Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Bigfoot Perched in Tree


Bigfot have been known to climb trees, especially to hide from humans. Parabreakdown takes a  a closer look, and comes to a conclusion.

83 comments:

  1. I often feel my big-man-friend perched inside my botty,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's probably just your bed post fake joe
      wanker !

      Joe

      Delete
    2. ^ I`ll bet you spend a lot of time wanking.

      Delete
    3. Strop strop thrum thrum thrum hut hut huuuuuuuhhht ... hahhhhhh,

      Joe

      Delete
    4. This is like talking sense into Joe:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNdD9JdvJDA

      Delete
    5. 11:49 haha haha hahahahaha

      Delete
    6. Do you actually... honestly believe in your heart, that people think there’s more of just one of you?

      Delete
    7. Well, ikdummy, 6:05, 10:15, 10:51, 11:43, 12:31, and 12:33 were NOT me. But 11:49 and this post and two below ARE.

      So, yes, I'd expect you to believe that, ikdummy.

      Delete
    8. And how many of your imaginary world audience do you believe you’re convincing of this?

      100? 10,000??

      The levels of narcissism in this psycho is astounding.

      Delete
    9. I am one of the other posters.

      Me.

      Delete
    10. Why would I lie, ikdummy?

      A level of narcissism is evident in what you're willing to concoct in order to make yourself feel that only one person on here disagrees with you. Projecting, once again, Joe Spazzgerald.

      Delete
    11. This little episode here shows how prone and open you are to delusion IkkyboyJoe...and it really is immaterial what you "believe" for truth is clearly beyond your ken.

      As this proves to everybody but you.

      Hahah hahah hahahahaha

      Delete
    12. Your reasons are here;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/something-is-taking-people-in-national.html?m=0

      ... but generally, they’re the same as anyone needing to sockpuppet.

      Delete
    13. There ARE,ALSO,a number of OTHER posters that may or may not be here too.

      Delete
    14. It’s odd... when I’m battering you on other comment sections... or even on one part of a comment section, the alleged “many anonymous posters” don’t seem to be able to commit?

      And it doesn’t matter how many times you try and take ownership of a concept that you first learned when it was used to describe your behaviour... you’re a psycho. Don’t take it from me, take it from the experts.

      And Bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    15. “A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person. The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization... “

      “A number of techniques have been developed to determine whether accounts are sockpuppets, including comparing the IP addresses of suspected sockpuppets and comparative analysis of the writing style of suspected sockpuppets.”

      - Wikipedia

      Delete
    16. Joe Spazzgerald, posting links and articles doesn't prove that you're communicating with only 1 person.

      This is my first post since the FIRST 1:10 post, fool.

      Delete
    17. It sure is.

      I wonder what the repercussions on your life would be if you would allow yourself to accept that you have been communicating with multiple people.

      Delete
    18. Not near as detrimental as they would be for you not having anon mode, and that Bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    19. “He/she is very quarrelsome and never believes he is wrong, with very set opinions. He often stirs up trouble making the situations difficult, and often engineers an argument. When a row erupts he uses coercion, in order to persuade another person to take sides with him, not wishing to take the blame.’
      This behaviour indicates inner feelings of personal inadequacy, for by transferring their own short comings, subconscious fears, anxieties and placing them on the shoulders of others, is justification, for their own actions.

      Generally, this behaviour ties in with the lack of ability to trust and a fear that people are out to get them. At the same time, they can be a tyrant in their own home, ruling the household, sticking to the routine of set ways and views. Socially however, their self confidence is often very fragile. Within this paranoid personality lurks fear and cowardice.“

      Delete
    20. ^ So lacking in self esteem and awareness it is staggering.

      Delete
    21. Didn’t sleep long? Something on your mind??

      Delete
    22. All Stuarts "insults" and grand announcements are purely his projecting onto others. He lives in a very small small world of his own making. He has only his mental illness to draw from. Should I feel guilty for laughing? Nope.

      Delete
  2. it's a rare upper bark monster holding smiling bark baby !
    Just ask Bruce, he would know how to outline it with his red sharpie
    cheers

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too bad that this crap is better than 99.9% of other bigfoot “evidence.”

      Delete
    2. ^ That is due to the lack of a red pen surely ?

      Delete
    3. Stuey needs reminding every now and then how much he’s failed in his religion to find a magic monkey suit in 8 years. The holy grail is always just out of reach.

      Delete
    4. This is like talking sense into Joe-ikdumbell/stupid:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNdD9JdvJDA

      Delete
    5. IktomiJoe has been up with insomnia all night again...fretting on his failures as a man.

      Delete
    6. There is far more evidence in my behaviour, than there is in yours... that I have at least not failed, or have been failed as much as you have, Stuey.

      And I’m refreshed after that sleep, and ready to go again... you?

      Delete
    7. The first think to come to mind on that video was ikdummy. Premise, premise, premise....

      She wants to subtract 5 from 23. She needs to subtract 5 from 23. She must subtract 5 from 23. She will explore every avenue but the premise. Listen, Joe, listen! 10,000 10 foot tall 1000 lb giant hairy primitive apemen are not perpetually hiding in US woods in 49 f***en states, for crying out loud!

      Delete
    8. ... and there’s 60 years of physical evidence.

      The very origin of the first commonly used name for this hominin, "Big Foot" (as much as I hate the name),
      was in direct reference to what was being documented even before these creature's sightings were being widely disclosed by witnesses. This essentially erodes any suggestion of major media influences on eyewitnesses, before any major powers of suggestion. We have had physical evidence to reference and have done since the very first moments that this subject was introduced into pop culture. People like you Stuey, have become so far removed from this very fundamental fact that they forget that when asserting there is no reason to be enthusiastic, that the reason these creatures first came into most people's minds, was on the very basis of which it was seen to be leaving its physical evidence on the environment of North America.

      Alternatively... the numbers you’re touting as responsible for the hoaxing community all up and done the US (100), doesn’t seem to be taking off, does it?

      Delete
    9. It has all been scientifically debunked.

      There is no scientific "proof".

      Even Stephen Hawking believed "bigfoot" was error of judgement.

      Delete
    10. If the subject of Bigfoot was already scientifically debunked, the evidence wouldn’t be good enough for scientific standards such as peer review, and world renowned geneticists wouldn’t be finding the subject worthy of asking questions.

      There is no body, because nobody has funded a study.

      Delete
    11. There is no body because there is no bigfoot and there is no "study" because no one would invest in such silly nonsense.

      Btw, your bizarre need for bigfoot has taken a bizarre backseat to your bizarre need for only 1 anon poster. Seek help,ikdummÿ, you mental case from Wales.

      Delete
    12. There appears to be plenty of scientists invested, since the evidence is now being peer reviewed, and as time goes by, this subject only attracts more interest from some of the best scientists and most experienced primatologists in the world.

      And no... that’s the definition of projection right there. For example, you’ll purposefully deflect from the subject, by making obvious sockpuppet comments to lure me into flagging them, so as to feel important by turning a comment section about you. Even after being made to look an amateur on the subject matter. This is the behaviour of someone who is not only grossly isolated, but is seriously sadistic.

      I will always refer to the subject matter, and you will always take the time to expose your sockpuppeting. I took your playground away Stuey.

      Delete
    13. And around about now... you’ll be feeling pressure to keep up, contributing to you getting angrier, since you know I’ve slept and you’ve been awake for a long time.

      Where are the anonymous posters on other comment sections, dear Stuart?

      Delete
    14. ^What on earth are you going on about? You do realize that most of what you're saying is only going on in your own head, right?

      Delete
    15. You need to do a better job of your sockpuppeting, Stuey. For all those alleged anonymous persons, they all seem to disappear from other threads when you’re preoccupied with learning a thing or two with me.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. IKDUMMY, THE KING OF STUPIDITY!

      "There is no body, because nobody has funded a study."....HELLO, YOU THINK SOMEONE IN A FUNDED STUDY IS GOING TO FIND ONE....LOL, MAN ARE YOU STUPID....WHO'S GOING TO LEAD THIS HUNT IKDUMMY, WHO????? I GUESS PATTERSON WILL LEAD THE HUNT, HUH, HE'S THE GREATEST!

      KING OF STUPIDITY COMMENT #2, "There appears to be plenty of scientists invested, since the evidence is now being peer reviewed, and as time goes by, this subject only attracts more interest from some of the best scientists and most experienced primatologists in the world. "
      THEY AREN'T FIELD RESEARCHING = TOTALLY CLUELESS! IF THE CREDENTIALS DON'T SAY "BIGFOOT RESEARCHER, WITH PROOF, THEY ARE 100% USELESS, AND TO SAY OTHERWISE, MEANS YOU'RE THE KING OF STUPIDITY!!

      KING OF STUPID #3, "“A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception."
      GEE ISN'T THAT WHAT THE NAME "IKTOMI" ALSO MEANS? WHERE'S YOUR FAKE ACCOUNT "VEGAS"...LOL, AND WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FAKE ACCOUNTS YOU CREATE TO POST ON MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL...?

      2:08, sure sounds like Ikdummy, who's not from wales...MORE DECEPTION HUH IKDUMMY!

      GOT MONKEY SUIT?? HOW BOUT "GOT RESEARCH"...HOW BOUT "WHERE'S ALL YOUR OTHER EVIDENCE PATTERSON???

      If you were Patterson, and took all that heat, and it was REAL, YOU WOULD GO BACK EVERY SINGLE DAY AND TRY TO PROVE THAT IT WAS LEGIT, JUST LIKE I DO!
      WHAT DID PATTERSON DO? THE EXACT OPPOSITE...NOTHING!

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

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

      Delete
    4. “WHO'S GOING TO LEAD THIS HUNT IKDUMMY, WHO????? I GUESS PATTERSON WILL LEAD THE HUNT, HUH, HE'S THE GREATEST!”
      ... Um, no. He passed away in the early 70’s. You are aware of that, right?

      “IF THE CREDENTIALS DON'T SAY "BIGFOOT RESEARCHER, WITH PROOF, THEY ARE 100% USELESS, AND TO SAY OTHERWISE, MEANS YOU'RE THE KING OF STUPIDITY!!”
      ... So let me get this straight. For someone to have credentials, they only need to call themselves a “Bigfoot researcher with proof”?

      “GEE ISN'T THAT WHAT THE NAME "IKTOMI" ALSO MEANS? WHERE'S YOUR FAKE ACCOUNT "VEGAS"...LOL, AND WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FAKE ACCOUNTS YOU CREATE TO POST ON MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL?”
      ... Um no, that’s not what my name means at all. That’s actually called a pseudonym. Now I know you’re probably as obsessed with me as Stuey is, but if everyone who simply jumps to the obvious about your blurs is me, then I would begin to start seeking a little therapy. If you’re stupid enough to put your crazy videos on a channel, you need to be accountable for that and expect some scrutiny. There’s a lot of people on the planet. A lot of people use YouTube. And just like I’m not this blog’s admin, I’m not publishing anything on your cruddy channel.

      “GOT MONKEY SUIT?? HOW BOUT "GOT RESEARCH"...HOW BOUT "WHERE'S ALL YOUR OTHER EVIDENCE PATTERSON???“
      ... As you were told before, Roger Patterson did nothing but research. He authored a book and filmed some of what was going to be a documentary on historical sightings to educate people. He did so much research, that pseudosceptics have rhetorically twisted that into being to his detriment, hat he couldn’t possibly have actually accomplished what he researched and set out to do. Kind of like what you’re doing now, and contradicting your own drivel. Roger researched, he then came up work the goods... that’s how it works. Try it sometime... some actual research. You don’t need to start out with evidence, the process of research usually leads to that and if you’d ever done some research you’d know how it usually works.

      "Roger's next plans were to capture a Bigfoot, which he planned a full expedition returning to California and searching all the way up to Canada. He planned a one-year expedition with tracking dogs, cages, a large crew, and the entire project filmed. This would have been a huge financial project. So they immediately went to Hollywood for funding, but they turned him down. Roger then went on his film tour- he made lots of money, started his own organization, and started investigating capture claims to bag one that way (and was duped in the process). He partnered with Ron Olson to fund the 'capture expedition' that he originally planned. They were going to fund the expedition themselves by making a movie, but that never panned out and the expedition never happened. Roger kept investigating claims. He eventually had Ron do investigations for him because by that time he was getting too sick. Roger died and Ron basically continued where they left off doing research, and ended up making a docudrama movie based on Roger's ideas (Sasquatch: Legend of Bigfoot). For one, a lot more people were in and out of that area immediately following the film. So the odds of seeing another in the general area were much more slim. He also had no means to capture a Bigfoot which would be the next logical step. We could speculate all day long and go over 'would haves' and 'could haves', but reality is never that black and white. The facts show that Patterson did make immediate plans for a return to California and a capture- it just didn't pan out financially."

      - Roguefooter from the BFF

      Delete
    5. Oh and Bruce... I’m really glad you came back after nobody cared about you “retiring”. I wanted to run this by you. You questioning the Patterson Gimlin footage is the biggest Freudian slip you could have made. And you’ve done it multiple times. By questioning Bob and Roger’s credibility because they just so happened to “go out looking”, shouldn’t be an issue for him since you claim these creatures are on your local public footpath, and practically behind every tree. Therefore questioning the PGF simply implies you don’t really have any confidence in your own chances of accomplishing the same, or the validity of your blurs.

      So... and got monkey suit?

      Delete
    6. haha, Bruce gets cooked again by Iktomi !
      i dunno who's worse, Bruce Ds or Stu ? Probably Bruce because he believes in the blurry tree bark pics and role plays himself as the best researcher out there. oh it's so delicious in the insanity !
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    7. KING OF STUPIDITY COMMENT # 45
      "If you were Patterson, and took all that heat, and it was REAL, YOU WOULD GO BACK EVERY SINGLE DAY AND TRY TO PROVE THAT IT WAS LEGIT, JUST LIKE I DO!
      WHAT DID PATTERSON DO? THE EXACT OPPOSITE...NOTHING!"

      Ummm, Bruce, sorry to burst your bubble of fantasy and misinformation mate but Patterson died in 1972 so it'd be a bit hard for him to do much of anything right now
      Now who's the stupid one Bruce ?
      BAZINGA !
      Cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    8. Yet Bruce is somehow qualified to tell anyone else who does and doesn’t research.

      Funny as heck.

      Delete
    9. ^angry bigfoot role-player

      Delete
    10. So how many does that make it up to now... 5?

      Delete
    11. ^angrier bigfoot role-player

      ikdummy is steamed!

      Delete
    12. “You humourless moron...you pathetic excuse of a boy (let alone man)...”

      Something about “steamed”?

      Delete
    13. ^the angriest bigfoot role-player

      ikdummy is fuming! Grrrrrrrr!

      Delete
    14. ikdummy, what level are you on in Bigfoot Role-Play?

      I know you had reached Level Stupid early on....

      Delete
    15. I would start trying to piece together how 100 people can be accountable for all the evidence and activity in the US, before inventing “levels”.

      Delete
    16. Dawkins doesn't believe in bigfoot.

      Please say I'm wrong, ikdummy.

      Delete
    17. I’ll tell you that you won’t find, is him addressing the evidence for Bigfoot. Millions of people don’t believe in Bigfoot... The same amount of people aren’t aware of the evidence, and then there are some who are just to dense to understand it.

      Know what I mean?

      Delete
    18. Dawkins is aware of the evidence for bigfoot and rejects it.

      Where is your study finding that "The same amount of people not aware of the evidence as don't believe in bigfoot" or is that another thing you made up?

      Delete
    19. BTW, ikbraindead, Dawkins is your god, not mine.

      Delete
    20. Yes, we did this little dance here;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/more-amazing-sasquatch-stories-from-bc.html?m=0

      You do know that by simply bringing up the same destroyed argument a week or two later doesn’t make it any more valid, right? Though the first round of DNA Yeti testing is the only thing to do with “Bigfoot” on Dawkins’ sites, I found no evidence of Dawkins commenting on any level of evidence and subsequently dismissing the notion of “Bigfoot” off the back of that. If you assert that to be the case, reference it.

      I don’t really need a study for that, it’s common sense. Not even enough enthusiasts are aware of the evidence. You on the other hand have had it rubbed in your fat face for years, but you’re too stupid to realise that it made you look foolish the first time around. 1000 times later...

      Delete
    21. Common sense? Is that like a premise? Only a premise can be determined scientifically through probability.

      For you, common sense and studies are interchangeable if you can't be bothered.

      Delete
    22. Nargh! Peer reviewed data’s where I’m at. And I take it you didn’t find a quote from Dawkins the second time around? It baffles me why you’d bring a failure up again like it’s some secret weapon.

      Delete
    23. Find what quote specifically? Richard Dawkins saying what exactly?

      Delete
    24. Do you know what an enthusiast is, ikdummy?

      Delete
    25. Enthusiast: fan, devotee, aficionado, lover, admirer, follower

      "Enthusiast" was originally used to refer to a person possessed by a god, or someone who exhibited intense piety. enthusiast c.1600, pejorative, one who believes himself possessed of divine revelations or special communication from God

      So Dawkins would know what the word "enthusiast" means, right? Especially someone with his views on religion?

      Delete
    26. Oh dear... scrambling a bit, are we Stuey? Don’t worry about whatvit we originally used for in antiquity (creased), I’ll take that as you not having a quote or a reference to Dawkins commenting on any level of evidence and subsequently dismissing the notion of “Bigfoot” off the back of that.

      Got it.

      Night sucker.

      Delete
    27. Richard Dawkins relating to no more archaic species left to mix with:


      "The discovery of relict populations of extinct hominins such Homo erectus and Australopithecus. Yeti enthusiasts notwithstanding, I don't think this is going to happen. The world is now too well explored for us to have overlooked a large, savannah-dwelling primate. Even Homo floresiensis has been extinct 17,000 years. But if it did happen, it would change everything."

      Sucker. LOL

      Delete
    28. Look at the bottom of the barrel "evidence" this thread is presenting, a bigfoot in a tree", when supposaedly there are 10000 blah, blah, blah....would a thread this silly even exist if bigfoot were real?

      Delete
    29. Do ye hailest fromst the southern parts of the wales, mate?

      Delete
    30. AGAIN!

      I’ll take that as you not having a quote or a reference to Dawkins actually commenting on any level of EVIDENCE and subsequently dismissing the notion of “Bigfoot” off the back of that. If you’re going to keep up with the demands of adult debate, you have to read the comments and the points of other people PROPERLY. The whole basis of my argument, is that next to no scientist has drawn such a conclusion once they’ve actually looked at the level evidence, and dismissed this subject outright. Because it’s impossible and unscientific to do so

      And pareidolia in a tree, and Matt’s article finding for the sake of new material daily... doesn’t make 60 years of physicals evidence go away. And there is your burden. Stop deflecting and sidestepping... man up

      How’s that, mate?

      Delete
    31. Also... How ever qualified, if someone throws something out because it doesn't fit their expectations of a hominin/hominid whose existence they don’t find credible, isn't very good logic, and certainly isn’t scientific. It means that nothing that person claims can be taken as a logical, because not only might their original idea be inadvertently moving the goal posts, but such an idea might be skewered due to lacking fundamental information. For example, referring to a “savannah-dwelling primate” for what is largely reported and physical evidence found in mountainous alpine/jungle rain forests... Is a little bit silly.

      "Although not firmly announcing the yeti's definite existence, Sir David (Attenborough) stated that as there is no doubt that a giant ape did exist in the area at some point and that it is therefore not impossible that it may have been able to avoid human contact within the vast open space of the Himalayas."
      http://eden.uktv.co.uk/blog/article/attenborough-yeti-mystery/
      "I actually believe that there is a real possibility that there might be something in the abominable snowman mystery."

      Delete
    32. And since Dawkins has made such a comment... one can very easily assume he’s not looked at the matter adequately. So thanks for debunking your own drivel for me.

      : p

      Delete
    33. So, south Wales, chap?

      Delete
    34. Your hero Dawkins says the world is too explored to overlook your fantasy monster men.

      I guess he understands premise.

      Caerphilly? Cardiff?

      Delete
    35. According to your think, ikdummÿ, your saviour Dawkins is eminently more qualified to understand hominids than blog boy ikdummy.

      Delete
    36. ikdummÿ, you might have bigfoot in your flat. If evidence were provided of bigfoot hand prints, you would have to accept it as proof that you have bigfoot in your flat. Premise be damned, it's manufactured evidence that makes your world go round.

      Delete
    37. What a meltdown.

      I have peer reviewed science for my theories.

      What you’re feeling now, will be the emotions of realising you really aren’t as clever as you thought you were. Don’t like it... go get a reference, or shut up and sit down.

      Chump.

      Delete
    38. Premise, stupid. You can't peer review imaginary creatures into existence.

      Delete
    39. You can peer review hard data... that’s why it’s happened. Don’t like it?

      Work on that burden.

      Delete