts here(this thread) so far. Dmaker 9%. What is actually me is 19% and I posted more than usual here. The rest are other anons. That is the truth. You can believe what you need to but you are living a lie. You posted more than DOUBLE what I posted, psycho Joe.

      Delete
    47. Sorry Stuey, but to humour you would simply be feeding your personality disorder. There is just you. Oh and what’s this? Percentages?! PWAAAAH!! You can come up with all the pretend percentages in the world... There is just you.

      Sockpuppet
      noun
      noun: sockpuppet
      A false online identity, typically created by a person or group in order to promote their own opinions or views.

      .. but you also use it to try and intimidate like a coward. However, the main reason you can’t have a regular avatar and sign in with an account, is because you need anon mode to safeguard against people realising how much you contradict yourself for the sake of giving yourself (what you think is) an advantage during exchanges. Evidence is this are the various names you like to adopt when you’re resorted to trying to aggravate as opposed to proving your points. This takes but moments to give yourself a temporary name like mine, or any number of other people you like to imitate. To elaborate, you can declare Bigfoot is all role-play one minute with one sockpuppet, and then backtrack and claim it’s all misidentification the next with another sockpuppet when pressed to provide substance to such a claim... and by claiming there’s two or three of you, the contradiction for the sake of trying to get the last word flies under the radar of your imaginary audience who don’t know your slimy ways.

      And there are REAL psychologists referring to your behaviour as being on the psychopathy spectrum... Not mine.

      Delete
    48. Sorry, ikdummÿ but you are wrong as usual. Cutting and pasting the definition of sock puppet may seem thorough and somehow scientific to you but it proves nothing. You are projecting the fact that you have an actual psychological disorder on to other people. Have you ever discussed your 10000 hairy men with your psychological handler, as it were? Your psychologist? You project a lot and bring up psychologist often. In southern Wales?

      Delete
    49. Scientific?

      (Cringe)

      There’s no science involved when it comes to sockpuppeting, Stuey. I know you think you’re narcissistically ridding the world of “dangerous psuedoscience”, but let’s not add anymore to the cringe-factor, eh? Like I said, there is only one of us who actually has genuine psychologists referring to them as psychopaths.

      “Since a sadistic person is characterised by being vicious and degrading toward others (sometimes physically), it’s possible that the internet allows them to redirect their energy. If they’re inflicting harm through anonymous words, perhaps it’s preventing them from doing something much more destructive in person. On the extreme end, and unsurprisingly, sadism is commonly seen in sexual offenders and serial killers.”
      https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/25/internet-trolls-are-also-real-life-trolls

      I know this only serves to get you off, but at least someone with normal thought processes can read it and see just how potentially messed up you are.

      Delete
    50. You are a nut, ikdummÿ. Are you crazier than you are stupid?

      Calling all anonymous posters the same person and posting links misdiagnosing them is idiotic. Role playing a scientist can get you into trouble, Welsh Joe. Shame on you ikdummÿ.

      Delete
    51. So I’m role-playing a scientist now?!!!

      HA HA HA HAAAA!!!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! HAAAAAAA!!!!!

      And pray tell, Stuey, how might I get in trouble for referencing what psychologists are writing about your behaviour? Loon. You need your little sockpuppet facade because you need to distance yourself from how utterly obsessed you are with me. 24/7 I’m on your mind... Are you sure I’m Welsh and not one of the admins now, Stuey? Ha ha ha!!!

      You’re a loser who can’t debunk Bigfoot for 8 years of trying, seeing every avenue to worm out of slowly close up.

      Delete
  3. I apologize , bigfoot doesn't exist but my mother is sleeping with men to make money and i desperately need to distract from the noises they make in our flat, mum and her mates

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So angry.

      Bearing in mind that you pathologically project and have clearly gone through some childhood trauma, should we be reading between the lines there, Stuey?

      Delete