Comments on: A British Bigfoot Update

By: eyeofstrm

eyeofstrm — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:23:26 +0000

It’s RUBBISH.

By: John Kirk

John Kirk — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 05:31:44 +0000

By bipedal I mean hominid as in the context of the article on a supposed Kentish Apeman. No hominid has tracks like that, in fact if were to put money on it, I would say that they look a lot like badger tracks.

By: Dr Kaco

Dr Kaco — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:36:55 +0000

John Kirk, you base your opinion that this is not a biped on the fact the print they show has 4 toes and not 5? Correct? What about an Ostrich print? What about a Kangaroo print? Do these have your correct amount of toes for a bipedal animal? What about a Chimpanzee footprint? Heck that looks like a man walking on his hands if you didn’t know better.

By: John Kirk

John Kirk — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 19:32:04 +0000

Surely you jest? These are not the footprints of a biped. Besides, they only have four toes. I can’t believe this even found it’s way here. The Tunbridge Wells publication should take a good hard look at itself in the mirror for publishing rubbish like this. Tabloid journalism at its worst.

By: Dr Kaco

Dr Kaco — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 16:27:01 +0000

First we must sort through the Pub members and make sure to pick the story told by the individual who has consumed the least amount of Bass ale ;p But seriously, there is a lot of country in England so who knows? Also, thanks to Nick’s previous post on Bigfoot-UFO-paranormal varients, I think its not out of the realm that the locals are witnessing something paranormal…or just really good ale!! ;p

By: semillama

semillama — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:30:40 +0000

this is a joke, right?