Modern Day P.T. Barnum Has More Up His Sleeves, Only Took One Year From Last Hoax


On Sunday, blogger Randy Filipovic‎ shared these images in the Facebook group, Coalition for Reason, Science, Sanity in Bigfoot Research. We don't really care too much about the Bigfoot doll. What we're mostly interested in is that thin mohawk! Some say it doesn't appear to be real. Of course, Facebook is going wild over this silly photo of Rick Dyer hold a plastic hand -- which was supposedly taken from a "Japanese Buzzfeed" website. More close-ups below:




Comments

  1. Replies
    1. Dyer is great fun to wind up on his YouTube comments. Hes not very popular so he reads them and can respond hehe. Was a while ago now but he made a video slagging off Bobo Fay. I left a comment telling him he was nothing and that Bobo could slap his little bald head about. Dyer replied not happy about my remarks and after another message or two he banned me from commenting. Best bit was, next day he uploaded a video of him at the gym hahaha guess my Bobo comment touched a nerve... Good doggy

      Delete
    2. Dyer, Cuz I can get more hair out of my shower drain catch than your pathetic limp wristed mo-hawk thing on the top of your evil dome. Dyer, cuz they sell weaves for losers like you with no hair or no balls for that matter! I can see your pick-up truck now going down the road with those ballz on the back of it. Except yours only has one in the bag because that Mexican flea rag(wifey) gave you a STD and one of your manly man's fell off.
      Can't wait till the coroner is holding your arm/hand like that! Hell keep ripping people of Dyer and maybe someone will put a slug into you next!

      Delete
    3. The expression on Dyre's face screams, "I'm stupid." A true idiot with fake littlefoot. Maybe he didn't have enough playdough to make a bigger face. And who would pose with this nut in the same picture?

      Delete
    4. Thanks Eva! Happy New Year! May all your dreams come true! Uno!

      Delete
  2. All Hail King Dyer! He has slayed the beast! Hip hip Hooray!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is the state of Bigfoot Research since the internet age folks!
    Accept it, or move on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What the Hell did that Puppet ever do to the lead singer of Rancid?

    ReplyDelete
  5. And just what the hell is that Mountain Dancer Jessico White grinning about. Where's Racer X when we have legitimate Questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm right here, Mike. Unfortunately, I have a job and that keeps me away from the internet for about 8 hours. ;)
      I check Shawn's blog a couple of times a day and just saw this.
      You want Dyer's IP address? Shoot me a PM.

      Delete
  6. Tell ya what Dyer. Bring that specimen to Texas where you made the most money. Bring the rest of your idiot squad with you. And I'll pay for the fuel costs for five minutes alone with you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And I will personally slap that Mohawk off your cranium keel. It's an insult to everyone of true Native American ancestry. And you've had it coming for a while now you gap toothed mouth breather. I'll be easy to find, I'll be the guy with your dental impressions in my knuckles. Nuff Said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you were really such a badass seems like youd be saying this stuff to Dyer himself, not posting it on a blog. Just saying.

      Delete
    2. 5:21. I don't know how to reach him. But I do know he loves his own press enough to read this. And since you're speaking anonymously you ain't "just saying much". I'm about as serious when I chose to be as anyone brave enough to post under his own name rather than hide behind a chickenshit anonymous monicker. "Just reapondin"

      Delete
    3. I'm not above paying cash for an IP address. I've asked long standing members of this blog who are universally reviled to meet me. And I'm truly willing or front the cost. I hate hoaxing. And i especially hate the exploitation of this area for it.

      Delete
    4. If you truly hate hoaxing and exploitation you better find another hobby dude. That's the only thing bigfoot is about.

      Delete
    5. He also thinks that Todd Standing and Timbergiantbigfoot are the real deal. True story.

      Delete
    6. Go away if your only going to troll

      Delete
  8. eat shit Mike, My cousin Rick would just whoop the shit out of u pussy boy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll post my email and address. Let's see if you, an anonymous white out poster will back that up. Joe Fitzgerald knows it's mkbrookreson@aol.com and I'll meet you and your pussy cousin at a ore determined location of your choice. Pussy. mkbrookreson@aol.com

      Delete
    2. Your not Rick's cousin. You're just a scared anonymous poster. Put up some bio and I'll show you how serious I can be.

      Delete
    3. Trolling me when I revile Rick Dyer as much as I do is truly too easy. But if any Ricky lovers out there post any serious verifiable bio I'll meet them. Truly. Have a fantastic day an anonymous.

      Delete
    4. Hey Mike! I would love for Dyer, and his 2 bitches to come up to Tannersville, N.Y. and meet some Real Native American Mohawks, they would love to meet them!
      John w. Jones Spoke

      Delete
    5. Thanks John. Glad to hear a man of respect like yourself feels the same way.

      Delete
    6. Internet Tuff Talk 2.0
      Looks like we got some badasses over here.
      I'm shaking in my Kung Fu shoes.
      I dont go to bitches for my bootycalls, I make them come to me. I ain't hard to find little man. The "I don't know how to find him" argument might work on the fools here but Im a celebrity, and I travel all over. I aint hard to find son. You've had more than ample chances to meet me and do something if you really had the balls to do it. We can safely rule that out. Try to quit being the little bitch that you are and cut the blog trash talk out. Willin to bet my hard earned money that I never see you in person.
      Anonymous
      ::wink::

      Delete
    7. ^ What a jackash!!! Celebrity?? That's a big NOT! Celebrity only in your one-celled brain, but that's it! You know that DSM could kick your ash repeatedly out of the huge state of Texas. That is after he took you squatchin, and you soaked your diaper and cried like a baby......wussy!!!

      Delete
    8. 8:49 Is only a lowbrow troll trying to get some attention.

      Delete
  9. I think Standing should get some advice from Dyer how to make a fake bigfoot. This one looks way better than his muppet faced one. Then we just need Joe in here to verify we have found more Human(known primate)/unknown primate hair and were all set.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah... Maybe we can get Doug Hudson on here to reel of the most ellaborate and most expensive of Hollywood mask making techniques, maybe Dyer's latest will be in the same category then.

      Sasquatch sighting = Sasquatch tracks attained from sighting = Sasquatch hair attained from sighting = no medulla for DNA sequencing of hair to classify = morphology of hair like a primate (humans are primates) but not like any known, described as though coming from a "wild human" =

      Unknown primate hair;

      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhair4.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhairroot.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg

      Glad I could help.

      Delete
    2. Oh... And the occassions where hair has been tested sufficiently; it keeps coming back human.

      Delete
    3. You haven't helped anything. You say unknown primate hair, you have also said Sasquatch hair has come back human because Sasquatch are human. Humans are a known primate. So an unknown primate hair wouldnt be a human then. I know you tried the usual "They overlooked it" excuse but that's just you trying to bullshit your way out of this. Plain and simple if these hairs were human but didn't posses traits of modern humans then there would be a sensation about it. And alas, poor Joe, there wasn't because these are just normal human hair. Maybe you would look smarter by instead of trying to use the mysterious sounding "unknown primate hair" you should say human hair with unknown traits. Because humans are known primates. I know, I know, you have to patch this together somehow and still somehow make people think you are showing something groundbreaking. Im just trying to help yourself look less stupid. But admitting your repeated failures never has been your thing, has it? Plain and simple if the hair had come back with some sort of definitive evidence showing it was a human with unknown traits then the results would have indicated that, no need to try and include your own opinions and excuses in to make it sound interesting. Just report the facts and quit making a fool of yourself in front of your friends. They might start spouting off some of your false wisdom in the outside world and get laughed at. Just as you would if you tried to run this argument to anyone in the scientific community. Your hairs are human(known primate), your tracks are misidentified and hoaxed, as well as your eye witness reports. This argument is only valid here. Tell you what, come talk to me when you have real evidence that has been accepted by more than a few outcasts of the scientific community and maybe then we can have a grownup conversation about this and maybe then you wont have to rely so much on your own unqualified, unverified opinions and misinformation. Maybe then I can talk to you instead of the steady stream of stories you pour out of your arse.
      No, no... The pleasure was all mine ;)

      Delete
    4. On top of that who puts any credence in DNA studies anyway. One person tests them and gets one result, another will test the same group and get a different result. You would need a lot of hairs containing similar results to even have a valid scientific argument of an unidentified species of human, and you are light years away from that. Even Sykes claim that he found a extinct polar bear hair was recently rebuked. DNA samples are easily contaminated, by saying you have a few hairs of an unknown primate, you are essentially saying nothing.

      Delete
    5. Nope! Actually... I'm merely stating the facts. Sasquatch hair in line with a sightings, in line with physical evidence like tracks from the very same instance, have the morphology of a primate, but none known. Now... Humans are known primates (and don't start acting like you knew humans were primates until I told you so), but we can't account for what an archaic, wild version of us' hair would look like under morphology... Well, actually we can, because I've shown you links with the exact uniform morphology I'm referring to. Now... I can't account for the morphology the instances where the hair that HAS been sequenced, but I can account for the results...

      Now, humans are primates, the unique morphology of the hair would account for that of an unknown primate/wild human, and certain sequences do come back human? Come on Einstein, it's basic logic. The hair's morphology that has been verified by primatologists is still unknown primate, what you're backed into a corner is the link between little understood wild human hair (to keep warm in cold climates) and your tears makes me smile. Throwing out evidence because it doesn't fit your expectations of something whose existence you don’t even think is credible always was the approach of the severely dense, kiddo.

      And no... The majority of the field is still looking for a bipedal gorilla, it's natural that the 'sceptics' looking in would expect the same results... This is why there is no 'sensation' about it. And let's just pretend a minute that the strands tested that have come back as human ARE INDEED that of normal human hair (no one can argue that because we don't know the morphology), then we still have unknown primate hair... And your tears still flow... Did you not remember/understand the 15% difference in the Standing sequence? The facts are; there are human sequences from Sasquatch samples and we have unknown primate hair. Tracks with dermals found in the actual impressions are not hoaxed, kid and someone with such a bad understanding of the topic shouldn't be claiming long term professionals and outdoorsman would be making missidentifications, expecially instances where multiple people have seen the same subject, like the instance of tracks and hair accumulation I referenced up top, funnily enough.

      ... And you still haven't proven any of your points and they're my failures? Imitation was always the most sincere form of flattery, son.

      Delete
    6. 11:31... That's because samples' DNA lessens with every sequence, son. It'll take a few instances for such hairs to be sequenced with the same human results and proverbial penny drops, but we're now in a new age of Sasquatch research where researchers are more aware of how to collect samples properly to preserve DNA, so I wouldn't say light years son, I'd get used be being all sweaty for a considerable time to come.

      "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such).
      I am concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise. Feces do so even less, since the DNA collecting has to be done while they are practically steaming fresh, and it is improbable in the extreme that anybody with fecal DNA expertize would stumble onto fresh sasquatch droppings.
      Contrary to popular belief, I have not encountered any deliberate effort to produce a hoax with hair samples, even in the much decried case of the fiber sample gathered by Paul Freeman. The same man-made fibers have been found elsewhere in the mountains by others and may be an environmental contaminant. People like Paul Freeman submit these samples for analysis precisely because they are not sure what they are at the time of collection."
      - Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach
      Affiliate Curator of the BFRO

      There's one instance where a researcher has attained multiple examples of unknown primate hair. Cue the tears...

      Delete
    7. Tears? LOL,Wouldn't you actually have to prove something to make me cry? Did you catch one while I was away? Again, (sigh) you havent proven anything, other than say the same thing over and over.
      "And no... The majority of the field is still looking for a bipedal gorilla, it's natural that the 'sceptics' looking in would expect the same results... This is why there is no 'sensation' about it."
      Thanks for offering yet another unqualified, unverified opinion on the subject but once again your excuse you offer us as fact is wrong. If it was a unidentified species of human hair they would know about it. You can type all the paragraphs you want disputing it, but if we just stick to the plain old simple facts, we know that these are ordinary human hairs. Again I have to question why you need to interject the cold hard facts(human hair DNA) with your own opinion and offer that up as some kind of evidence. I mean you do realize that you are proving my points for me right? I mean for someone as ignorant as you try and make me to be you sure go to great lengths to try and dispute what I say, which seems odd to me. I also find it humorous that you imply that scientists offering evidence that goes against your fairy tale are ignorant skeptics, incapable of realizing they have a unknown species of human hair in their possession. Ah, seems to be your comfort zone, cant handle the truth, insult their intelligence. Im sure they'd be devastated to hear a winded Welshman disagrees with their scientific evaluation of the evidence. I mean if anyone knows DNA sequencing its some guy from Wales with an unhealthy obsession for make believe monkey men. Pro tip for you, start saying unknown species of human when referencing your hairs and you'll sound less idiotic in the future. As for me, Im going to continue to sit back and let you keep proving my points for me. You aren't really worthy, nor do you require of any more effort than that on my part. After all your just some over opinionated whacko. Cheers ;)

      Delete
    8. One instance not verified by anyone else. I would expect someone out to prove the existence of bigfoot to come back with such results. Show me where this has been verified by another scientist and the results published. No tears necessary buddy, Ill cry when you have something substantial that has been tested and proven :)

      Delete
    9. "COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Scientists are using a new DNA matching process to determine whether tufts of hair, recovered in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington state in August, could belong to the beast known as Bigfoot.
      The two tufts of hair, each consisting of about a dozen strands, were sent to Ohio State University. These samples have the best possibility of being real, said Paul Fuerst, OSU associate professor of molecular genetics. Fuerst and a graduate student, Jamie Austin, are using a DNA testing procedure being developed by the FBI for analysis of hair strands that lack the roots normally needed for identification.

      Austin, a forensic scientist, is using the samples as well as human and chimpanzee hair to do an independent genetic evaluation of the procedure. The technique should be able to determine whether the hair came from a human or another known primate, Austin said.

      Tests, which are being done for the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, so far suggest the hair did not come from a known primate, Fuerst said. Final results are expected later this month, November 1995.

      "Oregon has a large number of samples, all of which they treat with great skepticism," he said. The creatures reportedly were seen at a distance of about 100 feet in a dense, dark forest. "It was a sighting by forest rangers," said Dr. Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's Department of Anthropology. They picked up hair from the site, as well as footprints and knuckle prints after the creatures left.

      Wes Sumerlin, a Walla Walla man who was part of the group that found the hair samples last summer, said he hopes the DNA research proves the existence of Bigfoot. "There's no doubt in my mind I saw one," he said Sunday. Hundreds of observers have described Bigfoot as being a furry, muscular primate standing 6 feet to 10 feet tall."

      So the same samples verified by the Fahrenbach were first verified by the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre. Amongst skim reading through your personal junk that's not worth responding to, I'll check and get back to you later son, Liverpool are on.

      Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    10. Oh, and yes... The samples have come back as human, but we also know that archaic versions of us with morphological and anatomical differences share our exact DNA... And you don't "know" the morphology of those hairs that sequenced as human.

      Better luck next time sonny Jim.

      Delete
    11. Wow! Just read some more of your cries and it's like you're imitating my words and stuff... Creepy as sin and I'm "unhealthily obsessive?"

      (Shudder)

      Delete
    12. The following is copied from an article on Dr. Ketchum's work:

      "The study was said to include sequences of twenty whole mitochondrial genomes. “Next generation sequencing” was used to obtain three whole nuclear genomes from “purported Sasquatch samples.” The mitochondrial DNA was identical to modern Homo sapiens, but the nuclear DNA was described as “a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species.”

      http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science

      Sequencing the entire genome is far beyond these cursory DNA tests. The whole genomes of Neanderthal Man and Denisovan Man have also been sequenced, which shows mostly DNA matching Homo sapiens plus some unknown DNA. Dr. Ketchum has stated that what they are finding with their sasquatch DNA testing is what they should expect to find with a hominid species, mostly matching human DNA with some unknown DNA.

      However, without a type species to match that DNA to the scientific community will not use that alone to declare bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    13. "Amongst skim reading through your personal junk that's not worth responding to" Yet you responded to anyway, No doubt you trying to play me off as insignificant after I pointed out the irony of the great lengths you go to try and prove me wrong. You sure showed me by responding yet again didn't you? Like I said you continue to prove my points for me, no need to put in effort on my part. Show me a published scientific paper on the above mentioned results otherwise this is just more of your tired old rhetoric, which we have all had our fill of.
      "The technique should be able to determine whether the hair came from a human or another known primate, Austin said."
      "Tests, which are being done for the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, so far suggest the hair did not come from a known primate, Fuerst said."
      Direct contradiction to what you have been claiming, too easy.

      Delete
    14. I tell you what, grow up and address the points put to you... Consistently verified unknown primate hair, and archaic versions of us sharing our DNA with morphological and anatomically different features.

      Oh... And to add insult to injury, since seemingly so personal to you, I've always maintained Sasquatch are human. To publish, you need classification, and what have we learned about that? Still doesn't make unknown primate hair go away. Your "direct contradiction", cringingly, is your stupitity; the second is a morphology test, the first is referring to the intended DNA once extracted.

      You bore me... And you still haven't proven any of your points.

      Delete
    15. Joe I agree, we can't just dismiss the unknown hominin DNA like it doesn't matter. Many times the results have come back mostly H. sapien with some unknown DNA. As the article I quoted said, "The mitochondrial DNA was identical to modern Homo sapiens, but the nuclear DNA was described as “a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species.”

      Here's another article with something interesting about the genome of Denisovan Man.

      "A new study presented to the Royal Society meeting on ancient DNA in London last week has revealed a dramatic finding – the genome of one of our ancient ancestors, the Denisovans, contains a segment of DNA that seems to have come from another species that is currently unknown to science. The discovery suggests that there was rampant interbreeding between ancient human species in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago. But, far more significant was the finding that they also mated with a mystery species from Asia – one that is neither human nor Neanderthal."

      http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/ancient-humans-bred-completely-unknown-species-001059

      We have a scant record of human sub-species. And a point to be made from this is finding DNA that mostly matches human DNA but also contains unknown hominin DNA, like has been found in multiple sasquatch test samples now, is what we see in species like Neanderthal and Denisovan man who share most of our DNA, being hominids like us, and these samples that are purported to be from sasquatches are showing this same pattern, that they are indeed a species of man.

      Delete
    16. Awesome comment Dover, really enjoy your posts sir. I believe Nature posted the same article here;

      http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-sex-lives-1.14196

      ... Expect an email very soon sir.

      Delete
  10. I can just imagine Joe sitting down with Janice carter for a chat and him sitting there nodding along while she tells her tales of fox the bigfoot, all the while in his mind thinking "well no one has proven it isn't true...".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone's sore after the Falcon thread, I see... Good.

      Delete
    2. I have no wish to belabor the subject Joe, however you would do yourself a disfavor by lending ANY credence to the Carter Farm affair. Although a skeptic I have always tried to keep my posts respectful and acknowledge your points but as one who has actually been to that area and researched it, I can say with complete confidence that there is nothing to substantiate the story.

      If you have a copy of 50 Years With Bigfoot you will see that on page 198 she lists some Comanche Indian words supposedly used by Bigfoot. In the book Ride The Wind by Lucia St. Clair Robson which was written 18 years previously there are over 25 exact matches to those words. The author said she came up with her written versions of the words by constructing them phonetically and not from any written language. This strongly suggests than Jan read the book and used the same words. This is just ONE of the many suspect things purported in that book.

      I understand you are a passionate supporter of the existence of Bigfoot and I can respect that but if you knew all that I have uncovered on that particular story back in 2006 you would distance yourself from it completely. In many respects I actually felt sorry for her but one has to go by the facts found and not the story of one particular family. Just wanted to pass that on and I will let it pass at this point.

      For the record the above post was not from me. I will always use the heading "Curious" in my posts on this site.

      Delete
    3. Hello Mr Curious.

      Ok... For starters, I know when you post as it's to a calibre that exceeds the obvious intelligence that the average trolls around here can only dream of. Secondly, your comments are in fact appreciated. Scepticism is important, especially when it;s practiced properly in my humble opinion and when one converses with you, it's obvious one is not exchanging with an idiot.

      Ok... I have indeed read that very book and I came across some obvious contradictions that gave me some raised eyebrows. Now, this might come across like a major kop out, and I apologize for how it might come across, but I am not at liberty to discuss the person who is closely affiliated with the person who wrote that book... And by that source whom I very much trust, I am at the conclusion that Janice had fabricated many things alongside some very genuine experiences. I also believe that this is something that plagues the field to this very day... That people NEED to support their genuine experiences so much, that in the face of fabricating supporting evidence that they feel is a 'white lie' they in fact slip up and tarnish the genuine stuff. Now... I could be very wrong, but another source whom I very much trust, Ray Crowe, endorses a DNA result from the same Tennessee site. If you ever would like to discuss anything off this blog and exchange some ideas, please feel free to contact me directly here;

      joefitz1982@aol.com

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Hello Mr Curious.

      Ok... For starters, I know when you post as it's to a calibre that exceeds the obvious intelligence that the average trolls around here can only dream of. Secondly, your comments are in fact appreciated. Scepticism is important, especially when it;s practiced properly in my humble opinion and when one converses with you, it's obvious one is not exchanging with an idiot.

      Ok... I have indeed read that very book and I came across some obvious contradictions that gave me some raised eyebrows. Now, this might come across like a major kop out, and I apologize for how it might come across, but I am not at liberty to discuss the person who is closely affiliated with the person who wrote that book... And by that source whom I very much trust, I am at the conclusion that Janice had fabricated many things alongside some very genuine experiences. I also believe that this is something that plagues the field to this very day... That people NEED to support their genuine experiences so much, that in the face of fabricating supporting evidence that they feel is a 'white lie' they in fact slip up and tarnish the genuine stuff. Now... I could be very wrong, but another source whom I very much trust, Ray Crowe, endorses a DNA result from the same Tennessee site.

      Delete
  11. The funniest thing about dyer is how footers will put him in another category to the others when in reality they are all knowingly peddling a myth. Dyer is just a bit more silly, but it's good fun. At least he makes an effort. Pareidolia, audio clips and made up stories are boring as hell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...dont forget the cheesy footprints...borrrring...

      Delete
    2. ... Thanks for doing my job for me, myths don't manifest in physical reality... Let me know if you want me to make those footprints a little more exciting for you, kids.

      Delete
    3. Giving Dyer attention, but didn't post any of my pics?
      Told you Joe and Chuck!

      Delete
    4. That must be frustrating for you my friend. I can assure you those pictures are of high interest for me.

      Delete
    5. It is frustrating when your not a hoaxer, out every weekend trying to prove this, and Dyer, Anders, Standing, and others get the attention. Pretty sad! At least you and Chuck got to see them, and learn more :-)

      Delete
    6. The "physical reality" is you still haven't caught one. Despite your claims that its discovery is "right around the corner" for some time now. You have not captured one, or even come remotely close. Despite the claims of people allegedly being within yards of them you cant track one when you want. Ill be back to laugh at you more when the Falcon project comes up empty handed as well.

      Delete
    7. Actually... The 'physical reality' is that we have mounds of it son... And for all your crying, not being able to track them, not being able to catch one means very little for its existence, whilst there was an admition in your vomit that they do in fact exist.

      Didn't think that one through too well did you? Oh wait... You and thinking? What was I thinking?? And you still haven't proven any of your points.

      : p

      Delete
    8. I have 4 separate pics of BF! And after finding the first one, I now know how to find them! The "Reality" of capturing one is near impossible, especially when I'm all by myself!

      Delete
    9. When you are dealing with a 7 foot tall 800 pound primate with a population in the thousands supposedly living in one of the most populated countries in the world with the technology available to track and capture one then catching one means a lot to its existence. See if we were all like you and used questionable evidence to validate the existence of a specimen then we wouldn't be having this conversation because we would know that the creature exists. Fortunately in the real world, we require more than a few footprints, a few hairs, and a few blurry pictures and videos to prove something exists. So for all your blabbering about we know it exists we dont. The evidence is good enough for you to 100 percent believe in them, great. The majority of people thankfully need a little more than that. So you still haven't proven anything either, great chat though. ;P

      Delete
    10. "Population in the thousands"? Again... Throwing out evidence because it doesn't fit your expectations of something whose existence you don’t even think is credible always was the approach of the severely dense, kiddo. We don't know how much of these creatures there are and in fact... For a subject in the thousands over an area the size of the US, would in fact fit the frequency of biological and physical evidence there is. The reason why the sigtings and frequency of evidence stemming from the US is far more known and better accumulated, is 100% down to the manner in which the US is populated and available technology. Not being able to track something, all the while physical and biological evidence roles in... Then that means precisely what it entails to someone not reclining to a negative proof fallacy, or a safety net argument, dear boy.

      If the evidence is so questionable, show us how. Nobody has ever said the frequency of evidence is enough to validate Sasquatch's existence, are you confused or getting desperate for an angle again son? We're having this "conversation", because you can't grow up and address this evidence to support your 'liking'... And the logic of Occam's Razor of course.

      Unfortunately for you, science does indeed require footprints, hairs, pictures and footage to warrant further investigation, and if it truly were as religated as you would prefer, then we wouldn't have people like Sykes conducting field work based on that frequency of evidence now, would we son? So, "for all your blabbering about you know it doesn't exist" we in fact have physical and biological sign of an unknown primate, and have science journals that show us that giant human skeletal remains have been found in the US. That evidence is good enough for me to 100% be convinced that there is something to the inumerable reports... And you still haven't proven any of your points.

      Delete
  12. Dyers Mammy-

    I'm sic n teered of you makin fun of my boy! What's he done to you but try and make a buck r 2?! Why when he was young he was always collectin n puttin on like. Once took his sisters Dress Me Skipper doll and u know what ma boy did? He brushed all the hair balls off of ole Scoots and glued em right on it. Yessir! Made a few dimes of the neighborhood children. Ma boys always been business minded Ta buch of jealous b astards!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I just finished watching the 2 hour premiere of Finding Big foot, which takes place in New Jersey's north[-western county of Sussex
    I am reporting (again)! for the 75th time, that they did not find big foot. Of course, Bobo and Cliff "thought" they heard wood knocks, but of course the viewers couldn't hear it. So they accomplished NOTHING! Same-o, same-o episode, repetitive and BORING! The producers didn't change anything, or learn why their ratings are dropping.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rick Liars mommy got him a Bigfoot snuggle toy for Christmas! Hey Ricky your mom is going to be upset when she sees you playing with your stuffed animal out in the dirt. You know this is only for bed time, right?

    ReplyDelete
  15. His Mohawk needs some Rogaine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He pulled a lot of them out to make his bigfoot with.

      Delete
  16. Rick looks like he has pubes on his head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make my day Pal.

      Delete
    2. That is sticky crotch fuzz from the examination he was doing on his buddies "lightly used" suitsquatch.

      Delete
  17. Looking great work dear, I really appreciated to you on this quality work. Nice post!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

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