Bigfoot Follies: part trois

[Garrette]

Riiiiggghhhht, because artists drawing of the naughty bits is the only missing piece in the "academic interest" for Bigfoot. Got it.

Riiiigggghhhhht, because you don't understand that I am commenting on the laughable claims of scientific research of those who post such claims.

And, riiiigggghhhhhht, because you again dodged the eternally dodged question about the paradox between Bigfoot's miraculous ability to remain undetected while simultaneously being seen by "numerous witnesses" (your exact words) for sufficient duration and in sufficient detail to allow them to "describe male genitalia" (again, your words; "describe," not "saw it in fleeting, maybe").

Your manufactured disdain and defensiveness fool no one.

 

[Resume]

Riiiiggghhhht, because artists drawing of the naughty bits is the only missing piece in the "academic interest" for Bigfoot. Got it.

The missing piece is bigfoot, or a piece of bigfoot. Not a single bit has ever been produced in the natural history of North America, in the 15 to 25,000 (depending) years of human history of North America. Not. A. Piece.

You would need a bigfoot to stimulate academic interest and there are none to be found.

 

[Northern Lights]

Riiiigggghhhhht, because you don't understand that I am commenting on the laughable claims of scientific research of those who post such claims.

And, riiiigggghhhhhht, because you again dodged the eternally dodged question about the paradox between Bigfoot's miraculous ability to remain undetected while simultaneously being seen by "numerous witnesses" (your exact words) for sufficient duration and in sufficient detail to allow them to "describe male genitalia" (again, your words; "describe," not "saw it in fleeting, maybe").

Your manufactured disdain and defensiveness fool no one.

As the only active "footer" on this forum, am I selective in my responses? Absolutely, 100% yes. Apologies if that is frustrating to you but that's how it is.

 

[Garrette]

As the only active "footer" on this forum, am I selective in my responses? Absolutely, 100% yes. Apologies if that is frustrating to you but that's how it is.

Selective in such a way as to indicate that you cannot answer the substantive questions. It is understandable that you would choose that tack.

As to "frustrating" -- it isn't frustrating in the slightest. It is repeatedly illuminating.

 

[Cervelo]

As the only active "footer" on this forum, am I selective in my responses? Absolutely, 100% yes. Apologies if that is frustrating to you but that's how it is.

Another fourm member posted this in response to the blathering of one of many woo peddlers .....I think it was a brilliant response and bears repeating. Sorry for being unable to credit the author....please "stand" and be recognized if it's yours, if you feel so inclined.


"Right there are, in fact, a lot of people here who post expecting their anecdotes to be elevated to reality; their superstitions to be granted the status of truth; their opinions to be exalted; and the rough places of their assertions to be made plain. Those people continue to run afoul of the expectation that claims be supported.

Fortunately, that's one of the reasons this forum exists--to help those people, and others like them, learn to present evidence for their assertions."

 

[dmaker]

As the only active "footer" on this forum, am I selective in my responses? Absolutely, 100% yes. Apologies if that is frustrating to you but that's how it is.

What does being the only active footer have to do with dodging the difficult questions? Are you only here for idle bigfoot chit chat, then? Nothing serious?

 

[Resume]

One would think that a person brave enough to car camp mount an expedition to a third growth back 40 Minnesota bigfoot hotspot would have the balls to address a few simpleton's skeptical observations concerning the subject.

 

[Northern Lights]

Selective in such a way as to indicate that you cannot answer the substantive questions. It is understandable that you would choose that tack.

As to "frustrating" -- it isn't frustrating in the slightest. It is repeatedly illuminating.

It isn't a substantive question, you are asking me what a Bigfoot is thinking and of course there's no way to answer that.

 

[Garrette]

It isn't a substantive question, you are asking me what a Bigfoot is thinking and of course there's no way to answer that.

Balderdash. I -- and others -- are asking you to reconcile the claim that Bigfoot is so elusive and impossible to document (setting aside all the claimed foot prints and hair samples) with the numerous claims that he is seen and communicated with so often and at such close range.

But you know this.

 

[Resume]

It isn't a substantive question, you are asking me what a Bigfoot is thinking and of course there's no way to answer that.

There actually is an answer and it's (not) right in front of your face.

Though that wasn't the actual question.

 

[GT/CS]

NL,
Since you won't answer difficult questions, and 'footery is incredibly boring these days, how about entertaining us with another Bigfoot campfire story.

 

[Resume]

Balderdash. I -- and others -- are asking you to reconcile the claim that Bigfoot is so elusive and impossible to document (setting aside all the claimed foot prints and hair samples) with the numerous claims that he is seen and communicated with so often and at such close range.

But you know this.

You would think that someone who's heard /read "numerous" bigfoot reports and claims several bigfoot encounters could offer a cogent explanation as to why he (and the alleged thousands others) cannot provide a scintilla of objective evidence, much less an actual bigfoot, or bigfoot part.

They are "elusive" does not cut it in 2017. It's playground pretend.

 

[Garrette]

Yep.

 

[Resume]

NL,
Since you won't answer difficult questions, and 'footery is incredibly boring these days, how about entertaining us with another Bigfoot campfire story.

Not so much a campfire story:
http://sasquatchresearchers.org/2017-sra-sasquatch-expeditions/

This year we have 4 areas we are focusing on in Northern Minnesota/Wisconsin, each having had encounters within the last year or two. For those who went last year, we will likely not be returning to that spot this year, wanting to give it a rest for a year or two. he other is a brand new location that we are very excited about. We’ll have more information about the locations we are looking at as the dates get closer, but you should be prepared to travel to either North Central Minnesota or Northwestern Wisconsin

Yes, these serious, intrepid researchers are not going back to a footie hotspot in order to "give it a rest." Just like any researcher attempting to establish a novel species would. More pretend.

The family property, and my retirement acreage is in NW Wisconsin. Gonna keep my ears peeled for tree-knockin', footie-howlin', and the unmistakable sound of a Good-N-Plenty lofting through the canopy.

ETA: NL is affiliated with the SRA.

 

[Drewbot]

Oh Dear Heavens...

The SRA expedition is rated 3.2/5.0 stars.

We all know how the Footers puff up anything to do with footery using artificially inflated ratings systems, see Bill Munns' book for example, so the real rating for the expedition must be down around 2.0/5.0 stars.

Not good.

I didn't click, but how much is it to become an SRA member?

Also, how did you leave "WOOD APE" off of this list?

United States:

- Bigfoot
- Sasquatch
- Skookum
- Skunk Ape (FL)
- Grassman (OH)

Canada:

- Sasquatch
- Bigfoot

Asia/Australia:

- Yeti (Nepal)
- Yeren (China)
- Almas (Russia)
- Orang Pendak (Indonesia)
- Yowie (Australia)

 

[Drewbot]

OMG it is so hilarious, that a website about expedition to go see bigfoot, has a picture of a massively psychoactive Amanita mushroom right on the first page.

Amanita muscaria, commonly known as the fly agaric or fly amanita, is a mushroom and psychoactive basidiomycete fungus, one of many in the genus Amanita.

The Bigfooter's knowledge of all things outdoors is critical to a proper scientific expedition.

 

[Resume]

OMG it is so hilarious, that a website about expedition to go see bigfoot, has a picture of a massively psychoactive Amanita mushroom right on the first page.

Shrooms will get you a candy-tossing footie for sure.

 

[Cervelo]

As the only active "footer" on this forum, am I selective in my responses? Absolutely, 100% yes. Apologies if that is frustrating to you but that's how it is.

No your a salesman....the only question is are you an honest salesman?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

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.

I'd be chuffed if you could find at least 5 reports featuring Bigfoot nards, no-homo, it's for science, yo.

The only thing more non-existent than Bigfoot is his penis, apparently.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

And, riiiigggghhhhhht, because you again dodged the eternally dodged question about the paradox between Bigfoot's miraculous ability to remain undetected while simultaneously being seen by "numerous witnesses" (your exact words) for sufficient duration and in sufficient detail to allow them to "describe male genitalia" (again, your words; "describe," not "saw it in fleeting, maybe").

Bigfoot is a master of illusion, he has evolved to avoid detection over thousands of years.

Despite this incredible feat, you can quite easily go out into your local greenbelt and holler at the top of your lungs and this mysteriously stealthy humanoid will gladly holler back.

Makes total sense when you think about it. I mean, why wouldn't a highly intelligent master of evasion be fooled by a guy cupping his hands to his mouth and doing his best impression of Bobcat Goldthwait impersonating a wounded banshee?