Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good news! My iDevices have accepted "BLAARGING" into the dictionary, yay.
I'm still working on HindenBlaarg".as I say this Sirri has just autocorrected me.
Laughter is brill.
 
The Shrike said:
I appreciate the critique, as this was my first attempt and I made it in about 15 seconds. The obvious fakery notwithstanding, I think it looks better than several of the porkers in Meldrum's collection, and I'm sure with a decent backstory there are plenty of 'footer's who'd consider it authentic.

The actual backstory is that we found a nice muddy patch with some prints and I challenged some of my Ornithology students who are also taking Mammalogy this semester to identify the print-makers. We had pet dog, raccoon, white-tailed deer, and opossum recorded in the mud. On the spot, I decided to show them how easy it can be to make a footie-print. From me deciding to try that to me snapping the photo, approximately 1 minute had elapsed.
Click to expand...
NL is saying that you created that Bigfoot print.
 
I'm adding to this thread for my own selfish goals. I apologise but didn't know where to thread this.
Mods, feel free to delete or send me to the bad place.

This figbootery nonsense is making my Spidey senses tingle.
It's car crash TV.
Hilarious.

So now I do the infomercial:
I need 4 people who are prepared to rant and who can say "nonchalantly"
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
You know, I'm really not interested in having a debate with you whether or not Bigfoot exists. It would require no effort or particular thought on your part for your position. Before you remind me this is a Bigfoot evidence thread, let me remind you I am responding to your post to me here and that I have not claimed to have evidence to provide here for you or anyone else.

I would be thrilled if someone else were to provide proof of these creature's existence. It would have no bearing on my own study here. The only thing I would not find thrilling is if that proof was obtained locally as a result of my own personal research or findings. That would equate to reaping the rewards of someone else's work. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Not that what you publish will have value but you'd hardly have room to complain about someone beating you to it. No one is obligated to wait for you to get around to publishing their "work". As an aside, in science it's perfectly legitimate to base your work on what someone else has already done. Not that what you are doing qualifies as science but thought you should know. We call that building and adding knowledge.
 
Now your just teasing us....how bout we get 1 a week!?!
Oh and the first ones really funny when you say it out loud :)
 
Last edited:
Nakani said:
Chris...

I don't know why you even bother to post any more.
Click to expand...

So long as anyone accepts the premise a BLAARGer believes, the game is on.

Think back through your life to a time when you were pulling someone's leg, and you became increasingly absurd with your story until they finally realized you were putting them on.

Wasn't it fun?
 
Is is actually possible that he doesn't understand the reason for using a cell phone camera in a hoax? ^^
 
Sorry for the out of place post. I was simply wondering if Thinker Thunker is using the fact that the deer carrying bigfoot video is shot on cellphone as reason for it being real. It seems most hoaxes are presented in as little detail as possible and a cellphone offers (usually) very little detail. Think Rick Dyer and the tent video. As technology improves the film/video becomes the enemy of the hoaxer. You can blow up the PGF until hell freezes over with the same relative result but HD video is something else. How many of these nimrods go out bigfoot researching and then tell you they only had a cell phone? The art of the hoax seems to no longer require video but instead, be structured like the woodape group who have in their monograph stated they are not even interested in photp evidence.
 
Personally it looks to me like two people in hazmat suits carrying Bigfoot carcasses.

The fact that the more clear the pictures the less it looks like Bigfoot imply something important.
 
mustbeso said:
Sorry for the out of place post. I was simply wondering if Thinker Thunker is using the fact that the deer carrying bigfoot video is shot on cellphone as reason for it being real. It seems most hoaxes are presented in as little detail as possible and a cellphone offers (usually) very little detail. Think Rick Dyer and the tent video. As technology improves the film/video becomes the enemy of the hoaxer. You can blow up the PGF until hell freezes over with the same relative result but HD video is something else. How many of these nimrods go out bigfoot researching and then tell you they only had a cell phone? The art of the hoax seems to no longer require video but instead, be structured like the woodape group who have in their monograph stated they are not even interested in photp evidence.
Click to expand...

HD in bigfootery is like HD in porn. You don't want to see too much detail...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom