Listen: The Karel Show KGO AM 810 With Guest Rictor from The Ten Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty
The Karel Show on KGO AM 810 interviewed Rictor Riolo from Spike TV's Ten Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty - January 12, 2014.
Karel Bouley, is an American talk radio host and author. He broadcasts on KGO AM 810 radio in San Francisco, California. He interviewed cast member, Rictor Riolo from The Ten Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty and talked about all things Bigfoot, Justin Smeja, and the probability of a third hominid walking with Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. Could happen? Right? No? Why not? Listen here and find out more about this great new show!
The Ten Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty airs on Spike TV every Friday night at 10/9c and you can follow each cast member on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/SpikeTV/bigfoot-bounty/members and watch the show here on Spike's website: http://www.spike.com/shows/bigfoot-bounty
Bill munns is now saying they need an illusionist to verify that patty is not a suit. Maybe they will bring in David Blaine.
ReplyDeleteYou really cant make this shit up.
Munns; the irony of Tardia.
DeleteYou can't make that up.
Maybe they can use Randi the illusionist, head of an organization of the deluded, based on a delusion. It's apt for the members to follow an illusionist.
DeleteThe fact that Munns is holding clear frame shots showing the suit bunching up at the hip is proof of his uh 0 selective data analysis.
ReplyDeletefirst he tried to write it off as an old healed injury, when it was pointed out that it was impossible, he then switched to "it is an anomoly in the film", and that frame (several of them) got burried by Munns, never to be released to the public for viewing again, in spite of repeated pleading by numerous people.
One word;
DeleteProportions.
Oh... And it's perfectly normal for research to self correct. I think you'll find this pattern in most 'accepted' forms.
DeletePeace.
One word:
DeleteExtensions
Two words;
DeleteBending fingers.
After viewing the Patterson–Gimlin film, costume designer Janos Prohaska (noted for his work on the late 1960s television program Star Trek and Lost in Space) concluded the film's subject could be a man in a costume. The only plausible explanation was that someone might have glued false hair to a costume. Prohaska, in fact, had used this technique himself on his own costumes. It must also be noted that both Janos Prohaska and Roger Patterson worked at the same movie ranch, Corriganville.
Deletewaiting for Joe discrediting another costume designer thinking that doesn't suit his belief
DeleteAccording to joe bill munns is the only costume maker in the world
Delete"If you glue hair to a costume structure, you need a non-pourus outer surface (like some type of rubber "skin") because you can't glue hair well to either foam padding or fabric. The glue used is going to really stiffen up that surface, and that stiffness will result in some really weird and non-anatomical buckling and folding of that surface as the subject moves. You're talking about a relatively high level of skill to get even a low level of quality, which is why it's so rarely done."
DeleteAlso... You can list all the costume experts in the world if you like; if they have done half of the thorough long term practical analysis that Bill has, then that's at least a good argument, but none of them have. I have stated this time and time and time again. When you look at the PGF and you see the muscle movements in the legs it points to a creature of nature. Not a suit with glued on hair.
Peace.
I think that Joe has never seen a film with some costumes
DeleteYes lets look at those legs. Behind the knee there is a buldge where it should actually be a depression as seen in all mammals. This fact alone proves it is not a real animal. Check mate.
Delete"My opinion, all it is is the way the sun reflects of the hair. If you look at gif SweatyYeti posted in #156, you notice somethin' similar on her arm. The left leg is visible in numerous other frames, no enormous protrusions."
Delete"Notice the upper thigh area, how smooth an even the transition is from dark to light as the sunlight falls on the area. I see no sign of any protrusion in still images, looks stovepipe to me."
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/38109-bill-munns-pgf-presentation-from-the-texas-bigfoot-conference/page-9
... Anyone for chess?
Anyone got an actual bigfoot?
DeleteYep! PGF.
DeletePeace.
No that's a man in a suit. What about an actual real bigfoot?
DeleteWhat about a PGF2 Bigfoot from today? Should be easier than 1967 with all the cameras out there on every device
Delete4:58, 5:06... Like I said; PGF. Oh, and leaping Russian yeti.
DeletePeace.
Leaping russian lunatic in a suit. Desperate times for joe resorting to that nonsense.
Delete'Lunatic in a suit' that leaps feet in the air at impossible speed transitioning into bipedal and then quadrupedal motion in wilderness terrain.
DeleteNonsense? One of your most difficult obstacles.
Prove it^ by your logic if you cant prove it then it has to be a suit.
DeletePummeled.
The motion that the subject achieves should be enough to do that.
DeleteRead properly.
It's incredible how many things Joe can infer about the anathomy, speed, biomechanic of blurry figures shot in the distance with a 10 year old cell phone. Amazing.
DeleteUse your eyes, look at the footage and stop lying to yourself. There are plenty of your own theory group that have likened the subject to an ape and a wildlife zoo in an effort to denounce it's legitimacy.
DeletePeace.
I've seen the footage and that's clearly a bloke in a suit invisible to dogs and making laugh who is making the footage.
DeleteStop lying to yourself and stop talking abstractly, refer to real people and their real words, please.
'A bloke in a suit' that leaps feet in the air at impossible speed transitioning into bipedal and then quadrupedal motion in wilderness terrain... Quite a feet in a bulky suit that extends the arms, pads up the neck and shoulders and bulks up it's arss, eh? Oh, and you see the dog moments after the camera has been turned on and pointed where the creature was expected to come out from the brush. You cannot account for the dog's actions prior to it coming into frame towards the end of the footage, and we have examples of dogs not being afraid of younger Bigfoot, to which the subject in the footage clearly is.
DeleteHope that was some help to you.
The dogs have a nose, they detect animals far before than seeing them.
DeleteJust for information
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePrecisely.
DeletePeace.
3:10 frames 61 and 72 reveal prehensile fingers, no extensions. Hilarious said no extensions; then Hiliarious did his fat hairy assed jerk dance three pic montage joke of a recreation attempt and wore, arm extensions.
DeleteSceptards can't keep their stories straight.
My dog has no nose.
DeleteProportions indeed.
ReplyDeletePatty has the exact proportions of a man in a suit wearing shoulder pads and a static padded butt.
Pwned.
A lot of what Bill does is mere common sense. Something that people like you are actually overthinking in their cartwheels of worry. When Bill Munns compares the proportions of Patty to a 'normal human'; we see something very obvious in the junction of two points of the right leg when pasted on top of eachother, from the hip socket. It is here where you have an amazing example of the posture of the upper and lower leg of Patty; the upper leg is far shorter. The crotch area of Patty is far more higher than the average human norm and like Bill States; "when you put a costume on, it always adds, it never subtracts". If you were to put the 'costume' on a human being, then we would expect the crotch area to be lower than what is clearly not the case when comparing the proportions. The arm length of Patty is 10% longer than that of a normal human in comparison proportion & scale, the 10% being in the shoulder area. When matching this over that of a normal human, the problem is evident when trying to accommodate this in comparison to a normal human, Patty's knees fall way shorter. Bill even extends this to show the possibility of using football shoulder pads, and it still cannot match the proportions of a normal human. Bill also extends the comparison image's scale of Patty by 25% , but you still have the arm with bending fingers reaching far lower than the proportions of what a normal human can achieve in a suit. The shoulder joint and base of the neck of Patty require to be shifted forward actually into the neck of a normal human for the eyes of the 'mask' to align with normal human proportions. It is therefore impossible to get the mask to fit on the shoulders of a normal human and maintain the rest of the proportions to fit on a normal person in a suit.
DeletePeace.
... And yes, that was a cut & paste.
DeletePeace.
So the blevins suit that showed the same proportions as patty is actually a real bigfoot? You footers are a crazy bunch.
DeleteAre you telling me that the Blevins recreation has the same muscle tone & hair texture and skin folds? Plus, the pictures you see the Blevins suit have had the width reduced by 5%. If we can only just make something a little close to Patty now... Then there's simply no way a Rookie film maker could have made a suit that good back then. If anything; Blevins' suit has helped to strengthen the claim that Patty is real, hominid flesh and blood
DeletePeace.
"Are you telling me that the Blevins recreation has the same muscle tone & hair texture and skin folds?"
DeleteNo. Do you even read what people write? Facepalm.
The PROPORTIONS ya jackass.
Muscle tone and all that nonsense is just opinion. You happen to like the grainy film and colour reproduction of the pgf. I happen to prefer the blevins suit as there is less suit flaws. Not a bad effort for so little money.
You can not prove patty is real. Munns can not prove patty is real. Science doesnt accept patty. Its a bloke in a suit. Deal with it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"No. Do you even read what people write? Facepalm."
DeleteDo you?
Read my comment at 4:02, I think you'll find I addressed your query. It's early in the morning though and you must be tired bro.
Also, muscle tone is not a matter of opinion; it is however a matter of subjectivity. Blevins doesn't have any of the muscle tone that Patty has, that's plain as day for everyone to see bro and that's simply something you have to deal with I'm afraid. I don't think you would suggest such a thing if you weren't anonymous.
Science has the cheek to request a type specimen when it hasn't lifted a finger to help; so I think I'll take what it says with a great pinch of salt, yeah?
Peace.
"Science hasn't lifted a finger to help"
DeleteLol what? Have you already forgotten about your beloved sykes? Have you set him aside because he didn't validate your fantasies or are you going to claim government conspiracy on that?
"Sykes of the hominid project?"
DeleteWe already know what you're going to say Joe, you're boring
Not as boring as listening to your repeated fallacies here every day... It's rich you should pull that and then suggest the truth is boring.
DeleteSykes' study is still in full swing, it's as easy as that.
Peace.
Sykes pwned joe
DeleteSsssshhhhhhhhh... Be careful that you don't set yourself up.
DeletePeace.
Anonymous 3:30
DeleteLiar, liar, pants on fire!
Oh, and get a real job! You're not cut out for this paid scoftic gig.
^^ Butthurt MMG
DeleteNope... He'll be along later to curb your quest for reassurance.
DeleteAlright then 3:30 who apparently is or possibly is our own 'bloke in a suit' is also the shoulder pads sceptard.
DeleteLet's see here, how deluded a sceptard must be to declare that shoulder pads will bring your hands closer to your knees:
Pretty damned deluded.
Shoulder pads won't change limb length nor move the position of the elbow nor the hands and wrists.
This fantasy puts this sceptard into the top three of Golden Idiots of 2013.
Padded static butt? When will Shawn Evidence repost the huge-butted African girl vid, and the gymnast bigfoot vid? A new BFRO report also lists enormous buttocks as part of the observation.
Delusion is not seeing the spinal erectors and that the buttocks do move in the PGF.
Butthurt footer, I'm glad we encouraged you to rethink all your hash tag Twerk talk but what is your new fascination with black chicks asses about? If you're itching, go visit xhamster and rub one off.
DeleteThis guy tuned your regularly Danny Boy and I would look at your posts below; pretty embarrassing old boy.
DeleteLets see now why is it that any form of evidence used to support bigfoot comes nowhere near the standard of evidence to support any other animal?
ReplyDeleteFor example take some of the rare mammals of north america.
Show me a clear picture? No problem.
Show me a clear video? No problem.
Show me a body? No problem.
Show me body parts? No problem.
Show me bones? No problem.
Show me teeth? No problem.
Show me fossils? No problem.
Show me fossils demonstrating the developmental history of the animal? No problem.
Show me hair? No problem.
Show me the dna sequence? No problem.
Why is it that bigfoot fails on every single one of the above? And no your inevitable special pleading aint gonna cut it im afraid.
That is smoked.
Show me a clear photo/video? No problem; PGF and Leaping Russian Yeti.
DeleteShow me a body/body parts? Bigfoot bury their dead and you never come across the remains of apex predators that die of natural courses.
Show me bones/teeth? There is 150 years worth of archeological and anthropological studies that document giant skeletons found right up until the mid 20th century.
Show me fossils demonstrating the developmental history of the animal? You do realise that for the whole 7 million years chimps have been in Africa; we only have four teeth for a fossil trail of previous species development?
Show me hair/DN? Hair has been sequenced and determined as unknown hominid.
Special pleading? More like cognitive bias, old boy.
That is schooled.
Lol @ all that special pleading. You really failed this time joe.
DeleteThe only fail was in your pleading that there isn't any evidence...
DeleteCorrected.
Pgf and leaping russian yeti are certainly not clear. Have you even looked at any wildlife photography or even wildlife documentaries? If you cant see the difference between those and the pgf then there really is no hope for you.
DeleteAll animals you can answer every question with "no problem". For bigfoot you cant do that with any of them. Not even one. Its all stories, rumours, hearsay and conjecture. For every single one.
DeleteEven the simplist mind can work out why that is. Worryingly joe cant put 2 and 2 together. Poor thing.
PGF ain't clear? I think you'll find plenty of digital versions with stabilisation on YouTube. If you avoid that fact then hope is pretty much as distant an option for you as your quest for reassurance here, old boy.
Delete6:36...
"In modern psychology, an important theory about how we make decisions under uncertainty is the “heuristic and biases” method of Tversky and Kahneman (1974; Kahneman et al. 1982). This posits that human being use heuristics, which are short cuts to solve problems that are not always reliable, and that we are subject to cognitive biases that might impair the success of our decisions."
Peace.
"Stabalisation" "digital versions"
DeleteYou proved my point beautifully.
You don't see anyone trying to stabalise or enhance footage from an Attenborough documentary. It just wouldn't cut it. So no the pgf is junk compared to any other wildlife footage. So the original point still stands.
Agreed you are certainly mentally impaired. That we can all agree on.
That would be because the people filming animals in an Attenborough documentary would be professional camera men with modern day professional equipment, with clear direction and a set agenda to film a specific animal; I shouldn't have to point this out to you. Furthermore... Attenborough stated the other day that he was open to the Yeti being a legitimate creature; is he mentally impaired?
DeleteI get the feeling that you're getting a little angry, old boy... Don't let it ruin your day.
Heya Joe look at the first episode of the Bigfoot Bounty and hear what Disottell and the primatologist in the show have to say about the actual proofs of Bigfoot in general.
DeleteBe careful, you might be utterly hurt
There are plenty of anthropologists, wildlife biologists and primatologists that would counter that sentiment.
DeleteOld argument, same old bitch slap.
The slap is just made by your tongue again making words for people that have never said such things.
DeleteApart from Meldrum and Bindernagel hit by Alzheimer, nobody has ever said what you claim they have said and has ever write a peer reviewed article trying to prove the species. And no. Bill Munns is not a scientist.
I couldn't really understand your first part of the comment.
DeleteAnna Nikaris, Esteban Sarmiento, Ian Redmun, Grover Krantz... Man, there's one heck of a long list of experts and scientists that have contributed to some level of alaysis of various sources of evidence in this field, who are happy to have their names to such... No Alzheimer's just a tolerance for the truth.
When you have a collective effort at ridiculing this subject, then who would be stupid enough to waste their time at an attempt at peer review? That can come later once mainstream science can look at the facts without agenda driven policies.
Peace.
You see? This is what is wrong with you. You're a liar. A denial.
DeleteJust the first name that comes to my mind. Esteban Sarmiento. The guy did many episodes of MonsterQuest on History Channel about Bigfoot. In all these episodes played the part of the scientist verifying the new "evidence" and trying to find something, and yet every time he concluded that there was no evidence and that there just was no Bigfoot.
I clearly recall him saying that it would be fantastic and intriguing to have such a species, but unfortunately is just fantasy.
But no, you bring his name to the table as if looking to the evidence is equal to accept the evidence, no matter if the conclusions are that the evidence are rubbish.
This pretty much sums up your credibility, denial liar
Wrong...
DeleteSarmiento has gone on record to state that there is enough food in the United States to sustain a large primate, and is indeed very much open to the idea. Like all good scientists; the self correct once looking at the facts. Using his name, is an example of how one should think regarding this subject... Heck even Attenborough and Goodall are open to the idea.
Sorry, be sure of the facts before you throw names about, old boy.
; )
Facepalm^
DeleteLearning all the time ^
DeleteYou can't argue with a person making up the words of scientists to prove his point
DeleteAnd... why being open to the idea should prove Bigfoot? Of course he was open, because of this he made the shows. But the conclusion is that as for now, there's no evidence of Bigfoot.
DeleteYou're self-schooling, little old idiot
Go look at the facts bro... Like all things regarding your theory group; if it doesn't exist inside your imediate experience... It 'doesn't exist'.
DeletePeace.
No more arguments, uh?
DeleteYou thought that being open to the idea is equal to believe, but you find out that actually means "I'm waiting for evidence as for now there's no evidence at all"
Glad to have helped
8:58... His opinion doesn't prove Bigfoot, but like I stated above; he is one scientist of a long line of many who have contributed to some level of alaysis. His opinion that a large primate could be sustained is significant, regardless of the more surer stand points of the names I referenced alongside him. I would suggest you digest my comments properly before you throw around names... Getting angry much?
DeletePlenty of evidence; better to deny it than looking silly once out of angles to counter such.
Peace.
9:04... Read my above comment.
DeleteGlad I could fill you in.
So... being sustainable means it exists? No you've gotta make better than this.
DeleteObviously is sustainable. Like bears. Or unicorns.
But they don't exist both.
I'm getting bored now, too much schooling for just one day, I'll reserve some for tomorrow
Your tottering around words indicates one thing; at the end of your creativity, not boredom.
DeleteBeing sustainable from an experienced primatologist means significance... I don't hear you suggesting there's not enough food sources off the back of that... See how this works?
You need things like this pointed out to you and you can suggest anyone eels is being schooled?
Oh dear...
I find it hilarious that someone should have every single point shot down, get bullied about logically and be resorted to posts like 9:12, and then suggest anyone but him has been schooled.
DeleteMan, you know when you're debating with children, I should have gone a little easy on him maybe. No har feelings though.
Peace.
Still wondering why availability of food sources means that the animal that should use those sources actually exists.
DeleteSo, because of elephants being in Africa would be a sustainable t-rex food source, means that t-rex must exist, right?
Lunatic
(Sigh)
DeleteBecause one of the arguments from your theory group has been that Bigfoot haven't the food resources. When you have a primatologist telling you a large primate can be sustained in the United States; that's significant; regardless of your small mind not being able to grasp it.
People aren't seeing T-Rex in Africa; people are seeing Bigfoot in America; hence the significance of that analysis. It doesn't prove Bigfoot exists, the was put to you comments ago; it provides a basis in which resources are understood. This is very important in any field of wildlife biology.
And you need this to be pointed out to you?
What about chupacabra? Or mega-birds? There's plenty of food for them, people see them --> Chupacabra and mega-birds are real
DeleteChupacabra and mega-birds don't leave tracks, etc. Again; in your sensationalist comparisons you fail to grasp the elements of accumilative research in wildlife biology.
DeleteMan, you dumb.
Actually people are basically seeing T-Rex in Australia, they even filmed a Monsterquest about it and Destination Truth did at least one episode on the topic.
DeleteCryptozoologist's call it the Burrunjor.
I believe Africa too has it's own relict dinosaur.
And Joe...they have tracks!
Tracks? Well a rare mega-bird species hardly leave tracks, because they fly, ya know, they are birds.
DeleteChupacabras? Well we have a clear HD video of one of it, you just got schooled the other day about that! So? It seems that by your logic the world is full of unrecognized species that live under our nose
I blame the Smithsonian for covering up the modern T-Rex
DeleteBurrunjor tracks
Deletehttps://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQO9gdCTm6HDItM7UMnRdweFKEflhuRW6iU33rkwWZ-Y4S7z6M6
There ya go Joe, T-rex is real! Thanks for clarifying!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8-GVkaOs5NI/TtfOW04CAiI/AAAAAAAAJ_E/2ZVmJbjC868/s1600/burrunjorfootprint.jpg
DeleteThey even have track lines in conjunction with food and water sources.
But hey, a 13 meter relict dinosaur...that just crazy talk...right?
http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Burrunjor
DeleteSo basically we have tracks
We have farmers and ranchers accounts
We have T-rex, there's no point in discussing
More informations
Deletehttp://dinosaurs.wikia.com/wiki/Burrunjor
Also, apparently there is baby T-Rexes in Texas.
DeleteYou love to take anonymous postings and reposted them as fact, right Joe?
Here's one then -- http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2011/12/leftovers-texas-mini-rex-report-and.html?m=1
8:31 et al, you're all pumped up from the latest TAM, your eyes glassy and your breath coming in fast shallow pants, as you've been exhorted to 'take action'.
DeleteYou tried to take action, you flunked out, time to go back to the JREF to refuel.
Oh, and take your time, lots and lots and lots of time. Hopefully you'll forget how to find this blog by then.
So pardon the pun but...Alllllll my Rexes live in Texas, that's why I hang my hat in Tennessee!
DeleteSchooled. Smoked. Charred. Country Fried.
I bet PJ is scouring the World Wide Web in search of all te Burrunjor info and sites so he can cram a bunch of trivial speculation into his brain and become the new Burrunjor expert here too.
DeleteOk, I'll try and respond to your very, very childish dribbles.
DeleteFirstly... Baiting me with a T-Rex is pointless. I don't believe in T-Rex and I'm not like other cryptozoologists. They also have pretty big birds too. Furthermore; these tracks have not been analysed anywhere as in depth by certified anthropologists and wildlife biologists, that have identified all the species traits, etc. to elaborate on this... Tracks with regards to Bigfoot are just one element of many sources of evidence; footage, hair, scat, etc. we also have examples today of tracks found by water sources where the water has eroded layers of earth to unveil tracks that appear fresh. There have been some pretty big birds in Australia at one point too; same as the continent of America.
Obviously mega-birds wouldn't leave tracks, I clearly stated 'etc' to suggest other sources of evidence that would be required for legitimacy in pigeon holing the two examples. And with regrads to the Cupacrabra; I'm quite happy with the dog type, but you didn't state which version you were referring to; I took it you were referring to the goblin-monkey. All very obvious childish nonsesne, but hey; what else you got eh?
Danny Boy... Is this really what it's come to? Have you got to resort to childish antics; man... You really have been bullied about way too much haven't you?
Oh dear... Are you embarassed? I would be...
Also... Let's just compare the T-Rex field to that of Bigfoot...
DeleteMan, you people are pretty dumb, and have this clown up top as your poster boy.
Oh dear... Ha!!
As if Bigfoot tracks showed consistency in their traits... oh yeah but you stated that "who's to say there is only one type of Bigfoot"?
DeleteYou've been embarassed by your own logic.
And you are crying.
Embarrassingly; you are unaware that dermals that have patterns and species traits have been attained from opposite ends of the country, many years apart. This has been verified by experts such as Jimmy Chilcutt, who before retiring was one the best forensic experts in the country, who also doubles up as one of the only primate prints specialists in the world.
DeleteKeep praying... I've toyed with you all day and I dare say you a learnt a few things, even my your mental capacity standards.
; )
You have footage of blokes in suits, hair of bear, canines, coons, cows, and the scat of bear.
DeleteScience has worked you hard and raw.
Keep stretching and pleading though. It's entertaining.
Yeah and some of midtarsial break and others don't.
DeleteSome have human like toes and others have them completely different.
keep dreaming
He Joey, gotta a new record! you have 10 straight hours posting now!
DeleteJoys of your busy life!
Actually; numpty... We have footage of an organic creature that you can't counter or replicate with any suit, unknown primate DNA from hair, and Bigfoot scat.
DeleteThe world has worked you out Danny Boy; and you have never presented anyone with a legitimate means to dismiss such sources, so run along before I make you cry again.
You been served, and of be very embarassed about these threads; you stopped pretty low today and I enjoyed it.
You should probably stop syphoning your 'facts' from episodes of Monsterquest though, in all seriousness.
DeleteI'm sure the IUCN Primate Specialist Group and GRASP-UNEP would be having a mighty chuckle over tiny town Texas' own Jimmy Chilcutt as being one of the only primate print specialists...LOL
PS - Since you repeat that bullspit about dermal this and that, attained from opposite sides of the country, why don't you show me these casts you preach of? Sounds to me like you have a lot of artifacts from the casting process and a dollop of hoaxers.
Where are these prints that are identified as the same exact animal but casted 100 miles away "deep in the interior?"
The "facts" are only on Joe's mind. I can see the people who is quoting laughing hard at seeing such words put on their mouth
DeleteSorry... I forgot that I was talking to someone who has to resort to twisting meanings as a means of debate. Though you know damn wel, I will state that what I meant to say, was that Chilcutt is the one of the only homo sapien and primate prints specialist in the world. Fact.
DeleteTo your question; again, check out Jimmy Chilcutt.
Served again Danny Boy... Served again.
served again... with nothing
DeleteHow do you survive day to day life? Seriously though? You are either a paid scoftic or absolutely insane.
DeleteYou got pwned so hard about preliminary results less than 2 weeks ago on several occasions.
I'm convinced you don't even believe the unknown primate shit and just say it because you are that bored with your life.
Sykes had unknown primate DNA preliminary results too...ended up being a bear. That didn't stop footers like yourself (well, actual footers stateside that actually do physical research) from preaching about it, only to sweep it under the rug when the truth came out.
The preliminary results you believe it where from 2007, so you're telling me in the last 7 years the Buckeyes don't shock the world with revelations of unknown primates? The FINAL results aren't scrutinized and talked about amongst academics? They aren't published in journals?
You have zip zero nada. Just anecdotes, hoaxes, misidentifications, and flat out lies.
Why don't you run along little one... There must be something better for you to get up to?
DeletePwned hard? Here's the thread numpty...
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/safety-first-bigfootn-second.html?m=0
I don't see anything in it to suggest anyone for pwned except for you numpty's getting emotional about a result that was so far out of your control it must have been heartbreaking. The only argument you had, was that it was in 2007 and the results hadn't been done lately... Oh dear, hardly a pwning, numpty. Oh, and my your logic, a result is a result, regardless of long term studies, remember the Sykes study Daniel, regardless of Mullis' statements? Unknown primate DNA is unknown primate DNA and just cause you haven't got a come-back or an opinion to contradict those findings, that's your problem not mine.
Journals shmernals, like I suggested up top; a convenient Kop out. Science has ridiculed this subject so why would anyone release a DNA finding that requires repeated examples of it any way? You claim to know so much about science Danny but you are either stupid or selective of what fits your little mind.
Also... Shall I list the examples of where journals and peer reviews have for it wrong? Such a black and white world isn't it Danny? You are a first class twat aren't you??
Yes. list all the examples please. Your abstract words don't count
DeleteWell, make that 12 straight hours now. Damn Joe, you gotta problem.
Deletehttp://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=7584
Deletehttp://boingboing.net/2012/09/21/of-gm-corn-and-rat-tumors-why.html
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/04/open-access-is-not-the-problem/
... Next time, go and so your own searching on the Internet, numpties.
those aren't peer reviewed articles, try again.
DeleteNumpty
funny thing is that Joe, in all his "I have absolutely no clue of what science is and how it works", doesn't know that most peer reviewed articles are not available for free on the net, you have to pay to download them unless you are on a computer linked to some type of research institution.
DeleteBut oh well, keep searching bro...
2:00... Nope; they're articles on peer reviews, and peer reviews that have been inaccurate and misleading at that. Mainstream science and your golden peer reviewing process ain't all so reliable see boyo!
Delete2:02... Your point is totally worthless in this context; I've never claimed to have access to peer reviews, what I have done is show you that this process has got things wrong, like you requested I should... And I delivered again.
'Searching'? That would articulate your attempt at creativity at this stage of the day... You people have been completely destroyed today, again, by little old me.
; )
Autocelebration is the worst sign of psychological insecurity
DeleteTake your pacifier and relax old boy, luckily for you we good ol anons cannot spend 12 straight hours on a blog, enjoy your fantasylandia!
Read the threads and learn something. This confidence is born out of doing what I do this well.
DeleteYou keep a blubberin' a I keep a educatin'... Don't let it ruin your day.
Joes logic states that hank is the real deal unless someone can replicate it exactly.
ReplyDeleteNobody needs to replicate it; because it doesn't look real. You don't need a constume expert to tell you that... If you do? Then... Oh dear.
DeleteWell patty doesn't look real so no need to replicate it.
DeleteSmoked.
So unreal that the BBC and all other efforts have failed with their budgets...
DeleteSelf schooled.
So? The pgf still looks fake regardless of anything that's happened afterwards. Only a retard would think the pgf is fake and then say its real based on a recreation that looks different. Fake before. Fake after.
DeletePatty is truer than ancient aliens, guaranteed
DeleteIf the PGF is fake, made by a broke cowboy, then we should have made something that minics the 'suit's' attributes. A replica would be very difficult yes; but nothing has looked remotely close to key areas such as muscle tone for example, regardless of the money thrown at the attempts.
DeleteThis is common sense. Oh, and if it looked as fake as you claim it does, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
; )
Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear wide football-type shoulder pads and hold sticks in his hands within the suit. His story was also printed in The Charlotte Observer.[55]
DeleteAs for the creature's walk, Morris said:
The Bigfoot researchers say that no human can walk that way in the film. Oh, yes they can! When you're wearing long clown's feet, you can't place the ball of your foot down first. You have to put your foot down flat. Otherwise, you'll stumble. Another thing, when you put on the gorilla head, you can only turn your head maybe a quarter of the way. And to look behind you, you've got to turn your head and your shoulders and your hips. Plus, the shoulder pads in the suit are in the way of the jaw. That's why the Bigfoot turns and looks the way he does in the film. He has to twist his entire upper body.
Should we? Really.
DeleteWell not really.
Even you said there is no need to recreate hank because it don't look real. Theres your answer. Noone has bothered cos it looks fake.
Pwned by your own argument.
(Sigh, this is getting boring now)
Delete8:03... Thank god for copy & paste;
"The arm length of Patty is 10% longer than that of a normal human in comparison proportion & scale, the 10% being in the shoulder area. When matching this over that of a normal human, the problem is evident when trying to accommodate this in comparison to a normal human, Patty's knees fall way shorter. Bill even extends this to show the possibility of using football shoulder pads, and it still cannot match the proportions of a normal human. Bill also extends the comparison image's scale of Patty by 25% , but you still have the arm with bending fingers reaching far lower than the proportions of what a normal human can achieve in a suit. The shoulder joint and base of the neck of Patty require to be shifted forward actually into the neck of a normal human for the eyes of the 'mask' to align with normal human proportions.
- Bill Munns"
... Furthermore, there are clear extended toes in the step that leave tracks. Pretty difficult with artificial clown feet, eh?
8:05... People have tried though, so there goes your argument.
(Sigh)
Yes it is getting boring.
DeleteYou still provide zero evidence you are grasping at straws.
Produce the monkey or stfu.
Fundamentally to this thread; for all your blubbering... In the PGF is one example of the 'monkey' you require.
DeleteOh, and no monkeys... Just giant hairy people.
Schooled.
Schooled with what monkey exactly? You got nothing.
DeletePGF & Russian Yeti.
DeleteOh, and no monkeys... Just giant hairy people.
You were welcome.
Peace.
8:03 honestly you are hopelessly deluded, living in your 'suit' phantasm, this is lunacy. Shoulder pads and sticks and the pads are in the way of the jaw? We are left with little more to say except that you sound stark raving crazy. Your theories are absolutely nuts.
DeleteIf 8:03 had any point, Hilarious' hairy arm-extended jerk dance would not be howlingly hysterical.
DeleteHey Joe,
DeleteSerious question,
If i crapped in your face, would you hold it against me??
Fetusman
Bigfoots are real asks Matt Moneymaker
ReplyDeleteDUDE - some weird shit going on here!
ReplyDeleteHey people! This post is about Rictor whorring himself out yet again for an exploitive, scripted reality show and its network, not your own agenda. Back on subject!
ReplyDeleteIt was NEVER descriptive. And I never worry. I'm a drama queen remember?
DeleteRictor,
DeleteYou have zero credibility and are just another lacky of Shawns. You have done nothing in this field to deserve one ounce of respect or credibility. You and Shawn just share profits his continued promotion of you.
Its very funny that the bigfoot field has resorted to guys like you and Shawn.
You have turned this field into a joke... great job
MMC
You are exactly right (OP), Rictor is just another clown in the circus known as bigfoot evidence. Run by its asian ringleader.
DeleteJust look at the absolute creeps/hoaxers/and special ed cases that are now running around on bigfoot shows and in the bigfoot world in general. You have guys like stacy brown, tim fasano, rictor, rick dyer, michael merchant, phil poling, steven streufert, i mean when does the clown parade end.
Rictor, you are a parasite on this field.
MMC
Parasite? Even a parasite has a place in this world. At least I look good in leather, on an epic TV show that EVERYONE is talking about including yourself. So who is the winner here?
Deletefor sure bigfoots are real because BOBO tracking bigfoots for years
ReplyDeleteYain't got no bigfoot evidunce.
ReplyDeletethinking BOBO is
ReplyDeleteWhat people really need to be concerned about are the HUMAN CLONING CENTERS that exist all over the world, and the existence of THE VRILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteTHE VRILL are the single biggest threat to mankind, and people need to wake up. The term vrill has nothing to do with "mana" or energy as some Thule society historians may say. It has to do with a species of evolved lizard that society has come to call "grey aliens". they arent from outer space nor travel in saucers. They are an evolved parasitic lizard, and every legend you have ever heard about knomes, dwarfs, demon possession, windigo, witches, warlocks, mimic, etc are all based on Vrill. In particular we should all be worried about THE VRILL TYPE 1 LIZARDS. These are the parasitic type.
They enter through the eye and hijack the persons/animals body. This is where we get the terms and legends mentioned above. And where you get the movies like bodysnatchers, they live, etc. The human consciousness ceases to exist and the Vrill takes over. And these are smart creatures, smartest animal on earth except for humans.
This is why our world is obsessed with the "all seeing eye", the eye of horus, etc. It all refers to the transfer of the parasitic organism through the eye into the animal/humans body.
Sounds crazy but please be aware of it. They dont come in peace and they enjoy the taste of human. And they live below you right now, far below.