Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The reason I believe they use these areas as travel corridors is due to finding tracks there. Yes, there are good tracks left sometimes. As I said before even if they tend to step on firmer ground as a rule, sooner or later it becomes impossible to keep from breaking that rule. Chris B.
Click to expand...

If there are footprints/tracks there are animals.
So it should be a breeze to set up trail cameras alongside.
And we -can- track on firm dry ground.
I expect now you'll rush back to this tracks site and return with definitive evidence of your claim.
 
Monza said:
Why in the world would you need to hide them? Animals don't know about the concept of cameras and photography. You could attach a sign saying, "Warning: Game Camera in Use" and not a single animal would know what it said or what the thing was. And don't try to say that Bigfeet are wary of anything to do with humans. The alleged sighting reports contradict that trope.
Click to expand...

One local man here got a game cam pic of Bigfoot not long ago. If it was real it seemed to suggest the creature was aware of the game camera. Chris B.
 
Vermonter said:
Except this is a faked video. Next.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Chimp did not have a real loaded weapon, it was a blank gun. But he is real and that one is much better than the machete wielding Chimpanzee (faked) video. That little guy was just flailing the machete around without much realism. The Chimp with the blank gun did a good job. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Yes, the Chimp did not have a real loaded weapon, it was a blank gun. But he is real and that one is much better than the machete wielding Chimpanzee (faked) video. That little guy was just flailing the machete around without much realism. The Chimp with the blank gun did a good job. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Chris, the chimp was most likely trained to do that with a gun. Do you believe that was that young chimps first time holding the fake weapon? Truly?
 
dmaker said:
Chris, the chimp was most likely trained to do that with a gun. Do you believe that was that young chimps first time holding the fake weapon? Truly?
Click to expand...

I'm sure he was trained briefly. I don't think it required much work. Chimps are smart. The one with the machete though, needed more training IMO.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'm sure he was trained briefly. I don't think it required much work. Chimps are smart. The one with the machete though, needed more training IMO.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

So if he was trained beforehand, what was the point of your using this video to show that primates do odd things?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
A claim or evidence of something? If it is a game cam pic, surely something triggered the camera? But what? Chris B.
Click to expand...
It's a claim. Where is the picture? Can we see it? Are there more? Can we examine the camera?

What triggered the camera? How the hell could anyone know that based on an anecdote?

It's evidence of nothing but some typed words.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I consider tracks as evidence. As they are evidence. If you do not consider them evidence I think you are in error. As even if you consider Bigfoot to be a hoax, tracks would be evidence of that hoax and so should be evaluated.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that True Believers of all stripes (not just footers) commonly equivocate between connotations of the word "evidence." So rather than denoting more or less neutral data (the way you suggest here), we see the term loaded to imply that the "evidence" actually supports the desired conclusion, which in the case of bigfoot, it does not. So if your point is that there is evidence for bigfoot but it's all worthless, then perhaps you've made your point. If you still argue with the statement that no unambiguous, objective evidence for the existence of bigfoot has ever been established (which is the basic skeptical sentiment), then the error is yours.

Of course footers will use a sciency word in the hopes that the patina of credibility will rub off on them, and so I think things like the PGF, blobsquatches, broken trees, tracks, sightings, etc., should be referred to by a more neutral term such as "data." This would keep footers more honest, because the terminology wouldn't be quite so prone to abuse.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
One local man here got a game cam pic of Bigfoot not long ago. If it was real it seemed to suggest the creature was aware of the game camera. Chris B.
Click to expand...
No. You actually don't have a bottomless pit from which to make **** up. You also don't get to pretend the made up **** is true so you can pretend we're the ****** up ones for demanding to see the pic (for instance). Telling us you saw Bigfoot is one thing, telling us "one local man here" has an actual game cam picture of Bigfoot YET your comment about it is only 30 words is a whole 'nother. You've written more words about Syke's made-up bear. That is, we know YOU'RE MAKING IT ALL UP Chris and you're being ******* rude about it. I suggest you stick with your own blurry sticks "Bigfoot sightings". <pun voided>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom