I'm obsessed with this hole in Siberia


According to The Siberian Times, scientists are still baffled by this anomaly that appeared from out of nowhere. Some brand new pictures of the hole are mesmerizing and experts are learning something new about it everyday. Andrey Plekhanov, Senior Researcher at the State Scientific Centre of Arctic Research, explains:

The crater has more of an oval than a circular shape, it makes it harder to calculate the exact diameter. As of now our estimates is about thirty meters. If we try to measure diameter together with soil emission, the so-called parapet, then the diameter is up to sixty meters. The crater is from 50 to 70 meters deep.







Comments

  1. Replies
    1. HEY UNO!!!

      ME TOO SHAWN, IT'S PRETTY CRAZY STUFF!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. It's 3am here, and like Big Jon, I have insomnia.

      To pass the time I am baking treats for my dog.

      Delete
    3. Lovely!! Ha ha ha ha!!! This insomnia thing isn't infectious!!

      Delete
    4. ast tham border jumpers thays been digin fer yeers

      Delete
    5. Get out your helmets and mountain climbing gear. Time to go spelunking.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Brain and sense of humour required^

      Delete
    2. Plenty of said requirements. Let's not get too hypocritical about sense of humour now.

      Delete
    3. But hey let me ask you a question... What do you think has caused this hole??

      Delete
    4. The suction from your mouth.

      Delete
    5. Rich coming from a nerd who has a feedback of endless pizza attached.

      Choking hazard.

      Delete
    6. WhY dO EvErYbOdY fUcC wItH jOe??????

      MMC

      Delete
  3. We can infer from the lack of bigfoot or part thereof that bigfoot does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plenty of Bigfoot. We can however infer from the lack of brain cells or part thereof that brain cells do not exist in above poster.

      Delete
    2. A human can function without a brain? Pretty wild claim when for you.

      Delete
    3. You appear to have challenged the paradigm.

      Delete
    4. Hey let me ask you a question... What do you think has caused this hole??

      Delete
    5. Just a natural formation Joe.

      Delete
    6. Sinkholes happen all the time. Why you morons act like it's something never witness or studied before is beyond me. Just last year Shawn posted several times about the Brazilian sinkhole that swallowed the skyscraper.

      Try remembering yesterday for once instead of fantasizing about tomorrow.

      Delete
    7. I'd put that desktop to use and get in touch with these Russian researchers that seem to be perplexed then.

      All knowing and all... As well as angry.

      Delete
    8. But but aliens!!! And patty! Patty!!!!! Not a suit because I say so!!!! Doesn't matter that there is no bigfoot!!!! Patty is real!! Shin angle!!!11

      Delete
    9. Awh... Someone's been hurt along the way me thinks. Don't take my word for it, listen to the experts. You can focus your frustrations at me if it helps.

      No suit = Bigfoot.

      Delete
    10. No bigfoot = no bigfoot.

      Check mate!

      Delete
    11. No Bigfoot =

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU

      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM

      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w

      = we've checked... spell check required.

      Delete
    12. YouTube videos aren't really a valid source of evidence but thanks for trying

      Delete
    13. They are when one of them has a peer reviewed source.

      YouTube's just a vehicle to present you with reality.

      Delete
    14. Please link to the peer reviewed paper thanks

      Delete
    15. http://www.isu.edu/rhi/index.shtml

      Enjoy.

      Delete
    16. You posted a link to a bigfoot magazine.

      I asked for a peer reviewed scientific journal for example Nature.

      Delete
    17. No, no... the peer review process has been respected in that source with impartial experts relevant to this field that excel all others in their respected fields.

      Delete
    18. Wrong.

      Its not a real journal.

      Delete
    19. The process has been conducted. You'd have to take it up with it's honorary board.

      Sorry.

      Delete
    20. Dear oh dear. Why wasn't the paper submitted to Nature for worldwide notoriety? I think you know the answer.

      Delete
    21. Here's the answer;

      Because this subject is ridiculed and they probably see the mainstream peer review system for what it is.. A flawed, biased and manipulated system that can and has lied and bent truths.

      Take it up with the honorary board, I bet Nature would be happy to have some of them on board.

      ; )

      Delete
    22. So basically you are saying there is a cover up going on in mainstream science?

      Delete
    23. In regards to 3:58, we would but they are rather busy arming rebel war fighters and calling historians Doctor.

      Delete
    24. There's a cover up of information on many levels with many different subjects, always has been... Mainstream science is guilty of forming a new religion in which it's processes are past-dependant and flawed, not to mention on occasions manipulated and presented to public.

      You only have to go on-line to look at the criticism the peer review process is starting to accumulate.

      Delete
    25. Soo...bigfoot is real because a handful of butthurt scientists didn't get published and are critical of the peer review process....LOL that's rich.

      Delete
    26. Why do these "cover ups" always seem to happen with the "woo" topics?

      Delete
    27. 6:32... No, Bigfoot is real because some of the very best scientists relevant to this field says so. None of the honorary board have any issue with the peer review process that I'm aware of; even more telling of the contribution to the paper referenced.

      6:35... Because these 'woo-topics' tend to be norm reforming concepts that lose particular regimes a particular significant amount of money... For one example.

      Delete
    28. "'Normal' science, in Kuhn's sense, exists. It is the activity of the non-revolutionary, or more precisely, the not-too-critical professional: of the science student who accepts the ruling dogma of the day... in my view the 'normal' scientist, as Kuhn describes him, is a person one ought to be sorry for... He has been taught in a dogmatic spirit: he is a victim of indoctrination... I can only say that I see a very great danger in it and in the possibility of its becoming normal... a danger to science and, indeed, to our civilization. And this shows why I regard Kuhn's emphasis on the existence of this kind of science as so important."

      — Karl Raimund Popper

      Delete
    29. church of sasquatch
      BOBO onit!

      Delete
    30. "Very best" scientists, Joe? OMG, sounds like you drank the Ketchum Kool Aid. Tell you what - try to locate those scientists' publication records. Better yet, contact them and ask them if they support her findings. You know, you could learn a lot from this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRswyNZDqf4

      Delete
    31. I'm really sorry dumb-dumb, nobody's talking about Ketchum, you just be confused.

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. I think the giant Mulders World poop came out of that thing.

      We're gonna need a bigger jar...

      Delete
  5. Pretty sure this hole has something to do with the new Pink Floyd album.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greatly anticipated... Isn't it called Endless River or something though??

      (Cringe)

      Delete
    2. I love Pink Floyd... Not sure about the new album name though.

      Delete
    3. Well pink Floyd just became uncool. Well done PJ.

      Delete
    4. You'd know aaaaaaaaall about cool, eh?

      Delete
    5. Stewie knows what it takes to be cool, unlike Welshmen.

      Delete
    6. http://youtu.be/UXuSWUXDnuo

      Forgot link ^

      Delete
    7. You're so cool. I wanna be just like you.

      Delete
    8. First step is admitting it.

      Delete
  6. Dat thair be WILLY an WILD BILLS new TRAP gonna git da job DUN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WILD BILL gots that BIG KNIFE

      Delete
    2. WILD BILL gotsa big knife for sur but for sur he has a small dick!

      Delete
    3. but WILD BILL takin that thar BIG KNIFE outs ans sayin come gits you some

      Delete
  7. Such a check mate for Joe.

    His mind can't figure it out!

    Hahaha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For check mate?

      Its humour you boring b*stard

      Delete
    2. And it's hilaaaaaaaarious... So's 'spell check', by the way?

      Sticks and stones.

      Delete
    3. Hole in the ground is a check mate for PJ ha ha ha

      Delete
  8. We have to disagree because I think that the vast majority of Bigfoot "believers and knowers" don't believe that Bigfoot exists at all. Their Bigfoot belief cannot have roots in mental disorder because they do not have a belief in Bigfoot.

    What they do believe in is the joy (and sometimes profit) that comes from participating in Bigfootery as a hobby or business.

    I would disagree and say that only a very minor percentage of "folks with a Bigfoot encounter" actually had a hallucination or false perception in the outdoors. IMO, the majority are pure intentional fabrication that amounts to sitting in a chair indoors and writing fiction about the outdoors. Encounter stories are written and told so as to simulate an actual experience in the outdoors when no such experience actually occurred to the author. There was no hallucination or sensory malfunction because there was no encounter event. The person just made it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

      Delete
    2. Actually... I'll bite...

      The problem for psuedoskeptics is there are reliable sources of eyewitness testimony and embarrassingly for them, the legal system accounts for much of it. When you have people from walks of life like long term experienced hunters, geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, wildlife biologists, anthropologists, wildlife consultants, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners and forestry commissioners reporting the exact same thing from unprovoked and impartial circumstances you have an issue to deal with called professional consistency. More so when you put occasions of multiple eyewitness accounts where physical and biological evidence had been accumulated from one site. When there is steady level of reports that span cultures, then mediums, then into physical and biological evidence, then the reports by reliable professional people hold weight. The truth is that sheer frequency of professional people who are accustomed to decades worth of experience in wildlife and the wilderness account for much of the opinion and accounts to which from the basis of this field.

      Delete
    3. What does someone's profession have to do with anything? They made it up.

      Delete
    4. Nutty. Creepy. Needs meds and a mental hospital for skeptards.

      Delete
    5. Joseph, why do EVERYONE pick on you?

      MMC

      Delete
    6. Creepy Skeptard - You are the only one getting picked on here. Gotta say, you deserve it!!!

      Delete
    7. 4:18... What does someone's chunky butt behind a desktop have to do with successfully discrediting those professionals?

      4:19... Nobody picks on me, I call it baby sitting on my part.

      Delete
    8. Ha ha deluded monkey man bleever^

      Delete
    9. Ha ha, deluded creepy skeptard

      Delete
    10. Not believing in something that there is no evidence for is deluded?

      Delete
    11. Maintaining there is no evidence when you struggle to cope with mounds of it, is as deluded a process of behaviour as you can get.

      Delete
    12. Yes, when you disregard 'the evidence' presented, plus eye-witness testimony, then yes, deluded skeptard.

      Delete
    13. Tracks, hair, footage, language, cultural and contemporary sources, archaeological and anthropological studies.

      Delete
    14. None of which has been substantiated.

      Delete
    15. Plenty that have been substantiated... The same amount condemned by denialists.

      Delete
    16. Name a single thing that scientists are in denial about?

      Delete
    17. (Sigh)

      I'll name several; tracks, hair, footage, language, cultural and contemporary sources, archaeological and anthropological studies.

      Delete
    18. Joe, i am so horny! Also, my panties are soakin' wet, sticky and smell like catfish!

      Any suggestions?

      MMC

      Delete
    19. No. None of your usual copy paste vagueries. Name a single thing that scientists are in denial about.

      Delete
    20. Again...

      I'll name several; tracks, hair, footage, language, cultural and contemporary sources, archaeological and anthropological studies.

      Delete
    21. Name one. Give an actual example and explain why you think it is denied.

      Delete
    22. It challenges long standing educational and religious ideals that constitutes a total reform of the way things benefit a minority few.

      It's not until scientists actually look at the data and get into the field, that their preconceived ideas of what this subject consists of; erodes into something a lot more open to what the data suggests is leaving it.

      Delete
    23. Still looking for that one example....

      Delete
    24. I would say learn to read... You have been provided several.

      Delete
    25. Several vague examples with nothing to back it up.

      Please provide one specific example and explain what it is and why you think scientists deny it.

      Delete
    26. "It challenges long standing educational and religious ideals that constitutes a total reform of the way things benefit a minority few."

      You've been provided with one, I think you're out of ideas. Western science has no say against governmental regimes. Nothing is more overrides the intentions of governments.

      Delete
    27. 6:34 you're making it very clear that you want to believe in the existence of sasquatch. I'd even go as far to say that you watch every episode of finding bigfoot. I agree that the minute amount of physical evidence is frustrating, especially for those of us that have seen them. My only suggestion to you is to get of your couch, travel deep into a forest and set up camp for a few days. You'll either be more convinced of their existence, come running out with your tail tucked between your legs or both. Let me know how that works out.

      Delete
    28. And damn, dont forget to put on a bacon pantsuit and a peanut butter fedora before you go out there in the dark!!!!

      Delete
    29. Hey Jon!!!!! Great comment my friend.

      Delete
    30. If you have said many then it shouldn't be hard for you to elaborate on one of them. If not then I assume you are taking defeat on this one as you are not confident enough to back a specific example.

      Delete
    31. "In short, relict hominids were unknown to science because there was no science to know them. Today we have such science.... Our research means a new science and a revolution in science, while the scientific community is made up of ‘normal science’ guys and it is they, as history of science testifies, who reject as long as possible a revolution in science.”

      - Dmitri Bayanov November 10, 2013

      Delete
    32. 6:56... Are you looking for a dictionary definition of what 'tracks' means?

      Delete
    33. When a wildlife biologist and former advisor to the UN states that tracks that have been found 50 miles into wilderness areas are authentic, then it is the denial of the mainstream scientific public in the way they acknowledge to the same source that has excelled them in every respect, delivering consistent scientific methods that suddenly are not good enough when applied to this subject.

      For your information (to help you with your fool's guide) wildlife biologists conduct a significant amount of their studies on tracks.

      Delete
    34. Where is the documentation of the tracks and why are they authentic?

      Delete
    35. Damn dude, you ask a lot of stupid questions anon 7:24.

      Delete
    36. Poor Joe, he absolutely lives on this blog arguing his case for something that'll never be proven to exist!

      Long Duck Dong

      Delete
    37. But you seem so sure? I'd be praying to that Randi god of yours that one of Meldrum's soon to be accumilated, or Sykes' soon to be tested samples don't bring your little bubble along to be burst.

      All the while more and more reputable scientists turn to the existing evidence and conclude 'something' is undoubtedly leaving it.

      Delete
    38. poor Joe or is it his clone - just saying

      Delete
    39. Was that another stupid question? Just saying.......

      Delete
    40. clones are copies - just sayin

      Delete
  9. I get kind of horny looking at that hole. Am I weird?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The hole is a whole of in and of itself problematic. That is based on pratical factors of stimulis responce verses the linkage of mechanical locomotion of the PGF film on top of the ridge where Patty's gait wherein she bent over and the above picture is her anus. Roger Patterson took this shot when he swayed to and fro upon the starship based in Roswell. Then listed the various organs based in fact some in fiction. And that was the sort of grunting heard by Todd Standing up in the plate tectonics of the Earth's protoplasmic venal frisking of said clients.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You made joe break google definition search.

      Delete
  11. That's just a picture of our Queen J.Randi's McTater Orifice after The Golden Vibrating Butt Plug has been took out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The earth is 4 billion years old.

    Check mate Christians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow,you so smart. Wanna be my friend, please?

      Delete
    2. but global climate disruption is upon US - UN say game over in 2020!

      Delete
    3. da good book says so, bible says earth is 6000 years old, so thats what it be!

      Delete
  13. obamacare covers them holes and its FREE

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gun Buyers Scoop Up AK-47 Rifles After New Sanctions
    Executive Order 13662: Obama Bans AK-47s
    NO WAY !!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is the Earth's butthole. Stop staring at it.

    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