tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post5914759096937554243..comments2024-03-28T01:11:06.919-07:00Comments on Bigfoot Evidence: Can Bigfoot Vanish Into Thin Air Like This Woman Did?Shawnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059275107499275007noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-13744879981033243162016-04-01T00:28:31.877-07:002016-04-01T00:28:31.877-07:00"Roger's next plans were to capture a Big...<br />"Roger's next plans were to capture a Bigfoot, which he planned a full expedition returning to California and searching all the way up to Canada. He planned a one-year expedition with tracking dogs, cages, a large crew, and the entire project filmed. This would have been a huge financial project. So they immediately went to Hollywood for funding, but they turned him down.<br /><br />Roger then went on his film tour- he made lots of money, started his own organization, and started investigating capture claims to bag one that way (and was duped in the process). He partnered with Ron Olson to fund the 'capture expedition' that he originally planned. They were going to fund the expedition themselves by making a movie, but that never panned out and the expedition never happened.<br /><br />Roger kept investigating claims. He eventually had Ron do investigations for him because by that time he was getting too sick. Roger died and Ron basically continued where they left off doing research, and ended up making a docudrama movie based on Roger's ideas (Sasquatch: Legend of Bigfoot).<br /><br />For one, a lot more people were in and out of that area immediately following the film. So the odds of seeing another in the general area were much more slim.<br /><br />He also had no means to capture a Bigfoot which would be the next logical step.<br /><br />We could speculate all day long and go over 'would haves' and 'could haves', but reality is never that black and white. The facts show that Patterson did make immediate plans for a return to California and a capture- it just didn't pan out financially."<br />- Roguefooter from the BFF<br /><br />You ain't nothing but a troll. <br /><br />: )Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-43662731334117748052016-03-31T12:07:19.328-07:002016-03-31T12:07:19.328-07:00The Mark Anders Bigfoot has stood the test of time...The Mark Anders Bigfoot has stood the test of time. No costume has ever been found. Mark Anders successfully protects Bigfoot habituation areas unlike Roger Patterson who would have led hunters directly to Sasquatch territory had he ever encountered one.<br /><br />Undeniable proof of Sasquatch:<br /><br />https://youtu.be/Pzpu4HlEjOU<br />https://youtu.be/Eg3el8f3JnQ<br />https://youtu.be/zAjAW9BKJdM<br />https://youtu.be/MOx6nN4rmbw<br />https://youtu.be/4MELCm0I4b0<br />https://youtu.be/4qwdtUHPea8<br /><br />Roger Patterson was a 1960s hoaxer. How hard is that to grasp?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-67270249797290250062016-03-31T00:27:27.414-07:002016-03-31T00:27:27.414-07:00The PGF has data in it that has stood the test of ...The PGF has data in it that has stood the test of all efforts of explaining away. By the very nature of testing scientific evidence, if testing does not support the idea that the subject is fake, then the default position is that it is real. It doesn't prove the existence of "Bigfoot", because the creature in that footage may have died out, in an impartial sense. The facts are, that there are far more experts qualified to pass judgement and confirm that footage as authentic, then there is experts against. Sure there's every day Joe's who think it's fake... I did until I looked at the data, but it's experts that make the world go around. If you can't show that the source is fake, and nobody with ten times more intelligence than you has, then it stands.... Sorry!<br /><br />It has no bearing what so ever if Sykes believes Patty to be a man in a suit. He's not a primatologist, a biologist, or an anthropologists... Nor a video analyst. He's a geneticist. He has his opinion like millions and millions of others. <br /><br />Coast to Coast AM March 19th 2016;<br />http://youtu.be/UitNUuJsWPs<br />38mins - "almost finished studying Zana's DNA."<br />... Tick, tock, tick, tock... <br /><br />Mark Anders is a digital effects expert... And his "Bigfoot" have been shown to be designed this way. You se how his works? I made a claim and supported my ideas with basic information. Now you need to find a magic monkey suit. <br /><br />http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg<br />http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg<br />http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg<br />... That search ended 47 years ago, flat-earther. Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-6709053627846932242016-03-30T23:54:03.760-07:002016-03-30T23:54:03.760-07:00Will you admit that P/G has never been verified to...Will you admit that P/G has never been verified to be real? Can you deny that the man you used to believe would validate you, Bryan Sykes, you know, "Sykes is coming", has said the figure in the Patterson film looks like a man in a monkey suit? Can you handle the truth that Mark Anders Bigfoot is as valid as Roger Patterson. Neither has been scientifically validated. Mark Anders and Roger Patterson are on equal footing.<br /><br />BTW, how is your search for a non-blurry photo of Bigfoot taken from a still camera coming along?Joe's ownernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-8024706225833919322016-03-30T23:20:13.445-07:002016-03-30T23:20:13.445-07:004:45... I think that with that, you're actuall...4:45... I think that with that, you're actually roasted and toasted nicely to a crisp. I know when I'm being trolled, and trying to exchange with a denialist troll is like trying to debate with a flat earther. Mark Anders' "Bigfoot photographs" are fakes because he attains these images with no back story and he's a wiz kid at special effects. Find the same equivalent information about Roger Patterson, and your embarrassing angle might hold. Might I add, that Patty was featured in National Wildlife magazine in the late 1960's, and to this day has anthropologists, wildlife biologists, primatologists and special effects experts presenting it as scientific evidence. <br /><br />5.50... Anything can be hoaxed, it's demonstrating how that props up claims, and the reason a moving image is more preferable in any instance of analysis to still photographs, is because there's more data to test and far harder to hoax. <br /><br />Consider you both very much educated... Trolls. Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-63692611435742288202016-03-30T17:50:24.180-07:002016-03-30T17:50:24.180-07:003:16 "You weirdly want photographs from a sti...3:16 "You weirdly want photographs from a still camera, when you could require a moving image that can't be hoaxed."<br /><br />Joe's owner, you forgot to point out that Iktomi believes moving images can't be hoaxed. LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-88530042657200199292016-03-30T16:45:32.930-07:002016-03-30T16:45:32.930-07:00http://youtu.be/f4uMAofsMBM
Using your logic, the...http://youtu.be/f4uMAofsMBM<br /><br />Using your logic, the P/G is a hoax because it has been featured in the National Inquirer and its been shown on Finding Bigfoot which also has CG effects, therefore the P/G is invalid. Mark Anders is as real as P/G.<br /><br />You're full of red herrings. All you are required to do is present one non-blurry Bigfoot photo taken with a still camera.Joe's ownernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-3636996057654610632016-03-30T15:16:31.785-07:002016-03-30T15:16:31.785-07:00"You are hinging your whole belief system on ..."You are hinging your whole belief system on a hoax."<br />... Prove it's a hoax. Take some responsibility for your claims. Claiming that "the PGF is a hoax because the PGF is a hoax" is not an intelligent argument, it's a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning". It's what ten year olds do. If you really knew how low I'm stooping even paying you this time... <br /><br />"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade."<br /><br />And I have no requirement for a "belief system", I have evidence to be convinced by. The ironic thing here, is you have logical fallacies and baseless arguments, which kind of renders you with (cough, cough), a belief system?<br /><br />Can I ask you a genuine, straight up question? I'm not trying to be nasty or derogatory to you now... But are you able to read properly? If so... Do you actually read the comments of other people? One look at Mark Anders’ YouTube channel trailer, will show you that he is a master of CGI and Photoshop effects; <br />http://youtu.be/f4uMAofsMBM<br /><br />So, the best thing you have to compare the PGF to is CGI? Is that your idea of pointing out "hypocrisy"? No... By using examples of CGI as a comparison to the PGF, you do my work for me, you clever chap. It simply shows that what you see in the PGF is impossibly real for 1967. You weirdly want photographs from a still camera, when you could require a moving image that can't be hoaxed. Is that your idea of logical thinking? <br /><br />http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg<br />http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg<br />http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg<br /><br />Got monkey suit?Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-74287829171064720092016-03-30T14:59:01.721-07:002016-03-30T14:59:01.721-07:00GRAYS teleport BIGFOOTS so they appear to disappea...GRAYS teleport BIGFOOTS so they appear to disappear right before you...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-78718085845905600562016-03-30T14:47:14.972-07:002016-03-30T14:47:14.972-07:00You are hinging your whole belief system on a hoax...You are hinging your whole belief system on a hoax.<br /><br />You can not provide one non-blurry Bigfoot photograph taken with a still camera. <br /><br />Stupid:"Got Monkey Suit?" <br />Reminding you of your hypocrisy: "No, I haven't found Mark Anders' monkey suit either. Mark Anders' Bigfoot must be real." Joe's ownernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-44894664607780060982016-03-30T13:58:33.544-07:002016-03-30T13:58:33.544-07:00http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Fin...http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf<br /><br />Pages 9, 12 and 15... So much detail that the subject's anatomy can be compared to accepted biological tissue. Man up and look at it. Stop being a coward and take responsibility for your claims. <br /><br />"PGF was a hoax" - burden ridden. <br />"Got Monkey Suit?" - reminding you of that burden. <br />"No, I haven't found Mark Anders monkey suit either. Mark Anders' Bigfoot must be real." - stupid, because Mark Anders' YouTube channel demonstrates his expertise at photoshop and digital SFX. Are you implying that the PGF was achieved with SFX? You did claim that there's wildlife photography from the early 1800's I guess. <br /><br />(Creased)<br /><br />Learn something for once and stop being an intellectual coward... Thank god you're an anon, you'd be ridiculed for being as dense as you are, ha ha ha ha!!Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-40848001787381536822016-03-30T13:40:01.395-07:002016-03-30T13:40:01.395-07:00Stating that there is no proof, is stating the obv...Stating that there is no proof, is stating the obvious... It's stating what every die hard enthusiast in the world would say. It's pretty much what a ten year would know from the topic... But that's doesn't mean there is no evidence. Sorry kid, scientifically I have his work on Zana, not to mention the studies I regularly cite that give you your daily meltdowns and hate campaign. <br /><br />Better luck next time!! <br /><br />; )Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-10381462127220882742016-03-30T13:29:36.010-07:002016-03-30T13:29:36.010-07:00^ can`t bear the thought that his hero,Sykes,has c...^ can`t bear the thought that his hero,Sykes,has come down on the side of "there`s not a shred of proof"...remember too that he is the "scientist" you had so much faith in..instead he`s done the dirty on you and shown that you don`t have a leg to stand on,"scientifically" speaking of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-16495275058402516602016-03-30T13:14:41.726-07:002016-03-30T13:14:41.726-07:00Still no non-blurry still photos of bigfoot.
Tick...Still no non-blurry still photos of bigfoot.<br /><br />Tick-tock-tick-tock... <br /><br />Smart: P/G was a hoax.<br />Stupid: Got Monkey Suit?<br />Right back atcha: No, I haven't found Mark Anders monkey suit either. Mark Anders' Bigfoot must be real. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-52516929944680648472016-03-30T11:36:02.398-07:002016-03-30T11:36:02.398-07:00If he's not an "enthusiast", what ar...If he's not an "enthusiast", what are people like you gonna do when you haven't your old tactic of ad hominem to recline on? It's AMAZING news that he's coming public with things like that... And his Lori Simmons experiences are fascinating. Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-68094139894399662732016-03-30T11:35:42.803-07:002016-03-30T11:35:42.803-07:00IT'S WAR! Trump, Cruz and Kasich all abandon p...IT'S WAR! Trump, Cruz and Kasich all abandon pledge to support whomever the Republicans nominate -<br />WHAT THEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-44778145962049559582016-03-30T11:33:41.303-07:002016-03-30T11:33:41.303-07:006:23...Fluff girl in da house6:23...Fluff girl in da houseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-2038042405991709782016-03-30T11:33:21.809-07:002016-03-30T11:33:21.809-07:00Now you are glad that he is not an enthusiast? Yet...Now you are glad that he is not an enthusiast? Yet, you used to crow around here about how he became an enthusiast due to his experiences.<br /><br />dMaKeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16012894710920995978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-42609571434377038662016-03-30T11:28:59.168-07:002016-03-30T11:28:59.168-07:00... And that must be a blow to your time invested,...... And that must be a blow to your time invested, considering you self admittedly have 7000 posts dedicated to persuading others that reports aren't credible.Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-68488051849666579192016-03-30T11:27:34.054-07:002016-03-30T11:27:34.054-07:00Not when they're supported by repeatable, fore...Not when they're supported by repeatable, forensic evidence... And Sykes just needs to better educate himself on the matter. I'm not being remotely critical of him because I think he's amazing, but Loren Coleman's review of his last book pointed out many mistakes in his general knowledge of the subject, outsides of his expertise of genetics. Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-52053572053791162432016-03-30T11:16:21.095-07:002016-03-30T11:16:21.095-07:00Thousands of reports are not incontrovertible evid...Thousands of reports are not incontrovertible evidence and it is pointless and tedious to discuss them even. According to Sykes.<br />dMaKeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16012894710920995978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-66456379097507711052016-03-30T10:58:41.344-07:002016-03-30T10:58:41.344-07:00DMaker with capitals... Unfortunately, an anthropo...DMaker with capitals... Unfortunately, an anthropologist who would understand native oral history would disagree about the significance of that, not that Sykes implied anything of he sort. And when its supported by thousands of contemporary reports and forensic evidence... It leaves your "versions" of what Sykes has said pretty redundant. <br /><br />As for Mr >> who called the anon a fool, only a fool would get a a rush of blood over something so trivial, yet so expected from a geneticist preoccupied with samples for testing. Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-84091857997099337182016-03-30T10:55:20.079-07:002016-03-30T10:55:20.079-07:00FFS!...fancies foreign sausage
FFS!...fancies foreign sausage<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-43737348387072037412016-03-30T10:45:10.040-07:002016-03-30T10:45:10.040-07:00When you actually sit down, put your **** down for...When you actually sit down, put your **** down for a second and read what you've posted... None of it is remotely tarnishing to anything he does with his long term DNA study.<br /><br />I can hear a clock... Iktomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520713363800264385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925104810508047182.post-2136588560902430862016-03-30T10:43:57.956-07:002016-03-30T10:43:57.956-07:00^ Yerss yersss ... there there,it`s all better now...^ Yerss yersss ... there there,it`s all better now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com