Dr. Matthew Johnson, Multi-Dimensional Portals, and Bigfoot Dream Visitations


Editor's Note: This is a guest post by Atticus Chambers, editor of Sasquatch Footnotes.

Here’s a recent presentation by Dr. Matthew Johnson in which he claimed that during a trip to a habitation area in Southern Oregon (along with two other associates identified as Adam Davies and John Carlson), he witnessed a multi-dimensional portal open up several times.

He described the incidents as something very similar to the 1994 movie ‘Stargate’ in which portals open allowing persons to leave one dimension and enter another. This explains, apparently, why the Sasquatch creatures seemingly disappear in thin area when they are being pursued or observed by humans.

According to Dr. Johnson, his flashlight allowed him to close the portal. At a later time, during a dream, a Sasquatch visited him and explained that any form of light turns the portals off. Here’s Dr. Johnson in his own words.

Click here to continue reading Dr. Matthew Johnson, Multi-Dimensional Portals, and Bigfoot Dream Visitations

Comments

  1. Joe tries his absolute best to give the topic some credibility and then something like this comes up. Poor guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ now that's control.

      Poor guy makes Joe so much more important than what he is.

      : )

      Delete
    2. Weirdo? Brother... Have you seen how many comment sections have been dedicated to Joe over the past 24 hours, and I'm a "weirdo"? I'm sure Joe is flattered, one of the most popular "Bigfoot" blogs has now become a medium for Joe's popularity!

      : )

      Oh... And sorry I was late to the party, I had to clear up on previous comment sections.

      Delete
    3. "clear up on a previous comment sections"

      No one is checking previous comments sections buddy. You really are a strange individual.

      Delete
    4. People with far more literary patience than thou will bro...

      Delete
    5. Good one iktomi

      You destroyed DC yesterday, completely
      The only person who would argue this is DC himself

      Delete
    6. I don't have a problem with anyone buying anything.

      I drank a lot of beer over a lot of weekends for a lot of years.

      I didn't start or continue drinking beer because I liked the taste.

      Lets face it, beer, for a lot of people, is a drug delivery device.

      You aren't better than me if you spend $40,000+ on a car and finance it over 5-7 years and you aren't better if you pay more for beer.

      There are some VERY, VERY cheap but very strong beer that comes in 4 packs for like $2.49. Stuff is nasty but its dirt cheap. They didn't have that when I was a kid. Who knows how much more trouble I might have gotten into if they did.

      Although, its pretty darn nasty, only the brokest or the cheapest of people would drink it.

      PS, one more thing, if you put a handful of beer joints/eateries in the middle of the ghetto, the ghetto is still there.

      Ask the people who were robbed at gunpoint at 4 am if the lights helped !

      Delete
    7. ^ more interesting than reading troll vs Joe (Iktomi) all day. I'll say that.

      Delete
    8. 5:14... He had a bit of a bad one, yes my friend.

      Delete
    9. I just want to thank the troll who gave out Joes email address and youtube channel. This has led to a lot of interesting information being dug up. I cant thank you enough trolls. Soon. Very very soon!!!

      Delete
    10. Brrrrrrr! I'm sure Joe is shaking in his boots, you ******* pervert.

      Delete
  2. its like a garage door portal opening..he will post visitation hrs later

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had a discussion with Dr. Johnson, who is a psychologist, on a facebook page once. He's a total idiot/idealist who conforms the world to his ideals. He promotes the peacenik idea of sasquatch, and made irrational arguments to counter the idea that a bigfoot would ever hurt anyone.

      His self-promotion is he would like to be known as the Jane Goodall of sasquatch researchers. If sasquatches are visiting him in his dreams, the psychologist needs to seek a psychologist for help.

      Delete
    2. Why is it refer to Meldrum's credentials, then dismiss Johnson's? Total hypocrisy. The truth is, no one persons credentials give them any special powers to deduce the quality of evidence. If we accept Meldrum's evaluation of evidence based on his academic standing, then every other qualified academic must be accepted uncritically. Unless of course we admit that people have biases regardless of their academics, and that means we have to admit that they are not infallible.

      Delete
    3. What about your bend dover buttcheeks?

      MMC

      Delete
    4. Meldrum is an authority on evolutionary bipedalism and has many publications on primates, and has the affiliation of people like George Schaller.

      But we accept opinions based on credentials every day, it's cognitive biases that make us cherry pick against people who are trying to look at the data that's there, however crazy a concept it is. If the data is there, then it really isn't all that too crazy to fathom, like any effects on physical reality, measurable by science.

      Delete
    5. Iktomi, that wasn't a serious inquiry about why accept Dr. Melfrum but not this doctor. Just games. Dr. Meldrum is an anthropologist who makes well grounded statements, Dr. Johnson is a psychologis who is off the wall on other stuff besides this nutty interdiminsional portal stuff.

      Delete
    6. I was well aware of that my friend, just addressing the troll.

      Delete
    7. ^The clueless assisting the clueless.

      Delete
    8. Wow Iktomi, you are able to lure people into seriously discussing this patently absurd topic -- you are a class A troll in my book -- job well done buddy!

      Delete
    9. The difference between Iktomi, myself, and others vs you is we can engage in serious discussion instead of always playing games with the comments section.

      Delete
  3. If Adam Davies and John Carlson come forward and also say they witnessed this so called portal, well then maybe there is something to it. Less than 1 percent of how the universe and this planet operates is know to us.
    For now I will only go with what I know and have seen and heard and smelled. That is these forest giants are very good at what they do and they use the forest to an extreme advantage over what us humans do.
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't know a lot correct but what we do know is that there are no magic apes in North America

      Delete
    2. what about magix minkeys?

      Delete
    3. No magic monkeys... Relict hominids a plenty.

      Delete
    4. He can get 20 people to say they saw it, but where's the proof?
      He's the fist person in history to have a bf touch him, and the first to open/close portholes with a flashlight, and the first to see a bf come out a porthole....and the first one to have zero evidence to back up his claims. I'm not knocking another bf researcher, just knocking the lack of proof.
      Other people saying they saw it, reminds me of Dyer. I learned a lesson!

      Delete
    5. leaping magix disco dancing Russian minkeys.

      Got to keep on leaping, keep on leaping
      Got to keep on leaping, keep on leaping

      Delete
    6. Yes DS, the guy is a bit of a weirdo with his whole approach to bigfoot.

      Delete
    7. So many recict hominids that else don't have a single body!

      Delete
    8. http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/

      Delete
    9. I just want to thank the troll who gave out Joes email address and youtube channel. This has led to a lot of interesting information being dug up. I cant thank you enough trolls. Soon. Very very soon!!!

      Delete
    10. Brain freeze won't make bigfoot real.

      Delete
  4. I just flipped on one of the Bigfoot shows on discovery network. Jesus Christ, these idiots are idiots.

    Apparently, the monster is 10 feet tall but is impervious to cameras.

    Similar to our man from Kentucky, The host seems to run out of breath every 10 or 12 steps.

    Pheromone chips WTF?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ show him a trial cam photo and watch the excuses flow like his sweat.

      Delete
    2. Please show us a clear,unambiguous trail cam photo of a ten foot tall ape man.

      Pro tip: it does not exist.

      Delete
    3. http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp

      There's one anyways! Glad I could help.

      Delete
    4. Here's another;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/mk-davis-releases-footage-of-juvenile.html?m=0

      Delete
    5. ... Is the lack of counter argument on your part, yes.

      : p

      Delete
    6. Good response. It suits you.

      Delete
    7. Trolling for the last comment without presenting so much as an ounce of intelligent argument, tends to suit yours.

      Delete
    8. Your last comment was as meaningful as your evidence. Case dismissed. Thrown out of court.

      Delete
    9. Who's waiting for a reason to denounce the evidence? Court scenarios aren't gonna help you here son, but at least a little argument in favour of your ideas might.

      Delete
    10. Dismissed. Come back when you find bigfoot. Hearsay inadmissible. Take a hike, kid.

      Delete
    11. You might want a little closure sweetheart, I guess mixing it with the big boys is a little tough for you, but you need to show me that what I'm presenting isn't there before you can claim nothing's been found.

      Circular reasoning is serious kids stuff...

      Delete
    12. What is it about 0 Bigfoot that you don't get, sister?

      Delete
    13. What is it about substantiating your claims that you don't? Saying things over and over may wash around the home, not in adult exchanges sweetheart.

      Delete
    14. Bigfoot 0 is no claim. It's reality.

      Substantiating your claim would mean producing a bigfoot. That should be easy. 10 feet tall. Thousands of them. Easy.

      Oh right. You can't.

      Delete
    15. Bigfoot in three whole databases, that transitions ten thousand years of cultural references, that in turn has physical and biological evidence to support; that's the reality. For 0 zero "Bigfoot" to be a reality, then reality would be a lot different.

      Catching a 10 foot primate/hominid, when moma & popa are around the corner should be easy? Plenty of missing hunters remember, let's not be a tough guy from behind your desktop, we already know the idea scares you stiff. Let's not pretend you could bring in something of the reported size.

      Delete
    16. 3 whole databases of bigfoot created by loonies like you. wow.

      More excuses and fantasy. 60 years of this nonsense.

      momma and poppa bigfoot will getchu blah blah. stupid.

      Delete
  5. There is nothing, not a thing that connects the . . . furry depicted in the PGF to any animal, living or dead. Anywhere. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately for you, we have supporting evidence, not to mention matching specimens in footage;

      Leaping Russian Yeti.

      Delete
    2. Leaping autistic welsh children.

      Delete
    3. Leaping Russian Yeti has a lot to answer for, especially creating disco.

      Delete
    4. I don't know how you can seriously use the, so called, 'Leaping Russian Yeti' video as your supporting piece of evidence.

      Delete
    5. Because you are speaking to a troll. he will use any evidence,no matter how fabricated,to prove his belief. It is pointless to address or interact with him.

      Delete
    6. Easy! Because it has motion and speed outside of any known human primate's capabilities. Plus, it has all the physical characteristics of Patty, big "diaper butt" and all.

      Simples!

      Delete
    7. Doesn't exist. Any reference to speed, physical characteristics etc.. is meaningless unless a creature exists.

      Iktomi: Caucasian posing as Indian hunting fake creature.

      Delete
    8. Laughable "evidence". Bottom of the barrel. Joe the fool strikes again. Iktomi is Lakota for fool.

      Delete
    9. 10:04... Circular logic, test the evidence to a level that supports your dribble, or Sasquatch does exist. Our cannot use the premise that the evidence proposed is none existent, because you have an idea that cannot be supported with data... This is school boy stuff.

      : )

      Delete
    10. Debate till you're blue in the face. Still no Squatch.

      Delete
    11. ... That notion depends on whether you can sustain it in adult debate, based on the frequency of evidence.

      Delete
    12. Debate myths. No thanks.

      Delete
    13. Myths don't leave tracks... Try harder.

      Delete
    14. Yes, these "hoaxers" apparently hoax species traits identical to each other's, decades and States apart, that then fool multiple forensic experts around the world.

      The logic of the scepfooter.

      Delete
    15. wood grain, try again. 99.9% of scientists wouldn't give this cr@p the time of day...

      Delete
    16. Laughable, laughable, laughable. Here's the basics for you sweetheart; the delta ridges on prints change directions over 45 degrees; they converge and deviate. This is a major indicator that the dermals are biological and as Jimmy Chulcutt states, these do not appear on any of the artefacts, nor do they appear as a result of wood grain.

      Scientists have given this the time of day, grow a pair and open the link, it might make you a little less ignorant.

      Delete
    17. 99.9% scientists wouldn't even entertain looking at it. Hope this helps.

      Delete
    18. And that makes he evidence go away, how? 99.9% of scientists aren't qualified enough to analyse it, nor are they even aware it exists.

      Like is said son... You need to help yourself, I'm not the one struggling.

      Delete
    19. The evidence would be bigfoot. Just like every other anmal. You find one. 10 feet tall. Shouldn't be difficult. Oh, wait...

      Delete
    20. Plenty found darling, three whole databases of sightings with physical and even biological sign to support... A bipedal primate that is twice the size of normal human primates has been found to be leaving it's sign... None caught and classified.

      Delete
    21. 0 found.

      100% scientist agree that gorillas exist.
      .000001 % believe in bigfoot.

      good luck!

      Delete
    22. When multiple people have seen a dog in your back yard, when you've photographed it, found hairs & got tracks of it... Then it's been found, but you merely haven't caught it yet.

      "The evidence is not there because scientists who have not studied it say it isn't... Also the evidence does not exist because Sasquatch doesn't exist (circular logic; not a trait of above average intelligence)"
      - Pseudo-science troll

      Delete
    23. Oh, and by the way... Pioneers were always in the minority.

      Delete
    24. Funny, I've seen photos of dogs.

      Never seen a bigfoot photo. Seen hoaxed images. Hoaxing doesn't count.

      I wouldn't compared adult play hobbyists to pioneers.

      Delete
    25. That would be because the idea of dogs doesn't terrify you to have to self serve up reassurance on a blog;

      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... Go get a monkey suit, that's what an adult would do to try and support his little denialist's religion.

      Delete
    26. Dont worry about the hoaxers costumes, just find a bigfoot and........................ no excuses. Or is that asking too much.

      We ask for bigfoot you come back with excuses.

      We're beginning to think they don't exist.

      Delete
  6. Gimlin is a little more careful about what he says regarding the film. He words things very carefully even. Note that he uses the word "creature" when talking about the film subject.

    Quote:
    Creature:


    noun crea·ture \ˈkrē-chər\
    : an animal of any type

    : an imaginary or very strange kind of animal

    : a person usually of a specified type


    Full Definition of CREATURE

    1: something created either animate or inanimate: as
    a : a lower animal; especially : a farm animal
    b : a human being
    c : a being of anomalous or uncertain aspect or nature

    Also Gimlin, (yes ive actually spoken to Gimlin) when questioned about Bluff Creek always says the same thing, and that is: "It was only me and Roger down there that day at Bluff creek"

    The problem with that is, when he says "that day" he means Friday October 20th 1967. On THAT DAY, it probably was just him and Roger down there... on the day the film was actually made however.... might be a quite different story.

    I think Gimlin made a promise to his dying friend, and also made commitments legally to keep this under wraps. (likely part of his settlement with the Patterson estate was never to reveal the truth - or forfeit/null his share) Of course this is all subject to opinion, and there is little fact when it comes to opinions.

    I think they "pulled a good one". One of the best and most famous hoaxes in our modern creature history. To try and make this into a real animal however, is just ludicrous.

    Another thing regarding the tracks. When Green filmed McClarin "walking the path" of the film subject, he was off in many spots of the walk, mostly farther from the camera position than was the film subject in most of those areas. Why? Because he followed what was left of the tracks on the film site, and those tracks were placed farther away from the cameras position than the film subject actually traveled. Why? To make the monster on film appear larger when compared to the tracks! (pretty standard filming trick with perspectives)

    I spoke to McClarin and asked him specifically about these things, about where the tracks were in relation to some of these images of the film site too. If you look at the layout of the ground from some of the overview shots of the scene, you can see how this could easily be done as described.

    The film subjects steps are not as long as were described. This can be easily proven using the film subjects own foot as a comparison. (because if you believe the film to represent a real animal, the foot MUST have left those prints, and we have a measure on those) So we could literally "measure the stride" if those prints were not faked.

    Why do you think Bill Munns is having such a hard time with his math regarding subject height? Because all of the silly measures done are bogus! (because they were taken from pattersons "assumed" camera positions - and measured to the faked trackway - not the actual film subjects path!) So there you have it. If the film subject were real, all of this math would "add up" so to speak and we wouldnt be curious as to subject height anymore, there would be no arguments amongst skeptics or proponents as to step lengths, or subject height, or how far it traveled. However, since things are THIS WAY, none of those measures are reliable!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're just asking for the wrath of Joe Iktomi to come down on you.

      Here it comes with the "got monkey suit?" crap.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for posting it for me... Crap head.

      Delete
    3. Fake Indian "Iktomi" has got neither monkey nor monkey suit. "Iktomi" got nothing.

      Delete
    4. So ou keep claiming... But I don't see a monkey suit?

      : (

      Delete
    5. Bigfoot isn't real and you aren't a Native American. Hope this helps.

      Delete
    6. Darling, I've never claimed to be a Native American... And bipedal primates twice the size of normal human pimates most certainly do.

      You need to help yourself darling, get an adult's argument.

      Delete
    7. Someone chose the name "Iktomi" for you?

      Delete
    8. It fell from the sky one day so I thought I'd keep it.

      Delete
    9. You're not Indian, so yes I'll bet.

      Delete
    10. Who am I today? Anyone else in the world wide Internet community?

      Delete
    11. A caucasian playing indian. Some human searching for the imaginary.

      Delete
    12. The imaginary don't leave tracks, and nothing worse than a nerd playing tough guy anon.

      Delete
    13. hoaxers leave tracks

      quote the "tough guy" anon comment. Are you losing your mind?

      Delete
    14. They also defy forensic capabilities, according to the barrel scraping troll who hasn't the capacity to muster a logical argument.

      Delete
    15. It's no conspiracy. They just don't exist. Debate all you want.

      Delete
    16. Sounds like you're a bit of a conspiracy nut to be honest bro... That's unless you can substantiate your claims past that of child like reassurance, that is?

      Anyone who uses circular reasoning as their means of acquiring this, really shouldn't be seeking closure on any level of debate; it's simply beyond them.

      Delete
    17. They already don't exist. Its up to you to make one appear. Its that simple.

      Delete
  7. I think Dr.J has jumped the shark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jumping magix disco dancing Russian minkeys.

      Got to keep on jumping, keep on jumping
      Got to keep on jumping, keep on jumping

      Delete
  8. In all due respect, I cannot buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lets not forget our own DS, Dr. Squatch, who brought us the insight that bigfoot ties blue bags to trees or shrubbery along highways as markers.

    Now that's imaginative, unlike Dr. Johnson who rips off Star Gate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Johnson makes Joe sound sane. Joe only believes that thousands of 8 foot tall hairy men have been consistently evading 20 and 21 century detection and recording technology for 60 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Recording tech account for footage, audio recordings, forensic science, thermals, etc?

      Shame we have all that, darling.

      Delete
    2. No you actually don't, trickster.

      Delete
    3. Yes, we actually do... But it's not like you're confident in your own intelligence to agknowldge it, cause that would require you to debate it.

      And you don't want to look silly now, do you?

      Delete
    4. We could debate about chupacabras as well. Pointless. You didn't name yourself Iktomu for nothing, trickster.

      Delete
    5. Why would that be pointless, there's plenty of evidence for chupacrabras too?

      You can't debate cause you're too dense... Sorry kid.

      Delete
    6. You are nuttier than once imagined. Fake Indian "Iktomi" believes in chupacabras as well as tall hairy men.

      Delete
    7. I'm sorry, but you merely need a ten years old's computer literacy to YouTube a chupacabra... Sorry, what was I thinking?

      Delete
    8. You'll believe anything.

      Delete
    9. Give it up kid, you're a little clueless at this rate.

      Delete
    10. good luck next 60 years..,

      Delete
    11. you'll find it, keep looking. 60 years was not a reasonable time frame. We'll give you another 60 to find 10 ft tall apemen.

      Delete
    12. In that 60 years, people were looking for a bipedal gorilla... Is it any wonder that with the development of the Internet, that we now have more and more reputable scientists involved, aligned with a better understanding of what we're dealing with? If you've been into this subject for 60 years, then all jokes aside, you have my respect... But I haven't been looking for a bipedal gorilla, so don't pout with me for your shortcomings.

      Delete
    13. Excuses, semantics... You've already lost the battle and the war.

      Delete
    14. Excuses? Brother, I would start with making a better stand against the evidence before making any claims of wars being won. I know you would like closure for not looking like an idiot should the monkey turn up after you threw your toys out the pram for your time invested, but hey... When you have world beating geneticists applying their expertise, that's gotta make you sweat.

      Delete
    15. You live in a world of make believe.

      Fake Indian looking for Fake Bigfoot in.....Europe. Priceless!

      Delete
    16. "Make believe" that manifests into physical reality. If you don't like it, you could always support your ideas with someone else's creative argument at least.

      What was I thinking? When you're not having you're arguments sourced for you, you just really aren't clever enough to pursue anything of the sort.

      : )

      Delete
    17. Hoaxed evidence does not constitute a new species.

      That's why you and Dr Johnson are laughed at. Fools.

      Delete
  11. Bigfoot don't exist its all a hoax silly manchildren.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes... For ten thousand years, it's been a culture hopping, gorilla suit wearing, "boo" saying hoax all from a time when Natives didn't even know what apes looked like, with Europeans who wanted nothing to do with their customs taking it all on... All out to get your money!

      Sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory there, darling?

      (Cuckoo!)

      Delete
    2. Quit trying to appropriate Native American culture for your play creature, "Iktomi".

      Delete
    3. Wed May 6th 10:04

      Ok, one last question. Who are the superfriends... Uno, Eva, and who else?

      Are they neighbors or people that communicate via email, know each other outside of here?

      I mean they're just average middle age women or dumpy guys who post on a bigfoot blog, right?


      How dare you,middle aged we might be but we are way above average xx

      Delete
    4. Ok, Eva is above average, but the rest....

      Delete
    5. Be realistic, of the millions of reports through millennia, if only one was correct that they did indeed see a Bigfoot, then they exist. It's called being realistic!!!

      Delete
  12. Who is Joe? Tons of talk about him. He must be a pretty important person in your life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, I'm not buying a word of DMJ's story.

      Delete
    2. I can talk these words that will sound so sweet
      They will even make your little heart skip a beat
      Heal the sick, raise the dead
      And make the little girls talk outta their heads
      I'm the one, oh I'm the one
      I'm the one, I'm the one

      Delete
  13. 10 foot apes in North America... Sure... Sure...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't listen to us, go check out the evidence.

      Delete
    2. The evidence leads nowhere. That when Dr Johnson enters through his portal and Dr Squatch ties a blue bag around it.

      Delete
    3. The evidence in fact leads to the fact that a bipedal primate, twice the size as normal human primates, is leaving it's sign in impressions on physical reality.

      Delete
    4. ... Is your apparent lack of counter argument, indeed.

      Delete
    5. ... Who according to you defy forensic species traits with wood grain.

      (Pfffft)

      You can't make this **** up.

      Delete
    6. 10 foot tall. 1000s of them. Specimen? No.

      Delete
    7. http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/

      ... Sorry to boogeyman you all over again, that's what piping up
      & looking for proverbial internet hugs can do to someone when they know not one thing they cry about.

      Delete
    8. Same old bag of tricks. A Native American skull is now bigfoot.

      60 years. 0 bigfoot.

      You and Dr Johnson are fools.

      Delete
    9. Iktomi bro, I don't like to copy and paste links into my browser because there could be malware bro. Not that I don't trust you bro, but bro would you mind copying and pasting the entire comment into a comment so that I can read it bro? Thanks in advance bro.

      Delete
  14. Why are these fringe theories becoming so popular? The answer is simple. It's because bigfoot does not exist. It's obvious that researchers so fed up with one disappointment after another trying to get real physical evidence that they resort to this crap to perpetuate their biased and flawed beliefs. It's pretty sad. :-(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Born from an egg on a mountain top
      The punkiest minkey that ever popped
      He knew every magix trick under the sun
      To tease the Russian with his leaping bum
      And everyone and have some fun
      Minkey magix, Minkey magix

      Delete
    2. 8:33... I guess you're too stupid to understand that tracks and forensically verified dermals are some of the most comprehensive standards of physical evidence around, right?

      You people need to learn something before spouting your dense opinions.

      Delete
    3. The nut and his "evidence". You've got neither monkey nor monkey suit. You've got nothing.

      Delete
    4. Dermal ridges have been proven to be the result of the casting process (of hoaxed footprints). NEXT!

      Delete
    5. These idiots continually use disproved evidence like dermal ridges on casts and the Patterson film.

      Delete
    6. Dermals cannot be a casting artifect because they show species traits that transcend States and decades apart... Half way down this page;
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/32050-dermal-ridges-or-casting-artifact/
      ... Dermals in the impression. And half way down here;
      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36334-suit-possibly-key-to-final-hoax-proof/page-5
      ... A comparison of casting artifacts and actual dermals. Artificial desiccation has it's own uniform style that does not match one school of alleged Sasquatch traits. My emphasis of dermal ridges is on the morphology of the three Elk Wallow track casts, which show the greatest detail, especially in terms of the pattern of dermal ridges that was OBSERVED IN THE ACTUAL TRACKS, and that has been preserved in parts of the plaster casts. Also... Desiccation covers the entire cast, whereas dermals don't. That's because as the foot falls on the ground of the wilderness floor, it comes into contact with leaves and sticks that prevent the dermals being impressed into the earth entirely.

      Don't get into dermals with me kids, you'll only end up getting burned. Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    7. Only a handful of fringe nut scientists will even look at bigfoot casts. It's a fools game.

      Got monkey or monkey suit? You've got nothing.

      Delete
    8. Unfortunately for you son, that's the same regarding any output of scientific progress, in that what the mainstream community accepts, is that due to the qualified opinion on a select few... This is called peer review.

      Oh... And the forensic scientists I can list have nothing to do with Sasquatch research, go take a looksy and learn something;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      Got "monkey"? Nope... I appear to have the physical sign of an unclassified bipedal primate though. Got monkey suit? About time you coughed up.

      : )

      Delete
    9. This isn't anything new.

      60 years and its still only the fringe nuts.

      Delete
    10. Sykes a fringe nut? George Schahller, Jane Goodall fringe nuts?

      Try harder, this is boring.

      Delete
    11. Maybe next 60 years. Yawn.

      Delete
    12. That's all you got. Even then....

      Delete
    13. No, I've got the evidence that you fail so amusingly at in explaining away.

      Delete
    14. 60 years no specimen. 0 Bigfoot, many excuses.

      Delete
    15. http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/

      ... Let's see your excuses for that little doozy, darling.

      : p

      Delete
    16. Same old silly bag of tricks. A US Indian skull is bigfoot?

      You're worse than Dr. Johnson.

      Delete
  15. I have a hard time with this quackery! Lets not forget the Joe Rogan episode before he decided to totally go idiotic! I think he is using unrelated credentials to try to assert himself as an expert somehow. Lets call it what it is pure fuckery! Notice Adam Davies dropping this guys name? Nope! Why? If Adam Davies had witnessed any phenomenon whatsoever im sure it would have been documented somehow l, lets face it neither of these guys miss any opportunity for media involvement!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, if there was any doubt that this guy is off his rocker...
    DING! DING!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Iktomi your troll has been identified. He was know as Stank Ape on the forum here. He suffers from Asperger's Sydrome, and is a teenage kid who lives at home with his Mom. He was booted from the forums here for trolling. It's obvious he's become obsessed with you after repeated and consistent schooling sessions conducted by yourself for his benefit. I think he also used to troll under the name Mr. Bigfoot, and Hill Billy at some of the other bigfoot sites. You should report this to the site administrator and see if he can ban his IP again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your help Paul. I will chase this up.

      May I ask, how sure of this are you sir?

      Delete
    2. Could be "stank ape" but it could also be a rabid footer named "Resume" who pretends to a skeptic on JREF/ISF and socks on the BFF.

      Delete
    3. Iktomi, the troll mentioned a few times that he would leave if you also leave. Would you consider that option?

      Delete
    4. Oh Paul,Paul,how sad !

      Laughter in background..snigger,chortle,guffaw.

      Delete
    5. Oh Paul,Paul,how utterly sad !

      Cue laughter in background...guffaw guffaw GUFFAW !!!

      Delete
    6. Oh look an old fashioned witch hunt.

      Yes ban all the IPs that will fix everything.

      Delete
    7. Paul, no... I'm not leaving this place for any cyber nazi.

      Delete
    8. That was him impersonating me.

      Delete
    9. But if you left, then the rest of us could live in peace without said nazi here bothering us. It would be a noble gesture on your part.

      Delete
    10. I see that the nazi is at it again.

      Delete
  18. that's rather creepy you know so much about this " kid "

    ReplyDelete
  19. what do you call a lesbian with long fingers?
    well hung

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ Joe`s fat wife.She`s been the other way for years now.Says he doesn`t wash down there.

      Delete
    2. Joe does his own washing and stated his girl-fiend, though also said wife. Who knows the true facts off this lieing narcissistic psycho.

      Delete
  20. Goodness,I didn`t realise there was this much evidence for bigfoot...Gosh !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what your mom said while I was shaving her back.

      Delete
    2. She's been dead for the last 20 years. Do you often dig up dead bodies and shave them?

      weirdo.

      Delete
    3. 1;06 Ooh,no wonder she was frustrated...she said you didn`t know how to use your penis....you loser.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?