• 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.

Bigfoot Follies: part deux

Status
Not open for further replies.
That Texas Bigfoot Conference creates a subtle dilemma for Bigfootery. There are lectures on Chupacabra and Lizardman (Reptilians). How could a Bigfooter go about criticizing or skipping the conference with any kind of explanation? Do they complain that a Bigfoot conference shouldn't have lectures about creatures that don't exist? How would a Bigfooter even begin to identify and define a creature that doesn't exist - after all, the Lizardman lecture will occur because people are seeing Lizardmen, right?

They are stuck and are forced to say nothing because any complaints related to fantasy creatures automatically gets applied to Bigfoot as well.
 
Daderon Pommeltemp had spent about 20 minutes closely observing the small group of Bigfoots before he decided to pull out his camera. Within seconds all of them fixed their gaze upon him with a look that could only be described as "we trusted you".
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I viewed the video and noticed alot of Sunlight coming in at that section where the white log is leaning against the tree. There's also other logs on the ground in the nearby vicinity. Given the location I'd think we have some lost logs from a skyline used by a previous logging company. When the video gets to around 5:20, they top the hill and it looks like a perfect location for a tower yarder. I know the leaning log did not show tool marks but it's been burned at the bottom, and so the saw marks could have been burned away. The other down trees show obvious chainsaw marks on them.

Personally, I think the leaning log is likely one that was lost from a skyline. Although there may very well be Sasquatch activity in that area. The log is probably unrelated to it.Chris B.
Click to expand...

If you would've left out the hilited part this post would have contained no crazy at all. ;)
 
The Washington Post reported that police linked Wint to the murder scene by analyzing DNA from the crust of a Domino's pizza that had been ordered to the house on the night of fire.
Click to expand...

Recent arson case in DC. House burned down. 4 people murdered.

Dude was caught by the DNA he left on a piece of pizza crust.

I will repeat that for footers.

Dude was caught by the DNA he left on a piece of pizza crust.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Recent arson case in DC. House burned down. 4 people murdered.

Dude was caught by the DNA he left on a piece of pizza crust.

I will repeat that for footers.

Dude was caught by the DNA he left on a piece of pizza crust.
Click to expand...

William Parcher said:
None of that matters because Bigfootery is a made-up fantasy game.
Click to expand...

No better example of that fantasy than OS's footie DNA thread over at the BFF:
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51162-bigfoot-dna/page-1

OS said:
I find it strange how his alternative explanation made a lot more sense, yet he decided to go with the explanation that the results were due to laboratory contamination (which would have had to have come from a non-human primate).
Click to expand...
The most parsimonious explanation OS can come up with is footie DNA modified by ET.

This is a fantasy game without question.
 
Northern Lights said:
So are you going to shell out the roughly $7500 it will take to do a full genome sequence when I get a sample?
Click to expand...
That depends. Do you intend to provide some photographic evidence of a bigfoot leaving said sample?

You do realize, of course, that anything thrown at you by a bigfoot (especially a Good-N-Plenty it's been carrying around for a while) should be a treasure trove of footie DNA, right?
 
Northern Lights said:
So are you going to shell out the roughly $7500 it will take to do a full genome sequence when I get a sample?

https://www.genome.gov/images/content/cost_genome.jpg
Click to expand...

I and others have already offered in another thread: we probably can arrange this for Chris at no cost to him.

However, you or Chris might first ask yourself an important question: why would your sample test out as Bigfoot when Sykes has tested 30 "likely" samples and found that none were Bigfoot.
 
NL: Let me see your full genome sequence
Me: You don't need to see the full genome sequence
NL: I don't need the full genome sequence.
Me: << waves hand mysteriously >> This is not the Bigfoots you're looking for
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
That depends. Do you intend to provide some photographic evidence of a bigfoot leaving said sample?

You do realize, of course, that anything thrown at you by a bigfoot (especially a Good-N-Plenty it's been carrying around for a while) should be a treasure trove of footie DNA, right?
Click to expand...

I'm going out in two weeks and just bought a mini sound activated camera. It's about 2 inches long by 3/4 of an inch wide. We've always used the motion activated cameras before so we'll see if this is any good or not.

The GNP incident probably could have yielded something but since Dan picked it up with his fingers after it hit his camp chair, we immediately had, you've guessed it, contamination. Trying to collect a DNA sample was not anywhere to be found in my list of possible reactions to what happened.
 
Northern Lights said:
Trying to collect a DNA sample was not anywhere to be found in my list of possible reactions to what happened.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. My reaction to finding a piece of candy in the leaf litter would be to throw it back at the fellow camper who dropped it and say "clean up after yourself, *******."
 
Giordano said:
I and others have already offered in another thread: we probably can arrange this for Chris at no cost to him.

However, you or Chris might first ask yourself an important question: why would your sample test out as Bigfoot when Sykes has tested 30 "likely" samples and found that none were Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

That is an incredibly generous offer and I would only take it up if I knew the sample were to be legitimate. How I would know, good question. Probably have to witness it or have video as Shrike said. Pretty unlikely.

With regard to Sykes and his samples, here is the way I've heard how they were chosen for testing. Since his research was being sponsored by a TV show, he was told to have results within a specific time frame. This forced him to test the samples that would yield results and weren't the most "likely" Bigfoot samples. They were the most likely to produce results.

Do you honestly believe that he couldn't figure out that what he was testing was bear (or horse or goat) by a simple visual inspection of upwards of 30 samples? Sykes wasn't doing this out the generosity of his heart, he was doing this so a TV show could be produced.
 
Resume said:
I agree with this. My reaction to finding a piece of candy in the leaf litter would be to throw it back at the fellow camper who dropped it and say "clean up after yourself, *******."
Click to expand...

Wasn't in leaf litter, it landed in his camp chair, between his legs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom