Main Reason I had to Unfriend my Conspiracy pals today: "Jay Z Caught Shapeshifting on Flight"

[New Username]

Hahha - this is why bigfoot sightings dried up. Hard to claim that you saw a bigfoot when you get home and pull out the cell phone footage and everyone tells you it's a damn bear.

Now the only people who see "Bigfoot" are hoaxers, the mentally ill, and people who get random little glimpses of animals and have too overactive an imagination. Smartphones way too ubiquitous to make any other "sighting" carry water.

I got a video of a baby Bigfoot playing in the forest

 

[ROBEEZYKILLA]

These topics and videos bout rappers in Illuminati and shapeshiftjng and all that conspiracy shyt always has me lmao

 

[King Jae]

What if Jay Z and them was Reptilian?
And 2020 was the end of men and all world civilians?

...n***anometry remix bars...can respect it...

 

[trick]

Jay-Z is an animorph?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I got a video of a baby Bigfoot playing in the forest

You mean the classic 21-year-old video that gets passed around, or your own personal version?

The 1996 or 1997 "ape swinging in a tree in a heavily populated area of New York" footage is classic old-school Bigfoot footage. It's always so blurry that you can't quite see what's going on, can't identify the thing for sure, don't really know if it's a chimp or a gibbon or whatever because the resolution just isn't high enough. The "baby Bigfoot" is like 4 pixels across in the 8mm camera footage, and it's just chilling there swinging around in a tree with regular people all over at a damn outdoor music festival near Poughkeepsie.



Whatever the black smudge in the video is, it's obviously an arboreal animal, either a gibbon or a chimp, and someone on the ground obviously walks over and releases it into the tree to play around a bit. Just like some random hippie bringing their pet monkey to an outdoor music festival would do.

Don't make no sense for it to be a Bigfoot. No one has ever been claiming that Bigfoot was arboreal, that they stay living up in the trees swinging around, that wouldn't make a lick of sense and contradicts damn near everything everyone has ever claimed about Bigfoot. But now all of the Bigfoot sites have it as a top-20 best Bigfoot videos ever...because it's a smudge indistinguishable from a pet monkey.

Plus if Bigfoot just stayed fukking around in the background of videos in populated areas like that, there would be a THOUSAND Bigfoot videos by now. How can Bigfoot be so secretive that they have never been captured, or shot, or got credible video, yet people shooting low-res pixels like that at music festivals in the damn Catskills?

When 1 in 10 people had a camera with them, these low-res videos kept coming in, but suddenly post-2005 when EVERYONE has a high-res camera on them 24/7, thus we should be getting 10x as much footage as we ever got and all of it should be high-res....the only footage comes from pranksters and professional "Bigfoot researchers"?

 

[New Username]

You mean the classic 21-year-old video that gets passed around, or your own personal version?

The 1996 or 1997 "ape swinging in a tree in a heavily populated area of New York" footage is classic old-school Bigfoot footage. It's always so blurry that you can't quite see what's going on, can't identify the thing for sure, don't really know if it's a chimp or a gibbon or whatever because the resolution just isn't high enough. The "baby Bigfoot" is like 4 pixels across in the 8mm camera footage, and it's just chilling there swinging around in a tree with regular people all over at a damn outdoor music festival near Poughkeepsie.



Whatever the black smudge in the video is, it's obviously an arboreal animal, either a gibbon or a chimp, and someone on the ground obviously walks over and releases it into the tree to play around a bit. Just like some random hippie bringing their pet monkey to an outdoor music festival would do.

Don't make no sense for it to be a Bigfoot. No one has ever been claiming that Bigfoot was arboreal, that they stay living up in the trees swinging around, that wouldn't make a lick of sense and contradicts damn near everything everyone has ever claimed about Bigfoot. But now all of the Bigfoot sites have it as a top-20 best Bigfoot videos ever...because it's a smudge indistinguishable from a pet monkey.

Plus if Bigfoot just stayed fukking around in the background of videos in populated areas like that, there would be a THOUSAND Bigfoot videos by now. How can Bigfoot be so secretive that they have never been captured, or shot, or got credible video, yet people shooting low-res pixels like that at music festivals in the damn Catskills?

When 1 in 10 people had a camera with them, these low-res videos kept coming in, but suddenly post-2005 when EVERYONE has a high-res camera on them 24/7, thus we should be getting 10x as much footage as we ever got and all of it should be high-res....the only footage comes from pranksters and professional "Bigfoot researchers"?

You clicked on YouTube and typed in baby Bigfoot and clicked the first video you saw didn’t you


And no one has ever debunked this and doubt they ever will.

It is not a “mangey Bear”



Jacobs Photos - Pennsylvania, 9/16/2007


Edit: for those people who don’t do links

What’s a chimpanzee doing in PA

 

[Big Brown Areola]

You got ran out your own thread with this bro science dummy

What does this have to do with weed?

It's always you weed heads with these kind of "conspiracies"

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

It's always you weed heads with these kind of "conspiracies"

whatever suit your "agenda"

 

[Big Brown Areola]

whatever suit your "agenda"

I bet all my money op's pal smokes weed.

 

[SadimirPutin]

lmao...whats more funny...

the notion of jay-z shapeshifting or jay-z flying commercial on United Airlines

 

[eastsideTT]

according to multiple witnesses there were audible gasps of relief as jay z left the aircraft

twitter banned all of those accounts too

 

[New Username]

lmao...whats more funny...

the notion of jay-z shapeshifting or jay-z flying commercial on United Airlines

You didn’t know hov flies commercial

 

[And you]

I believe em, hov could’ve at least had the decency to do that shyt in private.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You clicked on YouTube and typed in baby Bigfoot and clicked the first video you saw didn’t you

And no one has ever debunked this and doubt they ever will.

It is not a “mangey Bear”

Jacobs Photos - Pennsylvania, 9/16/2007


Edit: for those people who don’t do links

What’s a chimpanzee doing in PA

Can't you see that your photos look NOTHING alike? Everything about the leg and back and head lengths and structure is wrong. Other than being black and skinny, it looks nothing like a chimpanzee.

And Pennsylvania? A state right damn in the center of one of the most populated places in the world, but they got secret giant primates hanging out 2 hours outside Pittsburgh.

This is just more proof - there are 100,000,000 people walking around with high-def cameras and yet you can't come up with anything better than black bear-shaped smudges from Pittsburgh.

if it a Bigfoot, then why is it so small? Why is it on all fours? Why does it have a downward-facing head and bear-like bone structure? Why was it recorded in a series of photos with other bears?

It looks NOTHING like a traditional Bigfoot. It's just a weird-looking pic because people are used to seeing bears with hair problems, and so you ascribe every weird-looking thing you see to Bigfoot.


It has been debunked as a bear long ago:

http://bizarrezoology.blogspot.in/2013/04/analysis-of-jacobs-photos-by-jarrett.html


Debunked as a bear again:

http://texascryptidhunter.blogspot.in/2014/02/black-bears-bigfoot-and-jacobs-creature.html


Debunked as a bear again:

http://bigfootskeptic.blogspot.in/2008/06/jacobs-bear-photos-continued.html



All of its anatomy matches a bear:

People just ain't used to seeing photos from behind of malnourished bears with some of their hair gone:

Again, if 100,000,000 Americans have high-resolution cameras on them at all time, and "Bigfoot" is supposedly walking around places as populated as Pennsylvania and New York in full view of random doofuses fooling around, then why are ALL the photos blurry messes?

 

[New Username]

Can't you see that your photos look NOTHING alike? Everything about the leg and back and head lengths and structure is wrong. Other than being black and skinny, it looks nothing like a chimpanzee.

And Pennsylvania? A state right damn in the center of one of the most populated places in the world, but they got secret giant primates hanging out 2 hours outside Pittsburgh.

This is just more proof - there are 100,000,000 people walking around with high-def cameras and yet you can't come up with anything better than black bear-shaped smudges from Pittsburgh.

if it a Bigfoot, then why is it so small? Why is it on all fours? Why does it have a downward-facing head and bear-like bone structure? Why was it recorded in a series of photos with other bears?

It looks NOTHING like a traditional Bigfoot. It's just a weird-looking pic because people are used to seeing bears with hair problems, and so you ascribe every weird-looking thing you see to Bigfoot.


It has been debunked as a bear long ago:

http://bizarrezoology.blogspot.in/2013/04/analysis-of-jacobs-photos-by-jarrett.html


Debunked as a bear again:

http://texascryptidhunter.blogspot.in/2014/02/black-bears-bigfoot-and-jacobs-creature.html


Debunked as a bear again:

http://bigfootskeptic.blogspot.in/2008/06/jacobs-bear-photos-continued.html



All of its anatomy matches a bear:

People just ain't used to seeing photos from behind of malnourished bears with some of their hair gone:

Again, if 100,000,000 Americans have high-resolution cameras on them at all time, and "Bigfoot" is supposedly walking around places as populated as Pennsylvania and New York in full view of random doofuses fooling around, then why are ALL the photos blurry messes?

Damn shame you typed all of that

Why would it be a chimpanzee

it was an obvious joke but you high on debunk so you re going on a 56 second rant



I’m guessing you didn’t click my link

In the photo, you can clearly see each bear has ears, even in yours with mange bears.


If it was a bear with hair problems, wouldn’t the ears be more noticeable

If your answer starts with “no....” save yourself the trouble and don’t reply.

You’re wasting your time