Merged Bigfoot follies

[Drewbot]

Can you imagine being in the woods, with a kid, and telling the kid that you saw a Giant Hairy Apeman stalking you, and that we need to calmly and slowly leave the woods, otherwise bad things?

There is one term that describes this.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

That's the first thing that came to my mind -- campfire.

Well I am glad LTC8K6 and you chimed in to point out what I sure thought was obvious.

I shouldn't have let that get to me but I was pretty sure he was lying, and this is proof:

From the original story:

it was after sunset and getting dark.

The revision

I'm not being nasty to you this time. It was after sunset and dark. The only colors they could have been witnessing were black.

That half hour or more between sunset and actual darkness is exactly what I was talking about. So he revised the story to eliminate that critical time.

When you are caught dead in a lie like this, then the person doing it is being nasty, Chris and the person pointing out the lie is not has the right to call it a lie.

And it worked. It pissed me off.

 

[xblade]

The problem with this claim is that the number of bigfoot pictures is not increasing.

Neither is the number of found bigfoots.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Why the secret location? Risking the integrity of a public park? lol.

Naming the place establishes how normal people go there for things like picnics.

I will not name the place exactly as it would encourage other Bigfooters to go into the area if they knew exactly where it is. I have no control over who goes into this specific area, so the only way to prevent others is secrecy.

I thought so. You changed the story to "black" with me. No scruples.

Not at all. It was too dark to see anything other than black in the trees. Also, our peak leaf color season was during late October last year and had not occurred at the time Cervelo and I were there. The killing frost was late last year. I guess you knew that too.....maybe not.

lol. Getting a stroller over a downed tree? Incredible.

I dragged 77 of them home with me this winter. Maybe I should go out and see if I have the balls to get a baby stroller over one of them.

Really - this is exactly what I mean about 'footers being people who can't and don't do much of anything at all making the most mundane thing sound like such an accomplishment.

You don't know the terrain or the location I was referring to. This is just another comment without the required knowledge needed to make it. Yet somehow you disregard my comments about the situation when between the two of us, I'm the one of us that was actually there and actually knows the area. I'll bet you've never even been there. In short, you can't know. Stick with what you know, it suits you better. When you make statements such as this it only makes you look foolish.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The obvious problem with this statement is that you are here, by choice, on a forum with the word "skeptic" in the URL. If you were actually concerned about this then presumably you would be posting elsewhere where people don't have this skeptical problem. Instead, you are here.

You missed the point of my statement. Looks like you caught it in the next post though.

Actually no. The topic gets looked into anytime a new claim of evidence comes up. The same is true of ghosts or psychic claims or aliens or any other supernatural claim.


This sounds correct.


The problem with this claim is that the number of bigfoot pictures is not increasing.

Yes if Bigfoot is not biological then it can only be of the mind. Either way the phenomenon is worthy of being investigated. That's my point. You cannot ignore both or dismiss both possibilities as one is either true or the other.

If you choose to dismiss both, then obviously you have no interest in the subject and are just here to ridicule others under a cloak of anonymity (which is also not uncommon here).
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

There is no evidence to deny.

Sightings are evidence of something. Footprints are evidence of something. Even if only evidence of a hoax, they certainly are evidence of something.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

What a stupid argument; the very existence of these bigfoot threads testifies that the subject is being "looked into." Looked into and found lacking.

Don't be silly, nearly everyone here admits to the biological possibility of bigfoot; it's the actuality of bigfoot that's the rub. 15,000 years of nothing footie whatsoever is a rather large problem for proponents.

Anonymous reports are increasing; I write stories every day. So what?

What is that something you think needs investigating? As noted above, it's being investigated nearly every day here; it's just that you folks don't like the results.

You are hilarious. You don't investigate anything here. The only thing to occur here about Bigfoot is denial and ridicule. What happens here is a bunch of folks under the cloak of anonymity type rude things that they would never have enough nerve to say in person. This is the place where cowards become heroes in their own minds. Ridiculous. I find the most difficult thing to do here is to have a decent conversation about anything scientific as most here are posers without the mental prowess to do anything other than ridicule or deny. It takes no thought to deny, so it's the safest position for those without the capacity. Chris B.

 

[William Parcher]

The role-playing goes beyond simple Bigfootery and into the family as the role of protector and warrior. Where are you going, Daddy? I'm going out to hunt that beast that stalked us. Can I go with you? No, it's too dangerous - stay home with Mommy.

 

[dmaker]

Sightings are evidence of nothing more than someone claims to have seen something. There is no objective evidence that the event even occurred.

 

[dmaker]

You are hilarious. You don't investigate anything here. The only thing to occur here about Bigfoot is denial and ridicule. What happens here is a bunch of folks under the cloak of anonymity type rude things that they would never have enough nerve to say in person. This is the place where cowards become heroes in their own minds. Ridiculous. I find the most difficult thing to do here is to have a decent conversation about anything scientific as most here are posers without the mental prowess to do anything other than ridicule or deny. It takes no thought to deny, so it's the safest position for those without the capacity. Chris B.

Says the guy who ushered his family out of the woods due to an imaginary monster.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I know.


No, the bigfoot you claim to think is real does a laundry list of impossible things every day, all related to "living undetected in a high-use recreational area that has been studied nine ways to Sunday."

Your subjective bias against a paranormal bigfoot is at odds with your own description of the beast whose qualities are, by definition, paranormal.

No, Bigfoot is not magical. You forget about the Panda. It wasn't doing anything magical either but it seems we had a difficult time finding them too. And they're not even intelligent when compared to a primate.

We knew about the Panda since 1869, yet the first Giant Panda was not captured until 1927. It's more about us than it is about them. We don't find things very well, even when we're looking. So no, Bigfoot is not doing anything impossible.
Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

We don't "know" about bigfoot. Unlike a panda there is no supporting physical evidence.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Indeed I have the same question!
This hike has two documented destinations, the first has a structure that the majority of people would stop at.

Sooooo Chris did you ask them if they were going to our final destination?

If not how on earth do you determine someone is lying to you if you didn't tell them our ultimate destination?

You were there, you know the destination I asked them and why I do not want it said on the open forum.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Your reason for not sharing a location in a freaking public park is "obvious?" That's a laugh. Even if you were being serious, what would be the reasons for not wanting more people looking for this thing? Afraid some would get a clear photo or some mystery poop and blow all of our minds?

ABP is right; game playing is the only hypothesis that accurately explains all of the behavior we see here.

What I see in your posts is someone who is still miffed at me because I banned them at the BFF when I was an Admin there. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Sightings are evidence of nothing more than someone claims to have seen something. There is no objective evidence that the event even occurred.

Well then "those" sightings as you describe would certainly be evidence of a psychological Bigfoot then , would they not?
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Says the guy who ushered his family out of the woods due to an imaginary monster.

How did you determine it was imaginary? Were you there? Or have you seen all the evidence from the encounter?
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

We don't "know" about bigfoot. Unlike a panda there is no supporting physical evidence.

That's true there is no supporting biological evidence of Bigfoot like that of the Panda in 1869.

It is the search I referred to. We found nothing for a long time. The initial search was even given up after 30 years or so and the thought was "Perhaps they did exist at one time but now they must be extinct."
Yet they were still there. Chris B.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Not at all. It was too dark to see anything other than black in the trees.

The upper canopy is the lightest part of the forest at sunset, still visible long into twilight.

I really need to know how it was that you could give such vivid descriptions of the people you met, in the shade of the trees, all of the colors of the things they were carrying, their ages etc. - almost as if it were the middle of the day...

and yet all they could see up above in the brighter canopy was black.

Is this one of your super powers, or just an example of how shamelessly you can lie?

Also, our peak leaf color season was during late October last year and had not occurred at the time Cervelo and I were there. The killing frost was late last year. I guess you knew that too.....maybe not.

So first you argued it was too late in the year for anything but ghost hunting and now it is too early.

You don't know the terrain or the location I was referring to. This is just another comment without the required knowledge needed to make it. Yet somehow you disregard my comments about the situation when between the two of us, I'm the one of us that was actually there and actually knows the area. I'll bet you've never even been there. In short, you can't know. Stick with what you know, it suits you better. When you make statements such as this it only makes you look foolish.
Chris B.

I know that my four year old can jump over downed trees you are claiming as near insurmountable and that I take them home by the dozens.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The role-playing goes beyond simple Bigfootery and into the family as the role of protector and warrior. Where are you going, Daddy? I'm going out to hunt that beast that stalked us. Can I go with you? No, it's too dangerous - stay home with Mommy.

I would describe "role playing" as what you are doing now.
Chris B.

 

[Cervelo]

You were there, you know the destination I asked them and why I do not want it said on the open forum.
Chris B.

Ahhh Chris did you not understand the question or are bobbing and weaving?

Let me repost it for you....

Indeed I have the same question!
This hike has two documented destinations, the first has a structure that the majority of people would stop at.

Sooooo Chris did you ask them if they were going to our final destination?

If not how on earth do you determine someone is lying to you if you didn't tell them our ultimate destination?