Florida Man Found Tracks in 1991 And Finally Releases Video


Back in 1991, a man in Florida claimed he may have discovered some very unique tracks. Years later, a friend of the witness brought the evidence to the attention of Re M.: "My family found a track of footprints on our hunting property. We were able to follow it for over a mile. We casted two prints (a right & left.) We followed the track and found a place where it had gone through a barb wire fence, taking out 5 or 6 posts, and what appeared to be a place where it slept."

Re made a video of the discovery:



[via BFRO]


Comments

  1. FIRST! Kiss my butt, losers! Haaaaa.

    Dude, dont say "very unique". If something is unique, it is the only one. It's like saying " it's the very only". We use too many superlatives.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Complete load of s hit. Just another Bulls hit story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A story that has physical evidence... Not too bright are you?

      Delete
    2. No such thing as bigfoot evidence. You really are a dopey terd aren't you.

      Delete
    3. I would get around to start explaining it all away then darling... Or it's just another meaningless reassurance exercise on your part, again.

      (Sigh, poor guy)

      Delete
  3. Isn't every bigfoot story bulls hit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't argue with that. Nobody actually believes in bigfoot they just hoax and tell stupid stories for some attention because there pathetic.

      Delete
    2. Yes, apparently. For ten thousand years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing conspirators all out to get attention and your money. Even the professional people who come forward who don't seem to make any money and have everything to lose with credibility for stating their encounters. These people, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what an ape looked like, have in fact managed to cheat the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery-win fashion too.

      Delete
    3. sarcasm
      ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m/
      noun
      the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.


      ... If that didn't put your stupidity into perspective, then it's no wonder you don't get things like sarcasm.

      Delete
    4. Oh no. Joe having yet another meltdown.

      Delete
    5. Your not a loser at all Itkomi. Your really cool and smart and people like you. Now that's sarcasm.

      Delete
    6. 2:33... Such strange behaviour. Your backside being handed to you ain't anyone else's meltdown.

      2:34... It's a shame you couldn't grasp the glaring of exposure of your mindset up top then, are you selective or temperamentally stupid?

      Delete
    7. Why do we have nothing more than myth type stories for all these years? It's probably just a myth would be my take.

      Delete
    8. Argh, but that's a version of events that helps you out, no one else. From that lie, you can approach the topic easier to support your ideas... Pretty pathetic when you think about it. Take a look at the immediate topic of this blog page for example. That's called physical evidence. For the past 60 years, it's been consistently accumulated all across the country, hair samples, audio, footage... All these things that support these "myth type stories".

      Delete
    9. 247, predict how soon we will have conclusive.proof like a specimen.

      Delete
    10. Where will we be 60 years from now? 5 years from now?

      Delete
    11. That's depends on how soon there can be a consorted effort by mainstream science to get to the bottom of the matter. The research is predominantly undertaken by civilians. We've already seen an effort by leading scientists in the quest for DNA, there now needs to be the same in acknowledging the solid physical evidence, and then make a prediction from there.

      Who's to say that this holy grail of evidences hasn't already been found? We had hominid skull studies as late as 1967, the main problem is the wider perception of what Sasquatch is. If someone comes across a hominid skull buried in the wilderness, the wider misperceptions of a bipedal gorillas being "Bigfoot" could drown out such a significant find. This has certainly been the case with DNA, the results are not currently being celebrated due to most enthusiasts endorsing the bipedal gorilla theory (BFRO).

      Delete
    12. I know what I have seen and it was no gorilla.
      Not an ordinary looking man but a black skinned hair covered man.I don't deal with the BFRO because they seem to be hell bent that that's what these things are and where they are.
      They need to open their mind and realize that they are not the only show in town and that some people don't need them to "verify" what they saw.I have friends in the BFRO and they and they are good people but seem to think the only info that counts is the kind that comes straight to them.

      Delete
    13. 3:37... Learn to read.

      3:38... You have my total attention with that comment. Can I ask more details on what you saw please? Any more elaboration on your comment would be very much appreciated sir.

      Delete
    14. The physical evidence as presented sucks. Maybe that will change in the future, but it's no conspiracy or problem with the system as has been suggested.

      Delete
    15. I'm sorry... The physical evidence is profound. You can't hoax forensic sign. Unfortunately there are not enough enthusiasts, let alone cynics, who are aware of that very fundamental fact.

      Delete
    16. I guess I'll just have to disagree on that.

      Delete
    17. Your opinion is very much respected of course. Please, would you be willing to share any more details on your sighting?

      Delete
    18. You didn't make a prediction. Why not? Give us a specific prediction. You can qualify it with a level of confidence. Example: you think there is a 50% chance that Bigfoot will be accepted by mainstream science within 5 years but you only have a 10% level of confidence in that prediction.

      Delete
    19. So you are back to playing your pet theory about skeptics I see.

      Delete
    20. I think I've been clear chumps. I already have my proof.

      Delete
    21. Science and rational people do not, lol.

      Delete
    22. Sorry, science isn't a freethinking entity. It is in fact a tool and has been applied to verifying physical, biological and audio evidence.

      "Rational people" need to listen to the prioneers.

      Delete
    23. 02:05:00 AM,

      "...for some attention because [they're] pathetic."

      Same reason you troll this Bigfoot blog?

      Delete
  4. Joe, give us your prediction. What is the percent probability that we will have a specimen in 5 years?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah Joe put your money where your mouth is. Instead of putting your mouth where a c ock is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh go easy on the little fella,he's much more used to the latter.

      Delete
    2. HEY EVERYONE!!!

      ^ this is the guy who calls ladies names from behind anon mode and gloats about it! If anyone ever needs to know the legitimacy of anything, please consult this guy, his credentials and integrity appear to be impeccable.

      Delete
    3. Not to mention, he tells people what he would do if he were face to face with them off the blog, whilst behind anon mode of course! This is one seriously decent person. Please consult him, he knows everything and is well worth listening to... He's been visiting this blog for ages!

      I refer to him as "the tough guy", you may want to refer to him as the "clever coward".

      Delete
    4. Hmmmmmm. Tough guy, eh ? I would pimp slap him like Iceberg Slim used to have to pimp slap the so called "chili pimps" of Chicago. Since the same character chose to question my my masculinity. I got so red faced and angry my glitter stuck to my jaw line. Tell tough guy I'm available after my mani/pedi at 3. No, wait. Gotta spray tan, make it 4:30. He can meet me outside of TCBY yogurt. "Looser" buys smoothies. I like mine with protein, energy booster, and 2 hits Grey Goose.

      Delete
    5. Iktomi Joe, you created a monster when you called Brookreson a comedy genius. I look back on that day in situations like this and sigh.

      Delete
    6. Mike, I keep hearing you have really great evidence that you will be presenting soon. So what's the story on that?

      Delete
    7. You're more of a "Cookie Monster". Sesame street type tough. Now. I'm here. Let's hear that pithy wit of yours. Just please don't Trot out that used car routine where you have to respond to yourself as the crickets quit chirping of boredom. Speaking of chirping, the floor is open. Barber. Proceed sir......

      Delete
    8. Whom did you keep hearing ths from. Your morning voices or the after jello seroquel hour ones. See. You did it already. Tried to make it sound like you speak for many. Try one original thought of your own. I'm waiting. Phasers on stun.

      Delete
    9. Mike, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

      4:11... This blog is consistently ten times better whenever Mike contributes. As for you? Wel... Look how many regular posters people like you have driven away.

      Delete
    10. 4:15... Yes he has. Why don't you go see his channel? Are you being rhetorical or temperamentally stupid again?

      Delete
    11. 4:15.....just.....:one.....original......or funny .....,salient ....point......

      Delete
    12. Look mom i used the word rhetorical again!!

      Delete
    13. Otherwise you know what will happen. I hate to do it. Its getting on in summer, hate to have Iktomi call for them. Come on...

      Delete
    14. There you go again Iktomi Joe. I'll admit I occasionally (and I stress occasionally) like to read Mike's comments for the burnout factor, but that's about it.

      Delete
    15. Tomi...:he's going to the focus all hate on you handbook. Page 12 deflector's manual. Ahhhh well. I tried. Over a John Williams musical score, please cue the crickets.

      Delete
    16. Burnout. I spent 10 hours yesterday setting up a real estate holding company by drafting their restrictive covenants. Sadly I had to exclude "anyone who lacks wit, integrity, perspective, intellect, originality, or who may suffer from serious mental disease or defect, so no new condo for you. ". One more try. Cmon. You can do it little trooper

      Delete
    17. Well Mike Iktomi keeps saying your evidence is good, but you haven't proved anything to anyone who matters (i.e. non footers). Guess those rumors were wrong.

      Delete
    18. Let me give you some material catch phrases. "Hoaxer". "Blurry pictures". "Not masculine". "Would trade me for a pack of menthols in Alaska". Try one of those

      Delete
    19. So Mike, why exactly aren't you an actual lawyer anymore? Inquiring minds want to know.

      Delete
    20. Again all you could do was mine the dry well of your pretend friends and collaborators. What time do you see them on Oprah's book club show? Every day at 3. I asked you before we started not to beat the skeletal pony. Cmon man. I'm embarrassed for you.

      Delete
    21. Hell no. I could open an office any time I choose. That's so old and weak. Can't you think of anything original and funny. Or even wry.

      Delete
    22. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. You use evidence to strive towards proof. Yet another dentition clear up for the dense kids on this blog.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    23. So you enjoy just being a paper pusher? So did you surrender your license at one point?

      Delete
    24. Why not? My dad was dying. We had to move. I closed my office quickly without complying with forensic accounting practices they offered me a 6 month probation if I ever wanted to come back but I didn't have to. I was already well enough off that I could choose to operate a ranch and missouri farm while burying my dad after a 2 year struggle with a failing transplanted heart. Pretty good stuff. Now your really brining em down anyway. Short story long. I can go back to Missouri and be open for Xmas. Why. Do you need a lawyer ?

      Delete
    25. Way to deflect from the real issue, Joe (that's you Iktomi).

      Delete
    26. Cause I'm still currently licensed in 2 other states. :). But I sadly I don't have to practice. Anything but keeping the tractor straight or my horse upright

      Delete
    27. It's not so much my deflection than your baiting, you spoiled little brat. Mike has never claimed to have proof, just the evidence.

      Delete
    28. Now you turned on Iktomi again why? Am I boring you? Cause you still haven't provided one single witty, funny, original thing. Not just today. Ever. Now it's time to chime in as another Anon supporting you. Try that one.

      Delete
    29. I'd settle for anything. Bigfoot, science facts. Your mother's best recipe. Cmon fella. The crowd has gotten uncomfortably silent

      Delete
    30. Oh little Joey called me a brat. The point remains he hasn't done any convincing that I'm aware of.

      Delete
    31. You called me out and here I am. Just a girl....standing in front of a boy....:asking him to entertain her. Cmon.....you had me at Jello

      Delete
    32. I didn't realize I was hear to amuse you. You certainly haven't said anything witty or funny.

      Delete
    33. Ahhhhhh I'm bored. That's the worst crime of all. You bored me. I'll check back after yout snack break. See if the calories help.

      Delete
    34. No. But I wasn't here calling people out. You were. So show us how you're better. In any way. At anything. Needle point. Hotdog eating. Any....friggin thing

      Delete
    35. And if you can't and I'd bet the family ranches on it. Then you might be the weakest and saddest wanna be troll this site has ever seen. I'd change characters or give up if couldnt at Least offer something. How bout a knock knock joke

      Delete
    36. I think the point was you aren't funny nor have you provided any decent evidence. You ran away from your "hotspot" to run a Bigfoot blimp. I think that says it all, clearly.

      Delete
    37. Mike is a regular Robin Williams, huh.

      Delete
    38. Knock knock....whose there? No one....nobody at all.....

      Delete
    39. You used a drug suicide tragic loss to the entertainment world as your curtain call. Dude. I've never been so embarrassed for anyone on this site in my life.

      Delete
    40. Lol, that wasn't me...but of course you'll say I'm lying.

      Delete
    41. You are the most vapid, shallow, weak dullard I've ever encountered. But I'm sad for you. I'm gonna go man. This is no fun to even try to pick on you. I hope you remember this when you read this back. Cause nobody else will

      Delete
    42. Besides I think the point was RW was funny, you're not that's the point...sarcasm.

      Delete
    43. There you go. Now you're imaginary friend his here. I was waiting. Hope he likes his cookie. Have a great day sport. Cause your morning wasn't much to start it with.

      Delete
    44. And for my part I'm sorry. It was no fun at all. Like riding those ponies they chain in a circle at the rodeo, even the children were bored.

      Delete
    45. Sure and you are a lying sack of crap about the Lawyer license.

      Delete
    46. Don't go away mad Mikey. Perhaps later you can tell use about your real history.

      Delete
    47. Ummmm no. I'm not. Failure to follow new rules on procedural accounting when closing an office. You have resorted to liar liar pants on fire. The very bottom is near to you now. You can still call me ugly before you storm off yelling something about getting your brother. You're a spoiled child. Not a man in humorous repose. You lack depth, perspective and any type of originality. You seem on the verge of tears

      Delete
    48. Mike, what we have here is a little man looking for a little attention. He's never been funny, never amounted to anything in life, so hiding behind a desktop makes him feel a little better. The proof's in the pudding, 5:00, and you must be such a cancerous, sad little man to fail in social interactions on a blog where your fat, nerdy looks shouldn't hinder your confidence. Mike's evidence isn't important to you, you don't care, you've not even looked at it. You just want to hate because you're a psycho nerd.

      Nutshell.

      Delete
    49. I'm not mad. I'm embarrassed for you. And I'd stay around but you aren't a worthy adversary. At least Dan is whip smart and funny at times. Don is consistent. Tell you what. I won't chide or deride you. I'm not mean. Just do the one smart thing and don't troll me. It doesn't ever seem to go well for you. That being said. No harm. No foul

      Delete
    50. Mikey gets bent out of shape when he gets a little of his own medicine. How predictable.

      Never claimed to be funny, Joe. You are the idiot who spends every day defending nothing more that a myth.

      Delete
    51. As for my evidence. Veteran researchers pay their own hard earned money to travel cross country to go out with me at my site. And too many now have verified it for it to be called into question. And I think I got closer, physically, to them in numbers, than perhaps anyone. Ever.

      Delete
    52. Then please, Mike, for the love of God show us something. Its all well and good to show BIgfooters what they want to see.

      Delete
    53. I have hosted about a dozen well known researchers. Collaborated with every single one I chose two. Two books have been written about it. One in the works. This fall I'm taking out a who's who guest list of the best in the business. And you think I'm not the luckiest guy on earth :).

      Delete
    54. 5:11... Mike's never been anything but civil people. Haters like you just need ten minutes trying to rationalise your failed existence against someone who appears to be doing/always has done rather well for himself.

      No, you'd wish you were funny, it's an issue that's apparent every time you're so bitterly referencing Mike's ability to brighten a blog page up with humour.

      Myths don't leave tracks, you're the one failing in that premise daily... Sorry it's adding more to your very obvious inferiority complex.

      Delete
    55. You know nothing. Every researcher has big books full of great stuff. That the world will never see. MK, Karl, David. Those guys aren't ever going to. You know why. People like you. Braying donkeys who screech for proof then chide the presenter. It's chilled the reveal

      Delete
    56. Joe is dime store psychologist. Emphasis is on the ten cents.

      Other things besides Bigfoot does leave tracks. That's the point.

      Delete
    57. If the evidence is good, you won't be relegated to Bigfoot blogs. Don't blame the critics if you do not measure up.

      Delete
    58. Really. What walks across a 4 foot deep river bottom barefoot with an 18" track that's 7.5 inches wide and straight up a rock bluff. You think maybe SPURs center Tiago Splitter was out in the bush eating my cantaloupe. Dude. I think you believe me. I think you may be angry and frustrated because no one releases the good stuff anymore.

      Delete
    59. 5:22... You're not even that clever son. Other things don't leave species traits consistent across States and decades, sorry you're too dense to fathom the significance of that.

      5:24... "relegated", get a load of this! Where else is better suited to discussing and showing be evidence? What a narcissist you are. You've been ordering your mother around the house so long, you're void of any audacity you spout.

      Delete
    60. Critics? I'm not blaming anyone. Tell you what. I've got some hair. Rhettman was going to take it but I got side tracked thinking I was going to get trained in drone use so I could take that knowledge back to my ranch. You want some.

      Delete
    61. I don't want any but great if it's going to be tested. Fantastic.

      Delete
    62. Swear to God. I'll send you some hair I 100% believe to be sasquatch hair. It's got every cue marker. It's been microscopically vetted so far. You can test it. Then ridicule me forever. Or tell the world you found it. I don't care. Dude. I saw one at 40 feet. I've got nothing left on that bucket list. It's yours if you want it. Seriously.

      Delete
    63. I gotta go, but I will check back later.

      Delete
    64. That's just it. I do have one huge fatal flaw. Pride. I'm not going to EVER pay to have it tested. Too many credible witnesses and written and physical proof from my spot now for that. I've spent too much money. And Id like to see them proven but no one has gotten serious enough yet to really try and get university funds on it. Maybe Meldrum.

      Delete
    65. Ok Man. You know, when you got into the moment just now. When you dropped the facade, you seem like you might be an ok guy. Hope "he" comes back more often

      Delete
    66. Screw it Joe. I'm headed to Bigfootology now. If Mullis will still take it I'm headed to UPS. Email today. Please

      Delete
    67. Wow ! Me,me,me,you,you,you,blah,blah,blah, You'e all a bunch of annoying posters . "you're a _. I'm
      a_..so on. so on.

      Delete
    68. What's happened in this thread of comments, is one psychotic hater trying to attack someone's character, and two people exercising their right to defend themselves and their characters. If you don't like it, go and complain to the admins.

      Delete
    69. You said that right ! and boy do we know joe has lots of characters he goes by . At least 4 or 5.

      Delete
  6. Above joe said the following:

    "That's depends on how soon there can be a consorted effort by mainstream science to get to the bottom of the matter."

    Now thats interesting because previously according to you it has already been proven and we are merely waiting for sykes paper to publish.

    That statement above there is damning. It shows that your claims about sykes are wild conjecture that even you have no real faith in. You know sykes has nothing because you are still waiting for something with actual scientific merit to come along.

    Busted mate. You chat absolute bollocks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Busted? Allow me to poor cold water on your erec*ion...

      In one part of Sykes' current study, you will have the previously perceived time frame in which hominids lived on the planet, smashed, by many thousands of years to just 150 years. The significance of that is that if thousands of years can be eroded in one study, and Zana's offspring still be alive today, then what is stopping more Zana's residing in the deep wilderness areas of the planet to this day. A premise Sykes himself endorses. I have total faith in Sykes, you must remember that he alluded to this;

      "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".

      ... A more contemporary source for you to wet your shorts over.

      : )

      Delete
    2. If you had faith in sykes then why are you still (in your words) waiting for a consorted scientific effort?

      Weak.

      More zanas? Cool. You know zana was 100% human and not a bigfoot right?

      Delete
    3. *concerted; my typo.

      I have total faith in Sykes... You know Sasquatch, Yeti's are 100% human, right?

      Delete
    4. "You know Sasquatch, Yeti's are 100% human, right"

      Did joe just go full retard?

      Delete
    5. Don't take it from me! Take it from the most pioneering geneticist in the world.

      : )

      Delete
    6. Apart from he never said that you just made it up

      Delete
    7. If you have your proof, why do you care about Sykes?

      Delete
    8. "1) In an unnumbered chapter after Chapter 27, entitled “Postscript,” Sykes details an intriguing finding from a hair sample from Dr. Henner Fahrenbach. It had a result that Sykes is still pondering, and we may hear about in the future. The DNA sample of a “Sasquatch” from Walla Walla matched that of a feral “individual from Uzbekistan,” Sykes exclaims (page 282).
      (2) Sykes’ verdict on Zana, an alleged almasty captured in the 1850s on the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains, is a nod to the labor of the Russian hominologists during four decades of the Snowman Commission at Moscow’s Darwin Museum. The mainstream media has completely misinterpreted what Sykes’ book has to say about this, and talk of Zana being an “escaped African slave” demeans what appears to be the genetic realities behind the case. You must read Sykes’ Chapter 29, to fully appreciate what he has discovered.
      “Part-human, part-ape with dark skin (Zana means ‘black’ in Abkhaz) she was covered with long, reddish-brown hair which formed a mane down her back. She was large, about 6’6″ tall, and extremely muscular with exaggerated, hairless buttocks and large breasts. Her face was wide with high cheekbones and a broad nose,” notes Sykes (page 296).
      Zana was no slave from Africa, but an individual with genetics who tells us much more about the population from which she sprang. As Bryan Sykes hints, “Zana’s ancestors could have left Africa before the Laran exodus of 100,000 year ago” and “they might well be still there [in the Caucasus Mountains] to this day, living as they have for millennia somewhere in the wild valleys that radiate from the eternal snows of Elbrus,” (page 306).
      (3) There is one more revelation in this book that caused me great astonishment. I have written an entirely separate article about it. Few seem to have read the book closely enough to realize that part of the DNA testing that Sykes did gives a complete revision to the status of the Pangboche finger findings of only four years ago, when it was dismissed as merely “human.” Read here for the big reveal that Sykes shares on that case. Please see, “Pangboche Finger’s ‘Human’ Verdict Clarified By Bryan Sykes DNA Finding.” The fact is, the Pangboche hand may yet be an important artifact to re-study and re-test, regarding a piece of the puzzle to solve the mystery of the Yeti."
      - Loren Coleman

      Link to Sykes on Pangboche finger write up here;
      http://www.cryptozoonews.com/pangboche-sykes/

      Why do I care about Sykes? Because the credibility of this subject grows the second another reputable scientist delivers a positive conclusion, and I like drawing attention to honest science that cynics and pseudosceptics claim isn't there.

      Delete
    9. So predict when the credibility of this subject will grow to where the world takes it seriously. Give us your best guess. Be as specific as you can. 5 years? 10 years?

      Delete
    10. One could argue that that has happened already, with the most qualified in relevant fields investing enthusiasm. What the average under qualified scientist who hasn't looked at the evidence thinks, what the average numpty on the street is ignorant of, I don't care and am equally as careless to put a time frame on them educating themselves any time soon. Some people are just dumb, there's not much you can do about that.

      Delete
    11. ....Hi Iktomi....I disagree with the notion that scientists that consider the evidence conclude there is an undocumented primate in NA...One name that stands out is Daegling; additionally, in the 70's and 80's professors did read Krantz's publications and some thought he was wrong....There is a guy on BFF called DWA that also contends that anyone who studies the evidence must conclude bigfoots exist..I think this is a tad hyperbolic but I will concede that the vast majority of scientists that blow off this topic do not know much about it...

      Delete
    12. Actually buddy, Daegling's work here;
      http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/bigfootreview.pdf
      ... Can be taken apart as follows...

      There is no evidence that Paul Freeman was a hoaxer and the point used where Freeman is a self admitted hoaxer was in fact a segment from a TV interview where Freeman nodded to hoaxing tracks, when the footage cuts off you do not see him explain that he made false tracks to test those that he attained under genuine circumstances. His hair samples have currently been taken on by Sykes who is fascinated by the initial testing (watch this space).

      The dermal ridges that Grover Krantz had published were seen to be in the actual impressions pre-casting and are not anomalies of casting processes. This lends credence to other dermal ridges that have been verified by a long line of experts far exceeding the credentials of those making imitated dermals under LABORATORY environments. The dermals also have a long line of forensic experts, far more qualified than Daegling, confirming that they are genuine;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      Fossil record; we only have a few teeth for six million years worth of time chimps and gorillas have resided on the African continent, and we also have 150 years worth of giant skeletal remains documented in the US. I'll also add...

      The circumstances around the man made fibres that Freeman presented as legitimate are not known, and he may well have acquired them unbeknownst and trusting of the source. If Krantz, Titmus and Meldrum were hoaxed with tracks, then I wonder how many wildlife biologists and anthropologists analysing sources from other subjects would be so easily hoaxed by people trying to sabotage them? The truth is that this has been used to move forward in identifying such in future casts analysed. Lastly, Meldrum's Giganto across the Bering Bridge theory has no doubt evolved (self corrected like all good science), as Meldrum is now of the mindset that Sasquatch are relict hominids, and the source itself agrees that human migrations came via this route.

      Krantz came under scrutiny because his bipedal gorilla typically didn't fit.

      Delete
    13. ..Thanks for the response and the links, man.....

      Delete
    14. You are always very welcome pal. I wish you used a signature so I could at least look out for you.

      Delete
  7. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2012/12/gnrfan-maritimer-speaks-about-his.html
    My first sighting that I referrred to earlier Iktomi,would like to get your thoughts on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir!! I can't tell you how thrilled I am to read of this encounter! I have two very long emails, from very experienced people of the American wilderness, that detail the exact manner in which you described the Bush Indian smelling the air.

      I also find the way that animals fall silent so incredible. What do you think this could be? Your very detailed account documented a wild human. Thank you so much for sharing it... May ask of any more encounters??

      Delete
    2. Also... Are you aware of any forensic drawings by Harvey Pratt? Are these consistent with what you saw? You will notice that none of them have a coned head, and have the exact same facial morphology that you referenced. Also... Are you aware of Sykes' theories about a relict population of robust humans leaving Africa? I find this fascinating when considering reports of Sasquatch with very human/negroid features.

      Delete
    3. Sure,I moved from Nova Scotia in 07 and lived in New Brunswick.
      I spent some time with some elders from the reservation in Quebec and they sent me to an area in Northern NB.
      Things picked up really well in the area and I was able to get a few pics.

      Delete
    4. Christ! I would love to put my email up here to talk to you off this blog... But it's not safe with all these psychos floating around. Is there any way I could see those pictures and get some more insight into your experiences?

      Delete
    5. Drop me an email Iktomi and I will send pics and details if you like.
      gnrfan1988@gmail.com

      Delete
    6. Great! Expect an email by the end of the day!

      Delete
    7. Right on Iktomi I look forward to it.

      Delete
    8. COOL...that goes for you too Chuck!!

      Delete
  8. Yes, the RW comment was sarcasm. Yes, RW is funny. No, it had nothing to do with his death. It should be considered honoring to RW that he is considered an icon of comedy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WILD BILL frum Mountain Monsters he gots a shotgun ans traxs critters ans trapem cawz hebe ans OLD MARINE he shure is

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

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