Kid Describes Seeing a White Bigfoot


White Bigfoot are rare, and while there have been many accounts of it by adults, it's pretty interesting to see it come from a young child. BFE reader Dr. Squatch recently interview his nephew who had an encounter at the age of 6. Robbie describes the Bigfoot as having a black face and white fur. Pretty descriptive. Listen below:



Comments

  1. Replies
    1. Great video DS!!!!!! Keep up the good work my friend!!

      Delete
    2. Wow! Robbie gets a mention! He sure does a good job.
      It most likely helped him to have an uncle who is matter of fact about it and believes him.

      Delete
    3. There is nothing believable about this at all. The kid has totally been put up to it or coaxed. This is pathetic.

      And, sorry, but a person who frantically scribbles and highlights a bible that much might have an issue or two with reality.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Robbie is adorable and could sell me boy scout cookies!

      Delete
  3. It's great that he got to see one so young. He doesn't have to wonder if it's real; he already has his proof.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bend Over the voice of reason, now watch the kid get ridiculed most of his life.

      Delete
    2. By who? Big tough people like you on a blog??

      I bet he'll grow up to be so ashamed.

      Delete
  4. Bigfoot phenomenon solved! No more mystery, only misery for footers.
    This is the real explanation for the phenomenon. I challenge anyone (skeptic or woomeister) to prove this to be wrong. We have for very long given the opportunity for woomeisters to prove their assertions. Here is what the claimed "evidence for bigfoot" actually proves. We have many examples of each of these. All bigfoot resolved claims fit into one of these three categories.

    This is bigfoot:

    1) Hoaxers/liars/storytellers
    2) Deluded individuals (by intoxication, or mental illness, etc)
    3) Occasionally mistaken identity

    Footers don't like the answer? Too bad. Reality is not one of the strong points to being a bigfooter. I challenge you to put up or shut up. Bigfoot is no longer a mystery. We know what bigfoot really is now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) what happens when such "hoaxing and storytelling" manifests in forensically verified sign?
      2) hoW deluded are occasions where multiple eyewitnesses are seeing the same thing? Police officers trained to documenting detail under high pressure situations?
      3) when bears start fooling seasoned, long term hunters and forestry workers by losing the snout, growing crazy width in the upper body, start walking, running & jumping with a stride, start growing hands and feet... Then you'll have have a means of denouncing ten thousand years of cultural acknowledgement that transitions three whole databases of very, very detailed reports from every credible background you can think of.

      The following have all verified forensic physicall evidene of a bipedal unclassified primate; Tatyana Gladkova, Dermatoglyphics expert at the USSR Institute of Anthropology. Mikhail Urisson and Vladimir Volkov-Dubrovin (Deputy Director of the Institute)
      agrees with her opinion. Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Douglas M. Monsoor, Supervisor, Criminalistics Unit, Department of Public Safety, Lakewood, Colorado. Certified Latent Print Examiner, and fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom. Robert D. Olsen, Sr., Criminalist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas. Certified Latent Print Examiner, Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom,Member of International Association for Identification, etc. Edward Palma, Fingerprint examiner for the Laramie County Sheriff's Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Benny Kling, Instructor, Law Enforcement Academy, Douglas,
      Wyoming. Jimmy Chilcutt, fingerprint technician at the Conroe Police Department, highly regarded by agents of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and state and local law enforcement agencies for his innovative techniques and ability to find fingerprints where others fail...

      Don't like the answer? Grow a pair and get an equally qualified opinion to counter theirs, when you do that, then your vomit at 1, 2 and 3 might wash around here.

      Delete
    2. . . . and yet Bigfoot still remains in the realm of myth no matter how hard Joe/lktomi (the defender of the faith) tries to convince otherwise.

      Delete
    3. I think the kid is lying. Joe threatened him to do so.

      Delete
    4. ... I suppose you need the mental capacity of a ten year old to understand that science is the unbiased effort to understand reality based on the observable physical evidence. "Bigfoot" CAN remain in mythology... It just so happens that an unclassified, bipedal primate, twice the size of normal human primates can't by scientific merit.

      Hey fundie... You failed.

      Delete
    5. 5:34, And the critical factor in your arguments is the quality of evidence. Is that evidence sufficient to meet the burden of proof? You think so. Many more do not. Restating that evidence doesn't improve the quality. New and better evidence is what is needed rather than restating old, poor quality evidence. Also, ad hominems do not improve the quality of evidence.

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

      Delete
    7. Burden of proof used by psuedosceptics is a way out of testing evidence presented, which in science must be. It's a way out of testing something that inevitably has no counter argument or an exchange that does not conclude to a preferenced idea. This is in fact evidence of denial and limited argument (intelligence). This merely allows pseudosceptics who proclaim this argument to specify what they would accept as evidence and ultimately proof. Arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown, and a way to move the goal posts endlessly.

      And no... Humorously, restating the evidence that is yet to be shown to be wrong (your burden in fact) is without a shadow of a doubt adhering to it's qualities... Who is to say otherwise in the face of so many experts, you? Anon unqualified you?? Wha are your credentials??? Poor quality??? Please... I'm curious as to how you might show us that this is the case??

      I'm afraid that the evidence is sufficient enough, of good enough quality, that it reflects the same output to which the mainstream scientific community adhere to a select few of qualified experts for what they percieve as pioneering and field progressing (peer review).... This might be news to you.

      Delete
    8. At 6:06 you come the closest to stating a good argument. And of course what you meant to say was there are heaps of physical evidence piles biodegrading in peoples' drawers as we speak. What is missing is a type specimen for the purpose of taxonomic classification. Because of it's genetic similarity to modern Homo sapiens, you aren't going to find a lot of labs willing to do full differential genome sequencing on nondegraded biological evidence to differentiate said samples from rare varient types of known mammals and more specifically people, unless your pockets are deep enough and then you put a scientist on retainer. DNA is not the last question of course, differential analysis is. And because there is no type specimen in a freezer (a daisy in a box) then the Subject enthusiasts so badly want, to take the "fringe" out of the science, won't be there to help with said differentiation. Not to mention the ethical constraints associated with shooting a bi pedal hominid, which would vex any real person with frequent contact on a parcel of property with the (get your big rifle) pro kill crowd. These are complex issues. I like Rhettman Mullis' new collection attempt. I love Jeff Meldrum's collection attempt and association with complex long term studies. And while I may temporarily agree with the general premise you espouse at 6:06, I believe the sand is falling in the hourglass as we speak and that ultimately a group of researchers and scientists or a dedicated enthusiast with a good nondegraded biological sample will trump even this (you aren't there yet) argument. The real question then, of course, DSA, is whatcha gonna do, when science runs wild on you ?

      Delete
    9. I was hoping to hear those heavy boots and spurs coming down the sidewalk!

      Delete
    10. You do realize that the Soviet Union became defunct more than 20 years ago and that referring to individuals who worked for some Soviet institute in the present tense is patently absurd, don't you?

      Delete
    11. You do realise that science is science, don't you? Stop crying and get me a countering, equally qualified opinion.

      Something about "absurd"?

      Delete
    12. It just shows that you copied and pasted the reference from some bigfoot believer site (and apparently you didn't even know what the USSR was) without checking the original source (if it even exists). Some compelling evidence you have there.

      Delete
    13. Sorry! That's not good enough... I'll just assume here that your petty efforts at condescending and dancing around finding me an actual countering scientific opinion, is evidence that you're a little out of your depth. Science is science... And those forensic specialists, regardless of what political climate they came from (didn't nazi's scientists end up helping the western war effort?) are/were not "bigfoot believers"... And just doing their job. Sorry it's at the expense of your self esteem.

      Delete
    14. Oh... And before you recline on more pettiness and suggest I'm referring to the old USSR as Nazi's... My reasons for bringing the Nazi's up serves as an example of progressive science outside of politics, impartial via great minds.

      Delete
    15. A counter opinion to what? A reference in an article to another reference of a study which references another study of evidence supposedly conducted in the old USSR more than 30 years ago? If you think this is evidence, then I guess I understand how you didn't even know what the USSR was and that it ceased to exist in the early 1990's.

      Delete
    16. Sorry!! Science is science dear Anon... Regardless of political climate, it's weak and a little bit cringy that that's all you've got, especially when their opinions are supported by various Western experts. I'm referencing one source, a study put together by Grover Krantz called "Anatomy and Dermatoglyphics of Three Sasquatch Footprints."

      It's ok... You learned something today.

      Delete
    17. Do you even read my comments? My point, which you apparently concede, is that Grover Krantz's "study" is not the Soviet study and one cannot respond to it without consulting it. It's also funny that the female Soviet scientist named is also the name of a famous Russian figure skater -- so the likelihood that someone pulled this out of their arse is great -- and a bird brain like yourself accepted it at face value.

      Delete
    18. Read peoperly? What "soviet study" are you talking about you loon? The only one who's banging on about soviet stuff is you... Krantz consulted a whole bunch of credible forensic experts, some of them happened to be from the old USSR... It's the same study. And is that it? Is that all you've got? You're running out of chances kid...

      Delete
    19. ....Great thread...I'm happy to see my ellipses style of commenting is catching on...lol...

      Original Excessive Ellipses Guy....

      Delete
    20. What did the Soviet scientists, including the Russian ice skater, do exactly? What were their methods and what procedures did they use? How can anyone respond to two sentences written in a crazy crank's bigfoot screed?

      Delete
    21. What did they do??? They applied there expetise to looking at dermals??? You're running out of chances kid...

      Delete
    22. How can I respond to it without analyzing the methods (pardon me if I don't take your impeccable word for it)? Otherwise, the figure skater's third hand opinion is useless.

      Delete
    23. Who's third hand opinion? There is no such thing. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel kid... Here's a link to their study and opinions, I'm giving you far too much credit in assuming you might have the literacy level to fathom it;

      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      ... Last chance kid.

      Delete
    24. D'you know what I think? I think you're a little out of your depth. I stoop so low as to respond to you and request basic scientific reasoning to counter consistent scientific method... And the best you can come up with is the USSR and a skater's name.

      I'm clearly not addressing Einstein.

      Delete
    25. You cited the Russian ice skater as someone who has "proved bigfoot" and the only source is a third hand account from a crazy bigfoot believer site with no independent reference for what she, or the other alleged researchers, did exactly, what methods they used, or anything. How do you know that the figure skater did anything with no original source? You just take it on faith that she practiced "science" without further pursuing the matter? You can't even seem to fathom the concept that one would have to analyze her original work, not just accept a two sentence conclusion cited in an article which references a different study. If this is your standard of "science," then it requires someone to disqualify you from any serious discussion.

      Delete
    26. I just provided you with the source, silly boy. Your circular logic (limited argument, not to mention intelligence) doesn't even begin to show those experts from those academic backgrounds are wrong. Like I said... "Third hand" (pfft), out of your depth.

      http://youtu.be/M5QGkOGZubQ

      Delete
    27. I just simply desire to view the figure skater's methods and work in "proving bigfoot" and not blindly accept a third hand reference. Apparently, that is too much to ask. Someone, who referred to the USSR in the present tense, proclaiming that others are out of their depth, is richly humorous indeed. lol

      Delete
    28. "All you ask"? Bro... In any adult, scientific debate (and mentioning that in an exchange with the likes of you is cringey), you MUST present a case against the source presented, learn something about the subject, it might prevent you in future getting b-slapped by cruel people like me.

      Delete
    29. Not only can I not present a case regarding something that has no independent source and only a short summary provided in Grover Krantz's article (with no reference to the ice skater's methods or procedures, rendering it impossible to analyze in any fashion), I cannot even confirm that the supposed Soviet scientists ever existed! If they did, it would be unprecedented indeed for such open communication to occur between researchers in the USSR and the west at the height of the Cold War. So let's establish a novel standard for establishing the existence of a new species -- provide a short summary of an ice skater's "opinion" in another source and VOILA! Bigfoot exists!

      Delete
    30. Google forensics, you'll have at least a child's guide to what that entails... Considering it's about DERMALS, that might be a little give away?

      (Cringe)

      Got any science? Or just rhetorical vomit that anyone delivering a positive result is suddenly untrustsorthy? Oh... And before I let you know that you blew your last chance, space exploration today benefits from past collaboration between the United States and Russia.

      A "short summary" that you haven't the mental maturity to fathom? Grow up.

      : )

      Delete
    31. Hey, here's a little homework for you... Why don't you get one of your parents to email those professionals and ask whether they were happy to have their names to that study?

      It wouldn't be the first time your parents have done your homework for you.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    32. And then I will apply "forensics" to a few sentences from an article with no independent source and no explanation as to what procedures were used (and that some crank is using to try to prove the proposition that bigfoot has been established)! And then I will write a letter to the (still existing according to you) USSR and request open communication with their famous figure skating scientist (and who apparently never existed) and request that she collaborate with me on my bigfoot studies! Thank you for providing some farcical entertainment for me today my friend!

      Delete
    33. Any science? Do you have a quote on the USSR? Do you have retired forensic experts?

      http://youtu.be/M5QGkOGZubQ

      : )

      Delete
    34. ....The Russian ice skater's opinion is a very small part of Krantz's article..Nitpicking about it smacks of the goal-post moving skeptics and deniers are occasionally accused of(I'm a skeptic, as regular Evidence posters know) ..Krantz is claiming the prints are too large to be human and the dermal ridges show they are likely to be genuine..If you want to refute that, you can find the reasons in the article itself as Krantz quotes contrary opinion.He does not mention that Freeman may be untrustworthy..lol..But a proponent once told me its possible Freeman went a-hoaxing after failing to repeat initial success...Anyway, I was interested to learn the casting artifact (air bubbles)argument goes back to the 80's, pre-dating Tube's demonstration by some 25 years..Its a nice, balanced article for anyone interested in this stuff...Thanks for posting Joe...

      Delete
    35. Not sure I totally agree with you on the air bubbles once you get down to comparing biological artefacts, but you're easily the best, most genuine sceptic and I very much enjoy your posts.

      Ice skater... Ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    36. It's like this, 4:13... Do you really need an adult to tell you how a forensic specialist would go about analysing dermals? This is usually done with a magnifying glass and a qualified mind... A very, very, very basic application of imagination and common sense is all that is required.

      An "independent source" is moving the goal posts, it's telling me that you have nothing as a counter argument, it suggests yet more rhetorical approaches because Grover Krantz is merely an enthusiast that his word is not trustworthy. This is your ad hominem that you so frequently and so hypocritically apply to people's arguments when you've run out of ideas, or in your case... Angles to wangle. Throughout his professional career, Krantz authored more than 60 academic articles and 10 books on human evolution, and conducted field research in Europe, China, and Java. For these reasons he accumulated considerable academic respect, and this would be how he could attract such a series of credible professionals.

      A "crank"? I do believe that sounds like you're frustrated, dear boy? I am not using this evidence to prove that Bigfoot is real (stop panicking), I am merely using it to prove that there is an unclassified, bipedal primate twice the size of normal human primates residing in the wilderness of the US. Now... If I thought you had the intelligence to fathom principles like Occam's Razor... Here I would normally proceed in explaining this to you, but I fear I would hit a brick wall for my efforts.

      I have not ever claimed that the USSR is still existing, don't you think that is a little bit childish to suggest that I have? But hey... I am exchanging with someone who posted a comment from JREF, I didn't really expect much else. Oh... And you didn't come across like it was much entertainment for you, you looked like you were a little out of your depth. Your acrobatics around showing me one single source to counter that long line of experts is was it is... Another classic JREF failure.

      Delete
    37. ...Thanks Joe..I will read the article more carefully...I appreciate when people from any side do what you do: post links and take the time to share their knowledge and ideas in well written comments...

      Delete
    38. You have a friend in me sir... And you are most welcome.

      Delete
  5. Hmmm? So, "Dr. Squatch" has a nephew who had a sighting. Imagine that.
    You can write off Dr. Squatch as another bigfoot BSer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My nephew has no knowledge that there are white BF!! We were all out scouting for BF, and I threw a rock up the hill to show the kids a BF blind. When they saw it, we all turned to walk the path, but my nephew kept looking up hill, that's when he saw the white BF walk off. He's such an honest kid, and his sighting was 30 yards from where my other 2 face pics were taken!
      If anyone wants me to ask him something I forgot to ask, just ask..thanks!
      Thanks for posting Shawn.

      Delete
    2. I hold myself to the highest standards 508!
      Not a chance I'm a BSer!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdXiT2OlvQk

      Delete
    3. I'm an honest guy heres my bible, didn't Ted Bundy read a bible?

      Delete
    4. 10:21 has a personality disorder and is only here for the negativity.

      Delete
    5. This coming from a Nonny who reads Everyone Poops for scriptural guidance.

      Delete
    6. Do you read the bible also NC?

      Delete
    7. Funny how this Internet troll/psychopath channels Ted Bundy to make a point. Here's a quote from an article on Bundy, "a sadistic sociopath who took pleasure from another human's pain." That's like the article I posted earlier on Internet trolls which stated:

      "The researchers defined online trolling as “the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the Internet” for no purpose other than their pleasure."

      As Chick noted he has a personality disorder. It explains they are psychopaths the article also states, "Internet trolls are archetypal Machiavellian sadists."

      http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/online-trolls-are-psychopaths-and-sadists-psychologists-claim-9134396.html

      Delete
    8. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/read/80531709/

      I didn't get it correct, damn.

      Delete
    9. The Dark Tetrad,indeed. I'm sure we can expect the weak-handed volley from said psycho claiming not to be the troll shortly,mistaking the education of psychology out his pure ignorance for not wanting to further his lot in life, and declaring it obsession by all the good posters here.

      Delete
    10. Referencing a joke from ebaums world as a gauge for your own illness? Not a step further from that corner, Nonny Poppet,lest you step on wet paint

      Delete
    11. @ site troll who claims he failed psychopath test @ 1:30.

      The article I linked to earlier also had test questions for Internet trolls. Here is what it states,

      "They were also given tests that measured their responses against psychology's "Dark Tetrad": narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and a sadistic personality. Questions also surrounded sadistic statements including: ''I enjoy physically hurting people,” “I enjoy making jokes at the expense of others” and “I enjoy playing the villain in games and torturing other characters.” It was sadism, however, that had the most robust associations with trolling of any of the personality measures,” said psychologists from the University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg and University of British Columbia in an article published in the ‘Personality and Individual Differences’ journal. It went on to claim that trolls are “agents of chaos” that exploit “hot-button issues” to inflame and exploit users’ emotions"

      .................................................

      So, did you pass that test. I think you answer correctly here day after day, wanting to play the villain who tortures others, making jokes at other's expense, wanting to emotionally hurt the people posting here. Can you answer that question correctly? Do those things give you pleasure?

      http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/online-trolls-are-psychopaths-and-sadists-psychologists-claim-9134396.html

      Delete
    12. Yeah, because someone who calls himself Dr. Squatch hold himself to the highest standards and doesn't BS.

      Delete
    13. Sorry anon... I keep forgetting that you are the benchmark of integrity... Maybe we should follow your standard.

      Delete
  6. Yeah huge coincidence there huh? The ability to see imaginary animals must be a genetic thing. This is like the 6th sense part 2. " I see ape people". For those of you who have never seen one of these majestic animals I heard you can obtain the ability be whacking yourself in the head with a heavy frying pan 20 to 30 times. You'll know you are getting close when you start talking like Licktoemi and BenD Dover.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you're not spewing round about ways of calling people names and expressing hate speech... Do you actually ever get closer to proving any of your points?

      I heard you can obtain the ability of sound mental health by telling a family member or friend of your predicament... I shudder to think what might occur with a heavy frying pan in the hands of someone so hateful and so psychopathic as you.

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

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

      Delete
    4. SORRY FOR THE DELETES, ROOSTER WONT LEAVE ME ALONE! LOL, HES MAKING ME MAKE MISTAKES HAHAHA! HE DOESNT WANT TO GO TO WORK!



      Here is an amusing account of a debunker who gets an an introduction to a bigfoot on an outing. Notice the mocking arrogance turns into crying, wailing and pissing himself in the back of the truck from the floorboards. I only wish this was an experience that could be available to all of them. Say like a charter bus trip? One that can be hosed out at the end of the day. ;)

      Start around 25:50 36:05 for crying and wailing!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6bAAhhYbNw

      Delete
    5. Morning Iktomi! Do you think we could talk Mike B into letting us tour his place with a bus full of debunkers? :)

      Delete
    6. Ha ha ha ha ha!!! I'll put it to him and see what he says... I've heard he's the host with the most!

      Delete
    7. Hahahahah...can't wait to listen to this. Thanks Chick!

      A skeptard charted bus is a fabulous idea!

      Uno!

      Delete
    8. Hey Uno gal!! I enjoyed that radio show immensely!

      Delete
    9. I just read 6:11 Iktomi and almost wet my pants laughing! You really are the king of troll slaps. I wouldn't bother to come here if it weren't for the fun people like you. ;)


      Too much Chick around here again all- sorry about that ha! SO I am out for the day have a good one!


      I may have some stories to tell later about a half a hog and a creepy night crawler around the place this week (human kind).

      Delete
  7. Teacher: What does your daddy do for fun at home when he's not working ?

    Kid : He looks up Bigfoot stuff.

    Teacher: Oh.

    Kid : He posts about it on a bunch of different websites and he also watches Bigfoot shows and has some books about it.

    Teacher: So he's a footer ?

    Kid : No, he says he's not like those idiots cuz he's a skeptic.

    Teacher: Sure he is.. LOL

    Kid: Mommy doesn't believe him either...(giggles)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just imagine with the debunkers child has to live through at school! :o

      "My daddy doesn't even believe I exist! And so he wont feed me or talk to me!"

      Delete
    2. Yeah, it should be comment of the century since it's only been used about twenty times before. At least come up with some new material.

      Delete
    3. Chick I did a laugh out loud (LOL) at your comment:

      "My daddy doesn't even believe I exist! And so he wont feed me or talk to me!"

      The "creep-o-meter" is sounding at the site troll's comment of how the kid is going to be ridiculed the rest of his life.

      Delete
    4. ....We need a support group..." I am a closet believer, a person ashamed of his belief in 9 foot ape men.."..lol...

      Delete
    5. You probably do really believe bigfoot is possibly real after all the evidence you've been subjected to, but that's not why you come here to troll the site; you need to feed your sick pleasure at other's expense.

      Delete
    6. ....I never said it was impossible, and I don't troll the site: just make an occasional joke or two at no ones expense(I hope)....I thought my comment at 1:42 was pretty funny..

      Delete
  8. More evidence of a starchild than of bigfoot. Suck on those facts Ikhomo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The rotten,fetid pedals of the Archaeopsyche in full blossom.

      Delete
  9. Get over there, stand against the door, look more convincing, don't look at the camera, don't look at the camera!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Even the kid thinks that what his uncle is making him say is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You picked upon that as well?

      Delete
    2. His first time on camera, and he was a little shy. Try as you may, he's not making it up.

      Delete
    3. No, he's not. His uncle is.

      Delete
  11. I'll bet the kid's parents were thrilled when that was posted on YouTube for all to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I said above the kid will get ridiculed, but Bend Over thinks it's cool.

      Delete
    2. I have only ever seen you do the bending over.

      Delete
    3. for 11:26

      ....................../´¯/)
      ....................,/¯../
      .................../..../
      ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
      ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
      ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
      .........\.................'...../
      ..........''...\.......... _.·´
      ............\..............(
      ..............\.............\...

      Delete
    4. go back to sasquatch chronicles...remember your post it's great everybody is so nice...

      Delete
    5. Why don't you go away nerd, surely there's a million social sites catered for toilet humour and below average intelect?

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

      Delete
    7. He's displaying his IQ with that gesture -- 1.

      Delete
    8. Haha! His reference to Ebaum's World a glaring indicator of the dreck that he fills his cavernous cranium with. Toilet humor indeed.

      Delete
    9. When you mention toilet, poop et al, you are showing his world.

      Delete
  12. Video is already gone. Huh.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

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