Bigfoot: The Invisible Variety

[Locknar]

My theories are well substantiated not only by both my personal observations but by the observations of others even more qualified than myself.

"Substantiated": to establish by proof or competent evidence

What proof, or competent evidence, do you offer that supports your claims? Oh, thats right...you don't.

Conclusion: You have no proof, or competent evidence, because your theories are simply false, made up delusions.

 

[Correa Neto]

No scorn or practical jokes over on crytomundo about me. Loren doesn't let people get away with the dirt that you get away with here. Incidently, kitakaze is "mystery_man" over on crytomundo. Mystery_man gives an opinion on just about everything, whether or not he is qualified to even be in the same room that a subject is being discussed. He does not let his inexperience get in the way of him voicing his opinion on a subject that he is not qualified to speak.

BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!
Wrong!
They don't even bother answering your nonsense! Too bad for them, since they miss a lot of fun poking the nutjob of the day!

And...

BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!
Wrong again, Kitakaze is Kitakaze at Cryptomundo!

You don't have a clue... You really don't... You can't have a clue... If you had, your world would be deeply shaken...

Get professional help.

 

[bruto]

"Substantiated": to establish by proof or competent evidence

What proof, or competent evidence, do you offer that supports your claims? Oh, thats right...you don't.

Conclusion: You have no proof, or competent evidence, because your theories are simply false, made up delusions.

Made up claims are easier to substantiate because you can make up the evidence, the competence and everything else. This insures that the data and the substantiation match well, and produces rich, creamy data free of lumps and impurities.

 

[Spektator]

This afternoon my students reported on their search of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (a statewide newspaper) and the Americus Times-Recorder for any mention of a news conference held by Jimmy Carter from the day he stepped down as President to the middle of the following month. The Times-Recorder is the closest thing Plains had to a local paper, and it covered the Carter family very thoroughly, down to Amy's return to school.

There was no mention at all in either paper of such a news conference. I'm pressed for time and can't type out all the articles right now, but--no press conference.

 

[Slimething]

THEORY:
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

GT/CS is absolutely right. My theories are well substantiated not only by both my personal observations but by the observations of others even more qualified than myself.

Sorry, went away for the weekend but I see you're up to your old tricks again. Now, you're even trying to get semantic on us. That's the refuge of the utterly discredited so I'm happy we're here.

Since you already know what a scientific theory is and you have elevated your nonsense to that level, all we need is your evidence. Also, we need to know why those very people who have mocked your imaginary critter have not been squashed like grapes. Why can only you call them (without a $35 system from the Dollar Store that you charge $2000 for)? That goes directly against the property of reproducibility required for a theory.

Oh, well, I guess we all can't be geniuses like you, eh, historian?

 

[GT/CS]

Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why I need a hanky!!!

I have to hand it to all of you who are able to deal with such ego-maniacal lunatic ramblings from such people day after day. It saddens me to observe such behavior so he's going back on ignore right next to Rax, Red, and Mirage.

That places you in some elite company Neal.

 

[kitakaze]

Just in case anyone didn't realize, Silvereagle/historian are both Burgstahler, the under-accomplished interdimensional people fan and target of their scorn, mockery, and practical jokes.

No scorn or practical jokes over on crytomundo about me. Loren doesn't let people get away with the dirt that you get away with here.

Not that you aren't mocked even at cryptomundo, but what made you interpret my post as referring to there? If you properly comprehend the sentence I wrote then you would understand that I am saying you are the target of scorn, mockery, and practical jokes by interdimensional peoples. Have you forgotten the story my bigfoot friend whom I call 'Sideshow' (it's the hair) but who's right name can not be properly rendered with the use of a keyboard?

You see, my interdimensional bigfoot friend has explained to me that some of his buddies know you, think you're an idiot, and like to mess with you. I asked Sideshow why they do this and he said he wasn't sure but it was probably because they are young and you are an excitable, goofy guy with funny ideas about them.

Incidently, kitakaze is "mystery_man" over on crytomundo. Mystery_man gives an opinion on just about everything, whether or not he is qualified to even be in the same room that a subject is being discussed. He does not let his inexperience get in the way of him voicing his opinion on a subject that he is not qualified to speak.

tube is going to be so disappointed he doesn't get to be me anymore. As Correa has told you, kitakaze is kitakaze at Loren's site. I'm not going to do your homework for you but it should take less than five minutes to find mystery_man and I conversing at cryptomundo. Of course, all it took in your crack research was the fact that mystery_man is in Japan to pronounce me to be him. Typical Burg. MM is quite a nice fellow, BTW. Used to be skeptical of bigfoot but is now more inclined to be credible.

You should be more concerned with advancing your field research in the hopes that it may one day come relatively close to my amazing achievements.

Sideshow says, "Hello, get help." BTW. Well, roughly translated, anyway.

 

[kitakaze]

GT/CS is absolutely right. My theories are well substantiated not only by both my personal observations but by the observations of others even more qualified than myself. If GT/CS lives long enough, there will be a day in this century, where U.S. citizens do bring their intelligence into the 21st century. Currently, U.S. citizens have both feet firmly implanted in the last century, in regard to Bigfoot/Sasquatch knowledge.

I think that I am going to start a Bigfoot handkerchief business. The handkerchiefs would be specifically crying on about Bigfoot being both real and inter-dimensional, while crying about other subject matter would be specifically prohibited.

Could someone hand CT/CS a hanky, please.

This is the point of the match where the heel character, The Burg, taunts the audience with insults intended to invoke angry, patriotic responses. You know, The Sheik, Shawn Michaels humping a Canadian flag in Montreal. Classic stuff.

The Burg: Invisible 4th dimension Bigfoot nut, fetishist, student of 2 dimensional pro wresting villains.

 

[historian]

After examining the content of the above posts on this page, I do believe that I am going to double my original order from the wholesale supplier, FOR THOSE BIGFOOT CRYING HANDKERCHIEFS! Bigfoot Crying and Whining Handerchiefs, (aka BCWH) are going to be a HOT HOT ITEM for Christmas and well into the next millenia. $$$$$$$$

I think that I will expand it to a board game called, what else, DENIAL! As each emotionally insecure person proceeds around the board as determined by his roll of the dice, he is given an alleged Sasquatch encounter scenario, whereupon each player is required to quickly come up with a believeable arguement for why that particular scenario does not constitute circumstantial evidence that Sasquatch are real, despite the short list of bipedal creatures that inhabit the forest at night and without a flashlight showing. If a player fails to cook up a seemingly clever arguement, he gets time demerits that he work off by spending time alone, in the dark, with no flashlight, no weapons and no prayer, in the nearest undeveloped forest park, while chanting "Bigfoot is not real, Bigfoot is not real" over and over again.

 

[arthwollipot]

 

[kitakaze]

After examining the content of the above posts on this page, I do believe that I am going to double my original order from the wholesale supplier, FOR THOSE BIGFOOT CRYING HANDKERCHIEFS! Bigfoot Crying and Whining Handerchiefs, (aka BCWH) are going to be a HOT HOT ITEM for Christmas and well into the next millenia. $$$$$$$$.

I'm a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves...

Does Burgstahler post during lapses in a pharmacological regiment? Discuss.

I think that I will expand it to a board game called, what else, DENIAL! As each emotionally insecure person proceeds around the board as determined by his roll of the dice, he is given an alleged Sasquatch encounter scenario, whereupon each player is required to quickly come up with a believeable arguement for why that particular scenario does not constitute circumstantial evidence that Sasquatch are real, despite the short list of bipedal creatures that inhabit the forest at night and without a flashlight showing. If a player fails to cook up a seemingly clever arguement, he gets time demerits that he work off by spending time alone, in the dark, with no flashlight, no weapons and no prayer, in the nearest undeveloped forest park, while chanting "Bigfoot is not real, Bigfoot is not real" over and over again.

*kitakaze grabs dice, rolls snake eyes, picks up player card* "You are driving on a lonely forest road at night in West Virginia when by the side of the road you see a large dark figure covered in what appears to be matted hair full of leaf litter. Upon being illuminated by your headlights the figure quickly darts into the forest. Too shaken by your encounter with bigfoot you promptly drive home, post the encounter on the BFRO, and refuse to ever use the road again."

Ummm... ahhh... ohh jeez... GHILLIE SUIT, GHILLIE SUIT, GHILLIE SUIT!!!

Did I make it? Did I make it!?

 

[Belz...]

After examining the content of the above posts on this page, I do believe that I am going to double my original order from the wholesale supplier, FOR THOSE BIGFOOT CRYING HANDKERCHIEFS! Bigfoot Crying and Whining Handerchiefs, (aka BCWH) are going to be a HOT HOT ITEM for Christmas and well into the next millenia. $$$$$$$$

I think that I will expand it to a board game called, what else, DENIAL! As each emotionally insecure person proceeds around the board as determined by his roll of the dice, he is given an alleged Sasquatch encounter scenario, whereupon each player is required to quickly come up with a believeable arguement for why that particular scenario does not constitute circumstantial evidence that Sasquatch are real, despite the short list of bipedal creatures that inhabit the forest at night and without a flashlight showing. If a player fails to cook up a seemingly clever arguement, he gets time demerits that he work off by spending time alone, in the dark, with no flashlight, no weapons and no prayer, in the nearest undeveloped forest park, while chanting "Bigfoot is not real, Bigfoot is not real" over and over again.

Still trolling around, I see.

 

[madurobob]

THEORY:
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

Bwahahahahaha!

Sorry Histo, you don't get to simply make up whatever loony definitions you want for terms in a debate. Please, do share the source of your definition!

Here is a better definition:
"a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

Using this definition, care to outline how your "theory" is testable and how an independent researcher may prove or disprove it?

 

[Spektator]

Was Stephen Hawking at Berkeley in 1974-75?

I have now read three biographies of Stephen Hawking:

Hawking, Jane. Music to Move the Stars: A Life with Stephen. London: Macmillan, 1999.
Larsen, Kristine. Stephen Hawking: A Biography. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007.
White, Michael, and John Gribbin. Stephen Hawking: A Life in Science. NY: Plume, 1992.

The first, by Hawking's former wife, is extremely detailed and includes the texts of letters written by her to her family members. The second is by a woman who is also a physicist and who based much of her book on interviews with Hawking and others. They all agree on the chronology and the facts.

• In the spring of 1974, Stephen Hawking was awarded a Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Scholarship to support one year of advanced study at Caltech in Pasadena. The scholarship was available only to scholars working at Caltech and was not available to scholars working at Berkeley. The scholarship was, in fact, the Hawkings’ source of support for the 1974-75 school year.
• Stephen and Jane Hawking and their children arrived in Los Angeles at 6:00 P.M. on Monday, August 26, 1974.
• They moved into a house on South Wilson Avenue in Pasadena, where a graduate student, Bernard, was assigned to help Stephen physically.
• The Caltech campus was extensively equipped with ramps so that Stephen could get from place to place in his wheelchair. He was given an office at Caltech, which delighted him because it was air-conditioned and he found the heat in California a little oppressive at first.
• Stephen was frustrated because his speech had deteriorated to the point where it was extremely difficult for him to make himself understood to people who were not accustomed to his difficulties (he would not receive his first speech synthesizer for another ten years, following a bout of pneumonia and an emergency tracheotomy). Generally Bernard or another “translator” who was familiar with his speech patterns would accompany him (often it was Jane herself). This casts doubts on the assertion that Stephen would deliver impromptu lectures on bigfoot (or any other subject); he was somewhat sensitive about his increasing disability in speech.
• Letters from the Pasadena house by Jane confirm that Stephen Hawking was living in Pasadena and working at Caltech on the following dates:
• 30 August 1974
• 22 September 1974
• 25 October 1974
• 30 November 1974
• 14 January 1975
• 27 January 1975
• February 1975
• April 1975
• 20 June 1975
• 20 August 1975 (just before the family returned to Cambridge, England).
• During the 1974-75 school year, Stephen worked constantly at Caltech with a number of scholars, especially pairing with Kip Thorne in the study of the dynamics of black holes. He also became friends with Richard Feynman, among others, and he and Jane were frequent guests and hosts in gatherings of the Caltech faculty. He made a few side trips (he and the family, for example, went to Disneyland; in April of 1975 he returned to Cambridge for a brief visit and went on to Rome to receive a medal from the Pope for his achievement in science, returning to Caltech afterward), but he did not spend any substantial time at Berkeley.

 

[Locknar]

If a player fails to cook up a seemingly clever arguement, he gets time demerits that he work off by spending time alone, in the dark, with no flashlight, no weapons and no prayer, in the nearest undeveloped forest park, while chanting "Bigfoot is not real, Bigfoot is not real" over and over again.

BOLD is mine
So I gotta ask, why would a “interdimensional invisible Bigfoot” be afraid of a flashlight?

Seems to be that your “Bigfoot” is afraid of a lot of things….flashlights, challenges, etc.

 

[historian]

Bwahahahahaha!

Sorry Histo, you don't get to simply make up whatever loony definitions you want for terms in a debate. Please, do share the source of your definition!

Here is a better definition:
"a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

Using this definition, care to outline how your "theory" is testable and how an independent researcher may prove or disprove it?

You are wrong once again, but then that is not exactly new news. We should develop some IPOD shorthand for that. How about SWOA for Skeptic Wrong Once Again? Yessiree!
I used webster's online dictionary for the definition that I copied and pasted. Can I interest you in a handkerchief or two or three?

Oh, and bigfoot is testable and repeatable under known field and weather conditions, and by using my closely held techniques. Since no national protective legislation exists at this time for the North American Bigfoot/Saquatch, I sure as heck are not going to post it on the internet, nor whisper it to any of you home boys. They will sometimes even follow you home. OOOOOOOOOh! And be waiting for you when you come home from work. OOOOOOOOOh! What do they do? Perhaps by eavesdropping on my thoughts, they just get smarter and smarter and smarter. Pretty soon, they will be hopping onto the internet, and yanking your chain. Or finding out where you live and dropping by to pay you a little visit. Did I mention that they are supernatural and can do pretty much whatever they want? OOOOOOOOOh! Will that be another order for handkerchiefs all around?

And I almost forgot to ask. How's that $35 bigfoot caller working out for you home boys? So you got zip, nada, nothing, zero, zilch? Could that possibly be because that caller did not include any instructions on what to do and where to do it? Well, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

 

[Giggywig]

You are wrong once again, but then that is not exactly new news. We should develop some IPOD shorthand for that. How about SWOA for Skeptic Wrong Once Again? Yessiree!
I used webster's online dictionary for the definition that I copied and pasted. Can I interest you in a handkerchief or two or three?

Oh, and bigfoot is testable and repeatable under known field and weather conditions, and by using my closely held techniques. Since no national protective legislation exists at this time for the North American Bigfoot/Saquatch, I sure as heck are not going to post it on the internet, nor whisper it to any of you home boys. They will sometimes even follow you home. OOOOOOOOOh! And be waiting for you when you come home from work. OOOOOOOOOh! What do they do? Perhaps by eavesdropping on my thoughts, they just get smarter and smarter and smarter. Pretty soon, they will be hopping onto the internet, and yanking your chain. Or finding out where you live and dropping by to pay you a little visit. Did I mention that they are supernatural and can do pretty much whatever they want? OOOOOOOOOh! Will that be another order for handkerchiefs all around?

And I almost forgot to ask. How's that $35 bigfoot caller working out for you home boys? So you got zip, nada, nothing, zero, zilch? Could that possibly be because that caller did not include any instructions on what to do and where to do it? Well, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

Bigfeet eavesdrop on your thoughts?

 

[historian]

I have now read three biographies of Stephen Hawking:

Hawking, Jane. Music to Move the Stars: A Life with Stephen. London: Macmillan, 1999.
Larsen, Kristine. Stephen Hawking: A Biography. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007.
White, Michael, and John Gribbin. Stephen Hawking: A Life in Science. NY: Plume, 1992.

The first, by Hawking's former wife, is extremely detailed and includes the texts of letters written by her to her family members. The second is by a woman who is also a physicist and who based much of her book on interviews with Hawking and others. They all agree on the chronology and the facts.

Please note the 1999, 2007 and 1992 copyright dates. Which were well after 1974. Memory often fails. Biographys are normally fabricated to some extent. Furthermore, I never said either Hawking's wife or the physicist were at Berkeley. Hawking was studying the TOP SECRET DOD Bigfoot captivity study from Lawrence Livermore National Labs in the fall of 1974 AT U.C. BERKELEY. And Hawking could communicate effectively at that time as well. Your implication that during that entire time period, Hawking could not communicate effectively, reflects the level of absurdity and desperation of your search for an historical record to justify your own psychological DENIAL. SWOA! Can I interest you in perhaps several dozen handkerchiefs, for both you and the students that you have apparently POISONED THEIR MINDS? The greatest crime that a teacher can commit, by the way!

 

[Locknar]

Oh, and bigfoot is testable and repeatable under known field and weather conditions, and by using my closely held techniques.

I'm sorry, I just can't stop laughing..... After the writers strike ends, you should seriously consider trying to catch on as a comedy writer. You are hysterical.

They will sometimes even follow you home. OOOOOOOOOh! And be waiting for you when you come home from work. OOOOOOOOOh! What do they do? Perhaps by eavesdropping on my thoughts, they just get smarter and smarter and smarter. Pretty soon, they will be hopping onto the internet, and yanking your chain. Or finding out where you live and dropping by to pay you a little visit. Did I mention that they are supernatural and can do pretty much whatever they want? OOOOOOOOOh! Will that be another order for handkerchiefs all around?

YAWN. Blah blah blah, don't you have anything new or is it all just mindless rants about how powerful "they" are suppose to be...and yet given all this power and size, they are scared by a flashlight...and to scared to show up for a duel against a mear human?

My duel challange still stands, anytime, anyplace....since they can "do pretty much whatever they want" and/or finding out where I live, should not be a problem for them I'd say. They can use what ever weapon they want...I choose to go at it with none...

Personally, I keep hoping they show up...I'd love to throw a "leg of BF" on the grill...or say some BF ribs; now THAT might just be come good eats.

How's that $35 bigfoot caller working out for you home boys?

Oddly enough, the $35 "Bigfoot caller" gets the same results yours does

 

[historian]

Bigfeet eavesdrop on your thoughts?

That is correct, sir!