Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
skeptics aren't allowed to make up their mind on anything. That explains why you so seldom see a skeptic at a restaurant.
 
The Shrike said:
I think it'd be great if the skeptical believers or whatever would chime in to call BS on the obvious BS. Why is it just us "scoftics" smacking down these ridiculous prairie bigfoot claims for example, when we know of other prominent participants who find them just as ridiculous as we do?
Click to expand...

bigfoot is an omnivore. everywhere on earth there is something. Therefore bigfoot can exist anywhere. QED.

Near Alamogordo, for example they hide behind yucca plants and eat plastic bags. or maybe they hide behind the plastic bags and eat the yucca.

alamagordo.jpg


These apparently allow them to grow to gigantic size without passing any stool or dying.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
I think it'd be great if the skeptical believers or whatever would chime in to call BS on the obvious BS.
Click to expand...

I understand your frustration. You or I can look at that example or a hundred others and say "Yeah, at the best this is really bad science and at the worst it's outright BS". Chances are a high majority of people reading those examples will come to the same conclusion.

The problem is for the ones that are really churning out the BS no argument you make is going sway them. Dallas Gilbert isn't going to read a message board one day and suddenly realize he's got hundreds and hundreds of photos of absolutely nothing. It's just not going to happen. Nor is it going to happen for that poor handful of individuals who believe them. The ones that see that it's bad science, or see that's it's BS don't need to be swayed by any argument. At the most you might be the salvation for a slim minority of people who are riding the fence.

It's a Sisyphean task no matter how you look at it.
 
The Shrike said:
I think it'd be great if the skeptical believers or whatever would chime in to call BS on the obvious BS. Why is it just us "scoftics" smacking down these ridiculous prairie bigfoot claims for example, when we know of other prominent participants who find them just as ridiculous as we do?
Click to expand...

Who are the skeptical believers and what would they say? Bear print?
 
Happened to see this; didn't realize Colbert was in on the anti-logic:
But Baum has seen before how powerful laughs can be.

His story in the 1990s — the one that once made him so bleeping mad — was that King County, without telling him, reclassified most of his farm as wetlands. He was barred from using it even to board horses.

He kicked and screamed for years against unyielding bureaucrats. But a funny detour happened on the way to him going nuts. Something really funny.

King County put out a list of mammals that needed Baum's wetlands to survive. On it, between beaver and bobcat, there appeared the species "bipedus giganticus." You know, Bigfoot.

The story of government trampling the rights of a human being on behalf of a mythical beast went national — making Baum a poster child in anti-government circles. He was a hot ticket to speak at what he calls "Victims of Government" meetings.

"There'd be people there talking about how the feds broke down their doors to take away their guns," he says. "I thought: What am I doing here?"

Before long, Stephen Colbert, then a "reporter" for "The Daily Show" faux newscast, showed up at Baum's farm and did the perfect sendup of the situation.

"Have you ever seen any Sasquatch on your property?" Colbert asks, in the video clip.

"No," says Baum, looking out across the soggy fields.

Colbert pounces: "Some would say the fact that you don't see Sasquatch on your land is just more proof that they're endangered and need to be protected."

The spot ends like this: "Now Jim Baum curses the day he ever, never saw a Sasquatch."
Click to expand...
 
Ace! said:
Who are the skeptical believers and what would they say? Bear print?
Click to expand...

I'm no Bigfoot believer. The tracks have apparent dermal ridges but they also appear to run in wonky directions. Bears don't have dermal ridges on their paw pads.
 

Attachments

  • indielines.jpg
    indielines.jpg
    77.5 KB · Views: 11
Bitter Monk said:
I understand your frustration. You or I can look at that example or a hundred others and say "Yeah, at the best this is really bad science and at the worst it's outright BS". Chances are a high majority of people reading those examples will come to the same conclusion.

The problem is for the ones that are really churning out the BS no argument you make is going sway them. Dallas Gilbert isn't going to read a message board one day and suddenly realize he's got hundreds and hundreds of photos of absolutely nothing. It's just not going to happen. Nor is it going to happen for that poor handful of individuals who believe them. The ones that see that it's bad science, or see that's it's BS don't need to be swayed by any argument. At the most you might be the salvation for a slim minority of people who are riding the fence.

It's a Sisyphean task no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...

Don't you think Dallas Gilbert already know that, but just doesn't care? Although he has nothing, it's the only nothing he's got, so he's holding on to it.

You can't argue someone rationally out of a belief that they don't hold rationally.
 
Ace! said:
Who are the skeptical believers and what would they say? Bear print?
Click to expand...

Well it's not fair of me to call out Huntster here on the JREF, but he's the first one who comes to mind. I think there are a number of folks who participate at the BFF, are on record as "believers" or whatever people call themselves these days, but don't for a minute think there are bigfoots wandering around the open plains and agricultural fields of New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Kansas.

As I think Parcher suggested upthread, there's a political correctness at work that keeps people who really only believe in a PNW bigfoot from taking to task those who claim they've got bigfoots in relatively treeless landscapes elsewhere.
 
The Shrike said:
Well it's not fair of me to call out Huntster here on the JREF, but he's the first one who comes to mind. I think there are a number of folks who participate at the BFF, are on record as "believers" or whatever people call themselves these days, but don't for a minute think there are bigfoots wandering around the open plains and agricultural fields of New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Kansas.

As I think Parcher suggested upthread, there's a political correctness at work that keeps people who really only believe in a PNW bigfoot from taking to task those who claim they've got bigfoots in relatively treeless landscapes elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I didn't understand what you meant exactly. I think I do now.
 
Ace! said:
I realize these aren't "dermal ridges" per se, but in this photo you can see hills and valleys or peaks and valleys, or what would leave "artifacts". Their artifacts are "wonky."
Click to expand...

The ridges in the "indie tracks" are fine and like that of primates. I would not expect anything like that from a bear pad. However the flow directions seem skewed and quite unnatural.

Somebody more qualified than myself could probably say more.
 
Ace! said:
you can see hills and valleys or peaks and valleys, or what would leave "artifacts". Their artifacts are "wonky."
Click to expand...

I think those are flexion creases and not dermal ridges. Dermal ridges are "fingerprints" and have unique patterns.
 
Think the hair/fur on the paw, as posted above, would leave fine lines in the mud, possibly wonky ones, skewed and quite unnatural?

I'm not sure why you edited this portion of my post, "I realize these aren't "dermal ridges" per se", but I realize they aren't dermal ridges.
 
Last edited:
Bigfoot fingerprints are so freaking out there.

Someone who talks about BIGFOOT for more than one minute/year is messed up.

We are sitting here talking about what kind of fingerprints are on an alleged BIGFOOT footprint. We are such dorks.
 
The Shrike said:
Well it's not fair of me to call out Huntster here on the JREF, but he's the first one who comes to mind. I think there are a number of folks who participate at the BFF, are on record as "believers" or whatever people call themselves these days, but don't for a minute think there are bigfoots wandering around the open plains and agricultural fields of New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Kansas.
Click to expand...

I think you should choose someone else. That guy has worked himself up to such a froth in that thread that he's bound to bust a prostate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom