Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

Night Walker said:
It actually doesn't bother me - recall: "I’m just playfully goading you"...

Remember this:

http://i60.tinypic.com/1z4lq4n.jpg



A lie is a lie as a fork is a fork and a spoon is a spoon. I will have to end our little discussion by agreeing with you since you can obviously spot a religious nutter rant when you see one...

Cheers. It's been educational...
Click to expand...


I'd rather teach my kids about the real animals in the woods, and teach them the difference between fake and real things. Duping people, and conning money using bigfoot is not something I'd like to see passed down to our youth. If you're fine with that, then good on you? I'm not. If you're fine with universities using funds and space for hosting anything to do with bigfoot as a real entity, cool. Again, I'm not. If you see no problems with those things, awesome! You seem to have no issues with lying and fraud. I'm glad we had this little discussion.

Cheers to you as well.
 
Last edited:
The odds that Bigfoot is real, is the same as the odds of Santa Claus existing divided by one.

G24gaM.jpg
 
Drewbot said:
The odds that Bigfoot is real, is the same as the odds of Santa Claus existing divided by one.

[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/661/G24gaM.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The difference being that we know Santa (albeit then known as Saint Nicolas of Myra), did formerly exist.
 
William Parcher said:
Chris, it would take me about 17 hours to try to recreate this thing you are calling a Bigfoot track and even then it wouldn't be a perfect replica. I don't even know where the heel and toes are supposed to be. It just looks like a gravel and dirt Rorschach test to me. Then, how am I supposed to get people to find it and look at it and think it's a Bigfoot track? I'd probably need to write "Bigfoot Footprint" on a piece of paper and lay it right next to the thing.

It would seem that the only logical thing to do is make this track and then go and tell the world that you found a Bigfoot track (the one you just made). But then you'll probably run into guys like me that can't see anything in the photo. A plaster cast would just look like an albino pizza.


Complete the study? Do you mean like visit all 280 million people (the living ones) and ask each of them if they saw a Bigfoot when they went to the park(s)? Then for the dead ones you ask a relative if they ever mentioned seeing a Bigfoot when they went to the park?

So it's 280 million. How many Bigfoot encounters do you think are in there? Maybe like 60,000-90,000? The black people are 2.8 million so, what, maybe like 600-900 of those saw a Bigfoot? I'm just farting around with numbers pulled from my butt. Maybe none of the blacks saw Bigfoot and just a dozen non-blacks saw one. We don't know how many of the non-blacks were Hispanic or Asian - but to me it sure doesn't look like they are represented in Bigfootery which essentially looks like a white guy's club.
Click to expand...

I don't think it'd be worth anything to try and recreate the track in the lane. I wouldn't even try to cast it. That's simply a track pic I chose to release as it shows nothing other than the flat general shape.

I think it would be an interesting study to complete to see how your theory of "Bigfoot is a White man's sport" holds up. Personally, I think the sightings would be proportional overall, since I view Bigfoot as a living biological and not a creation of the mind. As far as how to complete the study, I'm not sure? I don't know if any Bigfoot report databases require you to specify your race when documenting a sighting. Maybe one could petition the BFRO for racial profiling? Of course this may be worth the effort if one studies the people for an explanation of Bigfoot. I have a feeling the findings would be disappointing for them though.

Resume said:
You know no such thing.

ETA: Amended to say you don't know it's a footie footprint. You may be aware it's a foot impression of some sort.
Click to expand...

If you mean the track at the center of the lane and associated trackway, you are correct. I did not witness the Bigfoot making those tracks.

If you mean the other trackway and track casting pics I have not released, you are incorrect, as I "know" those to have been placed by old big and hairy himself and those are the tracks I was referring to in my reply to William Parcher.

Resume said:
You should be used to trees and brush casting shadows in "direct sun light" Light is generally necessary to cast shadows; as are the objects that block the light.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the shadows happen behind the stuff casting the shadow. Some of the subjects in my pics have direct sunlight shining on them, yet those subjects are dismissed as "tricks of shadow and light". Such as the subject that is 120 feet from the cam. That explanation is quite impossible in that case. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If you mean the other trackway and track casting pics I have not released, you are incorrect, as I "know" those to have been placed by old big and hairy himself and those are the tracks I was referring to in my reply to William Parcher.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up. So I am correct: You know no such thing.


Yes, but the shadows happen behind the stuff casting the shadow. Some of the subjects in my pics have direct sunlight shining on them, yet those subjects are dismissed as "tricks of shadow and light". Such as the subject that is 120 feet from the cam. That explanation is quite impossible in that case. Chris B.
Click to expand...
The woods (second growth or not) are chock full of shifting shadows. Direct sunlight would occur in a clearing.
 
Resume said:
Thanks for clearing that up. So I am correct: You know no such thing.



The woods (second growth or not) are chock full of shifting shadows. Direct sunlight would occur in a clearing.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension error perhaps? Leave it to a self proclaimed skeptic to inform others of exactly what they know or not. Ridiculous thinking, but typical.
Overbearing does not make one correct, it's all about the facts. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Reading comprehension error perhaps? Leave it to a self proclaimed skeptic to inform others of exactly what they know or not. Ridiculous thinking, but typical.
Overbearing does not make one correct, it's all about the facts. Chris B.
Click to expand...

You have no facts. You have stories. You can't demonstrate any of your alleged "knowledge." You don't know it; you might not even believe it.

Leave it to a bigfoot proponent (BLAARGer?) to be all story and no monkey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom