• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love this stuff:

Skeptic: "What's a bigfoot?"
'Footer: "Oh, it's this magnificent boss of the woods - 8, 9 and sometimes 10' tall - weighing hundreds of pounds!"

Skeptic: "Wow, that sounds pretty cool! What do they eat?"
'Footer: "Well they run down elk and kill them with a swipe of their massive forearm! They leap to grab wild hogs and then smash them against tree trunks! But when they're really hungry they eat . . . half an apple."
 
Bigfoot is like God.

When the believers are discussing him they know everything about him, intimate details inside and out.

When asked for evidence all of a sudden the believers act as if he's this vague, unknowable thing that's too shrouded in mystery to talk about.
 
dmaker said:
What real discussion is missing that you would like to have? If a footer were to come here and offer some actual evidence, then perhaps we could have a discussion. Presently, all we have is Chris and his childish withholdings.
Click to expand...

I recall Chris posting photos here before, if I'm not mistaken, it might have been on the BFF.
 
Jodie said:
I recall Chris posting photos here before, if I'm not mistaken, it might have been on the BFF.
Click to expand...

The photos we have seen were not posted by Chris here, but were seen on his site and linked to there from here by another member. I don't believe that Chris had shared anything here.

Nonetheless, the pictures contain nothing to discuss. I see nothing more than shadows and trees. It's beyond me how that is going to stimulate real discussion, as you put it. Unless, of course, that real discussion is a discussion of the real motives behind the behavior of some bigfoot enthusiasts. But then, you don't appreciate that discussion. What else would you propose as real discussion in response to a picture of trees in a bigfoot evidence thread?

The more interesting evidence, the HD footage taken from 15 feet, Chris refuses to share. Again, what kind of real discussion is his refusal to share allegedly better quality evidence going to generate? Certainly not a discussion of the evidence. How about in the absence of any evidence to discuss, we discuss wider aspects of the phenomenon in general? Such as motivations and conviction of enthusiasts?

I'd rather be discussing alleged bigfoot evidence in this thread, but no one is providing any. Got some monkey?
 
Last edited:
On the bright side, Chris has as much evidence for bigfoot as any other footer. And no one can really accuse him of holding back anything of value.

/pollyanna
 
Being criticized for not having "comebacks" - my, how telling.

The "comeback" is something distinctive about psychopaths, not intelligent, conscientious people. This feature is described in all of the literature but just for example try "Without Conscience" by Robert Hare, his section on Glib and Superficial, paraphrasing:

Psychopaths can be witty, articulate, and quick with the clever comeback. They can tell stories that are unlikely, given what is known about them, but exhibit a smooth lack of concern about being found out.

In all these pages, not just here but since the first pages on bigfoot on the Randi forum - there is no evidence of bigfoot but instead it is mostly a long series of "comebacks" by proponents, (gotchyas) the backstory to it all being extremely unlikely, with a rather remarkable lack of concern for how they look. This is not distinctive to this one person - it is pervasive across all of the personalities we have engaged with. As you delve deeper into this literature, and in particular descriptions of psychopaths like this book - like being grandiose, lack of remorse/guilt, lack of empathy, deceitful and manipulative ... it becomes rather striking that you are looking at a training manual for psychopathy when it comes to bigfoot advocacy against people who would question it.

I am not proposing bigfoot proponents are all psychopaths, but rather that their approach to interaction with others is the kind of behavior a psychopath is known for and is not something to be emulated.

You can't shame a skeptic or a scientist for lack of "comebacks" because there are two things about their training that make them the wrong personalities to expect them from. First, "comebacks" are put-downs of others and a person with a conscience is not stupid - they just feel bad about being mean to other people. But secondly, science and skepticism are approaches to subjects that take long trains of coherent thought rather than the disjointed series of one-liners we see out of woo practicioners.

Was James Randi known for quick comebacks? No, he was known for exposing charlatans - demonstrating how they did it. It is right and proper that we study how woo practicioners operate, and the "comeback" is their gimmick, not ours.
 
Jodie said:
I don't have home movies of it but we did it as children. Pines or cedars are best but the pine trees tend to snap on you if you do it too many times.
Click to expand...

I lived in a fairly wooded area growing up, and just going by my experience with trees, that seems like an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do. Of course, when I was that age, it was the mid-70s and you could do that kind of thing without getting the authorities involved.
 
jhunter1163 said:
I lived in a fairly wooded area growing up, and just going by my experience with trees, that seems like an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do. Of course, when I was that age, it was the mid-70s and you could do that kind of thing without getting the authorities involved.
Click to expand...

Yep, grew up in the 70's and it was dangerous, but it sure was fun.:D
 
There is no point to this thread if the evidence doesn't exist. That is a general forgone conclusion here is it not?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I have and none of it is considered as evidence here. I'd like to know what the "skeptics" would consider as evidence.
Click to expand...

It's the same criteria for any other new discovery, but you know this so I can only assume your full of poop and just playing another round of jerk people around for who knows what reason.
 
Last edited:
I find it funny how people here try to defend ABP. It's like one member of a cult gets busted and the others try to defend him.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I have and none of it is considered as evidence here. I'd like to know what the "skeptics" would consider as evidence.
Click to expand...

As has been said:

Physical evidence. Scat. Hair. Remains. Middens. Orts. Photographs of discernible subject. Game camera shots.

You know, objective, non-anecdotal, practical evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom