• 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.
LAL said:
Doesn't it occur to you people can check out your false statements?
Click to expand...

LAL said:
I think we've made it pretty clear Grizzly and sasquatch territories don't tend to overlap.
Click to expand...

LAL said:
Grizzly habitat isn't what sasquatches seem to prefer.
Click to expand...

LAL said:
Look up Grizzy habitat, willya?
Click to expand...

LAL said:
Admiralty Island has nearly a million acres of old growth rainforest, alpine tundra, and coastline. There's no reason they'd have to be in the same habitat.

There are Grizzlies in Washington State. It has the highest sasquatch sighting rate in the country. The ranges needent overlap there either. The Grizzlies are in the northeastern part, sasquatches mostly in the west slopes of the Cascades.
Click to expand...
Grizzly habitat in Washington State:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/gap/gapdata/mammals/gifs/urar.gif

Counties:
Whatcom
Skagit
Snohomish
King
Okanogan
Chelan
Kittitas
Pend Oreille

- check.

Reported Sasquatch habitat in Washington State:

http://bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=wa#map

Counties:
Whatcom
Skagit
Snohomish
King
Okanogan
Chelan
Kittitas
Pend Oreille

- check.
 
LTC8K6 said:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/wallace-line/

Nicely done, cryptomundo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, nicely done by a Bigfoot promoter to make it look like the "science" of Bigfoot is improving itself. Not.

Coleman states, "On the other side of the Wallace Line, through essays, books, and presentations, Mark A. Hall, Matt Crowley, and I have spoken of the “bad data” in the database. Hall and I have especially called for throwing out the Wallace fakes shown in the print photos in books. Our position is that what will be left is stronger evidence in support of Bigfoot."

That is a trojan horse filled with manure in the Coleman style. It's good to not represent obvious fakes as being real. But it sure as hell does not make what you are left with stronger. Hall & Coleman agreed it does, but did Tube agree? If you have a weak cup of coffee (all BF casts) and you remove a few spoonfulls, it does not make the remainder any stronger. If you strip the thorns off of a rose, it doesn't become a daisy. Even skeptic Radford misses the big wooden horse that Coleman just wheeled through the open gate. His sycophants on Cryptomumbojumbo are even applauding him for putting the whole thing together. They don't realize that it was handed to him on a platter by others, some of whom are not only Wallace skeptics, but are Bigfoot skeptics.

Purging the "database" of Wallace fakes only results in a database without Wallace fakes. Bigfoot does not suddenly become any more real than if you left the fakes in. The whole point is to create a situation where Bigfootery is put on "better ground" when arguing against skeptics. I just talked about that on the previous page. It doesn't make the proposition of Bigfoot any more convincing. It only illustrates that Bigfootery is really about how to advance in a debate war with skeptics. It's being championed as some "needed error-correction" - but to what end? Think about that.

The battle with Green is amusing.
 
I like to encourage any movement in the direction I favor. :D

The thing is, they'll never do it.

If the footprint looks like the hoaxer's wooden model, the hoaxer copied the footprint.....

The crack in the wooden alderfoot prints didn't even momentarily phase the true believers.

This will just get them mad at Coleman, et al...
 
Last edited:
Trust me, it is not in your favor. Hiding dirty underwear from your houseguests does not make the rest of your wardrobe look like you bought it at Neiman Marcus.
 
What's interesting to me is the John Green wildcard. He is tugging at heart-strings, whether he knows it or not. If the sycophants side with Coleman they drive a stake into Green, and vice-versa. Because Bigfootery is not about a real Bigfoot - it really causes soul-searching among them as to what to think. It could be more important to agree with your favorite Bigfoot "expert" than to make any sense. Bigfootery is about myth perpetuation and hero worship. In that thread, we might be witnessing something like a "battle of the gods" within Bigfootery. The most important thing to Coleman is that you keep reading what he writes. He bangs on a keyboard all day instead of searching for Bigfoot.
 
William Parcher said:
...Bigfootery is about myth perpetuation and hero worship. In that thread, we might be witnessing something like a "battle of the gods" within Bigfootery....
Click to expand...

If not quite a battle of the gods, certainly a quarrel among the Church Fathers.

The religious analogies are irresistable, like chocolate-covered graham crackers only not as bad for you.
 
kitakaze wrote:
Forgive me if I'm not racing to be accomodating to you.
Click to expand...
No problem, kitakaze...you won't answer the questions, even after I explain why I contradicted myself. Which I WILL do...someday.
There are a few questions that you will NEVER answer....because you can't....for the same reason that RayG stopped answering my questions.....and for the same reason why scotto...on the BFF....stopped answering my questions.
Because they couldn'tanswer them.
This has been a repeating phenomenon.....you're just the latest skeptic in the "line" to fall on his face.
Skeptics simply CANNOT answer questions which relate to "weighing evidence".
When it comes down to discussing the "probabilities", or odds of Bigfoot being responsible for some of the evidence.....skeptics blow a fuse.
They go "belly-up"......SILENT........brain-dead. :boggled:

Watch and see......the discussion's FAR from over. :D

kitakaze wrote:
As for me being obnoxious as I've said already, the treatment you receive reflects your behaviour.
Click to expand...
I don't care what "treatment I recieve" from you, or anyone else. It's irrelevant to the discussion of Bigfoot evidence.
Insult me all you want...it's your moral deficiency, not mine. :)

How do you think most people here regard your behaviour?
Click to expand...
I really don't care! I'm content with myself.

As for your reasons, #1 and #2 are easy enough given your regular behaviour but I would say I think I've been fair to you when mentioning the reasons for your absences.
Click to expand...
You've been obnoxious....not "fair".
HOW did you "determine" the reason for my absence???
Again, best wishes for your mothers health and I hope your new lady friend doesn't soon find you as irritating and laughable as many of us do.
Click to expand...
Again...you're obnoxious.
For #3, I told her?
Click to expand...
I don't remember the exact post number, and exactly how you worded it.
You might have asked Lu to stop posting large images.
Either way.....it's obnoxious behavior. Nobody else does that...ONLY the one with the controlling, obnoxious attitude.......you.

For #4, I harrassed her?
Click to expand...
Here you go....
kitakaze wrote:
No, she's not. Her claim of being a Native American is horse$#!%.
Click to expand...
Hairy Man's response...
Oh, boy...now you have really gone too far.
Click to expand...
So, you don't like the word "harrass", kitakaze......I'm real sorry.
How about RUDE and OBNOXIOUS?
Click to expand...
 
Gbob said:
Soooo.......after reading this thread I think Mad Hom has done a great job of summing everything up. There are a few other items that I think we can add to the list.
Click to expand...

You have just demonstrated you don't have a clue.
 
Lu, do you Bigfooters have Bigfoot yet?

EDIT: Redundant to Diogenes' simultaneous post above.

Bigfooters don't even care if they find Bigfoot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom