Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Satan wears Armani, and he lures Bigfoot skeptics and scoftics into the darkness. His fires are fueled by both human faggots and wooden faggots. Both of these shall burn hot hotness in order to continue the continuation of the inflammable inferno that shall burn the burnables in that darkest darkness. There are other kinds that will perpetuate his flames; such as those who do not know that very large cats are living in the forests and fens of Great Britain.

The unbelievers will regret. They shall regret for eternity. Saint Roger and Saint Bob (Titmus) are sitting upon the cool ferns and looking down upon those who are sifting through the sands of Bluff Creek. They extend their hands in order for you to open your mind. It is time for Bigfoot. He is coming.
 
This is a popular thread with the lurkers. Only a half dozen postings will lead to 500+ viewings in a fairly short time.

Howdy lurker folks. :)

The few posting Bigfoot skeptics and scoftics that you see here are really trying to work out their real misunderstandings concerning this creature, which apparently really is a really real creature. Stand by.
 
Uh.... It appears that Patty is sporting a "hair clasp"...

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/patty-hair-clasp/

http://cryptovideography.com/images/braidwithboneclasp.gif

You might think that there is some sort of informational limit as to what can be gleened from photographs, but this is not the case, as this photo demonstrates:

l_54b0f17bb5d04fbb914dab8c218ddc8d.jpg
 
William Parcher said:
LOL, DWA is chewing your ass to pieces over in that Cryptomundo blog. The guy obviously knows about Bigfoot and he also knows about idiots that think it doesn't exist.


All your base are belong to him!
Click to expand...

Oooooh !

He gave us three examples of unquestionable evidence.


1. Sightings. ( all of them ... )

2. PGF . Can't question that , oh no . Why ?

2a. Because we can't show it was faked .

3. Experts can't ( or won't ) show that it was faked ..


That really doesn't seem like three examples to me.
2 And 3 seem pretty much the same.
I guess number 1 could count for a gazillion examples though..

Nevertheless, I guess I'm just an idiot scoftic, because I don't understand why those things are unquestionable..:boggled:
 
That crypto blog is a riot. Who shall where the mantle of 'denialist' if not those commenting how RP rather skillfully drawing a female bigfoot in his only book a year prior to his film doesn't prove anything? 'They don't match.' 'The hair flow is different.' 'The boobs on Patty are too natural.'(!?) 'There's the delicate finger movement.' 'The film still hasn't been disproven.' 'There are still all those sightings.' If that's not bigfootery flashing it's melon-sized goiter I don't know what is.
 
kitakaze said:
I'm right there with you on that, Correa. I find it of great interest to observe how bigfootery perpetuates itself in lieu of any manner of reliable evidence.
Click to expand...
Its a case study on beliefs...

kitakaze said:
As for skeptics vs scoftics, you're right. It's basically ok to say to a footer that you don't think BF exists but if you show them why and how their case is flawed then you're scoffing....snip...
Click to expand...
Well, for what I could understand, from your link, if you say "There are other explanations, but who knows, maybe bigfootdidit". Its OK, you are a skeptic. Say "There are other explanations and since there are no reliable evidence that bigfeet are real I think bigfoot didn't" you are a scoffic.

This behavior seems to be quite common among believers.


Aniway, I found at Melissa's site another interesting tidbit on bigfeet, the twisted trees issue. Two things, the way I see it, point to an origin not related to an undiscovered North American giant ape:
-The fallen trees surveyed by Kathy point towards the same direction, this may be indicative of wind direction;
-Twisted fallen trees are common. I've seen plenty of them in tropical rainforests where there are no mythical giant apes. Slight weight imballances and differences in the mechanical resistance of the bark and the trunk, coupled with (even gentle) winds may be enough to start a rotation movment.

So, if say the above but finish my arguments with a "who knows, but maybe bigfootdidit", I will be an OK skeptic. But if I don't, I'm an evil denialist scoffic...
 
Correa, somewhat of a coincidence but in my last reply to you I wrote then deleted how I found that threads particularily concerning tree branch twists, stick formations, or other such things are quite interesting. They often illuminate what little some proponents will accept to bolster the beliefs they have no intention of reliquishing.
 
kitakaze said:
Correa, somewhat of a coincidence but in my last reply to you I wrote then deleted how I found that threads particularily concerning tree branch twists, stick formations, or other such things are quite interesting. They often illuminate what little some proponents will accept to bolster the beliefs they have no intention of reliquishing.
Click to expand...
I remember reading somewhere (BFF?) a thread on people who were starting to disbelive in bigfoot. Some posts were very similar to those one can find at religious boards. "Keep the faith and [bigfoot, Christ, UFOs, spirits, etc.] will eventually be revealed for you".

Note that those who ask for a "believers-only" forum tend to be those who make most of the complains about skeptics' questionings. And these are exactly the same people who, despite asking for a more "open-minded" approach, seem to be those less willing to change their views on any subject related to their core belief.

So far, Hairy Man was the best pro-BF proponent that appeared at these boards, way above the standards. I would like to have had more conversations with her.
 
Diogenes said:
Oooooh! He gave us three examples of unquestionable evidence.

1. Sightings. (all of them...)
2. PGF. Can't question that, oh no. Why?
2a. Because we can't show it was faked.
3. Experts can't (or won't) show that it was faked..

That really doesn't seem like three examples to me. 2 And 3 seem pretty much the same. I guess number 1 could count for a gazillion examples though..

Nevertheless, I guess I'm just an idiot scoftic, because I don't understand why those things are unquestionable.. :boggled:
Click to expand...

All your base are still belong to him! He school you long time.
 
Greg, did your posts at crypto not go up immediately after you submitted them? I just made a large post there and it hasn't come up yet. Regardless, all DWA's base will soon be mine.
 
kitakaze said:
Greg, did your posts at crypto not go up immediately after you submitted them? I just made a large post there and it hasn't come up yet. Regardless, all DWA's base will soon be mine.
Click to expand...
So far, mine seem to come up right away.. can't guess what the problem might be..

I look forward to seeing your participation ..

What is your name at crypto ?
 
Diogenes said:
So far, mine seem to come up right away.. can't guess what the problem might be..

I look forward to seeing your participation ..

What is your name at crypto ?
Click to expand...
Same as here. I'm wondering if maybe the posting is like a quick reply here. Maybe because I took some time composing I was automatically logged out. Anyway, all DWA's base are mine.:D
 
Argh! Here is the post that I have tried 3 times now to submit at crypto. The last time I tried it told me that I had already submitted that post yet it is not displayed after DWA's last post.

DWA: Your example is neither elegant nor reliable evidence for the existence of bigfoot. By whom and how were those sightings compiled? I can cherrypick data, too. Bigfoot isn't claimed to be encountered in desert areas? Science has not confirmed BF in any way, shape, or form. Simply, there is no reliable evidence for bigfoot whatsoever. Please don't make the mistake of confusing reliable evidence with proof.

In answer to a request for 'unquestionable evidence' what have you offered?

1. Sightings
How reliable are sightings? People have consistently claimed to see UFO's, el chupacabra, Nessie, and Jesus incarnate. Odd that for this pan-continental beast reported from Alaska to Iowa to NY to Florida that not one alledged encounter has led to any manner of reliable evidence.

2 & 3. The PGF
That the PGF hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been hoaxed is unquestionable evidence? You don't seem to understand what you have been asked for. If you really want the people who count to take the notion of an unidentified North American primate seriously then you'd best be advised to set aside a 40 year old questionable film taken by a questionable man under questionable circumstances of a questionable subject at considerable distance. Surely you have something more substantial to support your claims.

Here you are presented with the fact that Patterson in his only book made a rather skillful drawing (for an 'aw shucks' rodeo clown) of a female bigfoot and miraculously in the following year produces what he claims to be a film of a live female bigfoot. Many of the responses here say far more about the nature of BF belief than they do about the subject of the film itself. 'The picture doesn't match the film.' 'The hair flow is different.' 'The boobs are so natural.' (!?) 'There is delicate finger movement.' 'What about all those sightings?' Who's clutching at straws?

BTW, DWA, I noticed another poster credit you with the term 'scoftic' and 'skepticals' which interestingly you did not refute. Are you in fact the originator of those terms or did you just not find it worth acknowledging?

Let's have a look a few bigfoot myths-

Scientists/field researchers are not consistently in areas reported to be bigfoot habitat. (Ever heard of the Vancouver Island marmot?)

Hunters have not brought down a bigfoot as they look too human. (Tell that to the dead humans accidentally brought down by hunters.)

Nobody finds bears dead of natural causes. (Come to the JREF for some not so lovely pictures.)

DWA, you say that skeptics ignore the full body of evidence. I think I'll pass on the invitation to weak coffee. Would you be interested in a lovely knitted sweater? You can have and enjoy it on the condition that you don't pull at all the loose threads hanging all about it as it will quickly and completely fall apart if you do. Just like the case for bigfoot.

If the position of bigfoot skeptics is so flawed then I invite you, DWA, to come and demonstrate this to us at the JREF where we discuss the bigfoot phenomenom. Many of us would be thrilled to be served a fat dish of crow where bigfoot is concerned because really, how cool would that be? I'm looking forward to any reliable evidence (again, not proof) you have to offer in support of bigfoot's existence. Otherwise, I'd suggest coming up with a more meaningful distinction between 'scoftic' and 'skeptic'.

kitakaze
Click to expand...
 
Since I'm not having any luck at crypto can I now invite the rest of us in (again) ripping the rainfall correlation myth a new one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom