• 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.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
carcharodon said:
Ray, we have already done the flip side. The proponent's flip side is constantly mocked and ridiculed here. I was pointing out that the scoftics often use the very same arguments and reasoning that they bash the proponents for.

Don't you understand my point? The scofics ridicule the proponents for their belief structures yet it totally goes over their heads when they are guilty of doing exactly the same.

The hypocricy here is amazing. This is what I am getting at.
Click to expand...
LOL yes, the utter, utter hypocrisy, LOL, LOL. The gall of people here not being inclined to accept a phone call from Joyce as persuasive evidence for the existence of bigfoot. LOL, I mean, where do people get off doubting a concept so chalk full of truthiness??????:jaw-dropp LOL

OK, everybody, all you guys, all you doubters- the mock stops here! You scoftics and maybe even a couple of you scofics too just don't get it, do you!?!?!?:boggled: Hellooo puddin', rise 'n shine. Smell the smelling salts. There's not just plenty of evidence, there's LOTS. Maybe even QUITE A BIT. That makes there a degree of probability pretty possible in my books. GET IT?

Carcharodon's right, this place is loony. I say we all just get with where it's really at and join the party. How about we all just drop the doubts, head on over to the BFF, and get in on a BF language/no language thread or something? Who's with me? DY, Greg, Ray, Tube, Huntster, Lu, Sweaty, Lyndon- not you guys, you stay here.
 
kitakaze said:
Carcharodon's right, this place is loony. I say we all just get with where it's really at and join the party. How about we all just drop the doubts, head on over to the BFF, and get in on a BF language/no language thread or something? Who's with me? DY, Greg, Ray, Tube, Huntster, Lu, Sweaty, Lyndon- not you guys, you stay here.
Click to expand...

Did you know everyone you mentioned is now or has been a member on BFF? SY/CF and I were wishing for a sceptic-free zone on BFF when we we trying to discuss the MD footage. It would be ironic if we get it here.

I'm currently reading a book that has quite a bit of information on investigations. Some hallmarks of a non-hoaxer are giving full contact information and calling on their own dime. Joyce certainly did that.
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
Some hallmarks of a non-hoaxer are giving full contact information and calling on their own dime.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some hoaxers know that ;)

The only meaningful hallmark of a non-hoaxer is that there really was a Bigfoot and not a mistaken identity. But we just can't get that Bigfoot to show that they weren't hoaxing.
 
LAL said:
SY/CF and I were wishing for a sceptic-free zone on BFF when we we trying to discuss the MD footage.
Click to expand...

Without skeptics, aren't you just preaching to the choir? I guess that's ok if you're setting up bigfootdom as a new religion, and, like religion, only true believers need apply. No room for skeptics with their negativity, and their silly demands for evidence. :rolleyes:

RayG
 
LAL said:
Did you know everyone you mentioned is now or has been a member on BFF? SY/CF and I were wishing for a sceptic-free zone on BFF when we we trying to discuss the MD footage.
Click to expand...
You have one.. It's called ' Private Messaging ' ..

If you want to publicly discuss nonsense free of detractors, you need to find a moderated board that doesn't tolerate opposing viewpoints like Rapture Ready..

It would be ironic if we get it here.
Click to expand...

See above ..

I'm currently reading a book that has quite a bit of information on investigations. Some hallmarks of a non-hoaxer are giving full contact information and calling on their own dime. Joyce certainly did that.
Click to expand...

Why are the only two options " real " or " hoax " ?
 
RayG wrote:
Without skeptics, aren't you just preaching to the choir? I guess that's ok if you're setting up bigfootdom as a new religion, and, like religion, only true believers need apply. No room for skeptics with their negativity, and their silly demands for evidence.
Click to expand...
What I was hoping for was not really a skeptic-free zone....it was more of a special section of the forum where only moderator-approved members could post. That way....members who have COMPLETELY closed minds (see my signature line), and others who play games (technicality word games...refusing to answer questions in a debate, etc.) wouldn't be able to de-rail honest, intellectual discussions concerning Bigfoot evidence. :D
 
Last edited:
Diogenes wrote:
Why are the only two options " real " or " hoax " ?
Click to expand...

Because there was NO WAY that what they saw was a bear.
Here's Joyce's report...filed in 2002...

May, 1983
"My daughter and I were making a right hand turn at the cow pasture of Rt 2-- and ---- Farm Rd. in Va----- when we saw a large (7 feet at least), hairy man-like creature. He was getting up from what appeared to be from a crouching position to a standing position. I stopped the car suddenly. It glanced our way and then took off in the oppositite direction through the cow pasture. The entire incident took less than 5 minutes.

The creature's hair color was light brown. The hair covered his face except for his eyes and mouth."

Joyce G------
2 ----- Run
-------- :)

OTHER WITNESSES: One witness - my 15 year old daughter who is now 35 years old.
TIME AND CONDITIONS: Between 5:30 and 6:00pm
A warm sunny day
Click to expand...

Joyce told me on the phone that when they first saw it, her daughter shouted out "What the f---is that!?"

They didn't see a bear.
 
Last edited:
LAL wrote:
I'm currently reading a book that has quite a bit of information on investigations. Some hallmarks of a non-hoaxer are giving full contact information and calling on their own dime. Joyce certainly did that.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that interesting bit of information, Lu. It makes her sighting report just a little easier to believe. :)
 
SweatyYeti said:
They didn't see a bear.
Click to expand...
How do you know what if anything was seen? Oh wait, yes, you spoke on the phone. So I missed where total anecdotes started being accepted as persuasive evidence. Sweaty, do you honestly expect that anecdote to be accepted as such? Shall we all start playing 'this anecdote has more truthiness'?
 
LAL said:
SY/CF and I were wishing for a sceptic-free zone on BFF when we we trying to discuss the MD footage. It would be ironic if we get it here.
Click to expand...
I find myself a little incredulous imagining your collective complacency at a 'no BF proponents' BF thread here.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Diogenes wrote:


Because there was NO WAY that what they saw was a bear.
Here's Joyce's report...filed in 2002...
Click to expand...
Now we have three choices.. Real, hoax & bear ... So much better..:rolleyes:


I'm sure you don't understand, that your world view hardly limits anyone else to the same degree, but it's always worth mentioning, just for the record ....
 
kitakaze said:
I find myself a little incredulous imagining your collective complacency at a 'no BF proponents' BF thread here.
Click to expand...

? Sceptic free, not proponent free. That's not even imaginable.

A new poster joined BFF yesterday and was banned today. His behavior was, well, like here. I have a feeling some of the JREFers wouldn't last long on BFF under the new "get tough" policy.
 
William Parcher said:
I'm sure some hoaxers know that ;)
Click to expand...

Especially if they've read the book. But in ten years of investigations, those were a couple of things that stood out. Sincere people invite questioning.

There are people who find it funny to try to send investigators off on wild goose chases, wasting their time and money in the process. Most people reporting nowdays are lucky to get a phone call. Some reports aren't even investigated because they add nothing new.

In one follow-up, the investigator was 45 minutes away and contact was made by cellphone. The sighting was very similar to Joyce's, except it was on I-84 in the Columbia Gorge, and there was a near collision. By the time the investigator could get there, rain had obscured all but a couple of indistinct prints. Hoaxed? Why would the hoaxers want to be identified and possibly charged with some misdemeanor (such as filing a false report if the law is involved)? This woman's name has appeared in two books that I know of. I assume it's her real name.

And, no, there are no bipedal bears in the Gorge; there are plenty of sightings in that area over the years, though, on both sides of the river. The animal sighted was tall and thin, not your Patty type. Another sighting (from 20' away) near Multnomah Falls describes a tall animal.It's hard to mistake a bear at 20 yards, let alone 20'.
 
SweatyYeti said:
What I was hoping for was not really a skeptic-free zone....it was more of a special section of the forum where only moderator-approved members could post.
Click to expand...

Well, considering it was one of the mods who was giving us a hassle, I wanted a sceptic-free zone. IMO, it's quite possible to discuss the footage without calling it a "piece of crap film". One of the threads deteriorated into nothing but attempted character assassination, and another mod had to step in to close the thread. That's absurd.

The mods should have to follow the guidelines too, IMO.
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
Well, considering it was one of the mods who was giving us the most hassle, I wanted a sceptic-free zone. IMO, it's quite possible to discuss the footage without caling it a "piece of crap film".
Click to expand...

Are you saying people who think it's a piece of crap, are less entitled to say so, than people who think it's a height challenged Bigfoot with an infant in tow ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom