Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
dmaker said:
NL, how do you think Matt would categorize the show?
Click to expand...

Matt is in it for the paycheck. To answer your question, I think Matt believes he is doing serious work, within the parameters set by the production company. In a couple of posts I've read from him, he seems frustrated by the quick in and out concept, but isn't willing to walk away due to those constraints.
 
jerrywayne said:
Brace yourselves. Here are comments made by arch-skeptic Sharon Hill on the NAWAC tract:

"Fascinating! What do we make of these lithic salutations (as I call them)? What the hell is going on out there? I've contacted Brian Brown for more details. This is not the work of hoaxers."

"Four years and multiple researchers experiencing multiple events. It's absurd to conclude this is a hoax. But if it's Bigfoots (or what it is) is another several questions entirely."

"I can be cynical but I'm not going to be insanely cynical. I would like to see some plausible explanations. I'm not ready to be so dismissive in this case."


You may find these comments at her Group of Fort facebook page.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's a bit of Good Cop posturing in order to wrangle an invite down to wood ape central. I believe she had some good things to say about Brian Brown when doing some sort of podcast with him. As I remember, anyway.
 
In the footy world (Not) Finding Bigfoot is a world class documentary based on science!
That was my best DWA impersonation since he's such an advocate of anecdotal reports must mean something....if only science would take Bigfoot serious :(
 
The Shrike said:
Gave another version of my bigfoot talk last night, for those who are keeping track. This time I indoctrinated about 40 undergrads (+ 1 guest state wildlife official) by teaching them what BLAARGing was all about. I focused mainly on the silliness of Finding Bigfoot. Then I taught them how to take random photos of trees, blow them up, and find bigfoot faces through the magic of pareidolia. Fun times.

Now we can just sit back and wait to see how long it takes for BLAARGing to reach our ears from someplace other than here.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that BLAARGing involves the party(s) not actually believing that Bigfoot exists but instead pretending that it does as the theme for the role-playing. If a person(s) actually does believe in the existence then it is something other than BLAARG.

BLAARGers are something like American Civil War re-enactors. They don't actually believe that they are fighting soldiers in the Civil War - they are only engaging in role-playing to simulate that they are. They enjoy it. It's a hobby. A pastime. Sometimes it's an obsession that absorbs lots of time, effort, thought and money.

Above all, the important endeavor of the BLAARGer is to convince the audience that they truly believe instead of only pretend to believe. The primary goal is not to convince you that Bigfoot exists, but rather to convince you that they believe (or are certain/know) that Bigfoot exists.
 
Note that Civil War actors never have their commanders yell out, "Pretend to load your weapons", nor do you hear "Pretend to charge!"

All you hear is, "Load your weapons!", "Fire!", and "Charge!"

This is Bigfootery.
 
William Parcher said:
It should be noted that BLAARGing involves the party(s) not actually believing that Bigfoot exists but instead pretending that it does as the theme for the role-playing. If a person(s) actually does believe in the existence then it is something other than BLAARG.

BLAARGers are something like American Civil War re-enactors. They don't actually believe that they are fighting soldiers in the Civil War - they are only engaging in role-playing to simulate that they are. They enjoy it. It's a hobby. A pastime. Sometimes it's an obsession that absorbs lots of time, effort, thought and money.

Above all, the important endeavor of the BLAARGer is to convince the audience that they truly believe instead of only pretend to believe. The primary goal is not to convince you that Bigfoot exists, but rather to convince you that they believe (or are certain/know) that Bigfoot exists.
Click to expand...


Nailed it.

The reasons for this can vary, but yeah.
 
William Parcher said:
BLAARGers are something like American Civil War re-enactors. They don't actually believe that they are fighting soldiers in the Civil War - they are only engaging in role-playing to simulate that they are. They enjoy it. It's a hobby. A pastime. Sometimes it's an obsession that absorbs lots of time, effort, thought and money.
Click to expand...
Yes, excellent analogy. I guess the only difference is that the re-enactors break character when they stop for a Big Mac on the way home, but the BLAARGers never do.
 
The Shrike said:
Yes, excellent analogy. I guess the only difference is that the re-enactors break character when they stop for a Big Mac on the way home, but the BLAARGers never do.
Click to expand...

Never saw a BLAARGer break character. That would end it.
 
The Shrike said:
Yes, excellent analogy. I guess the only difference is that the re-enactors break character when they stop for a Big Mac on the way home, but the BLAARGers never do.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that the Civil War guys don't really break character either, per se. When they stop for a Big Mac they don't at all or don't continuously use the words "pretend" and "fake" when they talk about their maneuvers against the enemy earlier that day.

"Our phony massed charge with our pretend guns caused their phony defeat with many pretending that they were killed." No, I don't think that they say that between the napkin wiping of the two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
Well, the driving home and stopping at McDonald's would be what I considered breaking character. The BLAARGers never have to step outside the fantasy realm, except perhaps during a job interview.
 
I suppose that they break character by driving to the re-enactment site instead of walking there with the only pair of shoes that they own.
 
An 'Expert" on something that does not exist????? Well, that certainly bolsters his credibility in my book.

It's been my experience that most 'experts' are simply former drips under pressure.

I would've been more impressed if the person in question would've been described as "specializing in Simian/Human Comparative Anatomy", or something similar.

However, I am happy he was able to determine the actual nature of the video, whatever he is.....

Luke T. said:
Okay. A "Bigfoot expert" has debunked the video.



So we know it's fake because the real Bigfoot is a large, barrel-chested creature.

Oh.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Because if they weren't, you could tell what it actually is...the same reason UFO, Nessie, and Ghost pictures are never clear, or definitive......

supercorgi said:
I didn't see a darn thing in that video except some very blurry "thing" in the shadows. I couldn't make out anything. Tell me why are all the bigfoot videos so jumpy and out of focus? I videotape my dog running around and it's neither jumpy or out of focus. Why can't anyone make a decent video?
Click to expand...
 
Ahhhh Norse my man when did ya fall down the rabbit hole of I can't explain it therefore Bigfoot?
And if you are reading this why won't you send my password info for Project Grendal I miss you guys :(
 
Resume said:
The thread you snatched that from was approaching epic levels of stupid. Then DWA showed up and kicked it into warp.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty funny....when they still allowed you to mention JREF/ISS it was obvious many of the heads of state DWA, Sweaty, Sasfooty, Cotter, Mulder, Munns read almost every word of whats here and it drives them nuts but none have the nuts to come here and debate.
The guys and gals that do are the only ones I have any respect for, the rest remain in the Bigfoot sanctuary of alternate reality that BFF(Bigfoot Fantasy w/Friends) has become..... But it is comedy gold!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom