bigfoot is real I have the proof

[Normal Dude]

Yes, they both appear in many threads including this one.

Man, I had forgotten about that. I guess I know what I'm doing with my morning now.

 

[William Parcher]

Creek also thought that James Randi ought to offer the $1million for Bigfoot. He started a whole thread on it.

Hey Randi where is the million dollor challange for proveing bigfoot is real

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Erm.... why on earth has this thread been revived?

 

[Empress]

Because the awesome that is this thread must never be forgotten.

 

[Vortigern99]

Vort,
You weren't around for the Creekfreak era so if you haven't already done so please read this entire thread. It's priceless and will give you an understanding of who we're talking about.

I read the first two pages, noted that CF's bid for cash is not substantially different from the ridiculous "deal" he's offered recently, skimmed page 5, began to nod off owing to the enormous brain power required to make any kind of sense of CF's posts, chuckled at some of the responses, and decided to stop before my eyes melted.

 

[Marduk]

At least Quint, in the film JAWS, when asking for $10 k to kill the offending shark, had verifiable evidence (namely, the carcasses of dead sharks) that he had killed such animals in the past; and an oceanographer had verified the existence of this particular shark via the examination of lethal wounds it had inflicted on a swimmer!

He also offered to find him for $3 k, presumably he could prove he had done that with real photographic evidence, but I expect even if Creekfreek had a bigger boat he'd never have a decent photo

 

[WGBH]

Are we talking about the picture with the helicopter and the photo shopped Bigfoot? That was silly.

 

[William Parcher]

That was silly.

Wanna see something else that is silly? A guy said he saw this in the Dismal Swamp of North Carolina. That was silly.

 

[madurobob]

Wanna see something else that is silly? A guy said he saw this in the Dismal Swamp of North Carolina. That was silly.

That's the Great Dismal Swamp, pal! And, that's about the size of the mosquitoes there in August. I think I have permanent deet toxicity from several canoe trips through the canals. Wish I'd known to be on the lookout for the swamp thing.

 

[WGBH]

Did you scan that picture in from one of your comic books?

 

[Vortigern99]

Did you scan that picture in from one of your comic books?

It's made from a drawing pencilled by John Byrne and inked by Joe Rubenstein, in MARVEL UNIVERSE from the mid-late 80s.

I own that comic book, too, and I'm married, have a queen bed and live in a house my wife and I rent.

Did you have a point here, or...?

ETA:Originally, WGBH included "that you keep under your single bed in your mom's basement", but wisely edited out this phrase.

 

[WGBH]

It originally had the same point as his post did. To be insulting and juvenile. It is also off topic, like his post. But thanks for being class monitor.

 

[William Parcher]

I know. I saw it before it was edited. Maybe he forgot that he had already accused me of living with my mother in at least one other retort posting. Or it's just a standard reply for somebody who would point out the ridiculous absurdity of his own claimed Bigfoot sighting in the face of him criticizing Creekfreak.

It is the bold detachment from the real world that is oddly intriguing. I saw a 9-foot tall hairy monster that was 6-foot wide at the shoulders. I don't care what you say - it was real. What leads a person to this state of mind?

 

[William Parcher]

To be in insulting and juvenile.

For crissakes you are in a skeptics forum in a thread about Bigfoot and you happen to be a claimant to witnessing a hairy goliath in North Carolina. What on earth do you expect? Just how far gone are you?

 

[Vortigern99]

It appears to be more of the same "My fantasy creature is real; your fantasy creature is a made-up silly thing" line of reasoning we sometimes see with believers. I myself was prone to this way of thinking, when I believed in bigfoot's reality.

I certainly don't think it's "juvenile" to point out to someone that s/he has fallen into an illogical and contradictory way of thinking.

Creekfreak's picture was "silly", but WGBH's 9'x6' monstrosity is plausible? Come on, WGBH, you're too intelligent not to see how fallacious that line of reasoning is.

 

[WGBH]

I know. I saw it before it was edited. Maybe he forgot that he had already accused me of living with my mother in at least one other retort posting. Or it's just a standard reply for somebody who would point out the ridiculous absurdity of his own claimed Bigfoot sighting in the face of him criticizing Creekfreak.

It is the bold detachment from the real world that is oddly intriguing. I saw a 9-foot tall hairy monster that was 6-foot wide at the shoulders. I don't care what you say - it was real. What leads a person to this state of mind?

Please show where I criticized Creekfreak. I criticized the picture. If this was even the photo being discussed, since that question I asked was never answered.

So, using a ridiculously absurd picture of a comic book character to exaggerate size is real world?. This is critical scientific thought? What leads a person to this state of mind?

 

[WGBH]

Creekfreak's picture was "silly", but WGBH's 9'x6' monstrosity is plausible? Come on, WGBH, you're too intelligent not to see how fallacious that line of reasoning is.

Creekfreak's picture (if we are talking about the same picture) was silly because it was obviously photo shopped.

 

[Vortigern99]

So, using a ridiculously absurd picture of a comic book character to exaggerate size is real world?. This is critical scientific thought? What leads a person to this state of mind?

Your estimation of the size of the animal you reported seeing was 9'x6'. Those proportions are represented accurately in the drawing. Say what you will about the cartoonish quality of the artwork (you can take that up with Byrne and Rubenstein), the proportions match your description.

Creekfreak's picture (if we are talking about the same picture) was silly because it was obviously photo shopped.

And many skeptics feel that your sighting is "silly" because it was most likely the product of hypnagogic hallucination, an explanation which fits the facts and yet which you refuse to concede or even consider.

 

[WGBH]

Your estimation of the size of the animal you reported seeing was 9'x6'. Those proportions are represented accurately in the drawing. Say what you will about the cartoonish quality of the artwork (you can take that up with Byrne and Rubenstein), the proportions match your description.

And many skeptics feel that your sighting is "silly" because it was most likely the product of hypnagogic hallucination, an explanation which fits the facts and yet which you refuse to concede or even consider.

Not even close to the proportions. If this is your view of "accurately", my opinions of the rest of your theories just dropped several notches.

 

[Vortigern99]

So you're retracting your 9'x6' estimation?

ETA: proportion, n. comparative relation between things or magnitudes as to size, quantity, number, etc.; ratio.