New Russia Bigfoot Video
Parabreakdown takes a look at a brand new bigfoot video from Russia. The footage was taken with a trail camera. What do you think?
Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from
The video is just as good as the bloke's English who posted about it and that is to say pretty terrible . i suspect this video was made by ISF rejects on purpose to make bigfooters look horrible. i'm willing to bet 99% of all hoaxes are done by skeptics in order to discredit the bigfoot research area. The same buggers who are constantly on here all day like pedo stu
ReplyDeletecheers
Joe
Bigfooters are doing a bang up job already of making themselves look horrible — they don’t need our help! Ha ha ha!
DeleteLots of agent provocateurs from ISF have infiltrated the bigfoot world just because they are plain and nasty humans .The legit bigfooters who look bad are just yokels who think they know what they are doing but in reality they are bloody clueless ! 100% of the hoaxers on the other hand are skeptics in disguise . My wish is that one day pedo stu goes into the woods to wank off and gets trampled by a real squatch !
Deletecheers
Joe
Well Joe from the UK, if you’re blubbering about Steve Stre*fert hoaxing tracks to fool Dr. J, then you’d better check in with the other Joe from
Deletethe UK who now idolizes Stre*fert for some reason.
And it is true that luminaries such as Krantz and Meldrum have been duped by obvious hoaxes, but that only goes to show what gullible rubes they are in jumping to conclusions.
In fact, Meldrum still has an article up on your beloved RHI written by Cliffie regarding the hoaxed London trackway. Professor Bigfoot is too lazy to remove it!
https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/brief-communications/London-Trackway_final-.pdf
“The extent of the London trackway, and its thorough documentation, provide a rare opportunity to examine the locomotor behavior attributed to sasquatch, and will afford extensive quantitative analysis of this trace evidence.”
https://doubtfulnews.com/2015/09/bigfoot-london-footprints-declared-a-hoax/
Yeah, the stubborn fools finally realized that it was a hoax (something any dimwit knew from the beginning), but why not take the article out of the damn journal?
anyone can be fooled by a hoax if it is done well enough but are you trying to say that every track , every footprint and every video is a hoax ? if you can prove that to me 100% than i'll start seeing your way of thinking but good luck with that and you'll never win because it's because of gits like you that we can't have nice things in this world
Deletecheerio
Joe
Pedo Stu... Name me one archaeologist, anthropologists, biologist or primatologist that isn’t affiliated with this subject, that’s being hoaxed? When you’ve brought one to my attention, then your standard can apply to those willing to look at this subject’s evidence.
DeleteMight I add, PS, Cliff Barrackman is an amateur researcher... and a bloody good one at that since he was willing to test and reevaluate his own research. To date nobody has taken credit for the London hoax or rubbed his face in it (which kind of goes against the idea of someone taking the time to hoax), and everything you know about it being a hoax is off the back of someone who has committed tons of time towards honest research with respect to this subject. Cliff Barrackman has shown he has bags of integrity for testing his own research and ideas (what sceptics are meant to do by its very foundations) thus coming to his latest conclusion. Tell me PS, what did you know about the trackway beforehand to deduce that it was a hoax? And by the way, circular logic doesn’t count as an answer... Just before you jump into your usual little prayer.
DeleteOh, and by the way... Meldrum is obligated to pull that paper off his journal site when an official paper is submitted showing data to substantiate how Cliff has come to that conclusion. Which is merely indicative how science is tested aand evolves. To an intellectual throwback needing anything to pat himself on the back about, that’s reason for Meldrum to somehow to be ashamed and rush to erase shortcomings... when in fact an honest and impartial, self-correcting scientist would likely use that as an educating tool for furthering future research. Notably recognising other attempts at hoaxing. Nobody denies hoaxing occurs, but nobody has a standard to point to by which comparative hoaxed scientist’s integrity is judged.
^ Meltdown achieved.
DeleteIf you like PS, but one you need to address if you know what you’re talking about. I’ll check back in the morning to see if you’ve provided.
DeleteI wouldn’t know where to begin in responding to that confused, non-sequitur filled, meaningless jumble of words.
DeleteBut one thing you wrote did pique my curiosity: just how many “bags of integrity” is Cliffie carrying around with him? I’m dying to know!
Ha ha ha!
pedo stu roasted like fine Columbian coffee beans !
DeleteSo tell me Stuey, how many bags do you carry around ? one for all your smut, one for your fan boy letters to James Randi and jimmy Savile, one for all the times you have failed as a human being and one for the bollocks you like to spout !
You seem to be carrying around many bags , kinda like Atlas with the world except your world is covered in shite .
Cliff is a decent bloke , a fine upstanding member of the bigfoot community , something you can only wish to be
cheers
Joe
Hi again Joe from the UK, I’m deeply flattered that you liked my joke about the bags so much that you decided to immediately copy it from me — that’s quite a compliment!
DeleteBut you’d better be careful because the bag joke savagely mocked the other Joe from the UK and his ass backwards, nonsensical use of language. You’re essentially continuing the attack by repeating my joke!
Thanks for the help! Ha ha ha!
yes, you are certainly a joke Stuey, a sick twisted one that ceased to be funny long time ago !
Deletenow go do us all a favor and go play in the rapids with your bags like a good lad
cheers
Joe
I don’t know, call me crazy, but I think it’s a pretty funny joke that there are two morons named Joe from the UK who both incessantly enter stupid comments at all hours in the comment section of an American based blog! Now that’s comedy gold! Ha ha ha!
DeleteYeah, just as I thought... smoked like a kipper. Do pretentious words and proclamations you’re mocking someone help you forget you’re utterly useless at the subject matter?
DeleteHo, ho, ho.
Okay Joe from the UK, I’ll make you a deal. If you go back and rework that garbled, disjointed mess you vomited out earlier into something at least minimally intelligible, then I promise to provide a straightforward and honest response. Does that seem fair to you?
DeleteStart reading PS... big words start jumping out at you with meaning.
DeleteOkay Joe from the UK, I’ll try to break this down. Consider the following sentence:
Delete“Nobody denies hoaxing occurs, but nobody has a standard to point to by which comparative hoaxed scientist’s integrity is judged.”
The point of this statement would seem to be that you want to find a standard by which to judge a “comparative hoaxed scientist’s integrity.” Now you placed the possessive before the last “s” in “scientist’s” so that means you’re referring to a singular scientist. If you meant it in the plural (which means more than one), then it should have been “scientists’” of course.
Which one scientist did you mean? Not Cliff because you acknowledged earlier in the same comment that he’s an “amateur researcher.” So I can only assume that you meant Meldrum.
But wait, part of description of the scientist is that he is “hoaxed.” You seem to be indicating that the scientist himself is a hoax, meaning that he’s fraudulently posing as a scientist. Well, regardless of whether you meant Cliff or Meldrum, I agree with you there!
I’ll skip the word “comparative” because it makes no sense to refer to a singular scientist or his integrity as “comparative.” I can only assume you threw that word in to make it come across as more intelligent sounding — and it backfired terribly on you.
So you want a standard to determine the level of integrity of a fake scientist? It’s safe to assume that such a scientist has little integrity at all, but I agree that it would be difficult to come up with an objective standard.
So to conclude, we agree that Meldrum is a lying fraud, but we’re just not sure to what extent he has any integrity at all. So there’s really nothing left to argue about! Have a great day!
Aaaargh, what a funny little straw man you concocted. For the second time this week...
DeleteStraw man
noun
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"
Now, now Pedo Stu, let’s keep the train of thought of your arguments when your inferiority complex is too preoccupied with typing errors. You claimed Meldrum had been duped. Now find one equivalent scientist who is being hoaxed the same for attack on his scientific integrity to apply. This is the point that you dodged, likely because you were taken apart from it the first time it was published.
... if only you were as determined to substantiate your fraud stance. You’d be dangerous. But we all know the only fraud around here is you, Pedo Stu.
pedo stu isn't interested in straw men, it's straw youngsters that he craves in his sick twisted mind
DeletePS fails so badly in this thread with his arguments
creased !
cheers
Joe
Don’t bring give PMS any credit
ReplyDeleteHe’s just a douchbag
Stuey is the best footer on this site.
ReplyDelete