• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot Follies: part trois

"This is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, not a bid to explore the weird fringe fiction world of Harlequin Romance Sasquatch Tales."

He definitely meant it in a weird fringe fiction world of Harlequin Romance Sasquatch Tales kinda way!
 
Oh great.
So rather than slightly strange, camo-garbed footers running round the woods, howling and knocking on trees, we're going to get slightly strange, naked footers running round the woods, howling and knocking on trees!
 
Not so fast. My current research on Patterson's last and most important expedition compels one to adopt this very strategy.
 
The USA National Park Service is spending $149,927 researching Bigfoot, and other woo things such as...

...sea monsters, unexplained lights, and other paranormal activity.

Kawerak Inc., a nonprofit group that serves people of Eskimo, Aleut, or American-Indian descent in the Bering Strait region between Alaska and Russia, received the grant last year. The organization illustrates its project with a picture of "Hairy Man," a mythical Bigfoot-like creature.

The group is not just interested in researching "Hairy Man," but a whole host of "supernatural" creatures...
Click to expand...


I don't know what this all means. Maybe, in an interesting way, it shows that Bigfoot doesn't really exist as an animal, but instead does exist as an idea.


http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-50000-studying-bigfoot
 
William Parcher said:
The USA National Park Service is spending $149,927 researching Bigfoot, and other woo things such as...

I don't know what this all means. Maybe, in an interesting way, it shows that Bigfoot doesn't really exist as an animal, but instead does exist as an idea.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-50000-studying-bigfoot
Click to expand...
What a waste of federal cash, when we (I include myself) have already done this research, which is presented here:
Native American myths/traditions support Bigfoot? A critical look.

Where's my cut of that grant money???
 
Castro said:
As long as they don't meet a slightly strange naked footer playing the monkey...
Click to expand...
I don't know what sort of idiot trick this Bigfooter is trying to play by talking about being naked in front of the beast.

I can however say that Bigfoot does not have a penis or an external scrotum containing testicles. There are countless eyewitness sketches and artist-assisted diagrams showing what the male Bigfoot looks like. None of them show a dick or balls. It's all missing. I challenge you to find any photo or artist depiction showing genitalia.

They don't copulate like primates. They apparently have a cloaca like birds and reptiles.

A naked man might frighten a male Bigfoot. They might have extreme stress or anxiety upon seeing a man's penis. The females may be also frightened and confused.

A dick with hanging balls are not part of the Bigfoot world. It could really freak them out.
 
Last edited:
A naked man walking in the jungle encounters an elephant.

Elephant : "How do you breathe through that little thing?".
 
William Parcher said:
The USA National Park Service is spending $149,927 researching Bigfoot, and other woo things such as...
I don't know what this all means. Maybe, in an interesting way, it shows that Bigfoot doesn't really exist as an animal, but instead does exist as an idea.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-50000-studying-bigfoot
Click to expand...




Quote from the article: ...(W)as supported through resolutions from 17 federally recognized tribes as this project documents the validity and importance of local and traditional knowledge held by tribal members...



Those beliefs are neither valid nor important in the 21st century.
Encouraging people to make up stories and pretending that these fairy tales are somehow important traditional knowledge is ludicrous.

If people of European ancestry asked for a grant to study the stories of dragons and unicorns and tried to pass such nonsense off as "traditional knowledge" - they would be rightfully scorned for such stupidity.
 
Last edited:
It might just be another way for the white man to dominate the red man. Sort of like the joke where you say "pull my finger" and then you let out a fart when they pull it. Here the red man takes the money and afterwards all the white men smell the stink and begin to laugh.

The red woman (known as squaws) might detect the trick and warn the red man. They should not be subjected to white trickery and dominance any longer.

When will the red man rise up and shove the whole stupid Bigfoot thing up the ass of the white honky man?

What then about Trump and his probably hidden quest to racially crush all that is left of the savage race with his bigotry?

It's sad but at least it isn't millions or billions of dollars.
 
Poor Bigfoot, his missus has a pair of boobs positioned halfway down her chest and he's not got a meat 'n' two veg. And to top it all off they have a totally stationary arse that doesn't work in conjunction with their sodding legs!


:eek:
 
William Parcher said:
I can however say that Bigfoot does not have a penis or an external scrotum containing testicles. There are countless eyewitness sketches and artist-assisted diagrams showing what the male Bigfoot looks like. None of them show a dick or balls. It's all missing. I challenge you to find any photo or artist depiction showing genitalia.
Click to expand...

Although artist renditions do not depict male genitalia, that does not mean it isn't reported, it just means that it isn't drawn.

I've spoken to numerous witnesses that have described male genitalia during their sightings. I guess the artist isn't wanting to publish bigfoot porn.
 
Northern Lights said:
Although artist renditions do not depict male genitalia, that does not mean it isn't reported, it just means that it isn't drawn.

I've spoken to numerous witnesses that have described male genitalia during their sightings. I guess the artist isn't wanting to publish bigfoot porn.
Click to expand...

They're actually seeing Dogmen they have the exposed twigs and berries, Bigfeets do not.
 
Northern Lights said:
Although artist renditions do not depict male genitalia, that does not mean it isn't reported, it just means that it isn't drawn.

I've spoken to numerous witnesses that have described male genitalia during their sightings. I guess the artist isn't wanting to publish bigfoot porn.
Click to expand...
Which brings us back to the eternally unanswered question about the amazing ability of Bigfoot to remain hidden while paradoxically so well observed that we get descriptions of his naughty bits. Not to mention that those who make sketches as part of their "scientific research" are not only too modest to include those parts but too professional to include a little comment like "Naughty bits not included in case the kiddoes see this, but adults with academic interest can see the uncensored version over here."
 
Northern Lights said:
Although artist renditions do not depict male genitalia, that does not mean it isn't reported, it just means that it isn't drawn.

I've spoken to numerous witnesses that have described male genitalia during their sightings. I guess the artist isn't wanting to publish bigfoot porn.
Click to expand...
nu·mer·ous

/ˈn(y)o͞om(ə)rəs/

adjective: numerous

great in number; many.
"he has attended numerous meetings and social events"

synonyms: many, very many, a lot of, scores of, countless, numberless, innumerable
Click to expand...

Where are you talking to these "scores, countless, numberless, etc." footie claimants?

ETA: Further, how in the world do you vet these "numerous claims? Do you have any methodology, any controls in place to combat your built-in credulity?
 
Last edited:
Garrette said:
Which brings us back to the eternally unanswered question about the amazing ability of Bigfoot to remain hidden while paradoxically so well observed that we get descriptions of his naughty bits. Not to mention that those who make sketches as part of their "scientific research" are not only too modest to include those parts but too professional to include a little comment like "Naughty bits not included in case the kiddoes see this, but adults with academic interest can see the uncensored version over here."
Click to expand...

Riiiiggghhhht, because artists drawing of the naughty bits is the only missing piece in the "academic interest" for Bigfoot. Got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom