Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[dmaker]

Yes, that was his claim. Could Boone's claim be accurate? Possibly.

Chris B.

No, Chris, it is also your claim. As demonstrated by you when you say things like "Actually, he did". Or are you now saying that you are not convinced that Boone shot a bigfoot? Is your claim now more along the lines of, perhaps he did, not actually he did? If he didn't shoot a bigfoot, then what would you propose might be the truth of the story, if not bigfoot? Please be precise, Chris. Your waffling is getting boring.

 

[The Shrike]

Post #1950, my first on the topic of the Chilean plane wreckage, includes a provisional statement such that the photo should be further vetted.

Bush League, Chris.

 

[AdMan]

Accepting without question that a specific plane has been found based only on a news story and a few vague pics from the internet is exactly the same as accepting 4 Bigfoot creatures were filmed chasing Buffalo in Yellowstone Park recently. Or is the burden of proof lowered for the plane story because you "know" that particular plane existed and you also "know" Bigfoot doesn't?

Many seem to raise or lower the bar of proof based on their own beliefs. I'm of the opinion that bar doesn't move. So oddly enough, it would seem I'm more skeptical than most. How about that. Chris B.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you disagree with that, Chris B.?

 

[LTC8K6]

It's relatively easy to ID a plane, so it seems unlikely that they would make a mistake.

Even so, they have done the right thing so far by showing us clear evidence of a plane wreck, which we never get with any bigfoot claims.

 

[LTC8K6]

This DC-3 was supposedly somewhere else, spotted about a week after the crash from the air. So this found airplane story should be interesting. Either the original spotting was wrong, or possibly the plane broke up in the air, leaving the tail and fuselage in slightly different places. Or possibly 50 years have moved things.

 

[Craig4]

Look, I really feel like you need to address this. I went on what's called a joining safari, pretty much the cheapest safari you can do. I took with me a Kodak SLR like camera I bought new for about $200, hardly anything top of the line. In fact, Kodak no longer makes the camera I used to take that picture.

Why can't anyone take a picture of roughly the quality of my picture of a jackal hiding in the tall grass? It's not as if there aren't lots of people going into the North American Wilderness with better cameras than what I brought to Africa with me. I didn't expect to see a jackal looking at us from the tall grass; I just got lucky and took the picture. Why aren't there any photographs of bigfoot of roughly the same quality as my picture of a jackal in the tall grass?

 

[River]

Look, I really feel like you need to address this. I went on what's called a joining safari, pretty much the cheapest safari you can do. I took with me a Kodak SLR like camera I bought new for about $200, hardly anything top of the line. In fact, Kodak no longer makes the camera I used to take that picture.

Why can't anyone take a picture of roughly the quality of my picture of a jackal hiding in the tall grass? It's not as if there aren't lots of people going into the North American Wilderness with better cameras than what I brought to Africa with me. I didn't expect to see a jackal looking at us from the tall grass; I just got lucky and took the picture. Why aren't there any photographs of bigfoot of roughly the same quality as my picture of a jackal in the tall grass?

Well for one, there is no bigfoot to photograph. Two: your photo is not clearly depicting a jackal. There are photographs that are of equal quality that are claimed to be bigfoot. There are many videos depicting alleged bigfoots as well. (PGF for example) So the point is, if you can photograph it you can shoot it. If you wouldve been armed with a rifle, could you have shot the jackal?

The whole premise of bigfoot is just wack. It is ridiculous to think such a large (allegedly) beast would not leave ANY viable trace of it's existence. There would be tons of hair, scat and other sign of them were there to be such a large creature in the woods.

But that is all pointless... Bigfoot is not a real creature. It is a ghost, a faerie, a mermaid, a vampire. Spooky and scary big boogie man!!! Don't you know that bigfoot can dispense a wild pig with a slap against a tree with one mighty wack?!11oneoneone


If you're still confused, refer to this image. It explains bigfoot perfectly.

 

[Craig4]

Well for one, there is no bigfoot to photograph. Two: your photo is not clearly depicting a jackal. There are photographs that are of equal quality that are claimed to be bigfoot. There are many videos depicting alleged bigfoots as well. (PGF for example) So the point is, if you can photograph it you can shoot it. If you wouldve been armed with a rifle, could you have shot the jackal?

The whole premise of bigfoot is just wack. It is ridiculous to think such a large (allegedly) beast would not leave ANY viable trace of it's existence. There would be tons of hair, scat and other sign of them were there to be such a large creature in the woods.

But that is all pointless... Bigfoot is not a real creature. It is a ghost, a faerie, a mermaid, a vampire. Spooky and scary big boogie man!!! Don't you know that bigfoot can dispense a wild pig with a slap against a tree with one mighty wack?!11oneoneone


If you're still confused, refer to this image. It explains bigfoot perfectly.


[qimg]http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k273/iammenotu/religion_zpsbee9780e.jpg[/qimg]

It's just possible you're missing my point.

 

[Resume]

Based on your quotes above it seems you are now at least leaving yourself a backdoor for retreat in case your first impression is wrong. Clever move.

It's not a "move" Chris, it's an acknowledgment that the initial conclusions formed are provisional and may change given further data. It's called intellectual honesty, something that is in short supply among BLAARGers.

However, why assume one story is true yet assume another is false when viewing about the same evidence for both in the news? Shouldn't you assume both to be false until further evidence is presented? Curious. Chris B.

All you folks have to do is produce one (1) footie; many in your "community" make extravagant claims but none of you can ever back them up. Not once, ever.

 

[Resume]

The soccer team plane story may turn out to be accurate, or after some investigation, it may turn out to be an altogether different plane or even a complete hoax/publicity stunt. Either way, it's too early to sign off on and that was/is my point.
Chris B.

Signed off? By whom?

Planes are a physical reality, as are the physical remains of human beings. There are no physical remains of anything bigfoot, anywhere. Oh, and if it turns out this were some sort of hoax, I'd have to adjust my position.

And:

: serving for the time being : temporary <a provisional government>
— pro·vi·sion·al·ly adverb

 

[Resume]

No need for proposed name calling.

So there's lots of pics and a HD video. Hmm. Have you ever seen the Patterson/Gimlin film? Chris B.

I wouldn't complain about name-calling when you attempt to associate the PGF with HD.

 

[Drewbot]

This thread is an example of the pay off to a Bigfoot Blaarger.

He is pretending to believe in Bigfoot, practicing his skills at frustrating skeptics.

The fact that he is getting responses from you, tells me he is doing it right.

His comments have no logic or reasoning, the only goal is to try to twist your sound logic and reasoning, to score (what the Footers consider a score) points with his fellow Footers.

He wants to be the guy who went into JREF/IS and have threads started about him at BFF. "Look at him in the Lion's Den" they will say...


He is obtaining hero status amongst his fellow Bigfooters, at the expense of sound thinking.

 

[Resume]

This thread is an example of the pay off to a Bigfoot Blaarger.

He is pretending to believe in Bigfoot, practicing his skills at frustrating skeptics.

The fact that he is getting responses from you, tells me he is doing it right.

His comments have no logic or reasoning, the only goal is to try to twist your sound logic and reasoning, to score (what the Footers consider a score) points with his fellow Footers.

He wants to be the guy who went into JREF/IS and have threads started about him at BFF. "Look at him in the Lion's Den" they will say...


He is obtaining hero status amongst his fellow Bigfooters, at the expense of sound thinking.

But you see, to become a bigfoot hero takes more than silly posts on an obscure skeptic site. It takes more than an ill-used website and unheard podcasts. It takes big brass ones the size of . . . well, bigfoot. No, to be a big shooter takes big risk; the downside to that is often you end up like Dyer or Ketchum or Standing. A better model would be someone like Meldrum but his latest association with Standing, plus the ultimate failure of the Falcon Project (or whatever the **** they call it) might knock him a tad. Maybe Stroud? Dunno, but bigfoot heroics like bigfoot itself is all in the mind.

In my opinion.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No, Chris, it is also your claim. As demonstrated by you when you say things like "Actually, he did". Or are you now saying that you are not convinced that Boone shot a bigfoot? Is your claim now more along the lines of, perhaps he did, not actually he did? If he didn't shoot a bigfoot, then what would you propose might be the truth of the story, if not bigfoot? Please be precise, Chris. Your waffling is getting boring.

I'm sorry but I really don't see any way we can have a conversation about Boone that can go anywhere. If you don't even know Boone could easily recognize a bear, further reading on the man is required on your part.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This thread is an example of the pay off to a Bigfoot Blaarger.

He is pretending to believe in Bigfoot, practicing his skills at frustrating skeptics.

The fact that he is getting responses from you, tells me he is doing it right.

His comments have no logic or reasoning, the only goal is to try to twist your sound logic and reasoning, to score (what the Footers consider a score) points with his fellow Footers.

He wants to be the guy who went into JREF/IS and have threads started about him at BFF. "Look at him in the Lion's Den" they will say...


He is obtaining hero status amongst his fellow Bigfooters, at the expense of sound thinking.

Why do you feel the need to make me the topic? Run out of juice on Bigfoot?
Chris B.

 

[Macgyver1968]

This thread is an example of the pay off to a Bigfoot Blaarger.

He is pretending to believe in Bigfoot, practicing his skills at frustrating skeptics.

The fact that he is getting responses from you, tells me he is doing it right.

His comments have no logic or reasoning, the only goal is to try to twist your sound logic and reasoning, to score (what the Footers consider a score) points with his fellow Footers.

He wants to be the guy who went into JREF/IS and have threads started about him at BFF. "Look at him in the Lion's Den" they will say...


He is obtaining hero status amongst his fellow Bigfooters, at the expense of sound thinking.

Reminds me a lot of the 9/11 sub-forum.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you disagree with that, Chris B.?

I agree completely. The burden of evidence does not increase or decrease depending on one's personal opinion of a subject. It is what it is.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I wouldn't complain about name-calling when you attempt to associate the PGF with HD.

Name calling or proposed name calling is never the answer to debate. If one must resort to name calling it simply means they've already lost and can add nothing further to the conversation.

I made no associations, I asked a question.
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Name calling or proposed name calling is never the answer to debate. If one must resort to name calling it simply means they've already lost and can add nothing further to the conversation.

I made no associations, I asked a question.
Chris B.

So there's lots of pics and a HD video. Hmm. Have you ever seen the Patterson/Gimlin film? Chris B

Looking at this quite honestly, you certainly implied it.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Then where's the "implication" for the "lots of pics" part?
Chris B.