Is This the Face of Bigfoot [Bigfoot Illustrated]
Here's the latest Bigfoot illustrated from Dred Fun. In this video, Dred takes into account of credible sightings from the internet and translates them into an image that portrays Bigfoot as more human than ape. It's beautiful.
moe larry the cheese
ReplyDeleteOutstanding drawings.
Delete^^ WHAT ? ..why you cheap punk !
DeleteWhy no actual Bigfoot anywhere ever instead of Bigfoot drawing?
DeleteBecause they don't exist.
DeleteWhy no unambiguous videos of Bigfoot?
DeleteBecause they don't exist.
DeletePGF. Got monkey suit?
DeleteIf you are claiming the pgf is unambiguous then you are not just deluded but also a liar.
DeleteWhy do you ask me if I have a monkey suit?
DeleteI only asked why there are no unambiguous videos of Bigfoot. The "PGF" video seems too blurry because it's made with an old camera, why can't we take such a video now that we have modern cameras?
When you're confronted with something in the range of ten feet tall, 1000lbs, in a wilderness area, the last thing you're gonna be thinking is getting your camera out. You're gonna want to get out of there as safely and as smoothly as possible. Also, the flip side of that is they move too fast, leaving you with a blobsquatch.
DeleteThe reason I ask for a monkey suit, is because the PGF isn't as unambiguous as you claim, and you can clearly see that if the subject was a suit, then the lighting would show this to be the case. You must test the claim that it's organic by showing it can be replicated in a suit.
I don't understand it.
DeleteIf the guy that shot the PGF did it once, it should be possible to do it again, isn't it? I mean, these troubles were present also when this PGF thing was shot.
I mean, there are people out there that take incredible videos of white sharks while swimming with them with no protection, and there's nobody willing to take a good shot of an unrecognized animal?
DeleteSounds strange to me.
Do you know that's strange to me, is the way in that of folk demand pictures not to either label hem hoaxes or deny they even exist like some taboo; rhetorical.
DeletePeople are aware of the existence of white sharks, know how to find them and make the plans to film them under professional circumstances. The shock of all these not being the case in a split second fight or flight senario does not apply.
Here are just two I have referenced you, both matching specimens to Patty;
http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
You are wasting your time. Joe is deluded. He has no common sense.
DeleteIt sounds very strange that nobody would take the risk to go out and sit in the Bigfoot territory. I mean, it takes only one person. There's people doing the most amazing and dangerous things out there, why nobody wants to go in the Bigfoot territory?
DeleteHey, why don't you go and do it? That wouldn't be so strange as to so easy to do??
DeleteThe pictures are deemed hoaxes or dismissed for lack of clarity, Paradolia, blobsquatchery, etc.
DeleteProvide a picture of bigfoot like this of the Bondo Ape and there wouldn't be quite an issue, although a picture can only take a biological field so far..
http://karlammann.com/images/bondo/mzee-200.jpg
Huh? Why confronting me like that?
DeleteI live in Weiser, Oregon, near Malheur National Forest. I spend a ton of time hunting and hiking in the mountains. I never saw a Bigfoot and I barely know what it is, as nobody talks about Bigfoot here.
If you know where his territory is, I just said that there are many people out there that do the strangest and most dangerous things in the world, it's just strange that nobody would take the chance to go out where they are and try to film it. There's people filming Kodiak bears, white sharks, lions, tigers from a very close perspective, I can't get why there isn't a single person willing to do that with Bigfoot.
Why pointing me? I wouldn't swim with a white shark, there's no way I would do that, I'm not so brave.
I'm just saying that indeed there are people which are so brave, so it's a bit strange that none of them would take the chance to go out in Bigfoot territory and try to earn a fortune by filming an undiscovered subject.
That's it. Just strange.
In joes mind patty is as clear as that.
DeleteThis kind of delusion should not be taken lightly. Medical help is advised.
Advised?
DeleteI would say it should be compulsory.
Survey everyone asking if they believe in bigfoot.
"Yes"
"Step this way sir"
Danny... No, the pictures are deemed to be hoaxes from those lacking an real argument to support their claims that such sources are untrustworthy. Sources of paradolia are actually promoted more within the enthusiast's stance more than any other. Take a little close up shot of Patty, you'll see facial features that exceed any suit mask capabilities of the day, you'll see proportions that once calculated all over the subject's body, cannot fit that of a normal human. In one of those sources, you have a subject achieving stealth that is outside of human capability whist wearing a bulky suit with large buttocks, shoulders and long arms. The switch between motions does not make sense to anyone willing to risk their wrists in that terrain, especially with long arm extensions. What's more, is for two of those sources presented, you have physical evidence in tracks accumulated that verify the sources even further.
Delete5:21... Why am I confronting you like that? Because you are being rhetorical, that's why. Further more, you ignore points put to you. You have no belief in Sasquatch in line with your experiences, right? Ok... How do you know how you'd react should one day you're in a very remote area and you come across something that's about 9 feet tall that's barking at you, that you had no idea was there? What's 'strange' to me, is that you forget that for your queries, you've been supplied with examples that fit yor exact senario... The sources I presented you were in fact the exact circumstances you suggest aren't there; however rare they may be just lends credence to my argument of the standard reponse someone in going to exhibit.
Again... Your query was answered up top, you have professionals with professional equipment, with professional instruction and ample protection against such animals you list. We also know how to track and seek out such animals, this is a very important fact you forget. There was an account not long back where a wildlife photographer had to leave his tripod in he wilderness to go and inspect a hairy humanoid that walked straight past him, at that moment he didn't think of grabbing his camera he just needed a rational explanation for what he saw that overrided any future plans to prove to anyone else what he saw. This is just some of the logic behind he thinking under such circumstances. You wouldn't swim with a shark, some wouldn't stay out in the wilderness all night looking for a creature like Sasquatch.
For the people who ARE brave, you have their footage. For the other brave people, they have brought back all sorts of physical and biological evidence. Like I implied, out of all the blobsquatches out there, how do we know that a high percentage of those aren't actually what they are being alleged at being?
I wasn't refering to casual encounters, I was refering to why there are no serious people organizing serious expeditions with this goal in mind.
DeleteRead better
"Read better"... Precisely! Go and do some research on the Internet, it might answer some of your questions prior to you seeking answers rhetorically. Here you will learn of plenty of official organised expeditions; pretty basic stuff.
DeleteI've stated in my comment quite clearly that those brave enough retrieve what you suggest isn't there.
Dan. We've talked about this. I'll send you some hair I collected from a snap twist cedar. It's primate hair. You can have it DNA tested if you want. It's real physical evidence. There's no "woo" associated with it. It took me three years to collect it. At the very least you can't claim that no researcher ever got physical evidence. I'm very much the same way as you. I want answers too. And I'm going to try and get some. M
DeleteHey! that a drawing of "Sitting Bull" not a Big foot!
DeleteOut of curiosity, joe fitzgerald... Where do you live? As I said I live in Weiser, Oregon... Doesn't sound like you ever went to expeditions too...
DeletePfffft, more rhetorical. If you want to know where I'm from, then how do you know if I haven't been on an expedition?
DeleteCome on bro.
Bigfoots are GRAY hybrids so if you find Bigfoot Like Matt and BOBO are doing you will find the GRAYs
DeleteIt does sound like you were offended from something I did say, apologize if it's the case, it wasn't offended. I'm just trying to understand this bigfoot thing but I can't find on google any scientific site talkin' about it, I just keep getting directed to this type of blogs...
DeleteAnyway, I'm not interested if you've ever been on an expedition, I just wish to know where do you live... You don't sound like someone living in the Pacific NW.
So.. where do you live?
Look, you come across like you're being sarcastic, this is why I'm responding the way I am. But it could be that I'm naturally defensive so just in case you're not trying to be rude, I'll try and provide you with the information you require.
DeleteThere's a reason why you can't find scientific sites regrading the subject matter, and it's because mainstream science does not recognise this subject to be legitmate. What you will find are a number of professional Sasquatch research organisation sites with scientific methods applied to accumulating various sources of evidence, to which the mainstream scientific community are largely ignorant of concerning key data (or on my opinion, are restricted from agknowledging).
I am from the UK but I am very fortunate however to be in affiliation with some very exceptional researchers who are way ahead of the game, and fortunate enough that I should lean on them (some have many decades of experience of the US wilderness and have held professional employment for much of it) for information that my employment commitments prohibit me from actively persuing myself.
I hope that is of some help to you.
Hey. Have you seen the Killing Bigfoot promo Joe? Look it up. We have the GCBRO fellas including Jim Lansdale and Humpheys and according to SS my main man Matt Knapp is armed in the promo too. I don't know about that but.... Hmmm. Monster Central is taking the show on the road. These guys are dead serious. Joe. Google "The Louisiana Hunt". Some of this crew has actually wounded a Subject before. Mountain Monsters this ain't.
DeleteI did get your emails bro, I'll do some digging...
DeleteInjuns like tham bigfoots all abouts ans thays be in da boosh
DeleteWhy, at 8 ft tall and over a thousand pounds, who thinks of a camera? Umm.. maybe all those people who've filmed giraffes? Just throwing it out there..
DeleteAnd I'm rolling it right back to ya...
DeleteAgain... You'd expect to see a giraffe, a Sasquatch with hands that can twist of your head... Not so much.
DeleteNoice!
ReplyDeleteImportant notice:
ReplyDeleteThe following are troll accounts and should be ignored:
Eva R
Joe F
So Titmus makes the casts 9-10 days later...so the process of making and digging up the casts leaves a fairly obvious hole in the ground that would have been mostly covered by snow through the winter. It seems obvious to me that these tracks would have still been visible the next spring when Green/McLarin go back. McLarin said he could still see remnants of the tracks. Footers have yet to find an explanation for why McLarin walked such a different path than Patty....It just gets brushed under the carpet. This is a case of "sticking with what's on film" that Munn's seems to forget.
ReplyDeleteApproximately Sunday, October 29, 1967
DeleteNote: This date is based on a letter Bob Titmus wrote to John Green where he discusses first seeing the tracks at the film site "9 or 10" days after they were made.
Bob Titmus arrives at Bluff Creek to investigate the film site.
Titmus spends the entire day walking the creek looking for the tracks. He finds ample sign of Patterson and Gimlin's horses, but he does not find the film site.
Monday, October 30, 1967
Titmus finds the film site on the morning of his second day at Bluff Creek.
He tracks the film subject to a position 125-150 yards away from the film site, 80-90 feet up the mountainside, where he believes the film subject "sat down" in an area shaded from view but with a clear line of sight to where the film was shot below.
While he finds indication that the subject went up the mountain after stopping, he decides not to track it further.
Titmus makes casts of ten consecutive prints that demonstrate, in his words, "vast difference in each imprint, such as toe placement, toe gripping force, pressure ridges and breaks, weight shifts, weight distribution, depth, etc."
Titmus' sister Allene and brother-in-law Harry arrive in the evening and camp with him that night.
Tuesday, October 31, 1967
Titmus departs Bluff Creek.
For McLarin, here's plenty of explanations;
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/1887-parnassus-comparison-mclarinpatty-pics/page-9
Some of the reasons behind the McLarin comparison range from debris piles being lower, McLarin standing on a log, not to mention that even if the two comparisons are the same height, Bigfoot are widely reported as the same size as a tall human, and the bulk of Patty, to which would no doubt yield way more muscle mass, would render her way heavier because muscle ways twice as much a fat... For example.
DeleteYou didn't counter the actual argument as usual. You are dumb.
DeleteTake a double take, open the link, shit up and sit down.
Delete; )
Yep you still got smoked as always.
DeleteNot by you, not ever, son.
Deletehttp://www.smokeyjoesauces.co.uk
You fool, muscle doesn't "way" (weigh) twice as much as fat.
DeleteMuscle is DENSER than fat.
One lb of fat and one lb of muscle are both still a single lb.
LOL "way" what a failure
DeleteArgh whatever, what's evident is that Patty's muscle mass is going to seriously outweigh McLarin, regardless of the possibilities of height similarities, explaning the tracks that were left, even outdoing the horses.
DeleteWhat weighs more
DeleteA pound of feathers
Or a pound of rocks?
I can tell you what pound doesn't weigh a pound
DeleteThe pound of weed I just picked up from rollo
7:59... I don't think there's a pound of brain cell in that lump of wood on your shoulders, get an argument and stop brown tonguing your pin up, he's dug himself a nice little hole down below and conveniently, is nowhere to be seen now?
Delete^^^ the Black Knight has areived
Delete^ ^ ^ witch burning village idiot has too.
Delete^^ I don't know Joe
DeleteWitch one?
What also floats?
DeleteWhatever usually drops out of your mouth.
Delete9:27
DeleteA duck!
thunderbirds
DeleteOh... And it's "way" as in "more"... Not the word "weigh".
DeleteLearn to read.
id be a reedin fer yeers ans takin to da libbriry
Deleteshure do
"because muscle ways twice as much a fat"
DeleteThis coming from someone that likes to points out spelling mistakes of others.
That's pathetic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd what word was typed prior to that? Ask your moma to stop feeding you up with pizza and get you an iPhone instead, you might fathom predictive text one day.
DeleteIt's not like you have an argument now, is it? You're too dumb.
; )
Yeah ok PJ you're weigh smarter than me.
DeleteWell, there's nothing like honesty I suppose.
DeleteI remember when Green was confronted with the Wallace tracks.. Particularly the ones with the crack in the heel .. He was all in a bluster, saying he wouldn't be fooled..
ReplyDeleteRationalization: The Wallace stomper was modeled after a real bigfoot print...
Oh, and the wood grain pattern was dermal ridges...
"At the end of 2002 the time had arrived to accept the meaning of the fake feet possessed by the heirs of Ray Wallace, a wealthy contractor who had started planting fake Bigfoot tracks in 1958 and saw his ruse succeed only too well to the time of his death in November of 2002. While always discrediting himself with extravagant claims to have film, recordings, and colorful stories of Bigfoot activity, Wallace nevertheless was one of the people who saw genuine Bigfoot tracks at the start of the Bigfoot publicity that began in 1958. The distinctive fakes that Wallace put into circulation can be sorted out from the record and disposed of. I addressed this issue in Volume 7 of Wonders. There I related the history from 1958 onward when what appear to be genuine tracks were first given widespread publicity.
DeleteSome faked impressions, made in imitation of genuinely large footprints, were discovered in at least three instances, in 1958, in 1960, and in 1967.
In short, after the initial sensational interest in Bigfoot was sparked by a genuine set of strange footprints, Ray Wallace hired two men to look into the matter. Soon thereafter he began to deposit false footprints along creeks and roads in Northern California. Those carved tools for hoaxing appear to me to have been based upon a find of genuine footprints made by his employees. Bigfoot seekers, who had little experience with Bigfoot prints in 1958, were fooled by those bogus impressions. Until the presentation of the hoaxing tools in December of 2002 one particular set of fake feet has had a significant impact on the record of Bigfoot. With further study of genuine Bigfoot tracks, more can now be said about how this success was gained and how genuine Bigfoot tracks can be viewed."
Getting desperate there Joe
DeleteReally? Or just using easily attainable information to shut you up??
DeleteYou paste some information to do with the same topic and you somehow think you have therefore proven bigfoot. Dumb.
DeleteLike I said yesterday bro, get someone to help you read.
DeleteJoe knows the current state of bigfootery to the layman, he just likes to talk to people all day.
DeleteSays the guy avoiding his questions down below, how amusing... And now on to your bear comment...
DeleteHey Daniel! boy you are a DICK! It figures your from Tennessee, a third world state!
DeleteNO SIR
DeleteWest Virginny whars you needin to gits to
I'm getting a fake impression of Wallace's impressive fakes.
DeleteAnother interesting point. Green was surprised that Patterson's tracks did not match the tracks of the "known" sasquatch in the area, namely a family of three. Not only were Patterson's tracks uniquely individual, "Patty's" tracks were never again found in any other context.
ReplyDeleteI think that post is incorrect.
DeleteComment, post, whichever, I think 2:23's comment is incorrect.
DeleteOf course it is.
DeleteOf course you'd say that.
DeleteOf course you'd say of course he'd say that. And of intercourse I would disagree DSA!
DeleteThat face looks a lot like my prom date.
ReplyDeleteThis is 2014 and we have wonderfull cameras that capture the subject in great clarity starting at $ 29.95. Why are biggies pics always blurred,underexposed,overexposed and just plain bad. Makes a thinking person wonder about the validity of the folks posting such garbage.
ReplyDeleteBecause they don't exist.
DeleteThe only thing that doesn't exist is that alleged brain between your ears.
Delete^Sounds like something a dick running out of escape clauses would say.
DeleteLook at the average cretivity of your comment, it kind of attracts the simplest of responses.
DeleteWOW that is amazing and beautiful
ReplyDeleteBring back sally here!
DeleteSmoked!
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line ...Bear.
ReplyDeleteTrue.
DeleteCertainly one explanation of many.
Double stepped bear prints.
Sykes multiple bear DNA results from north america where the submitters sweared (lied) it was a bigfoot.
The hybrid bear yeti.
Justin shooting 2 bears and pretending they were bigfoots
That upright bear video.
Bears existing in the same locations as bigfoot sightings and with fur of the same colour range of reports
Bears weight range and standing height inline with reports
No actual bigfoots anywhere ever
Etc etc
Bear prints have claw marks and are dual trackways with the foot falls, not singular trackways like Sasquatch.
DeleteOnly a three-four well know researchers submitted samples to Sykes, the BFRO submitted not one.
A hybrid bear (from three samples) does not account for the thousands of years of data there is of the primate version of the yeti.
Justin never claimed the steak he gave to Sykes was from a Sasquatch.
Bears are clumsy when they walk bipedally, don't have wide shoulders, flat faces, hands, or walk with a stride.
Unknown primate hair verified by experts cannot and is not bear hair. I can show you the differences with images under microscope.
A standing bear does not look like a standing human. Also, bears hibernate, what about winter reports?
Plenty found;
http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
... None caught.
Etc, etc, etc...
All joe has is excuses and no monkey.
DeletePoor fella.
Plenty of monkeys, and Bigfoot... Not enough brain cells to go around though, it seems.
Delete: (
Bears do not truly hibernate. Again you are wrong. Bears can and are seen during winter, especially if there was a bad fall when they put on fat to go into a state of lethargy.
DeleteThey are also not clumsy when bipedal. They can move very well for long distances. They can go farther in a bipedal motion than a chicken can fly in the air, comparatively.
Stop reducing your damage on Sykes study. He paid for and accepted samples for a long time before closing the acceptance phase of the published study. Don't forget you favorite, Rhettman Mullis, supposedly "coordinated" some of the American samples. The field failed to produce again, even with hairs on a "track line," blonde hair, etc.
Disotell criticizes procedure and protocol in bigfootery for very valid reasons...gator leg and bear/canine hair are some of the most recent blunders.
Maybe so, but bears in a state of reduced activity accompanied by lowered metabolism, heart rate and respiration don't achieve the motion to which is reported by Sasquatch accounts during this time. The frequency of Sasquatch sightings do not match the likelihood of such a high frequency of bears roaming around during this time of year too.
DeleteNo, they're very clumsy when bipedal. Can they run with a stride? No... Simple as that. It takes two seconds to look at a YouTube video of a bipedal bear, then look at some of the motion in the sources presented to you up top, a human walking is what it is.
I'm not sure what Sykes paying for the samples to be sequenced has anything remotely advantageous to your argument, it merely shows his interest and enthusiasms to apply his expertise to this field, whilst Mullis can coordinate what he likes. Though I trust him, he simply didn't coordinate enough samples from enough top researchers to quash the idea that Sasquatch samples are out there, or can be retrieved at some point. Sykes' rallying cry confirms this very obvious closure lacking approach. Look at the facts; the only known researchers who submitted samples were Dan Shirley, Marcel Cagey, Justin Smeja (who knew his steak sample was bear) and Derek Randles. The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples.
Unfortunately for us it's usually down to civilians to conduct research and accumulate these samples; the gator leg etc, does not accout for the amount of instances where tissue has been retrieved and check out properly prior to any information coming out about it, and it's easy for untrained eyes to make mistakes I suppose. Better to be overly optimistic than to be pessimistic and run the risk of losing a sample from an area with well known reports.
Joe do you actually know how tall 10 foot is?
ReplyDeleteIf you did I don't think you would make that ridiculous claim.
Or is it all so ridiculous now why not claim 10 foot? After all its all nonsense anyway. Might aswell have fun with it huh?
You see, your lovely bears grow to about that long, didn't think of that when you were listing eh? So... We know some mammals already can grow to this length in order to survive in the environment.
DeleteNuff said.
A bear standing upright is certainly not 10 feet tall.
DeleteMore lying.
Bro... Ask someone to help you do a Google search, it would save you so much embarasment.
DeleteThis is funny. Bears can grow up to 10 feet tall. People are seeing bigfoots up to 10 feet tall. Go figure. Joe smokes himself badly.
DeleteArgh come on junior, you don't need this spelled out for you, do ya? Surely??
DeleteOk, it appears you do. If a bear is close to ten feet in length and it stands up, what does that leave you with?
Get to bed, you've got school in the morning.
sometime bigfoots looks like bears so you thinking there a bear over there but its a bigfoot
DeleteNoooo. The Loch Ness Monster has abandoned it's natural habitat after being head hunted by the English.
ReplyDeleteHe said in a private interview "blllllooooo grrwwwlllll ooooooo pft pft pft"
The b*stard.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2752029/Another-blow-No-vote-First-banks-threaten-flee-independent-Scotland-appears-Loch-Ness-Monster-relocated-south-border.html
Looking for tree fiddy
DeleteNow Loch Ness monsta I say what u need tree fiddy for?
You never answered this Danny.
DeleteNice try Danny but I am not on record as saying I have read and watched every thing in this genre on this topic you could ever imagine, Joe.
...and you accepted Anon - go for it. Probably won't get all of it but I'm sure most will be familiar. so far it's 1-0.
next question, page 174 of the bigfoot casebook contains which photograph?
BTW incase anybody in future asks you the same question
Page 128 of Pyle's book "Where Bigfoot Walks" what is the tenth word?
the answer is below
"..for the past thirty-three he was worked to convey the..."
I'll also add question three, to save some time!
The Locals by Thom Powell, on what page is there a topograghic map displayed?
Daniel CampbellThursday, September 11, 2014 at 6:41:00 PM PDT
Perhaps in all those books, Steven, you can define the word Facetious.
Obviously I haven't read every book on bigfoot especially obscure crap that only has a handful of surving editions.
Guarantee I've read more than spanky up there though.
Okay Danny, let’s move on to your watched everything comment instead then shall we? Score so far 3:0
Question 4
Name the independently produced documentary on Bigfoot that contains Lloyd Pye and also MK Davis
Question 5
Name the independently produced documentary where the Bigfoot researcher is shot
Question 6
Name the independently produced documentary that contains, Rick Knoll & Bob Strain.
Some BFF nutcase^ likely Joe or DWA
DeleteNope; he's a genius though, I'll tell you that.
DeleteTree fiddy ;)
DeleteBOBO theory BIGFOOTs are real
DeleteIf you take 3 points in patty that can't be changed by a suit:
ReplyDeleteEyes
Elbows
Knees
They line up exactly with that of a human
and brain
DeleteYou don't know the distance between the eyes. If it's outside human range, you have a problem.
DeleteYou conveniently left out the hips and waist, which don't line up worth squat. Knees, no, no, you are citing the clown who created a force-fit-photo comparision.
"exactly", what a laugh. What a lie.
This is a classic skeptard flunk out, citing from phony premise, creating a textbook logical fallacy.
Did you breakfast with Rose or Randi this morning?
Kitakraze nuttily called them "an exact match", this hysterical force-fit-photo job.
DeleteDeluded, worshipping an illusionist. Apt.
6:30... I think you're referring to Pate, yes?!
DeleteOk... Let's do a little exercise on Pate's lined up proportions; get a ruler and line it up with Patty's knee across the comparison images.
What happens? Patty's knee is way lower.
Let's do the same with the bottom of Patty's buttocks, again using a ruler across both images.
What's happens? Patty's buttocks are lower.
Like a magician, Pate draws your attention to one piece of focus (in this case the lines on across two photographs), avoiding the proportions that don't add up.
Man you people are really stupid! Bigfoot aint no gotdang Injun, human, or person! Get being an idiot!
ReplyDelete"Bigfoot is a 10 foot Indian with 100% modern human DNA oh and patty is a bigfoot" - Joe F
DeleteIf you're a tribe of Indians somwhere in the US, way before Europeans settled there, who had been living next to a group of hairy hominids that had language, culture, social and family structure, with human faces, hands, feet, etc... With the exceptions being that they are rather tall, hairy, longer arms, and have animalistic sensory attenuates, and you've known nothing else but this other group of people always being around, the you would refer to them as another tribe of humans. This is true of nearly every single tribe in North America. There have even been burial mounds to which have been shared between smaller and giant Indian tribes all over the US.
DeleteOk... Now look at these digital versions of a hairless Patty;
http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-human-side-of-bigfoot-comparing.html?m=1
... Notice the forensic drawings of encounters by Harvey Pratt? That's right, it's very human looking.
This is how I can make the claim that Sasquatch are native to the US, and another group/tribe of humans and considering they share similar cultural traditions with smaller native tribes, I can refer to them in the same respect as all native Americans always have done;
As another tribe of Indians.
Injuns ain't got no gotdang body hair or facial hair and you expecting me to believe he be a bigfoot. Aint no way
ReplyDeletedang its tham injuns thays kepts acomin lack tham mexicuns thays be heers fer yeers
DeleteMad Science: ‘Genetically Modified Micro Humans’ to be ‘Farmed’ for Drug Testing by 2017
ReplyDeleteTHE NEW NORM : )
Hey you guys can keep on telling yourselves that they don't exist if it helps you to sleep at night, or pay your bills, or maybe even keep you from being terrified that the big bad monkey man is going to come down to your mommy's basement and drag you away in your stained tighty whites while you're in the middle of perusing your favorite internet porn sites and dreaming about Wild Bill's oh so tight jeans and his big "gun". Weirdo cowardly freaks that you all are.
ReplyDeleteObama got it covered
Deletewe got to arm ISIS to
defeat ISIS
FOR OUR SAFETY : )
Very telling post. Anon 7:50 is confused as to which site he's on. He thought he was supposed to be doing the Huffington Post anti-Obama propagandizing this morning but his brain is fried after being up all night and going from job to job and site to site.
DeleteNot trolling but that Drawing looks like a Meth Head in my Town!!!!!!
Deleteyes OBAMA is the modern day Napoleon.
Deleteso no worries
ans WILD BILL old Marine, bear huntin and gots a BIG KNIFE fer cutting and slicing
DeleteAns WILD BILL the old PHONY Marine. who never shot a bear, according to West Virginia's Fish and Game, who carries a big knife, cause he's gotas a small dick, and is BUCKS lover to boot!
DeleteTrapper ans Buck sayin WILD BILL goes every yeer to huntin tham bears ats Raleigh County, that be whars WILD BILL ans AIMS kilt that thar Bear Beast Trapper sayin it be a KIA fer AIMS
DeleteThe repetitive MORON I back!
DeleteWhat all of you fail to realize is that John Jones took a skeptic deep into the woods and he would not stay! John Jones also killed a wolf and successfully faked his own death. And yet here you all sit, debating the existence of a creature John Jones sees with regularity!
ReplyDeleteanother dumg film that sees weirdo people like joe fiyc' commentating mulitpiple tines as hes nothing else in hos clearly sad life
ReplyDeleteif a creature ;ooked like this and was the proported size 8/10ft 800pd surely it would be seen and filmed multiple times. the BF films show furry men in suit type figres. nit faces like this or muscle bound ape people
what a joke
you cant have it oth ways. they films are all shipng etc] or these eye witness accounts and re created drawings are sg=hit
they all show different things
no body
no hd film deranged/hurt/dyeing etc etc...creatures wandering about or found
I guess it gives the weird people something to do