Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
About all they are good for is to show that people are hoaxing and making errors.
Click to expand...

That's what's so interesting about it, the sheer depth of this delusion. I imagine we're all pretty confident of what really went down here: Chris has already shown the best evidence he has - photos of trees - he wasn't prepared for the inevitable incredulous response, and he's trying to buy time for the "evidence" he will surely find in the near future.

Fortunately, he's as good a liar as he is a photographer. There is no good reason to "hold back" good evidence. We all know that, and we've made it clear to him that we know that. But here he is, and it's baffling to me.

If he's lying, he must realize we're laughing at him. If he's telling the truth, he has to know his credibility is so low at this point we'd google weather reports if he claimed it was raining. If he's gaming, he knows we're getting more amusement out of him than vice-versa.

Baffling.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
But none of those finds accounted for anything until there was a type specimen collected.
Click to expand...
None of what finds? Pere David - First guy to try = first guy to succeed in securing a type specimen for western scientists. Boom. 1869. Done. It was also one of the easiest finds of his hundreds because some other dude brought it to him. (Reading stuff before posting some knee-jerk response is fun - try it!)

ChrisBFRPKY said:
If you wish to now site ancient writings as evidence of a real creature . . .
Click to expand...
Um, no. The evidence that matters is the physical evidence, from 1869. The skull from 155 BC is also physical evidence, illustrating that the animal had a long history of significance to the local people. The ancient text on uses for panda pelt simply illustrates that, like all other real creatures, the locals knew about them and used their body parts - something no indigenous people in any part of the globe have ever been shown to do with their local versions of bigfoot. The Tibetans come closest, by hoaxing their yeti parts. . .
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Oops, you forgot to mention a few things. Let me help.

You did not know what a deer scrape is or what it's used for.(or perhaps you were testing me....right)
You would have walked all over a full grown buck without ever noticing it (likely until it ran for cover at the last possible moment) You yourself proclaimed "good eye" when you finally saw the buck in your binoculars.
You picked up a turkey feather and proclaimed it to be "red tail hawk". While I said only "turkey".

So I ask you, since you make such a big deal of me stopping because I saw a stump out of the corner of my eye while we were walking and talking. Did I make anything out of it? Or did I say "stump" and laugh?
Was there a deer? Was that not a turkey feather? Was that not a deer scrape? Did we not see the buck and doe that likely accounted for it. Were there not two black cases on top of that blue cooler?

I don't claim to have been in good health that day. I told you why. Why the need to make such a big deal out of it? I have never claimed to be the "physical outdoor type". But I do get out at least 3 times a week during the Bigfoot seasonal activity here.

The fact is somehow you need to label me a "novice" outdoorsman afraid of the dark, jumping at every little tweet and chirp. We both know you're not in a position to judge any of my abilities. Fact is you don't know a turkey feather when you're looking at it and it steams you that I do. Live and learn.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

Again Chris consider that people often ask questions they know the answers to, in order to assess others knowledge...you passed the test kinda ;)

Yes I do think your a novice with little or no outdoor experience
Here's why....
Feeling the need to be armed on a rather pedestrian hike in a heavily visited location and trail that your supposedly familar with
You're afraid of the dark
Your physical condition is extremely poor which is not indicative of someone spending anytime exercising on a regular basis
Your hyper sensitivity to your surroundings
1) Hearing things I didn't behind us
2) Seeing the deer
3) Mistaking a stump for something other than a stump in an area you claim to frequent often...while now claiming extrordinary skils of recollection

Your irrational assignment of ghostbuster status to a family outing and equally bizzare unsupported claim that they were lying to you about their destination.

No Chris I don't think you have any applicable outdoor experience based on our time together.

Combine that with your behavior on this site of making numerous unsupported claims about possessing "evidence" and your own qualifications its pretty hard to see you in a sincere light.
 
Last edited:
Whoot! I'm back from my Alaskan Cruise, I know you all missed me otherwise what on earth would you talk about?

Oh yeah right, bigfoot, I guess the content is as illusive as the beast.
 
Cervelo said:
Again Chris consider that people often ask questions they know the answers to, in order to assess others knowledge...you passed the test kinda ;)

Yes I do think your a novice with little or no outdoor experience
Here's why....
Feeling the need to be armed on a rather pedestrian hike in a heavily visited location and trail that your supposedly familar with
Your afraid of the dark
Your physical condition is extremely poor which is not indicative of someone spending anytime exercising on a regular basis
Your hyper sensitivity to your surroundings
1) Hearing things I didn't behind us
2)Seeing the deer
3)Mistaking a stump for something other than a stump in an area you claim to frequent often...while now claiming extrordinary skils of recollection

Your irrational assignment of ghostbuster status to a family outing and equally bizzare unsupported claim that they were lying to you about their destination.

No Chris I don't think you have any applicable outdoor experience based on our time together.

Combine that with your behavior on this site of making numerous unsupported claims about possessing "evidence" and your own qualifications its pretty hard to see you in a sincere light.
Click to expand...

At least we can agree to disagree. Chris B.
 
The Shrike said:
None of what finds? Pere David - First guy to try = first guy to succeed in securing a type specimen for western scientists. Boom. 1869. Done. It was also one of the easiest finds of his hundreds because some other dude brought it to him. (Reading stuff before posting some knee-jerk response is fun - try it!)


Um, no. The evidence that matters is the physical evidence, from 1869. The skull from 155 BC is also physical evidence, illustrating that the animal had a long history of significance to the local people. The ancient text on uses for panda pelt simply illustrates that, like all other real creatures, the locals knew about them and used their body parts - something no indigenous people in any part of the globe have ever been shown to do with their local versions of bigfoot. The Tibetans come closest, by hoaxing their yeti parts. . .
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken, the pelt came first in 1869, everything else, the fossils etc came much later.

Again, it is the search I was comparing. We're not that good at finding stuff.
Skepticism among scientists tends to delay widespread efforts at recovery until something concrete bonks them on the head. Chris B.
 
John Nowak said:
That's what's so interesting about it, the sheer depth of this delusion. I imagine we're all pretty confident of what really went down here: Chris has already shown the best evidence he has - photos of trees - he wasn't prepared for the inevitable incredulous response, and he's trying to buy time for the "evidence" he will surely find in the near future.

Fortunately, he's as good a liar as he is a photographer. There is no good reason to "hold back" good evidence. We all know that, and we've made it clear to him that we know that. But here he is, and it's baffling to me.

If he's lying, he must realize we're laughing at him. If he's telling the truth, he has to know his credibility is so low at this point we'd google weather reports if he claimed it was raining. If he's gaming, he knows we're getting more amusement out of him than vice-versa.

Baffling.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I know that everything you think you know about Bigfoot is wrong. It's just a matter of time before you realize this. And I can wait.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If I am not mistaken, the pelt came first in 1869, everything else, the fossils etc came much later.

Again, it is the search I was comparing. We're not that good at finding stuff.
Skepticism among scientists tends to delay widespread efforts at recovery until something concrete bonks them on the head. Chris B.
Click to expand...

What part of first guy to try=first guy to succeed, did you not understand?
 
Jodie said:
How about taking a pic of your back and using it as an avatar similar to Melissa Hovey's pic of a bigfoot back? We could contrast and compare.
Click to expand...

Jodie,
Do you believe that photo to be of a real bigfoot?
 
dmaker said:
What part of first guy to try=first guy to succeed, did you not understand?
Click to expand...

Indeed. How could this point be more clear?

Chris, what are our options here? You cannot be this dense, and I don't think you are. The other option though is that you're* simply trolling or, if you prefer, BLAARGing.

How can I make any other sense of your position when I have clearly demonstrated that the information you provided contradicts the point you were trying to make with it?



*Cervelo - see how easy it is?
 
GT/CS said:
Jodie,
Do you believe that photo to be of a real bigfoot?
Click to expand...

No, I thought it was some kind of gimmick she cooked up to garner attention because I don't think Melissa Hovey is that stupid.Maybe I'm giving her too much credit.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
On the contrary, I know that everything you think you know about Bigfoot is wrong. It's just a matter of time before you realize this. And I can wait.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

"For some, Bigfoot was also a way to assert their dignity. By claiming that they knew - from their studies, from their hunting, from their investigations - that Bigfoot existed, that the elite consensus was wrong, they made themselves feel powerful. They understood reality, it's workings, better than scientists. To proclaim Bigfoot's existence was to insist upon one's dignity against a world that either denied it, or, worse, went on spinning about its axis as though dignity did not even matter, as though the world was nothing but gewgaws and shopping and TV." - Joshua Blu Buhs in Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend
 
Yes the very one. I thought it would be a hoot to compare this guy's back to that costume. At least you could demonstrate that a fake photo doesn't necessarily have to be a costume.
 
Pterodactyl said:
"For some, Bigfoot was also a way to assert their dignity. By claiming that they knew - from their studies, from their hunting, from their investigations - that Bigfoot existed, that the elite consensus was wrong, they made themselves feel powerful. They understood reality, it's workings, better than scientists. To proclaim Bigfoot's existence was to insist upon one's dignity against a world that either denied it, or, worse, went on spinning about its axis as though dignity did not even matter, as though the world was nothing but gewgaws and shopping and TV." - Joshua Blu Buhs in Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend
Click to expand...

Be content with what you believe. My opinion doesn't matter in the great scheme of things. I'm nobody, but I do know I'm right about Bigfoot.
Being of the minority opinion doesn't mean I'm wrong you know.
Chris B.
 
dmaker said:
What part of first guy to try=first guy to succeed, did you not understand?
Click to expand...

The Shrike said:
Indeed. How could this point be more clear?

Chris, what are our options here? You cannot be this dense, and I don't think you are. The other option though is that you're* simply trolling or, if you prefer, BLAARGing.

How can I make any other sense of your position when I have clearly demonstrated that the information you provided contradicts the point you were trying to make with it?



*Cervelo - see how easy it is?
Click to expand...

Once again, I was referring to the search for a Panda. Density is the question I suppose and I will not elaborate to my point again.
Chris B.
 
LOLOL.......I doubt he'll come through, he might have exaggerated his hirsuitism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom