This Promo For Sasquatch Vs Yeti Is Almost As Good As Those Syfy Bigfoot Movies


If you can sit through this entire promo film, you can show your support by emailing Jonathan A. Moody at sickflickproductions@gmail.com. It's written by Jonathan A. Moody and Keith Parker and with enough funding, they hope to eventually turn it into a feature film.



Comments

  1. Replies
    1. No monkeys, just giant hairy people.

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. Do you mean the BIG GIGANTIC STATIC DIAPER BUTT MONKEY?

      Delete
    3. Still no giant hairy people either. All there is, is excuses why not. You simply cannot give a rational explanation.

      You got schooled pretty hard in the hovey post, I am surprised you have come back for more.

      Delete
    4. Schooled? I recommend you go back and see how much you people avoid my questions... You cannot 'school' anyone by avoiding explaining evidence. It is so easy to make that claim when you NEVER explain our evidence, except explain it away as mental illness?

      And you claim I was schooled? You have to counter my arguments with something more substantial first I'm afraid... or you are not only schooled, but sad, desperate and schooled.

      Delete
    5. You don't have any arguments that require a counter. Obvious lack of evidence is obvious.

      Delete
    6. No... you need to counter research with research, saying things over and over again like some therapeutic exercise doesn't make it go away...

      Delete
    7. Make what go away? The monkey that no one can find? No I don't think I need to start worrying about that bothering me anytime soon.

      Delete
    8. No... You have to counter it with something more substantial. No monkeys just giant hairy people.

      Delete
    9. The simplist explanation is usually the correct one. And that never involves an 8 foot monkey.

      Delete
    10. The simplest way to deny evidence, is to deny it's there.

      Delete
    11. What if the evidence is actually not there though? Is that denial?

      Delete
    12. No, that would be something called fabrication. And the evidence being there and ignored or labeled as nothing; is denial.

      Delete
    13. sounds like the troll is in just as much denial as he claims joe to be. if you are so adamant bf isnt real why are you ALWAYS HERE? You're a real loser...

      Delete
    14. I did not have sex with that woman Ms. Lewinski

      Delete
  2. How come it seems like the people involve with anything pertaining to bigfoot are always looking for a handout? They could come over and mow my lawn and pick up my dogs crap for $10 an hour. I have a little bit of unwanted scrap metal they could haul to the recycler and get a few bucks. I also have some card board and a felt pen so they could make a sign that says. Searching for bigfoot, need money. Please help. God bless. Then they could stand on the street corner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm always looking for a handjob i will give $10 for one so you can quit your crying

      Delete
  3. What's the latest with munns? Has he explained the disjoint between the top and bottom halves of patty? When patty turns it looks like a gun turret rotating due to being 2 sections of a suit. Unless there is a creature that can miraculously tear its flesh apart at the waist to turn and then the flesh magically reattaches?

    Has he explained the leg muscles that are inconsistent with a humans ie where the muscle should go thinner above the knees.

    The pgf suit is pretty poor but I guess it did the job in the 60s. Roger obviously could not predict that obsessed fanatics in the 21st century would be stabalizing and blowing up the footage to reveal all the flaws

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "When patty turns it looks like a gun turret rotating due to being 2 sections of a suit. Unless there is a creature that can miraculously tear its flesh apart at the waist to turn and then the flesh magically reattaches?"

      - Bollocks.

      "Has he explained the leg muscles that are inconsistent with a humans ie where the muscle should go thinner above the knees."

      - Bollocks. Though these are a type of human, their anatomy, though looking similar to ours from a far the limb proportions are very different and evidence of this is in the way it walks.

      "The pgf suit is pretty poor but I guess it did the job in the 60s. Roger obviously could not predict that obsessed fanatics in the 21st century would be stabalizing and blowing up the footage to reveal all the flaws."

      - Got monkey suit?

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. Yes. Rogers particular example can be seen in the film known as the pgf. I believe you are aware of that film.

      Delete
    3. Yep its in al deatleys office and can be seen in the pgf

      Delete
    4. Yep see above and what makes it even better is we have an EYE WITNESS account of seeing the suit in his office. According to you we should accept EYE WITNESS accounts. Pwned.

      Delete
    5. No... we should acknowledge tens of thousands of accounts based on ten thousand years of native culture...

      Not one laughable hearsay account.

      You are schooled and you are welcome.

      Delete
    6. Ahhh so you admit one is "laughable hearsay". That means they all could be. Very easily.

      Delete
    7. What? Did you just type that? That's the logic of a nine year old??

      Oh dear.

      Delete
    8. Not at all. You yourself just admitted that eye witness accounts are laughable hear say. The quantity of them makes no difference im afraid. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

      Delete
    9. One account of hearsay from an unreliable source is not even comparable to the accumulation of consistent witnesses Bigfoot has over ten thousand years... That's the logic of a nine year old.

      Delete
    10. Id say the logic of a 9 year old is thinking that these things could be seen thousands and thousands of times yet leave not a single trace of their existence, ever. Crazy stuff.

      Delete
    11. No... the logic of a nine year old would do everything to deny various sources of evidence because they are scared.

      Delete
    12. Check below... those sources, to name just a couple.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous 4:43 AM,
      What did you do, apply for one of those make tons of money from home adds, since your high school dropout status, isn't winning you any real jobs? Your going to have to do better than the cut and paste diatribe that they have you posting to the Internet. You should go back to JREF school, and learn how to be creative at your paid shill job.

      Delete
    14. I've seen the suit in DeAtley's office.

      It's without a doubt the costume seen in the pgf.

      Delete
    15. I have seen the suit, and it is without a doubt not what is seen in the PGF.

      Delete
    16. We have Kitakaze MK II.

      You tell us eyewitness evidence is BS but we should believe your 'sighting' of the patty suit?

      Go away. Now.

      MMG

      Delete
    17. De Atley is nothing but a punk ass bitch of a liar.He will be the first to say that he's a punk ass bitch of a liar.

      Delete
  4. Eye witness #1 - "I saw a Bigfoot".

    Skeptic - "Though I wasn't there, no you didn't".

    Eye witness #2 - "I saw a Bigfoot".

    Skeptic - "Though I wasn't there, no you didn't".

    Eye witness #3 - "I saw a Bigfoot".

    Skeptic - "Though I wasn't there, no you didn't".

    Eye witness #4 - "I saw a Bigfoot".

    Skeptic - "Though I wasn't there, no you didn't".

    Eye witness #5 - "I saw a Bigfoot".

    Skeptic - "Though I wasn't there, no you didn't".

    Eye witness #6 - "I saw a Bigfoot".

    Skeptic - "Though I wasn't there, no you didn't".

    Eye witness #7 - "I saw a Bigfoot".

    Skeptic - "Though I wasn't there, no you didn't".

    Eye witness #8 - "I saw a Bigfoot".

    Skeptic - "Though I wasn't there, no you didn't".

    Eye witness #9 - "I saw a Bigfoot".

    Skeptic - "Though I wasn't there, no you didn't".

    Eye witness #10 - "I saw a Bigfoot".

    Skeptic - "Though I wasn't there, no you didn't".

    ... Skeptic - "If these creatures were real, people would be seeing them all the time!"

    Joe - (Sigh)

    Just who the hell do these people think you are? Who the hell are they to tell someone what they did & didn't see? They claim we should go out and find them evidence of a 'monkey', then condemn the people who have come back with information. Any wonder why enthusiasts haven't got time for them? It's the cheapest trick in the book to claim that people who go and to look for this creature, who turn out successful, are then just hoaxed or seeing things. Pathetic and obvious. I can easily say that skeptics are simply scared of the truth... why else would they deny something so desperately without any facts except their version of what happened? Anyone can see what their problem is; they are simply scared and blogs like this are the best means of bypassing waiting for that reassurance from someone else and getting a little bit of that on their own accord that they require so badly to explain the unknown. We require closure as a human race, even if it means denying something is there when the answers are that little bit more difficult to attain. These people regularly avoid explaining any of the sources of evidence enthusiasts provide and resort to bullying and claiming people are being made fools of; they are the fools, thinking that for the last ten thousand years people have been part of some secret society dressing in gorilla suits (when these cultures had no idea what monkeys or gorilla's looked like) and jumped out at people and said boo... Ha! I can easily claim they are nuts... Why else would these people prioritize their time in such a way with such claims? Nuts with fear... arss-winkers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skeptic - "Surely if they exist, there should be something more than prints and testaments from believers. There ought to be some bodies, bones, hair, poop, something left behind. Far as I can see, there's not a bit of that to be found."

      Samples like scat and hair have been sequenced as DNA and then people like the guy above claim it's not there... Ha! It's like the dumb example up top where people condemn two, three, four, five, TEN eye witnesses after another, and then come out with 'if these things were real we'd see them everywhere'... Only someone as stupid or as desperate to censor information would request it in a debate and then deny it's ever been there without bringing so much as a decent counter argument; that tends to be the way skeptics like to work.

      I know hunters of 30 years that have never come across bear bones. Why should we come across Bigfoot bones? Are bears real because we don't find bones? Secondly, Bigfoot bury their dead; that is why I can call them giant hairy people because that implies culture and a higher intelligence to that of a dumb animal.

      The message here? Skeptics demand things as evidence and then play them down because asking questions... the PROPER scientific method, is too much of a task for them.

      ... But Sykes is coming.

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the laughs joe.

      The skeptic is correct everytime. One cannot see something that does not exist. One can however lie, misidentify or hallucinate.

      In the light of there being zero evidence for the creature and acknowledged as a joke throughout the scientific community why should skeptics listen to a fringe group of nutcases who think an 8 foot primate lives in north america?

      Delete
    3. Oh, and...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VApv_wyANuo

      ... fast forward to 29mins and enjoy guys!

      Peace.

      Delete
    4. Anon 4:50... the arss-winker...

      How easy is it for you to tar eye witnesses as mentally ill... explain multiple person sightings then pal? Again you duck and swerve and ignore explaining things and just offer what comes so easy to you; cynicism. To go with the ten's of thousands of eye witness testimony, we have a transition in white settlers' diaries that for the time, had no way of contacting each other... This is what lends credibility to the natives, because more believable (in your eyes), Europeans saw these creatures as well. These accounts were then taken from diaries and written up in the news media of the day and are now in libraries up and down your great country... Hard to debunk eh? We have thousands of years of Native American culture. Thousands... wall paintings some 8 feet tall true to size and if you know anything about indigenous culture, you would know that ceremonies, dances, utensil designs like baskets, all these things indigenous people do to pass down historical events, identity and culture because, as some may claim; written texts can be manipulated and missinterpreted. There is an easily attainable timeline of Native American culture by the determining the age of settlement sites. Burnt wood and other means have been used to carbon date areas where indigenous peoples who maintain the Bigfoot culture have resided. You are the liar, not the people who claim to have seen these creatures... you are a liar because you cannot admit that you have nothing to counter any of the evidence we have except for your point of view which is nothing in comparison to our expert backed research, so why are we to take your point of view? I have friends that have seen Bigfoot square on for a number of minutes, am I to take your anonymous opinion over there's? I can strongly suggest that you are a scare little narcissist because you keep coming on this blog and voicing your ignorance and offer nothing else expect it to wash. Bring something more to counter our expert backed sources or you are simply as believable as the people who claim to have sightings.

      Peace arss-winker.

      Delete
    5. "The skeptic is correct every time. One cannot see something that does not exist. One can however lie, misidentify or hallucinate."

      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Prove that these people are hallucinating. Prove that these people are misidentifying these creatures... Prove that these creatures are bears during the time of year bears are hibernating...

      Prove it arss-winker.

      Delete
    6. "... a fringe group of nutcases who think an 8 foot primate lives in north america?"

      Now that tells me you haven't been reading my posts properly doesn't it arss-winker? What's the matter, not got the concentration span, or just more denial??

      Delete
    7. In other words there is no evidence.

      There is nothing to counter. Expert backed source? Um wat?

      Heres a source for you:

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_of_North_America

      Not seeing a bigfoot there im afraid.

      I think I will stick with what the experts say thank you very much.

      Delete
    8. Who has the bigger claim to mental illness? a group of people backed by ten thousand years of native culture, with hundreds upon hundreds of written media sources up and down the States in libraries, with footprints, DNA, a piece of transcribed language... people who consist of wildlife biologists, costume experts, forensic experts, forensic artists, forestry officers, doctors, lawyers, police officers, teachers, psychologists, historians...

      ... or the people trying to deny those sources with nothing except mental illness claims?

      Hhhhhmmmmmmmmm... tough one that.

      Arss-winkers.

      Delete
    9. Anon 5:08...

      Please don't tell me you use wikipedia for references in school?

      Delete
    10. You have all those things yet no monkey. If all those things were true then there would be a monkey we are aware of. As there isnt we can write it all off as the usual "bogeyman" campfire stories which incidentally is a world wide historical phenomenon not just north america.

      Obvious lack of monkey is obvious.

      Delete
    11. Id say that source is pretty good as it lists references. Ive not seen you list any references to published papers....

      Delete
    12. Anon 5:19...

      No... you need to counter research with research, saying things over and over again like some therapeutic exercise doesn't make it go away. Oh, and no monkeys, just giant hairy people.

      Anon 5:20...

      Oh dear. Why didn't I go to the easily editable collaboratively free Internet encyclopedia? Thank you, in the most child-like of ways, you've helped me see the error of my ways!

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    13. All your evidence can be explained without needing an 8 foot monkey. All of it.

      Delete
    14. Do it then... Back up your claim...

      THIS IS SOMETHING YOU FAIL TO SEE... YOU SAYING IT AND NOT BACKING IT UP IS THE SAME AS WITNESSES SAYING AND NOT PROVIDING A SPECIMEN... DUH????

      ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    15. That all evidence can be explained... Explain it. Put your money where your mouth is. You can't, because the simplest way to deny evidence is to deny it's there. Using any ounce of fair scientific debate is beyond you.

      Delete
    16. Scientific debate? Lol you will start sounding like munns soon.

      What do you want explaining?

      Tracks? Can be hoaxed or misidentified and yes no matter where they are found or how "remote".

      Videos/photos? every single one ambigious and worthless aka hoaxed

      Dna? There is none. "Sykes study blah bah blah" yep there is currently no published paper or any acknowledged dna of a North American primate.

      Stories? lying/misidentifications/hallucinations

      All explained logically and rationally.

      Delete
    17. No... tracks being found 40-50 miles into wilderness areas are not hoaxed. Wildlife biologists base much of their research on the same evidence.

      Explain Patty and Leaping Russian Yeti, also... How do we know that a small percentage of the blobsquatches are not hoaxes or bears? Because you say so?

      DNA? Yes DNA, and "blah, blah, blah, blah" sums up your ability to explain how this was achieved. Sykes is coming and you are sweating.

      "Stories lying/misidentifications/hallucinations"

      Yeah, that's all you have isn't it? None explained just offered up as a hot plate of desperate cynicism.

      You will keep maintaining we have nothing and then keep denying it's there and I love it every time you post rubbish because it proves me more and more right with every comment. You are nothing without your cynicism.

      Delete
    18. "tracks being found 40-50 miles into wilderness areas are not hoaxed. " why not? The people that found them got there why couldn't anyone else? And why couldn't it be the people that found them who hoaxed them?

      What needs explaining about patty and yeti? They are clearly not of the same species if we are to believe its real.

      Im sorry joe but for you to say you know what sykes results are before he has released anything just sums you up really.

      Proves you more and more right? In your mind yes, but the more you try to convince yourself bigfoot is real does not mean it is.

      Delete
    19. These tracks aren't hoaxed because they have detail consistent with what could be described as consistent species trait. It comes down to your word against theirs and have countless other prints from other researchers to draw consistency and credibility from.

      I think you really need to go back and watch the screen shots by MK Davis... they are clearly the same species.

      As for Sykes...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VApv_wyANuo

      ... fast forward to 29mins and enjoy.

      Delete
    20. So what are the species trait for bigfoot tracks? Is it it the 3 toed ones? The 4 toed ones? The 5 toed ones? The thin ones? The wide ones? The 20 inch ones? The 6 inch ones?

      Unless that link displays the peer reviewed paper that describes bigfoot dna then it is worthless.

      Delete
    21. A species trait would be a consistent style of dermal ridges and the remote places in which they are attained. All sizes are simple down to age (do you really lack an imaginations that badly), the three toed are simply not legitimate tracks and the four toed are messy castings.

      Delete
    22. Tracks are attained by amateur casters, not professionals... you will notice that three toed and four toed tracks appear to be from rookie casters.

      Delete
    23. How big does a track have to be before it falls out of your personal belief range? What about some of the heights reported? Do you ignore the 12 foot tall sightings? The 15 foot ones?

      Delete
    24. Ron Morehead claimed once to have found a track that when calculated; would have belonged to a 15 foot creature. He doesn't state this publicly because he understands that he would lose credibility. These tracks were enough to send two of the most experienced hunters he knew home whilst conducting some of his first expeditions in the early 70's.

      I personally feel that 7.5 to 12 foot are the average height that these creatures grow to as adults, but I am basing that estimate on all the eye witness reports I have read.

      Delete
    25. Do you even know how tall 12 foot is.... LOL

      Delete
    26. Hahahaha 12 foot monkeys undetected by science lol!!!

      Delete
    27. So "Hollywood" Ro says Dr. Sykes "found something" and that means he isolated bigfoot dna? Did he find the same thing that Trent U. said was "very interesting" with the BEAR sample?

      Delete
    28. 12 foot hairy people 'undetectable' by the people who haven't seen them.

      Delete
    29. Anon 7:43...

      No, I think you'll find Ro said he's isolated DNA outright.

      Peace.

      Delete
    30. I think they expect Joe to give up by just hitting him with troll comment after troll comment.

      Not gonna work, Joe is on point. You all sound like morons who dont know how to have a real debate. You need to be able to see both sides(like Joe) not just your own skeptic side. You think "footers" all deny the obvious, well we have our doubts we just arent afraid to admit when we believe something could be real when others are too afraid to come out and say "i kinda believe but if i cant see it i cant believe" your just close minded and its pathetic

      Delete
  5. Here is an example I can give that may be of value in this debate. There is a disease or affliction known as morgellons disease. One of the symptoms is that people believe multicolored fibers grow out of thier skin. 30,000 people in the USA report they have morgellons. A small group of doctors and researchers believe it is a new disease. The CDC commissioned Kaiser Permantee to study the victims of this disease. The results came back as no disease exists and the people suffer from delusional parasitosis. The belief of stuff crawling under their skin I guess this is a mental condition. So if you believe the mainstream medical community it is possible for a large number of people to report the same thing and for it not to exist. J.D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow... JD, I can't believe your contributions sometimes bro, always profound.


      The thing is, is that I'm quite open to the FACT, that people misidentify and hoax. But there are so much more reports that can't be explained by cynicism, and that percentage requires investigation, not scoffing.

      How are we to put this subject to bed, PROPERLY, if questions aren't asked?

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. I think you should read between the lines actually... And if you go on Morgellons disease on Google search... You'll see it's effects.

      Schooled.

      Delete
    3. Oh I was not trying to school Joe because I'm not 100% sure that these people are suffering from delusional parasitosis. Dr. Randy Wymore believes that morgellons is a new disease and there are some very compelling photos that DO show fibers BENEATH the skin of people. Some famous people have come forward claiming to have the disease among them Joan Baez. J.D.

      Delete
    4. http://abcnewsradioonline.com/health-news/tag/skin

      ... scroll to two third's of the way down...

      Delete
    5. 5:46,

      you are dumb beyond belief. You missed the point of being objective and stayed close minded. Good job you're an idiot still.

      JD, good post man

      Delete
  6. No body. No bigfoot. I don't care about all the silly movies and stories. I what scientific proof.

    Damn footers have no proof.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to be aware of the sources before you can claim they are not there. Read my previous points to name just a couple; oh I forgot... you're waiting for a Bigfoot to knock your front door no doubt.

      Delete
  7. Joe. Check your email. Sent you some serious stuff. M

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus Mike!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you for those pictures and the email!! I don't know where to start?!! I'll respond to you ASAP!

      Thank you again pal, it REALLY means a lot!!!

      Peace buddy.

      Delete
    2. Oh and Anon 7:17...

      Monkeys, just giant hairy people.

      Peace.

      Delete
  8. It's another PAID SHILL THURSDAY. They must have just hired on some more 20 something newbees at JREF, and sent them over here for their indoctrination. I predict complete and total anarchy today.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wanna see "Zombie Bigfoot vs. Squatchnado"! I'm going to try setting up a kickstarter for this.

    LETS MAKE THIS HAPPEN PEOPLE!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..Lol..People wonder why the SyFy channel keeps buying and showing those insane CGI fests..Well, every once in a while they hit a grand slam like "Sharknado", and now the world is a better place..lol...The sequel to Sharknado is gonna take place in Manhattan! I WILL be on screen as an extra...wish me luck...

      Delete
    2. and they cost basically nothing for syfy to make, low budget=more room for large profits

      Delete
  10. Why was Bill Munns banned from bff?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He accidentally posted "These clowns think I belive the suit is real..lol...."..It was meant to be sent as a personal text message to his loan shark...

      Delete
    2. ...Seriously, he was banned from another forum where people discuss Bigfoot-the JREF...He is still on the BFF...

      Delete
    3. Because some can't handle the truth.

      Peace.

      Delete
  11. GET A REAL DAY JOB AND KEEP IT! This "attempt" at a movie is the worst acting and "special effects" I have ever seen!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. its low budget, they usually make some money due to that aspect alone. not to mention thats how people build their collection of work, by making better and better films with each try.

      sigh

      you trolls will pick at anything just for fun it seems

      Delete
  12. Paint ball with no eye protection?? Wardrobe person needs to do some research.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they dont want to hide actors faces and make the movie worse than it already is. that would make things way worse to hide who is who.

      you seem to know paintball well, but not any aspect of film. your expertise is astounding. you must be the coolest guy in your elite paintball team.

      fyi im making fun of you

      Delete
    2. you are so cool because you know things about paintball hahahahahahahaha faggot

      Delete
  13. wow--that was the worst acting I've ever seen and to try and copy 70's killer movie style to hide god awful costumes.
    When Rodriquez did grindhouse at least it was for a reason.
    Don't give money to anyone who doesn't put effort into a promo--And don't say--"yeah we intentionally made it look bad, just like the sci-fi channel"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well one thing was accomplished by viewing the photo at the top of this article. I now have a very firm mental image of the definition of the word Skank.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AAAAAAHHHH!!! That's 8mins49secs of my life I will never get back! I don't believe I sat through that shit. I felt embarrassed for those guys!!!!!! Seriously! Shame... Are they retarded? Then I feel bad :( if they are then, keep at it guys :D

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia