Anyone?...

Kevin comments on "Question for Ballyhoo Readers"

Kevin has left a new comment on your post "Question for Ballyhoo Readers":


I think some people are forgetting that there are a total of four pictures (that is not counting the original "face" photo). What that tells me is that the photos will show the creature in different positions and at much closer range than "Patty". One thing they will be able to do to lend credence to the photos showing a real creature is to use the same trail cam, set in the exact same position, at the same time of day with a human in the same spot and position that the creature was in. Some of the problems with the Patterson/Gimlin film is that there are questions about what objective lens was used and how far from the subject Patterson was standing when filming. It's tough to go back today and get exact measurements due to the physical changes of the creek and surrounding area. Bill's team on the other hand, can go back immediately (if they haven't done so already) and make complete measurements of the area. Plus, if someone wants to say it is a guy in a suit, it will be a difficult challenge due to the shear size of this creature being over 9' tall. That was a problem with "Patty", her height was within human range. This creature appears to be far past that.

Comment Please

Our Stand on Truth!

Stand firm for the truth and do not waiver!
We will let science decide what this bigfoot being is.

Truth and Bigfoot

So, what do you believe is the "truth" about bigfoot?

Don't you think when we take our children to the forests we should be aware this being is there?

Don't you believe that if bigfoot exists the "powers that be" have no right to  withhold  it from us?

"Will this blog stand behind them ...?

Anonymous has this to say:

The species you talk of here are physical objects. Bigfoot is not. Reading this blog I see where many of you proclaim Bill Emery and his team are your friends. What will all the cyber judges of the world think of him in a few months. Will this blog stand behind them if the picture [s] are controversial or not proof of bigfoot? No I think not. People always take the high road and never stick anything out with any one person. What many of you want is a good shot of bigfoot but cannot really care what happens to the guys that took them. I have seen this all to much with bigfoot believers. They want and even demand that someone prove bigfoot is real. It is not possible to prove this without a body. Science or society has never taken one piece of evidence as proof of anything. UFO are far more common than bigfoot is and still they are not proven. Many excellent photos are available of these flying disc and they still are not proven real.

____________

In regard to highlighted sentence above:

Dear Anonymous,
Bigfoot Ballyhoo will only endorse truth. Anything or anyone will be dropped from our list of "friends" if truthfulness is not maintained. Again that would be ANYONE, ANYTHING! ... Linda Newton-Perry

____________
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post ""Will this blog stand behind them ...?":


That's kind of what I thought. If proof isn't readily available you cast them a side. That seems to be the trend nowadays. Use but not get involved is the motto!!!

____________

Is that how you interpret my words above? I didn't say anything about proof. If lies are told, hoaxes tried, then this blog will  not have anythi ...  We do not drop friends for endeavoring to find the truth of bigfoot! ... Linda Newton-Perry

Sharing beauty ...

Photo: photoxpress

Sharing beauty is my gift to you dear readers. ... Linda Newton-Perry

If you have a photo you'd like to share email it to us. Email address is in Bio section in column at right.

Thought you would like to know.

"The scientific discovery of new species is quite routine. Biologists are identifying them at a rate of about 50 a day. Nearly 17,000 new plants and animals were described in 2006 alone--some 1% of the 1.8 million species that have been named." -TIME. U.S.A. and AWAKE!