Is This The Dogman?
Dogmen are creatures that have been seen and reported by witnesses in parts of Canada and the northern United States. Apparently, they are in the U.K. as well. Some of the most compelling evidence suggesting the existence of the Dogman is known as the "Beast of Seven Chutes Photo". Unlike Bigfoot, the creature is much shorter, only standing 5-6 feet tall. A couple of days ago, a person from the U.K. posted this photograph of what they believe is the Dogman. The pre-enhanced version is below:
 |
| Dogman of the U.K.? |
Supposedly, the photo was taken by a family who were driving their campervan. Could this be the elusive Dogman that resides in North America?
 |
| The Beast of Seven Chutes. A single photo exists of the beast. It is standing beside a waterfall near Quebec Canada. |
That's my dog man !
ReplyDeleteMMC
Howdy MMC- Great first!!
DeleteHi chick
DeleteThanks
MMC
If that is your Dog MMC get him/her on a leash now. Cool breed though. Dogman dog.
DeleteChuck
It looks like a teddy bear lion on a stick.
Delete... The one up the very top anyway, the bottom one looks more like a gorilla to me?
DeleteYesterday I found a post by a nice woman. Will not give her name, she is on another site. Using art tools at Redbubble.com she was able to make her own rendering of what she had witnessed in Arkansas of her Dogman sighting in Arkansas. It has a much smaller snout than I envisioned and more human features with a small protruding dog type snout. This lady was featured earlier this year on the Sasquatch Chronicles with an interview by the good folks over there. I have not listened, but put it on the list to do.
DeleteChuck
Paradolia you jackass
DeleteIt's spelled Pareidolia... Einstein.
Delete: )
Cool. You grasped what was said. Now acknowledge your smoking.
DeleteWhat's there to disagree with? It could quite obviously be pareidolia or I'd have used this source to give you another meltdown a long time ago.
DeleteWell done boyo... You really got me.
: )
Joe admitted he is wrong? Fair play Joe...
DeleteI love the dogman holding the dog picture. Those guys are best buddies. Aaawwwww
DeleteMMC
4:19... I'll admit I'm susceptible to stooping so low as to respond to you... I'll admit that.
DeleteMMC... Ha ha ha ha!!
4:19... And you can't spell.
Delete; )
Boohoo you can't get a grasp of reality
DeleteReality is Occam's Razor, and your very apparent self esteem issues.
DeleteOccam's razor. Isn't that the thing where you say the simplest explanation is usually the right one?
DeleteOk let's try that...
Why is there zero bigfoots ever?
Because bigfoot dont exist.
You are right. It's very easy.
"Scientific method is that within some system you make hypotheses, you make testable hypotheses, you test them, and you keep the ones that are verified, and you throw out the ones that are falsified. If you have two hypotheses which are verified, which explain the same phenomenon, you use Occam’s razor and take the simplest. (32 Senior, Physics, Male, France/En)"
DeleteIn this case we have many examples of evidence having been verified by reputable scientists that point to an unknown primate residing in the wilderness of the US. You on the other hand just have a negative proof fallacy, but it's easy to get things like this confused when you're at such an intermediate level of understanding such. It's OK... I'm here to help.
(Sigh)
Which reputable scientists are these?
DeleteThe only one I know of is Sykes and he found no bigfoots.
A long line that consist of wildlife biologists, forensic experts, anthropologists, primatologists, plastic surgeons... And of course top geneticists like Bryan Sykes, who have participated in field research to attain hair samples and have actually had experiences in the wilderness of the PNW, even theorising about relict Neanderthals.
DeleteName them...
DeleteConsider it your homework... I don't have to dance for you.
DeleteI couldn't find any scientists that say bigfoot is real. I could not find any published papers that proce bigfoot is real. I think you are making things up.
DeleteYou didn't look too hard did you? To prove 'Bigfoot' is real, you require a type specimen, but science doesn't start at type specimen I'm afraid and it's been used to point to the evidence of an unknown primate residing in the wilderness if the US.
DeleteRhetorical kids always did try and put words in people's mouths.
Being as Bigfoot has been a pop culture phenomenon since, well really even before PGF most of your "evidence" is likely hoaxes. A lot of it Im sure is misidentified as well. You can have all the reputable sources in the world say there's a unidentified primate in the woods here but until you catch one, these are just opinions. Your self perceived open mindedness is really just naivety and gullibility. I cant wait for the world to come crashing down around you when you find out some of your best evidence is hoaxes. I can personally guarantee that you go to the grave and Bigfoot will still have never been proven to exist.
Delete"Being as Bigfoot has been a pop culture phenomenon since, well really even before PGF most of your "evidence" is likely hoaxes."
DeleteI'm sorry... There is no means of using Pop Culture to measure science you must be confused?
"A lot of it I'm sure is misidentified as well. You can have all the reputable sources in the world say there's a unidentified primate in the woods here but until you catch one, these are just opinions."
Yes, we know... Ten thousand years of cultural and contemporary anecdotes that transition into modern accounts in the tens of thousands that have professional stock at the core of these reports; are all missidentifications (sigh).
"Your self perceived open mindedness is really just naivety and gullibility."
Unfortunately for you, my "self perceived open mindedness" is something shared by people far more qualified than little old anonymous you, dear boy.... Qualified people who state that if this creature didn't exist, people simply wouldn't be seeing it. Logic was never a forte of your folk.
"I cant wait for the world to come crashing down around you when you find out some of your best evidence is hoaxes."
I've been waiting almost two years now for that to happen and nothing seems to materialise, old boy? And since you people like to reference durations, there have been people far more interested in this subject who are still waiting... All we seem to get are more and more scientists getting on board and more evidence? Funny that?
"I can personally guarantee that you go to the grave and Bigfoot will still have never been proven to exist."
Guarantees like showing me the evidence is bunk? Don't make promises you can't keep son, Santa's on his way didn't you know?
+100000 5:53
Delete^ -1000000 calories a day will get you off your behind, old boy.
Delete-1000001 5:53
DeleteGuarantees like showing me the evidence is bunk?
DeleteNope, more along the lines of its been nearly 50 years since PGF was filmed and you still dont have one. And I know in 50 more years you still wont have one. But your old ass wont even be around that long (thankfully). How do I know that. Because I know Bigfoot isn't real. When I hear Indian folklore, I tend to consider it folklore, not fact.
"Unfortunately for you, my "self perceived open mindedness" is something shared by people far more qualified than little old anonymous you, dear boy"
And unfortunately for you there a vast majority more qualified people that say Bigfoot isnt real than the opposite, you silly old Taffy. But please keep trying, this is getting funnier by the minute.
Argh, but in the last 150 years we have giant human skeletal remains documented in the US, so it's simply a matter of either being naive to facts, or being rhetorical to the points presented... You I'm afraid have been educated on the matter too many times to count so we have to come up with a new classification for you young man. And you "know I'm 50 years time we still won't have one"... Hope more like kiddo, you don't know much let alone what's around the corner with so many scientists now applying their expertise to the field these days. You keep claiming Bigfoot isn't real, yet you can't reinforce your stance about the evidence for it, in fact... Not so credible for something "so easily imaginary", right? You've actually run away time and time again when you've presented other people's ideas that I've shown to not hold weight, so considering you not only have no argument of your own, but also have the arguments you use thrown back at you, why would anyone listen to you when you say this topic isn't real? Point me to one reasons why someone SHOULD listen to you... I'll very much like to hear it.
DeleteNative American culture and history have always been past down the generations from father to son to maintain identity and bonds, because written texts can always be manipulated. It's how culture, identity and history is maintained in indegenous peoples. Where people like me can draw the ideas that these are indeed factual, are things like over 80 names for this creature among tribes not geographically linked, are things like European settlers and their descendants for the next 300 years reporting the exact same encounters when they had no reason to imitate the people they were trying to subjugate... Things like all this then manifesting into modern day mediums and physical and biological evidence. That's how people like me can make those claims kiddo.
As for the scientists that claim Sasquatch is not a legitimate subject, I would say they need to listen to their superiors who state the contrary... Pioneers always were in the minority I guess. I'm pretty sure that the list I can reference won't have anything to worry about the lesser peers in comparison.
Also... Isn't that an agknowldgment that I'm Welsh? Another contradiction considering I'm meant to be a fraud from the U.S. right?
DeleteMan... You're one dense puppy.
It doesn't matter if a few academics confirm the veracity of evidence, there must be a consensus among their peers that it has been tested and found valid. The very few scientists who are giving you the verdict you fancy (confirmation bias) do not speak for an entire scientific discipline. Nothing has been proven despite your wishful thinking.
DeleteIt's pretty simple... The evidence put forward hasn't been tested suffiently. Its been addressed with mere cynicism and reclined heuristical conclusions because of the contraversial & offensive implications of what the legitimacy for this subject means, but nothing more. Psuedoskeptical scientists are ignorant of the facts and celebrate their own ignorance preserving a sense of community. In sheer naivity of the facts regarding evidence, it's easy to come across so confident, but it only lasts as long as someone can point out these facts to which it then turns into aggresive denial... Ego's require preserving. Most mainstream scientists are either restricted from making any commitments, or don't find it interesting enough to care. This is why we have so many researchers applying their expertise either after they've retired, or at a time when they have excelled to the point that they don't care what their peers think. Cognitive Biases are systematic errors that predispose one's thinking in favor of a certain viewpoint over other viewpoints. The scientific method developed, among other reasons, to counteract these biases in order to derive objective knowledge. The scientists I reference do not speak for an entire field, but they are ahead of said field and are waiting for their evidence to be tested sufficienty, not have it ignored because there are examples of it being hoaxed. If this was the proper way to conduct science then we should throw out the precious peer review process, as it has far too many holes and has been at times manipulated to dictate falsities to the scientific community. Lastly... Nobody has made the claim anything has been proven except for the evidence for an unknown primate.
DeleteRemember to scoop after your dogman when you walk him!!
ReplyDeleteDogmen, plenty found, none caught!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHahahahahaha^ oh boy.
DeleteHohohohohohohoho, oh Santa!
DeleteAlright Joe. "Bigfoot- The Missing Evidence" doc. on Channel 5 tonight at 8. Looks pretty standard fare, but might be worth a watch anyway. Cheers mate, Tim,U.K.
DeleteLol. I will predict that there will be zero bigfoots found just like every other bigfoot related thing ever produced. Check in tomorrow to congratulate my correct prediction.
DeleteThanks Tim... I saw the Loch Ness one and it actually really changed my mind about the whole topic. Thanks for the head's up, hope you are well.
Delete4:15... Well done, you're so clever, I really wish I was like you.
Wait is Joe saying he is now a loch ness monster believer or he was but is not anymore?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI don't merely believe in anything, like I don't believe in dogmen or Nessie, because I need to be convinced by the evidence and that isn't as fruitful regarding the aforementioned as this blog's subject matter.... Doesn't mean I don't find them interesting.
DeleteI enjoyed that documentary and there are in fact a lot of sonar hits attained from under the Loch that made me think again.
Apparently you don't need convincing by the evidence when it comes to fantasy ape men. You are quite happy to believe in then despite the complete lack of evidence.
DeleteWhen you have every source of evidence short of modern type specimen, the only fantasies are the maintained vomit that there is no evidence, and the little scenarios you conjure in your head alone in bed at night.
DeleteSo u mean the only sources of evidence you have are ones that can be and have been hoaxed but u have no sources of evidence that can't be hoaxed... Lol you make it too easy.
DeleteEvery source of evidence submittable in any judiciary or scientific arena can and has been hoaxed. It's a straw man argument.
DeleteHow about you list off the reasons to not consider the evidence and I'll show you exactly why you closure desperation is so apparent?
: )
Wrong in fact. You can not hoax a specimen / DNA that would be verified by multiple labs.
DeleteI must admit JOE, I too find those topics interesting, always have since I was a youth. It does not mean I believe in them, because unlike the Sasquatch, and Ufos where there is an overwhelming body of evidence, for the others it does not exist. I imagine you are in good company.
DeleteChuck
4:56... Quote right about specimens, but I'll notice you contradict yourself when you then deny Scientific big hitters' documentation of such as soon as they're sourced you?
Delete(Poor guy doesn't know if he's coming or going)
With regards to DNA, if Sasquatch are human then this might have (and in my opinion has) been sequenced already. It's then down to the 'gatekeepers' of the bipedal gorilla philosophy, as well as the plain old denialists that are going to hold back any such breakthrough for a significant time ahead.
Chuck! Of course I'm in good company, your good self agrees with me!
: )
Good god what a load of pseudo scientific nonsense.
DeletePsuedoscience is in fact maintaining that there is nothing worthy of analysis until such a process of conclusive research is reached, such as type specimen. Psuedoscience is also ignoring data based on subjective assumptions and inaccurate data, reclining to preconceived preferences that cannot be supported, and is in fact heuristics (what the scientific method was designed against)... Some of your very regularly expressed fallacies... Like providing a means to test the sources presented sufficiently and show that your position is not one hypocritically based on lies that you point to others making.
DeleteFor someone so readily contradicting himself over the documentation of type specimens, I really didn't expect much else.
Apparently Joe knows better than the entire scientific community.
DeleteNo... But those scientists I do reference are a select few, some consisting of the best in their respected fields, that simply account for a minority of pioneers. I would say your 'entire scientific community' actually need to catch up.
DeleteLol. You never cease to amaze me. You are a comedy genius, Karl pilkington esque.
DeleteThe fact is and it is a fact is the fact that JOE does know better than the vast majority of the scientific community and academia, as do I and quite a few others. Somday this community will finally get it and jump aboard. Will you jump aboard or be left at the station. Or as Stanton Friedman likes to say "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up."
DeleteChuck
5:49... Something tells me you ain't laughing son.
DeleteWhy do you repeatedly change the definition of psuedo-science to try and make it out to be the definition of skeptic? I know you are an arrogant scumbag but come on, have some self integrity and quit blatantly trying to turn everything around. Makes you look like a snot nosed brat.
DeletePseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts.
Theres the real definitions you lying sack of crap.
pseudo
Deleteˈsjuːdəʊ/Submit
adjective
1.
not genuine; sham.
"a pseudo Georgian facade"
2.
informal
pretentious or insincere.
"his lyrics sound like pseudo intellectual rubbish"
synonyms: bogus, sham, phoney, imitation, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, feigned, pretended, false, faux, spurious, counterfeit, fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, affected, insincere; More
antonyms: genuine
nouninformal
noun: pseudo; plural noun: pseudos
1.
a pretentious or insincere person.
"the undiscriminating, arty chat of a campus pseudo"
"Therefore, in truth and by their actions, these pseudoskeptics (who call themselves "skeptics") are NOT open minded truth seekers who question things and are attuned to possibilities. Rather, they are ridiculers and prosecutors of anything that strays outside the status quo or challenges the official version of things. They are defenders of orthodoxy and materialism. And they will distort, dismiss, obfuscate and play "verbal hopscotch" to get their way. They've hijacked the term "skeptic" to refer to the one who suppresses the act of questioning, rather than to the questioner himself. In doing so, they've pretended to be the opposite of what they are to hide their true agenda, which is to protect the agenda of the status quo power elite and keep people remaining sheeple. Additionally, they've hijacked terms such as "rational, reason, logic, critical thinking" to mean the "proper" thinking and behavior that supports materialism and orthodoxy, and rejects against anything that challenges it. That is not what those words mean of course. It's a form of mind control and disinformation. And it seems way too calculated and militant to be due to some accidental misunderstanding, ignorance or closed mindedness. Hijacking a word to mean its opposite is more indicative of a deliberate agenda, such as a disinformation campaign or form of mind control. If that sounds terrible, well, we are here to expose it thank goodness. Furthermore, oddly enough, they treat Science as if it were some kind of authoritarian "entity" that takes positions and views on issues (their own of course), when it is in fact merely a tool and method of inquiry based on logical principles. In reality, science does not take positions or hold dogmatic beliefs on subjects. People take positions, not Science, which holds no more views than my computer does. Science is not a living entity. These pseudoskeptics are projecting their own views and Atheistic philosophy into Science, which they hold as the ultimate authority, aka Scientism. (Oh well, I guess pseudoskeptics need something to worship too)."
Pyrrho, the founder of "Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic
In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]
And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:
Delete"One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."
"The original definition of skeptic was a person who questions ALL beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today's common definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion."
To top it all off, we have consistent scientific method transitioning the most successful of carers, we have supporting scientific evidence and plausibility inthe most excelled of scientific opinion, WE are in fact waiting for you folk to grow a pair and test the evidence and reinforce any such poisonous hearistical mess of an approach, and as for scientific status Hominology has been a branch of anthropology by some of the very best Russian anthropologists foor the past 70 years.
DeleteOn the other hand, your form of 'science'; Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
No, no... The pleasure's all mine.
: )
Just stick to the definitions and youll be ok. No need to add your paragraphs trying to insert your nonsensical opinions into the definition. You aren't Webster, old man, you cant make your own defintions. I do appreciate you putting the real definitions up though so people can see how you changed it around. I have to question why you had to add to it though? One last desperate attempt to save face I suppose? Pathetic.
DeleteRage more
DeleteOnce again you are trying desperately to change the subject. I merely wanted to show your knack of changing definitions around to suit your agenda. Which I did, and then subsequently you showed it again for me. Quit trying to turn this into a pissing contest and changing the subject back to the existence of Bigfoot. Your own personal opinions dont change the root definitions of the words in question, sorry to tell you. You cant hide in your redundant posts forever, time to come out and face the music.
DeleteI just did 6:21, by using the definition of 'psuedo' and you don't seem to have much in the way of a come back other than stick and stones?
DeleteNow that's some serious rage right there.
; )
6:27... You sound a little miffed dear boy? So redundant that you have at best a long elaborate way of stamping your feet like a child? Who's trying to change the subject? Heck, I'm still waiting for you to grow a pair and show me how I;m wrong on the subject matter... And what would that music entail, dear boy?
DeleteHa ha ha ha ha!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh... And by the way 6:27... If you actually take the time to compare your listed fallacies that I referenced at 5:22... You'll notice they actually fit your psuedoscience definition like a glove son.
DeleteI've told you before, if the reading gets too tough, ask an adult for help!
: )
Me; "maintaining that there is nothing worthy of analysis until such a process of conclusive research is reached, such as type specimen."
DeleteTo compare...
"belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method."
Me; "ignoring data based on subjective assumptions and inaccurate data, reclining to preconceived preferences that cannot be supported."
And to compare...
"lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague..."
Me; "providing a means to test the sources presented sufficiently and show that your position is not one hypocritically based on lies that you point to others making."
And to compare...
"exaggerated or unprovable claims... a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories."
You just needed to stop being so angry and actually read son.
Wow still trying to patch this together huh? I mean you do realize you are just further proving my point right? Or you are still trying to convince the others more likely? No need to try so hard, they dont understand have the things you say anyway. Once again can you please keep your own opinions out of the definitions. Why cant you stop yourself from doing that? Just admit you changed the definitions and go back to yammering about your "evidence"
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteActually... I'll spell it out for you as you're on the ropes. When you post a Wikipedia quote, it's in fact evidence of being ten steps ahead that someone should then take those principles and then apply them to your arguments that show you're not only stupid, but one heck of a contradictive little fool. It's in fact evidence of being able to take scientific theory and apply it to your arguments.
DeleteBut hey! You're learning, you should be grateful of that, yeah?
Its like for footers it is absolutely no issue that there is not a single piece of verified evidence despite the huge effort over the last 50 years. It's like they are pretending none of that happened.
ReplyDeleteAgain... As verified by uneducated, unqualified anonymous you. You can't handle any level of evidence presented, you haven't the brain to understand it, nor the belly to acknowledge it. Attention time at play school denied, now shut and up sit down.
DeleteThis is a factual statement that none of your special pleading and word play can ever get around:
DeleteThere is no verified evidence of bigfoot.
The people pleading, audaciously in fact, are your folk... In that you insist consistent scientific method should be altered or prejudiced against for preferences that cannot be supported; special pleading. Enthusiasts aren't in a position to fear the what the data entails and therefore deny it's there. That's all I plead for is an even playing ground.
DeleteAgain... As verified by uneducated, unqualified anonymous you. You can't handle any level of evidence presented, you haven't the brain to understand it, nor the belly to acknowledge it.
Again you couldn't talk your way round that fact:)
DeleteYet should I reel off the evidence, you wouldn't be around here very long... Funny that. Your insignificant hateful little opinion counts for nothing against professionals that have a stark stance to the contrary dear boy. Anyone can post on a blog... Unfortunately for everyone who frequents here it's to the detriment of their literary patience whenever you decide to spew.
DeleteMan I stoop low.
: P
Again. The fact remains true. :)
DeleteI don't see you reeling off the reasons to not consider the evidence and actually support your vomit? Funny that?
Delete: p
What's considering evidence got to do with anything. The fact remains zero verified evidence of bigfoots.
DeleteConsidering evidence has everything to do with it; your closure desperation & perverse reassurance fuelled mental health for one. Again... As verified by uneducated, unqualified anonymous you.
DeleteAnd still the fact remains true:)
DeleteBut aren't you just as uneducated and unqualified as him? In fact since you've never seen one and don't even live in America where you could possibly see one, Id say in my opinion that makes you even less significant.
DeleteActually, what makes me more qualified than him is that I in fact know people who have had multiple first hand experiences, and I don't doubt them or live in such a paranoid, fearful world that I doubt the tens of thousands of eye witnesses that account for every professional background referencable. I also have in fact taken the time to research the topic and know every angle you can conjure cannot stand against the sheer frequency of what this subject has to show for itself.
DeleteYou don't have to be American to have an interest in cryptozoology son, the world don't revolve around your bedroom.
6:05... That you appear to have run out of vomit? Yes sir... Quite true, I'm still waiting for you to show me just how... I wonder why that ins't forthcoming? Anyone would think you've been done in a few too many times already?
Delete: p
Done in? So you proved Bigfoots existence while I was away? No? Oh so then you havent done in anything. :(
DeleteOh and just because you know some people doesn't make you any more qualified than me. Maybe you can find some mythological entity in Wales to hunt like the Coblynau people might take you more seriously. :-P
I think you'd have been one of the first to hear should I have proved the topic outright, considering how long you've tried to self serve up reasurance around here... No, where I've done you on kiddo, is where I've repeatedly asked you to grow a pair in this very comment section and show me the evidence I reference is bunk, and you've bottled it.
DeleteActually, the people I know does make me more qualified than you, when they account for decades in the wilderness of the U.S. and considering your fumblings, it all amounts to a very obvious inferiority complex that's the root of your self esteem issues, old boy. It must be so ego smashing to have a Welshman educate you on what's in your own back yard.
I see how Joe refrained from posting on any of the meldrum standing posts and is back now that's been swept under the rug.
ReplyDeleteOh no! You didn't post another 100 comments calling Meldrum and Standing frauds did you?! Oh what will I do?!
Delete: )
It is Doggy Style Man. Lock your doors. Bolt your windows. And above all else, Pucker ye taterholes.
Deletebatsquatches abouts
DeleteDidn't they prove that 60s film was a hoax?
ReplyDeleteNo... They can't seem to test the source and show those claims hold any weight in reality.
DeleteFunny that.
Wait what?
DeleteBut when there is no such thing as a "bigfoot" then the solution is of course a man in a costume.
Read my comment properly kiddo.
DeleteBut you have multiple Hollywood experts saying it could be done at the time and in their opinion its a guy in a suit. Multiple hollywood experts weighed against your one hollywood expert? You're such a silly old man.
DeleteYeah... But not one of them, out of all of them, can point to a known fur cloth technique of the last 100 years of achieving such a suit... And have merely passed a lazy opinion whilst having a highly paid careers in the spotlight... Prior to the footage being stabilized and digitalised I'll add.
DeleteIt's cool having the experts concur with what the majority think of this entire subject, but when they can't show you how it's done, who's looking silly?
The photo at the top is anhttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/11/legend-of-wisconsin-werewolves-and.html#moretop out take from an article originally posted on BE by a former contributor named Vicki W. from circa halloween time 2012.
ReplyDeleteIt was a huge wolf that was shot many years ago.
Chuck
That was a good read Chuck, thx! The size of that track with the shotgun shell is amazing.
DeleteAt 5:44, "I don't have to dance for you."
ReplyDeleteJoe's best line ever.
Love it!
Hey buddy!!
DeleteGood Day, Sir! I see you're at the top of your game today. :-)
DeleteAnd by top of his game he means getting owned in conversations and resorting to muttering the same useless statements over and over again.
Delete::golf clap::
Morning Joe, Chuck and BigfootStudent! Can use your quote above this week Joe? Hahaha!
DeleteI think seeing a dogman would be the most traumatizing sighting to have. Much worse than seeing a bigfoot. In Linda Godfreys interviews she pretty much says most people feel that way when they talk to her.
6:04... I'm waiting for you to grow a pair, for someone willing to point the finger at frequently used statements, it doesn't bode well on you to have all this time and not have the buts to counter them, eh?
DeleteChick!! Hope you are well!!
Good Morning CHICK. It is funny. I have been over at the Sasquatch Chronicles and Vicki W over there recognized me from here and she had posted her original article there with a pic of the same wolf head. She used to post some pretty good articles on here a couple years back.
DeleteIf anyone wants to join the SC it is fabulous. Absolutely no trolls or cyber trash and completely friendly and civil. Everyone has a name. There are people from all over the world, US and Canada. MMC there are a lot of Michigan people. For JOE there are folks from England and Scotland. For ChICK and MIKE we could use more Texans as they are in short supply right now.
Chuck
Hi Chick.
DeleteChuck... There's a good chance you'll see me around there very soon!
DeleteWow Chuck, you may have just convinced me to pop on by! Thanks for the tip off! Missing Uno and BigJon- did they move over there?
DeleteHope you all are doing well! Always fun to see Joe in the mornings doing his Ninja moves ;)
Good to see you again BigfootStudent!
Joe: wind him up and watch him go
Delete... Cracking skulls.
DeleteIt's not my dog. Amber, my Belgian Malinois was put to rest on Friday aged 15.
ReplyDeleteRIP Girl.
OH, so sorry Richard. 15 yrs is very good for a big dog. You took excellent care of her. Sending off a big hug to you!
DeleteThanks Chick x
DeleteSorry to hear that Rich.
DeleteMy sincerest condolences, Richard.
DeleteVery sorry and my condolences go out to you Richard. It is so unfortunate that those pets we hold so dear and close like family and give us nothing but love and loyalty have to leave us in only a few short years.
DeleteChuck
Thanks guys. My heart is broken.
DeleteI'm sorry to hear about Amber Richard,it's never easy when you lose a furry friend,bless you Amber xx
DeleteSorry for your loss Richard
DeleteAt you local kennel is another best fiend who needs you
MMC
Thanks guys.
DeleteMMC - I plan on doing soon. Not too soon though as at the moment it just feels like I'd be replacing her.
OMG! What a bunch of CRAP! They can't find Bigfoot, now there looking for the Dog man!
ReplyDeleteBut what about the Lizardman, Mothman, Devil dogs etc?
Low IQ people, grasping for something to believe in.
GRAYs on a DNA gathering mission,
DeleteGRAYs find U , U dont find them
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
DeleteUK folks...
ReplyDeleteBigfoot: The Missing Evidence - Tonight (Mon 15 Dec) on Channel 5 at 8pm
Just saying...
Same show Sykes or should I say Icon films put out last year. By the way Meldrum in his interview on C2C am last week was critical of the entire charade. Seems none of the samples were passed through Meldrum first which I believe was initially intended. Jeff said he could have ruled them all out before they got tested. He also said the bear finding in Himalyas was predictable and in essence no big deal and bear biologist already knew about them. Polar bears being stranded in these mountains after retreating ice age was assumed, but hey Sykes did find the DNA to prove it. Same in happening in North America right now and one was shot in 06. Meldrum did say that he has several viable samples of hair that he is or will have Todd Disotell test. He said the hairs are all the same except for two in that they have no medulla which creates a problem in itself as the medulla carries the DNA. Will see what the future holds for this.
DeleteChuck
It's by Sykes? Haven't seen this particular one before and seems to be fairly recent. It's part of the 'missing evidence' series' of programmes by channel 5 - last week was about the Nevada Triangle and this week is Bigfoot.
DeleteIt's main focus seemed to be Jeff Meldrum, with no mention of Sykes. However it did seem to veer more towards Bigfoot NOT existing but was pretty interesting nonetheless...
It's repeated again on 5+24 anyway for those that missed it.
Just saying...
This is the monster from thd movie Prophecy.
ReplyDeleteI've seen this "creature" photo before. And the lighting is wrong. Meaning it's posted into another photo.
ReplyDeleteThus fake.
the photo is from the MonsterQuest tv show that was on awhile back, i think its the werewolves in america eps. had somethin to do with the 'dogman'.
ReplyDeletenothin at all to do the the U.K.
Delete