Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Museum of the Weird Is Now The Rightful Owner of The Minnesota Iceman


Last October, Lupe Mendonza, who attended the Crypotpalooza event in Texas reported that the famous "Minnesota Iceman" had returned after 44+ years of hibernation. Mendoza reported that both the supposed original body encased in ice and the purported duplicate for display had been missing for years and had not been seen since the late 70's. What was not directly confirmed if it was actually the frozen display body or a possible duplicated created by the original owner promoter and exhibitor Frank Hansen, who travel around the country to display the supposed frozen creature.

In February 2013, the Iceman surfaced on Ebay where the starting price was $20,000. The "body" was quickly snatched up by an undisclosed buyer. The item description stated:

This is the actual sideshow gaff billed as "The Minnesota Iceman" by Frank Hansen in the 1960's. This is a one of a kind hoax that was fabricated by a mid-20th century showman. The Iceman was featured in an issue of Argosy Magazine (as you can see in the pictures) and spawned decades of debate as to its authenticity. For around 40 years the whereabouts of the Iceman were unknown to the cryptozoology community.

We now know the new owner of the Iceman is none other than Museum of the Weird owner Steve Busti, whose press release was published on Cryptomundo.com on Tuesday evening:

Now, after many years of its whereabouts being unknown, the long enduring mystery of “Where is the Minnesota Iceman?” can finally be answered.

Museum of the Weird owner Steve Busti announced today that the Minnesota Iceman is currently in his possession, and will soon be exhibited to the world once again in his Austin, Texas tourist attraction.

Busti is aiming to have the Iceman set up in his museum and open to the public within a week, with plans for a special Grand Opening event in July in cooperation with popular cryptozoology site Cryptomundo.com. Texan cryptozoologist Ken Gerhard, author of Monsters of Texas will be giving a presentation on the history and backstory of the Minnesota Iceman.



118 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. It's obvious that the "purported duplicate" (AKA fake) and the "real" iceman are one and the same.

      This is nothing but a BS sideshow hoax.

      Delete
    2. ^ no because there is obvious differences between the fake one above and the original that toured. Dont become an investigator because you 're an amature retard! Just another computer nerd who thinks he is a know-it-all. Don't give up your dayj job! Oops welfare doesn't count as a job.

      Delete
    3. Yes 1:28. Its a cool story. Heuvelmans and Sanderson had viewed the body under ice, were fooled, and reported they thought it was real. That caused a debate which could only be settled by defrosting the body...

      Under pressure to reveal the truth, a simple matter, Hansen concocted the fable that it was destroyed when Canadian border guards demanded that he take it out of the ice. The "iceman" rotted and was buried in an undisclosed location(of course).

      Hence, he claimed, he had a rubber replica made so he can continue his tour and the body he had NOW was fake...lol...


      Delete
  2. There is a drawing of the original which shows reproductive organs. It seems unlikely the detail shown there would have been hoaxed. This smells surely like the hoax claim is a hoax, in order to, as usual, make cash cash cash, just as the claims that the PGF is a hoax, are themselves hoaxes which make cash in the form of TV, books, interviews, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting post by Test Driver and one I very much agree with on the whole. I'm glad someone has brought that up, so thanks. However, why hasn't the damn thing been opened up for further analysis? Until this has been done, then there is just going to be way too much mystery surrounding it which then then naturally contributes to skeptical thinking, cause when you think about it... the thing could easily be duplicated. I certainly looks really cool.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    2. Joe you need to realise just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is. Unfortunately there is no monkey, but the world is still a wonderful and fascinating place.

      Delete
    3. Did you not read my comment properly? HA! You people are really pushing the boundaries of stupidy to a new level. Ha ha ha ha!

      PS. No monkeys, just giant hairy people.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    4. Joe you want these things to be real even though you haven't seen one. That is 100% taken on faith.

      Delete
    5. Faith? That's for religion, I think your confused. The difference between you and me is; I don't ignore thousands of years of Indigenous culture, 150 years of printed media accounts, and the ten's of thousands of eye witness accounts, a lot of which are multiple person. I also, unlike you, have researched various avenues of this subject and are aware of numerable reasons as to why the finding of biological evidence is being kept from the public, and your economy in the States is way too precious to set aside for the truth. Please don't come at me with rubbish like that... if we compared professional sources and references to back our claims, I know who'd come out on top. I can back up my claim with expert, decorated professional opinion, and you just have yours.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    6. Indigenous culture? Wow. They were into all sorts of crazy religious nonsense that even you im sure would agree is nonsense.

      Delete
    7. The same can be said for the Congolese eh? Didn't they maintain that the Billi Ape was a real creature for decades??

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    8. Let me guess your gonna bring up the gorilla and panda next...

      Well guess what when we looked for those we FOUND them.

      A giant magic monkey man... not so much.

      Delete
    9. It took 60 years to find the panda, and researchers gave up after the initial 30 years. You are forgetting that this creature has way higher intelligence levels as well and can evade us much more methodically. Well done for referencing those animals, I believe you are starting to acknowledge such points.

      PS... No monkeys, just giant hairy people.

      PPS... And there's no such thing as magic.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    10. I acknowledge you just acknowledged that I preemptively brought up the tired argument of pandas and gorillas like its somehow an argument that bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    11. It's proof that something in our recent history could be hidden for so long. However tiresome it is, it's a very important fact. Though I respect you (whoever you are) I myself find a lot of the counter arguments tiresome, but it is important to do what you and me are doing now, as though we don't realize it(you mostly); we are contributing to moving the understanding that little bit closer.
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    12. Magic monkey men that defies science and logic? Na.

      Delete
    13. They do not defy science, they merely utilize a form of it that we are yet to understand with our current knowledge of quantum mechanics, space and time. The term is 'preternatural'.

      ... Oh, and no monkeys, just giant hairy people.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    14. ^ man who is looking for his chimpanzee. Bigfoot is not a chimpanzee so you're on the wrong site. You lose all credibility on this site when you keep calling something a magic monkey Your conversation with Joe (and everbody else) never had (has) a valid counter argument that wasn't just " they just don't exist"! You're our Village Idiot for a reason you lonely Star Wars Nerd! Go back and get your GED and open your eyes!

      Delete
    15. Bigfoot is just Flesh and Blood. No supernatural ties or weird shapeshifting. They are just like any animal but just more intelligent.

      Delete
    16. hmmmm, I don't remember anyone here claiming they were supernatural?
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    17. I understand that I may be outspoken in the wider Bigfoot community when i state this; but I genuinely feel that these creatures have preternatural abilities that maybe nowhere near understood with our current level of sensory perception and 3rd dimensional space & time. Quantum physics is just beginning to understand sub-atomic particles and if you use your imagination to apply this theory to this subject, you can almost imagine it being the case as would describe how many eye witnesses see silhouettes and large dark masses 'gliding' through trees;

      "Nature defies common sense, and this really happens: an electron or other particle can disappear in one location and simultaneously reappear at another location if the wave associated with the particle extends to the other location. After you buy that, we can make sense out of the rest of it..."

      I also feel that we cannot rule out the possibility of these creatures maybe using a highly evolved ability of infra-sound, to which may be used in some way to distract people to their presence or even unconsciously channel oblivious people into various avenues of the wilderness, either to encourage them away from their family & social groups, or even in extreme cases, to use them as more easily attainable prey... which would concur with many eye witnesses' feelings that the creatures stalking them are giving off the impression of an apex predator in practice.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    18. Infra sound is a high possibility with these creatures because other predators utilize it, but you lost me in the quantum mechanics. Not my area, but it seemed that you were referencing or at least inferring that Sasquatch has other abilities that are not natural. I dont agree with that, but your conversation and intelligence is breath of fresh air on this site who is dominated by imbeciles like the guy who keeps saying there is no monkey.

      Delete
    19. Not unnatural, but preternatural. It is just a theory and my intention was to just get people thinking. I do understand how crazy it all sounds.
      Thanks for the comment my friend, much appreciated.
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    20. Bigfoot has abilities that science does not understand (yet) as to how they are able to nearly completely remove themselves from their surroundings while still there.

      Delete
    21. Whoa.....those two fucktards need to get a room (in outer space, baby, yeah!).

      Delete
    22. These guys are correct.

      This is NOT the original Minnesota Iceman.

      Proof is forthcoming.

      Delete
  3. Thanks driver,at last not second,3rd or 4th! Such losers!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Isn't the Iceman one of the characters in the Top Gun movie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there was an Iceman too...whoa... somebody bought Val Kilmer?

      Delete
    2. The Minnesota Iceman was not in Top Gun.

      Delete
  5. Just been reading pgfhoax.blogspot.com and it turns out the pgf was a hoax! With this film now proven fake and no other videos or pictures its pretty clear that no such creature exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting so the pgf was a hoax, this iceman was a hoax, and theres no other proof that there ever was such a creature! That would explain a lot!

      Delete
    2. Yeah! As soon as someone says something is a hoax without delivering any thorough analysis or any level of proof to back up their claim, it's one hundred percent legitimate! Wow the power of suggestion eh?! How easily satisfied some people are when they require such a high level of reassurance.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    3. Did you not read the link? The proof is right there.In plain sight.

      Then add to that the fact there is no monkey and well there's no monkey.

      Delete
    4. ^^that's giant hairy people to you pal...

      Delete
    5. The gentleman writing the article has assumed that the creature has not changed direction... if you look closely to one of the pictures, you can see human boot footprints turn off to the left as if to follow the next print... Furthermore, he doesn't explain the 'suit'... Proven? No, just another example of how easily reassured people like you are.

      PS. Thank you for finally acknowledging that they are giant hairy people... 'pal'.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    6. Furthermore, and this is something that I'm sure you are not aware of, there are hundreds of accounts of prints just ending as if vanishing into thin air. Now these vanishing prints are not found on the outskirts of civilization but deep, deep; ten's of miles into the wilderness where hoaxed prints are simply not possible unless a hoaxer can predict where and when a particular person is going to walk, in deep brush, to the exact yard out of millions of acres... This is very much unexplained by researchers however one modern explanation is that these creatures have incredible stealth and can spring into trees at will and with relative ease.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    7. And I'm sorry, but there are so many more holes I can pick out of this article, it's not funny! Who's to categorically state that the pictures are from the same piece of ground?

      "... I'm also identifying the two scenes as one in the same location and impression."

      ... That's a claim I'm afraid.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    8. You want to pick out holes... ok lets pick out holes...

      Everywhere roger went there were bigfoots. He described an account of a bigfoot lifting up his truck while he was sat in it.

      The guy was also actually deeply involved in bigfootery, writing books and making plans on making documentary films etc in order to make a buck. He wrote about a drew an account of a female bigfoot encounter. A year later what happens? Yep the exact same encounter. .. lol.

      So many holes. Why does gimlin deny bob h was there when theres photographic evidence he was part of their gang. It doesnt matter if it was bob h in the suit or not, gimlin isnt being straight. He also refuses to be interviewed alongside bob h. Once again it doesn't matter if it was bob h in the suit or not, gimlins actions are very suspect with how he is treating the situation.

      Also gimlins horse hoof depth, rogers beard growth, the trackway film issues, the actor roger used to pretend to be gimlin during their money making tour, the film processing timeline issues and of course the complete and utter 100% lack of a monkey can all lead even the least intelligent people to understand the pgf was a hoax.

      Delete
    9. Right...
      The area in which these accounts and footage was attained had in those days recently been made way by by logging. If you penetrate into the habitat of a creature then you are likely to come across it, it's quite simple... this would explain why the creature was filmed there as these things are highly intelligent, therefore territorial and dependent on routes and trails that all wilderness creatures are dependent on. It would also explain the extra accounts in that area, that if I'm honest, know nothing about.

      Secondly, if someone was to deliberately go out searching for a Bigfoot, they would have to have developed a healthy interest into the creature, that's pretty expected and a very natural progression and one that takes many researchers and habituators these days out of the library and into the wilderness. The fact that he had a fascination before filming the creature, to me is merely expected and could be evidence of why he was so successful; cause he researched the subject and pored a lot of time into his interests.

      Thirdly, 'gangs'? Really?? Who are in gangs as grown intelligent adults... these were hard working, no nonsense intelligent people. If there is a photograph with those two together then it can easily be explained by them living in close proximity, frequenting the same social events and locations... if you live in a small community like I do, there are plenty of pictures with me with people I don't like... If he doesn't want to be interviewed with this Bob H character, who's to say that he just didn't like him? You are making that assumption which is a natural thing when you are suspicious of something... you see things that are not there (hypocritical comes to mind?)

      Fourthly, you are assuming that the creature filmed was not heavier than the horse... and therefore assuming further that the horse would make a deeper impression that the creature... I really don't know about beards and stuff and think I've countered your points enough to not really care to be honest.

      Furthermore, I have never heard of anyone presenting a legitimate timeline of the events on both sides of the story, plus if you had stumbled across one of the greatest discoveries in modern times, I'm sure you would want to make a little money from it and if he had used an actor on his tour (though I have not seen evidence of this and in my opinion could be another claim), then I would assume he's just trying to cover all angles to convince people of a what was then and now, very difficult pill for people to swallow. Also, time has gone on and he wasn't to know then how much his actions would be studies in the name of skepticism.

      ... There we are, I think that countered your points. If you look for things you will find them, it's a human trait that skeptics often use to describe preternatural, paranormal and cryptological theories to which they don't realize they do themselves. You have not brought any logical case to explain the 'suit'... Oh, and one last thing... No monkeys, just giant hairy people.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    10. Wow.

      Are you serious?

      Your refusal to look at and acknowledge the facts isnt really a surprise and the lengths you are willing to go to to keep your fantasy real is quite incredible.

      We are supposed to believe that patty is a highly intelligent creature? Maybe she was so intelligent that she decided to stand still for 20 seconds while patterson got the camera ready before she started moving to make it look like it was a man in a suit waiting for someone to shout action?

      Delete
    11. Facts? I think you are confused with the definition of 'fact'...

      "Fact - A thing that is indisputably the case."

      Your theories were not indisputable and further more, I acknowledged them and found holes in them... that doesn't make your points facts cause I did that.
      Also, why wouldn't she stand still for 20 seconds... maybe she was confused? Bless her! Ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    12. Do you look at the pgf and see a real creature?









      Really?

      Delete
    13. Believe it or not when I first ever saw it, no actually. But I looked at professional, thorough expert analysis on it and came to the conclusion that it can't be a man in a suit. There a lot of face shots where the movement of the head is slowed down into frames, and the detail is incredible. The extended toes in the step are simply not achievable with any manufactured suit materials then or now, and there has been 360 degrees photography analysis undertaken of the area where it is filmed, that has confirmed that the creature in the film is 7.5 feet tall. Why would the so called 'manufacturers of the suit' put breasts on the god damn thing?
      Don't take my word for it, look at the cases that support the idea, look at the analysis and then make up your own mind. Check out Bill Munns' work on it. If you have an agenda to look for evidence of it being hoaxed, then you will come across opinion upon opinion, but it will have no basis of thorough analysis on the creature as opposed to the list of professionals in support of the idea that have.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    14. Joe pwned Jref! Again...

      Delete
    15. joe fitzgerald is a British and a American hero!! (The Frence don't care for him much though)

      Delete
    16. Joe = pwned looney tooner that bleeves in magic monkey men

      Delete
    17. Joe, the picture the poster is referring to is a group shot of the men who were part of Roger's bigfoot movie project. Gimlin can be seen in a wig and Indian garb. He was to play the role of the tracker...

      Roger could not generate enough interest, and the project was abandoned. Ironically, with backing from his brother-in-law, he soon after set out for Bluff Creek and filmed a REAL one!! Whatta the odds?..lol..

      He of course ended up touring with the footage and a short doc about bigfoot, which he would personally screen and interact with the audience....

      Delete
    18. ..^by interact I mean hold a Q&A session...

      Delete
    19. Is there confirmation of the time that this 'poster' was designed (prior to the film being made), or is it a poster to advertise the tour that he pursued once the film was made??
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    20. By "poster" I meant the guy who made the comment. These photos are easy to find...

      Delete
    21. And is there even confirmation of this picture existing??
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    22. Excuse me, if you can direct me to the picture you are referencing then I can give you my opinion.
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    23. If these photos are easy to find then I must be doing something wrong, because I cannot find any photograph with Gimlin wearing a wig and Indian Garb in it...
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    24. Its common knowledge Roger wanted to make a bigfoot movie with his pals...This is old stuff...

      http://pgfilm.webs.com/documentary.htm

      Delete
    25. The picture appears in at least one thread on the BFF I think and on other sites....Like I said, its been out for some time...

      Delete
    26. HA! You are trying to tell me that the guy with long hair in that photo is Bob Gimlin?! It is common knowledge that they experimented with film yes, but wouldn't anyone attempting to get used to new technology prior to putting it into full use. Your efforts to condescend me fall flat when you state that the images of 'someone' dressed in an Indian garb is evidence that the creature filmed is fake? Where is the evidence stating the time that that photograph was taken even?
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    27. Joe in my book is the best educated debater on this site. Looney Toon monkey man doesn't believe in Bigfoot but the pussy believes crap he finds on the Internet and Heronimus? What a moron. Keep pummeling him Joe he can't debate you because he keeps bringing up crap that has no reliable ( and in most cases) evidence or common sense!

      Delete
    28. Joe, ask Bill Munns...Everyone who studied the film knows Gimlin was to play a tracker and he was photographed in costume. You are making a fool of yourself....

      Delete
    29. ...and I never claimed it proved anything. I was trying to share with you the historical FACT that Roger originally planned a fictional feature and both Bob's were involved...
      Elements of the script found there way into the PGF barnstorming tour. An Indian tracker would appear on stage with Roger, for example....

      Delete
    30. I wouldn't be so bold with using names like 'fool' when you cannot back up your claim with any evidence? Where is that photograph? You keep maintaining there is a photograph, but can't tell me where it is?
      In an attempt to deflect the initial debate from a claim you made that a picture of Gimlin in an Indian costume would suggest that the whole PGF scene was a rehearsed one, you have maintained a part of the debate that's really not important.
      Even if that did come from Munns' mouth, it's just another rumor to the story I'm afraid. Munns' expertise is in costume, something I very much celebrate and who's work I have referenced many times and an outlet for the cause, but with regards to anything else on the subject, he falls into the same category as you and me and the countless other people who I've heard make claims that they knew Patterson and Gimlin and that they know this and that.
      It's all part of the of a grey area that in reality none of us can make a claim to the actual events leading up to anything that happened in 1967... Explain the 'suit' or don't bother with that crap cause unless you have a link to proving that the creature is a suit, then I'm really couldn't care to be honest.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    31. Yup. That's Bob Gimlin with the long-haired Indian wig. Patterson tried to get a low budget bigfoot movie off the ground that had his friend Gimlin playing the part of an Indian guide who helps a group of cowboys track down a bigfoot. This took place before Patterson shot the famous 1967 footage.

      Patterson trying to create a fiction movie with bigfoot is absolutely true.

      Does this not tell you that there is an extremely high degree of likelihood that the PGF is also fictitious?

      Delete
    32. ^ absolutely not. You still don't bring any credible argument or evidence to prove Patty was fake. If your trying to convince people that Bigfoot is fake first don't come across as a fool and using sketchy info!

      Delete
    33. Uh, it's not sketchy info.

      Delete
    34. People see what they want to see.

      Bob Gimlin himself could tell the world that the creature in the Patterson film was hoaxed and there would still be people claiming that Patty is a real bigfoot.

      Delete
    35. And people like you claim what you want to claim and try to make it truth . If you tell a lie enough times or come up with conspiracy you start to believe your own crap anon 5:04! Im sticking to Real experts who examined it rather than hearsay , Internet rumors, Internet morons like yourself, and attention seekers like Bob H.

      Delete
    36. Many real experts have examined the PGF and declared it to be a man in a costume.

      Delete
    37. I think Bob H called himself an expert! OK we will give u that one...LMFAO!!

      Delete
    38. I really find it amazing that people are trying to claim that there is a picture of Bob Gimlin in an Indian wig?! Ha ha ha!!
      Someone please give me the experts, other than Bill Munns, who have actually analysed the suit as opposed to just giving their opinion?
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
  6. I would like to see a film of real stunk apes sometime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then bring your camcorder to your next family reunion.

      Boom-ching. Thank you I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

      Delete
  7. YouTube - 'Leaping Russian Yeti'. Watch the MK Davis versions, cause there are still shots that I think will interest you.
    Peace.
    Joe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe, your astuteness is refreshing in your views of theory and fact.Sometimes when I think of the theory of a creature that exist purely on evidence without a physical body,I have to relate on a murder case where someone is prosecuted solely on evidence when a body was never found.I believe the evidence is overwhelming even if the percetage of thousands of sightings is small on the side of a creature that exsist without a body.Sometimes I think people find it difficult in accepting other ways of explaining the way the Universe works.This difficulty is proportional with thier ignorance.p.s.where can one find the elusive Joe F. for other readable research.

      Delete
    2. WOW! What a post!
      What a pleasure it is every time to hear from you Steve! I think that comment needs to be digested by all concerned with 'proof' and 'evidence' and if anything, highlights the dogma associated with this subject.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    3. I,just a simple man, will continue to venture deep into the woods,if anything,the joys of nature.I will continue with an open mind wich leads to vast knowledge.Someone spoke on faith in terms of religion.I believe religion is the scariest word in the dictionary.If I know anything about faith,it requires all,but guarantees nothing..Good comunicating with you also. It brings much needed credibility to this site.

      Delete
    4. Spoken like a true scholar... And you sir can be the eyes in the wilderness I cannot access, so it is very important we keep in communication my friend.
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
  8. If winning an argument was based on the number of words written then joe would be doing quite well but unfortunately it isnt.

    Joe lacks understanding of the scientific method and the concept of burden of proof. Essentially you have no argument until you can provide proof of your claim. And no, anecdotes and a crappy blurry film by a questionable character is not gonna cut it.

    Give us something with substance to back up your arguments joe or please be quiet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It all boils down.."I read it somewhere, some guy said so, and I believe all of it and more. Therefore it is all true"...lol...

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

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

      Delete
    4. Jesus Joe I need to step in here as the pummeling is too much for the skeptard to bear.

      A clean knock-out.

      These guys are better sticking to their simplistic 'got monkey' or 'MMG pwned' nonsense.

      It's the best they've got.

      MMG

      Delete
    5. Check out this guy half way up the blog, who's trying to state that a picture of Bob Gimlin with long hair (that clearly isn't Bob Gimlin) is evidence that the PGF is fake? Ha!
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    6. Joe, you're doing a great job arguing for the existence of bigfoot, but no matter what you say the skeptards will continue to ignore the thousands of eye witness reports and unhoaxable tracks.
      A Bigfoot Trackway In The Snow:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-6xkYBbmf8

      Delete
    7. Wow! How haven't I seen that video before?! And thank you, it's backed up one of my points amazingly!
      Thanks again bro!
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    8. dr. melba ketchem has proven the existence of sasquatch with DNA evidence here is the link to here genome project http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/

      Delete
    9. MMG, I used to think you were one of the scientifically minded, level headed proponents. I'm surprised you think Joe's comments are good arguments...
      Do you personally believe agents of the government have been confiscating bigfoot skeletons??.. Lol...
      I think at one time Biscardi was reprimanded by authorities for messing with an Indian grave, but I am not sure. If that is true we may have a case of a questionable character at the core of a widely accepted tenet. Like I said, I am not sure ...

      Delete
    10. Put your money where your mouth is and watch a Jim Vieira presentation and then you can be as critical of me as you desire. Even if it's to find holes in what I'm saying, I think it's only fair that you challenge my argument once you've seen the sources I've offered you.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    11. I couldn't say that I agree with everything that's posted here, but Joe does fight his corner superbly.I'm sure even the most ardent sceptic would concede that.

      Joe has helped bring debate back to the blog which is most welcome. Trolling will always hold sway here and rightly so, but a little bit of BF discussion has it's place here also.

      MMG

      Delete
    12. Too much reading. Keep it short and sweet for we ignoramuses in the audience.

      Delete
    13. You have offered up nothing Joe. A I do not like it one bit no sir.

      As for you wanting a list...well its much easier to name and out the loons that believe like you. Meldrum is a crook.

      Delete
    14. Joe, again, I didn't say it proved anything. So again you are making yourself appear silly: if someone follows your direction and reads my comment they will conclude your reading comprehension sucks....and MMG, when are you or some other knowledgeable proponent going to tell Joe every syllable about Gimlin and Rogers shelved film project is historical fact??...

      Delete
    15. ^ monkey and looney toons guy again, and again, and again , and again........ !

      Delete
    16. Anon 8:20... Prove your points with evidence, that goes to anyone, enthusiast or skeptic... Enlighten meweever if I am wrong; show me a credible source to back up that story. I don't know if you can read properly, but I am well aware of this aspect you keep re-iterating... You have changed your argument to focus on some details that aren't important and I couldn't care about, you lost your initial debate and are now focussing on trivial soap opera crap that unless is challenging the the PGF, I couldn't care.
      Anon 8:21... No monkeys, just giant hairy people.

      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    17. Anon 5:23...
      Challenge my points then! Challenge my points, give me your 'lists' and then your opinion will count... Until then, unfortunately you are gonna have to lump it.
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    18. Anon : 20... The one that needs a meddle for knowing the complete A-Z of PGF soap opera hear-say... Other than my theories relating to quantum physics & infrasound, you will never see me post anything on this blog that I cannot back with expert & professional opinion or analysis. If you want to state that a shelved project of a documentary is 'fact', great, but what does that mean for the PGF? You are not making yourself clear and at a desperate attempt to try and have the last word over me, you are keeping on about details that aren't important... What is your point? If you are not making any claims, what is your point? I don't think you know anymore do you??
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    19. If your point is to highlight that you know about various aspects of here-regarding the build up to the PGF being filmed in 1967, then congratulations! What are looking for, a reward? What is your point in stating that? Does that mean that PGF is fake because There was an attempt at a documentary; no! Does it mean that they were experimenting with new new technology; highly probable! You maintain that the events you are referencing are 'fact'? Where is your evidence? Show it to me and we can put this to bed... You are maintaining I am 'silly' and a 'fool'... Where is your back up to your claim? Well done you for knowing a little here-say and runour... Prove the creature in the film is fake or shut the hell up, cause the details you keep commenting on are in my opinion trivial until you can make clear what you are getting at. Your example of proof was probably the sketchiest site I've ever seen, and you suggested a picture of Gimlin in an Indian costume that clearly wasn't him?!
      Prove Patty is fake or go back to your computer games.
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
  9. Bigfoot is best proved by yourself, to yourself. All you need is some good authentic calls that you slip into your boombox, car stereo, or portable CD player of your choosing, wait for darkness on a remote forest road, and voila. The forest people reply for whatever reason. Perhaps they think that you are their brother or sister. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bigfoot-Sasquatch-Calling-Sounds-Vocalizations-Calls-/281127365800?pt=US_Game_Calls&hash=item41747f2ca8#ht_364wt_989

    ReplyDelete
  10. What makes me believe that there is something to bigfoot being a real animal (in spite of the mountains of idiocy on this site and others) is the overwhelming amount of credible eyewitness accounts(even though there are many loons who claim to have had a bigfoot sighting).

    There are people doing time in prison for less reputable eyewitness testimonies than what exists for bigfoot.

    If bigfoot is real, it exists in very low population densities (not all over the country; probably only in the Pacific Northwest) and is extremely shy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ why only the PNW? A lot if canada and parts of the US is heavily wooded and prime habitat with many years of history of the big guy. Your statement is as silly as saying that cougars and mountain lions only live in California! Does Bigfoot have maps and GPS to make sure he doesn't cross state lines? I Don't think so.

      Delete
    2. Undoubtedly some accounts are from honest people who are very familiar with the outdoors. The cause of whatever legit "experiences" there are is not universally agreed upon. Also, the inspiration or meaning of some of the Indian art is still unknown.....

      I agree that if bigfoots are the answer to these questions then the scenario will be as you describe. The ubiquitous bigfoot theory is not credible...

      Delete
    3. Ok then, explain multiple person eye witness accounts. Also, Indian tribes' effort at painting was the best means of passing down culture and identity... Why would they go to such lengths to portray this creature in dances, festivals, ceremonies... Why would they go to such lengths if they were misunderstood or exaggerating a 'myth'?
      Peace.
      Joe.

      Delete
    4. Northern California up through British Columbia is the only area where bigfoot live. That's it, end of story. Any other part of the USA is not feasible. Not Ohio. Not Pennsylvania (LOL). Not Georgia (LOL). Not Florida.

      Delete
    5. Have you ever been to Ontario, N mn, N WI, Upper Michigan?? Miles and miles of woods and very few people. Unless you're from the area and have talked to the people I know then your "Bigfoot is only in the PNW" if fiction. For a creature we (everybody) know so little about you sure seem certain of it's territory. How? Radio Collar one? Have you ever traveled outside of Seattle? Are u a investigator who interviews eyewitnesses? Do you spend hours in the Midwest researching ? Are you so close to Bigfoot that you follow it for years? I'm sure none of that is applicable to you. I'm not convinced the live by heavily populated ares myself but you apparently need to travel a little.

      Delete
    6. ...not Suffix County, NY..lol...

      Delete
  11. What a hoax......Looney Toons.


    Still no monkey man and there never will be.

    ReplyDelete