Merged Bigfoot follies

[dmaker]

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

Not really, and it depends on how you define "psychological bigfoot". There is no way to objectively determine if a sighting report is the result of mistaken identity, psychosis, paraedolia, or just flat out lying. This would make these anecdotes rather unreliable as evidence in any sort of uncontrolled situation.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

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.

Quoted for the "what's the harm" value.

This is not harmless legend tripping or warm and fuzzy "puff the magic dragon" childhood daydreaming.

This is calling people disturbed and stupid cowards.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Interesting… It seems the usual ghost hunting grounds are “haunted” buildings (houses, factories, museums, pubs, etc.) and cemeteries. Ghost hunting at a forest? What were they looking for? Ghosts of deer? Or maybe bigfoot ghosts? That's it - they were hunting bigfoot ghosts.

Ah, yes, as an alternative, maybe there was a nearby haunted manor and they were heading towards it. Or perhaps a ghost town. Very plausible.

What sort of ghost-hunting gadgets and gizmos they were carrying that Cervelo missed to notice? Proton packs? Ecto Googles? Oh, sorry, those are the ghostbusters’ gear… Ghost hunters use EMF Meters. Cervelo, not having the super-footer-spider sense certainly failed to perceive their presence inside the backpacks… Very plausible (tall) tale.

Chris’ tall tales are attention whoring. Hopefully he is just trolling, having fun trying to bait skeptics. The other options are troublesome, for they involve dishonesty and/or perhaps some psychological disorder.

On top of the blue cooler were two black cases. Though cervelo likely remembers them now after his memory was jogged.

It seems rather odd to me that you would make certain accusations about me then if I respond to those, label me as an "attention whore". Speaking of psychological disorders, isn't that kind of odd?
Seems to me if I respond with a defense, it's because you rang. You know that thing called "cause and effect"

So, don't ring my line and then complain if I say "hello". To do so is quite unbalanced. According to a review of your posts, you are incapable of having an educated conversation about the subject. If you wish to trade witty put downs and clever comebacks we can do that, but it'll likely end up in AAH or some other nonproductive thread. I will not however violate the rules of the forum as I have no intention of banishment. You'll have to try another route. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Not really, and it depends on how you define "psychological bigfoot". There is no way to objectively determine if a sighting report is the result of mistaken identity, psychosis, paraedolia, or just flat out lying. This would make these anecdotes rather unreliable as evidence in any sort of uncontrolled situation.

That's where you are wrong. It is evidence of something.
It is either:
1.Evidence the person saw what they say they did.
2.Evidence the person was mistaken/hallucination.
3.Evidence the person was making it up.

1.Suggests Bigfoot is real
2.Suggests the sighting was an honest error
3.Suggests mental problems

Chris B.

 

[PursuedByABear]

Quoted for the "what's the harm" value.

This is not harmless legend tripping or warm and fuzzy "puff the magic dragon" childhood daydreaming.

This is calling people disturbed and stupid cowards.

Yeah but that's got nothing to do with Bigfoot. That's just what he thinks of people on this forum. There's no reason that people on this forum needn't be a bunch of jerks , even though Bigfoot doesn't exist. In fact, 99% of people I know (if not higher) don't believe in Bigfoot, and a large proportion of them are jerks, so I would say his opinion of people here is not in any way dependent on his belief or otherwise in Bigfoot.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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?



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




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.

If you wish to determine who the liar is, let's simply review the facts:
1. I was there.
2. You were not.

Who has the information and details about what occurred there?
No amount of you twisting details into your own will make it otherwise. Wasn't that easy?
Chris B.

 

[abaddon]

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.

Those would be evidence. Why is it that you have none of those? Why is it that you refuse to present any of those? It is because you don't have any of it.

 

[Cervelo]

Chris here's what you posted
"I also asked them if they were going where we went. The response was "Yes". I responded "It's a long way." After we walked further I told you I had asked them that to see if they would lie to me, and I told you they did.
They were almost at their intended destination when we met. The lie confirmed their true destination IMO. Think about it, could they have taken
that stroller and dolly over and under those downed trees we encountered and down and back up that hill we trekked? No way."

Did you ask them if they were going to our final destination?

If not how did you determine they were lying?

The first is a yes or no question, I'm not sure how that would reveal anything about the super secret location visited by over 2 million people a year?

 

[dmaker]

That's where you are wrong. It is evidence of something.
It is either:
1.Evidence the person saw what they say they did.
2.Evidence the person was mistaken/hallucination.
3.Evidence the person was making it up.

1.Suggests Bigfoot is real
2.Suggests the sighting was an honest error
3.Suggests mental problems

Chris B.

Yes, but when the truth of it is not ascertainable, then it is useless.

 

[John Nowak]

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.

I wouldn't deny that.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Quoted for the "what's the harm" value.

This is not harmless legend tripping or warm and fuzzy "puff the magic dragon" childhood daydreaming.

This is calling people disturbed and stupid cowards.

No, this is calling attention to the conditions in which kids steal candy.
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

You are hilarious. You don't investigate anything here.

I investigated bigfoot claims long before the first time you were ever frightened out of the woods by darkness.

The only thing to occur here about Bigfoot is denial and ridicule.

Denial of bigfoot is the only logical position in regards to a creature that only exists in the fantasies of proponents. And if proponents don't want their evidence or arguments ridiculed they should come armed with better evidence and arguments.

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.

Chris, I've been involved with a paranormal group as a resident skeptic long before I posted here for the first time. I've had plenty of opportunities to tell people to their faces what I think of the "evidence" they proposed for their fringe beliefs; I certainly wouldn't have a problem telling you or any other bigfoot proponent the same.

This is the place where cowards become heroes in their own minds. Ridiculous.

Not nearly as ridiculous as "packing large" in fear of a creature that exists only in the mind.

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.

Again, most here have thoroughly examined the bigfoot hypothesis before rejecting it and denying the existence of this nonexistent creature. That you refuse to acknowledge this is as dishonest as anything else in footery.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris here's what you posted
"I also asked them if they were going where we went. The response was "Yes". I responded "It's a long way." After we walked further I told you I had asked them that to see if they would lie to me, and I told you they did.
They were almost at their intended destination when we met. The lie confirmed their true destination IMO. Think about it, could they have taken
that stroller and dolly over and under those downed trees we encountered and down and back up that hill we trekked? No way."

Did you ask them if they were going to our final destination?

If not how did you determine they were lying?

The first is a yes or no question, I'm sure how that would reveal anything about the super secret location visited by over 2 million people a year?

Yes of course I asked them if they were going to the specific place we went (at the end of our trek). That's why we used that specific trek as it was the easiest way to get where we went and returned from. You know this.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I investigated bigfoot claims long before the first time you were ever frightened out of the woods by darkness.

Denial of bigfoot is the only logical position in regards to a creature that only exists in the fantasies of proponents. And if proponents don't want their evidence or arguments ridiculed they should come armed with better evidence and arguments.
Chris, I've been involved with a paranormal group as a resident skeptic long before I posted here for the first time. I've had plenty of opportunities to tell people to their faces what I think of the "evidence" they proposed for their fringe beliefs; I certainly wouldn't have a problem telling you or any other bigfoot proponent the same.

Not nearly as ridiculous as "packing large" in fear of a creature that exists only in the mind.

Again, most here have thoroughly examined the bigfoot hypothesis before rejecting it and denying the existence of this nonexistent creature. That you refuse to acknowledge this is as dishonest as anything else in footery.

Wonderful, then when I present evidence of Bigfoot please feel free to tear into it. Until then, why is there the need to attack me personally? What is the point? Chris B.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Wonderful, then when I present evidence of Bigfoot please feel free to tear into it. Until then, why is there the need to attack me personally? What is the point? Chris B.

The day you present evidence of Bigfoot is the day I'll show my ass on the town hall steps.

 

[dmaker]

Wonderful, then when I present evidence of Bigfoot please feel free to tear into it. Until then, why is there the need to attack me personally? What is the point? Chris B.

Poor you. Perhaps you shouldn't call people here cowards who lack mental prowess. Since you are not into attacks and all.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Yes, but when the truth of it is not ascertainable, then it is useless.

The truth of a specific sighting may be unobtainable in some cases. But the truth of the Bigfoot phenomenon is evident as two possibilities.
1.Bigfoot is real.
2.Bigfoot is a product of the mind.

Either possibility is worthy of investigation. With investigation comes knowledge.
Chris B.

 

[Cervelo]

Yes of course I asked them if they were going to the specific place we went (at the end of our trek). That's why we used that specific trek as it was the easiest way to get where we went and returned from. You know this.
Chris B.

Your saying they told you they were going all the way to the river and not the first structure?

 

[dmaker]

I never said that option 2 wasn't worthy of investigation. I think it is. In fact, that is my sole interest in the phenomenon since I have no doubt that bigfoot does not exist.

I was simply pointing out that you cannot ascertain the truth of an anecdote. It could be one of several things, none of which can be proven. Which brings us back to my original point: the only objective statement to be said about an sighting report is that it is evidence of someone claiming to have seen something. What led to them making that claim can never be proven.

IOW, they are not evidence of x,y,z. They are evidence of someone claiming something due to either x, y, or z.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Poor you. Perhaps you shouldn't call people here cowards who lack mental prowess. Since you are not into attacks and all.

You can do a self test by a quick review of your own posts. Do you have a discussion of the subject or do you mostly ridicule and insult? It's a "if the shoe fits" comment. Does it? Chris B.