Breaking: Raw Footage of Men Shooting at Bigfoot?


Holycrap! Nothing is more scariest than a bunch of guys with rifles hunting down a big hairy beast in the woods. This videos looks pretty legit, and if they were following the right type of tracks, they may very well be closer to hunting a sasquatch than anyone we've heard of. If this is a teaser for some kind of film, it's a weird one because there's no information indicating any studio involvement. Check it out:




Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ABC News showed this clip. After they fired the shots, they moved in and found a park ranger's hat with a hole shot through it.

      There were arrests shortly thereafter.

      Delete
    2. THose fvckers smoked smokie !!

      Delete
    3. Joe's uncle's,brother's cousin's,gardener's band sucks !

      Delete
    4. sumbitch bigfoots bein smurt ans wonts gits traped fer nothin
      shotin tham critters ans u proovd thay bein heers

      Delete
    5. Smokey the Bear. LOL. Good one.

      Delete
    6. sumbitch smokey bear - hunt them bears down usin huntin dawgs

      Delete
    7. Here's a link to another video showing these same guys doing a pretend battle with bigfoot. So, all this is likely just theatrics.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGcxU18Iy64

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

      Delete
    9. BIGFOOT - SO what we know so far –
      Bigfoot builds hooches
      Bigfoot makes fire
      Bigfoot cooks meats
      Bigfoot marks their territory
      Bigfoot makes and uses maps
      Bigfoot stores food
      Bigfoot buried their dead
      Now all we need is to find 1 : )

      Delete
  2. "We just got into a shoot out with this damn thing..."

    So the bigfoot shot back? Interesting. I'm sure it's legit then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forget that Bigfoot can emit mind zapping rays from his eyes, so that was probably what they meant when they referred to a "shootout."

      Delete
    2. Wow! Never heard of that before? The disinformatists will be along soon to set you straight, no doubt!

      Delete
    3. We now know joe is 100% trolling

      Delete
    4. Oh I see... He must have really mind tuned you to have such an obsession with him.

      Delete
    5. I am Joe and I can assure you I have not been trolling but rather staying on the sidelines the past while and now i feel I must take on the barmy blathering fools who constantly try to sully my good name on here with their claims that bigfoot isn't real or the Patterson bigfoot was really a bloke in a suit -utter rubbish I say !. The blinkered nutters never cease to amaze me on how gutter they can get .

      Joe

      Delete
    6. You've got it spot on Iktomi, they are obsessed with me and can you blame them when my superior intelligence, wit and charm reduces them to quivering babes .

      Joe

      Delete
    7. A parody of a parody? Nice

      Delete
    8. I look at it as double the learning points for someone so obviously needing the extra help.

      Delete
    9. try a double sized wiener in your butt instead.

      Delete
    10. 6:23 - you should stay away from wieners and other processed meats . All those nitrates are not good for you or your arse.

      Joe

      Delete
    11. That quip was intended for YOU Joe!

      sheesh, you are Dimwitted!

      Delete
  3. Don't those idiots know never to get into a fire fight with bigfoots ?
    Bigfoots carry Ak-47s ! they will blow these hillbillies away without even blinking !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO SIR we heers in east texas way git tham AK47 fer huntin tham critters ans such

      Delete
  4. They need to put the Legitimaster on this one to see if it's legit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Todd disotel says he is extremely skeptical of bigfoots existence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet he makes more money than most off it, lists cryptozoology as one of his fields of study, and is on the editorial board of Medrum's RHI.

      Funny that.

      Delete
    2. Disotel is a scientist- that should be enough to not take him seriously.

      a typical Bigfooter

      Delete
    3. Sorry, can you be a little more clear in what you're implying? I can't understand that.

      Typical uneducated troll.

      Delete
    4. I'll take the extremely skeptical guy with a science background making money over most self proclaimed researchers with questionable methods who do so.

      Delete
    5. So what if hes on the board of a bigfoot journal? I dont understand how that is an argument in your favour? His statement of not believing bigfoot exists speaks for itself and i am sooner to believe him than some anonymous nutcase (iktomi) on an obscure cryptid blog.

      Delete
    6. No 3:31, 3:50... You'll take any scientist who has not even looked at the physical evidence for the existence of a currently unclassified bipedal primate, and go along with his naive reassurance he has to offer on the matter. What you will get, is someone hanging around with Bigfoot researchers (Stacy Brown, etc), who is only as good as the samples he is given to test for DNA.

      What you won't get is a source to explain away the evidence outside of his immediate field of expertise, and considering he doesn't fathom Sasquatch are human (like most enthusiasts holding the filed back), then I guess he has some catching up to do.

      The relevance of his affiliation with that journal's editorial board, is that for his shortcomings, he is at least ready to listen to the research that has been presented to that journal; a quality that you appear to require taking example from... I might add, that Disotell has yet to openly question the papers submitted to that journal.

      Delete
    7. Disotel has looked at the evidence and still remains skeptical. Thats all you really need to know.

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

      Delete
    9. Oh... And if I was to religiously follow a topic daily, seemingly very concerned with what others think about things, suffering the compulsion to reassure myself against what is NEVER going to be under my CONTROL, then I could be aptly labelled a total nut case.

      Delete
    10. 4:03... You'll have no issue with finding me a direct quote as to what he thinks of forensically verified dermal ridges then, yes?

      Delete
    11. 4:06, isn't that pretty much you?

      Delete
    12. Um... Um... You are here? If I was to go to one of your religious fundie sites like ISF and start religiously posting comments daily that are meant to reinforce my stance, people would think that I'm a little insecure, right?

      Delete
    13. Disotell is a good scientist. He has shown a willingness to test materials submitted to him, and I get the sense that he would like a discovery as much as we would. As far as making money, procedures cost money, and only a fool offers his education and time for nothing. I like his no nonsense approach, and his high standards, because it gives him credibility should a genuine breakthrough come to light. Here's hoping for that discovery!

      Delete
    14. I have to say I like him... And you are likely very correct Mr Lobster. I often wonder if he's into hardcore with that Mohawk haircut he used to have.

      Delete
    15. ...Disotell is a tenured professor and his participation is an explicit endorsement of cryptozoology, which is simply an interdisciplinary approach to discovering new animals..It doesn't matter that he doubts this particular cryptid exists: he is involved...

      Delete
  6. Just having modern human mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is not enough to conclude hybridization. While many primate species have evidence of hybridization in their evolutionary lineage, that is not the only conclusion that can be made here. Contamination is still a possibility. An alternate explanation proposed in the past six months as rumored in Bigfootery circles (mostly forums) was that the DNA samples may have come from an isolated Native American tribe (may account for 15,000 years of variation). This genetic code might be just different enough from other modern humans to raise questions or be passed off as Bigfoot DNA.

    The positing of an unknown primate existing 15,000 years ago is not plausible. 15,000 years ago, humans were “us”. This is a very short span of time, evolutionarily. There is no evidence that another primate that we have not discovered was living at the time in order to mate with human females. In addition, the mention of a “non-human sequence” is confusing. If it’s non-human or unknown, what does it most closely match? If it matches close to bear, bacteria, plants, whatever, that would give us a better idea about a reasonable interpretation. The use of “unknown” does not make sense in terms of science. Its use sparked the mention of so-called “angel” DNA further decreasing the capacity of onlookers to take this seriously.

    Because all these arrows point to implausibility, Dr. Disotell is not optimistic about the claim being true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that this statement was in relation to Melba Ketchum's work, yes? Is Disotell aware of Sykes' study? The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are radiocarbon dated to 43-45,000 years before present that have been discovered in Italy and Britain, with the remains found of those that reached the European Russian Arctic 40,000 years ago. These ancient versions of us share our exact DNA, however they had robust anatomical and morphological differences to us.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, I think it's one your your cherished geneticists not knowing the basic hominid tree, that's the face palm here, old chap.

      Delete
    3. Wow joe thinks he knows more about genetics than disotel. Lol.

      Delete
    4. I don't claim to... I just think it odd considering his credentials to not be aware of something that took me two seconds on the internet to source?? Don't take my work for it, go take a look for yourself son.

      Who's Joe?

      Delete
    5. Why do you confuse me with Iktomi ?
      Obviously you all need glasses mates

      Joe

      Delete
    6. Or you could be trolling for a double sized Wiener (slang for penis) in your BUTT ???? Rite? Joe ?

      Delete
    7. ^ i shall forgive you but the real question is will you forgive yourself ? Please seek professional help before you try to engage with a pro like me

      Joe

      Delete
  7. The evidence that does exist supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature has been attributed to hoaxes or delusion rather than to sightings of a genuine creature.[7] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."[61] In addition, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate, i.e., temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere; all recognized apes are found in the tropics of Africa and Asia.

    Mainstream scientists do not consider the subject of Bigfoot an area of credible science[220] and there have been a limited number of formal scientific studies of Bigfoot.

    Evidence such as the 1967 Patterson–Gimlin film has provided "no supportive data of any scientific value".[221]

    As with other proposed megafauna cryptids, climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely.[222] Great apes have not been found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains are known to have been found. The breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well unfortunately for the author if that statement, the evidence does in fact exist that points to a large, unclassified bipedal primate leaving it's sign on the environment of the US.... This accounts for forensic sign that is impossible to be hoaxed in the opinion of the most qualified who have verified it. This accounts for audio recordings that are akin to a primate, but outside of human primate frequency ranges, and it accounts for hair samples that have uniform morphology, that have been verified to be consistent with a particular primate that is yet to be classified. One hair sample is particular has been verified by two camps of primatolgosts and is currently being analysed by Dr Sykes to have very fascinating initial results.
      "No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."

      ... That's all very well, where is the data to support such a premise? Are we to swallow such a contradictory statement based on the word of the author who maintains data to be so important?

      Mainstream scientists would entail just that, and probably need to listen to their superiors who have far excelled them, who are more relevant to the fields that are in jurisdiction to this, mostly conservation, primatology, wildlife biology and anthropology. Considering the very best in the two first fields invest enthusiasm into this subject, I would suggest they get on board with people who have not only taken the time to look at the evidence, but probably area little better qualified than they.

      "As with other proposed megafauna cryptids, climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely."
      ... What type of astoundingly ignorant statement is this? Is the author aware that we already know that large mammals thrive in the same environments that relict hominids are reported to reside? Great apes have only ever had a handful of teeth, six in fact, for a fossil trail for gorillas and chimps on the continent of Africa... Are we to really invest confidence the statement of the author up top when he is ignorant of such very basic information? In fact, there are hominid skulls that prehistoric features;
      https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/
      ... Pro tip, Sasquatch are prehistoric humans.

      "The breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility."
      ... Um... Is the author aware that for ten thousand years, there have been cultural acknowledgements of such a creature that transition into modern accounts, three whole databases in fact?

      Hmmmmmmm... ?????

      Delete
    2. "It is not the Sasquatch that are eluding the scientists, it is the scientists that are eluding the Sasquatch."

      Dr. John Bindernagel
      Bigfoot's Reflection-2008

      Delete
    3. Spot on NC. Listened to a lecture of his 4 years ago. Much of this was in his lecture.
      Chuck

      Delete
    4. Yeah that's it,LMAO .....you all state repeatedly how knowledgeable about Bigfoot habit,evidence,diet and they're mating,child rearing and even the migration routes.......yet you are completely unable to capture,kill or even get a picture.....why? Perhaps it's because you know jack shit

      Delete
    5. Please troll... Can you please show us one instance where an enthusiast has suggested they know of habits, mating, child rearing and migration routes?

      Delete
  8. "There is no category of Bigfoot evidence that doesn't have a string of hoaxes attached to it," said Radford. "If you're studying a subject in which virtually all the evidence either comes down to being inconclusive or a hoax, something's wrong."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear!! Not another person claiming all the evidence is "inconclusive or a hoax"?! What will we do?!

      Something's wrong alright... Not a shred of data to support such a claim... Telling.

      Delete
  9. Authentic or not, footprints and other physical artifacts are meaningless scientifically, says Radford, when there is no standard to measure them by.

    "Some of the footprints have three toes, some have four toes, and some of course have five," he noted. "Even if I'm certain a certain track wasn't made by anything else, how do I know it's Bigfoot? You can't."

    The same goes for DNA. Scientists make a positive identification by comparing an unknown sample to a known one. There is no such standard for Bigfoot, says Radford. Even an educated guess about the giant footprint pictured here or a Blobsquatch gone wild is, at best, a shot in the dark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Authentic or not, footprints and other physical artifacts are meaningless scientifically, says Radford, when there is no standard to measure them by."

      Um... This took me two seconds to source on the internet...

      "Forensic science is the scientific method of gathering and examining information about the past which is then used in a court of law. The word forensic comes from the Latin term forÄ“nsis, meaning "of or before the forum." The history of the term originates from Roman times, during which a criminal charge meant presenting the case before a group of public individuals in the forum. Both the person accused of the crime and the accuser would give speeches based on their sides of the story. The case would be decided in favor of the individual with the best argument and delivery. This origin is the source of the two modern usages of the word forensic – as a form of legal evidence and as a category of public presentation. In modern use, the term forensics in the place of forensic science can be considered correct, as the term forensic is effectively a synonym for legal or related to courts. However, the term is now so closely associated with the scientific field that many dictionaries include the meaning that equates the word forensics with forensic science."

      Um... This Radford chap is quite the character isn't he? Throwing something out because it does not fit what you expect of a creature that you don't find credible, nor know an awful lot about, is not very good logic, let alone science? Sasquatch are ancient humans, not bipedal gorillas.

      Delete
    2. Oh... And is this funny little fellow Radford aware that wildlife biologists conduct much of their research with track impressions?

      Hmmmmmmmmm?????

      Delete
  10. Replies
    1. get that wiener outta your mouth an back in your BUTT,!! see no more muttering ,, Joe .

      Delete
    2. and BLACK lives just be out there !!!!!

      Delete
  11. "There's no fossil record of anything fitting the description" of Bigfoot, said Radford. "There's simply nothing there."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/

      ... Pro tip, Sasquatch are prehistoric humans.

      Delete
    2. Newsflash, all prehistoric humans are extinct.

      Delete
    3. And Radford, whoever he is only one I know of was with the Pilgrims, would be wrong and every anthropologist knows about gigantopithicus. By the way, the fossil record for chimps and gorillas is almost non existant.
      Chuck

      Delete
  12. Are we to assume Bigfoot Bayonet Season is open? :P

    Kids playing with guns is the scariest thing here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Joe, do you get a share of this site's revenue?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Meganthropus . What does he mean no record? We didn't know mountain gorillas existed 120 years ago.Why do you think they call it Dope?.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lol even if they did shoot one. The brother or sister would make sure they never leave that forest again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... Plenty of missing hunters remember!

      Delete
    2. what of all the poor missing wieners your Butt 9:52 ,and why don't you remember them ??

      Delete
    3. ^ Wiener obsessed teen nitwit who has never kissed a girl

      Joe

      Delete
    4. Dreams of winged wieners attacking Butt!!

      Delete
  16. 6:14 - To answer your question, NO, I don't get any share of the revenue from this site even if they did make any I am here to set trolls on the right path of believe in bigfoot. I am convinced most of the trolls do believe but have deep psychological issues .
    The evidence is there if you'd only care to look

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kinda like your deep unsatisfied need for a double sized wiener in your Butt!

      Delete
    2. You have a fascination with wieners and butts . I sense a very troubled mind regarding confusion regarding sexual identity with you and a very deep unsatisfied need for love which you never got from your parents when you were young . I feel sad for you my friend

      Joe

      Delete
    3. JOE , my god . you are truly quite the VAPID(thx mkb) ,,moronic dimbulb!

      god love ya!!! :-) !

      Delete
  17. So, now they want to start a war with Sasquatch. I guess that they weren't happy with killing generations of Native American Indians. Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghani's, Syrians, Palestinian's, and now Syrians and sorry if I missed a few Million other folks. We seriously need to reform the genetic makeup of generations of War Mongering politicians with a DNA malfunction. The rest of this comment has been deleted by the writer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Killing Generations of Native American Indians" in Numers: Over 100 Millions ! ! !

      Delete
    2. "Killing Generations of Native American Indians" in Numbers: Over 100 Millions ! ! !

      Delete
    3. fer shure injuns bein trickt folk

      Delete
  18. Amerifats will shoot at anything.
    >Go the the movie
    >Get shot
    >Go to the store
    >Get shot
    >Go to school
    >Get shot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. we bein amurkins ans gots that thar constitushun shure do

      Delete
  19. Dont let these folks near Ferguson Missouri, they shoot at anything black...#needmorecopslikethem

    ReplyDelete
  20. An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. Isaac newton's third law of motion.
    Hillbillies:1 Sasquatch:0

    ReplyDelete
  21. U findin Jesus @s da GUN SHOP
    Bible
    GUNS
    Bullets

    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