Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
"Germs, how ridiculous that anyone could conceive such a thing. That Pasteur must be a nut job"
Click to expand...

Come on, Chris. Germ Theory could only be confirmed through careful experimentation in the 19th Century and advanced microscopy in the 20th. In contrast, we've had the technology to confirm bigfoot since the latter Pleistocene.
 
The Shrike said:
Come on, Chris. Germ Theory could only be confirmed through careful experimentation in the 19th Century and advanced microscopy in the 20th. In contrast, we've had the technology to confirm bigfoot since the latter Pleistocene.
Click to expand...

No need to wait for a footie Pasteur, just Ooog and Uggg out with spears and the munchies.
 
William Parcher said:
Chris, Hawaii has the Menehune. It shows that Hawaiians also like to believe in bipedal wild primates that don't actually exist.

Concerning your declaration that there are no Bigfoot reports in any "official sightings database". Do you know what John Green or the BFRO would do if they got a good report from Hawaii? They would throw it in the garbage. That is why there are no "official reports" of Bigfoot in HI. The people who run the databases can make the data look any way that they want to. They are myth factories but you call them official databases.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that you mentioned that bit of Hawaiian folklore. Seems there was a finding of a species similar to the descriptions of the Menehune on the island of Flores in Indonesia not too long ago.

But as far as Hawaiian folklore matching the description of Bigfoot, not so much.
Chris B.
 
William Parcher said:
Germs and Pasteur are unrelated to the Bigfoot belief cult. That is another piece of deep wisdom I shall give to you.
Click to expand...
I wasn't comparing Germs and Pasteur to Bigfoot belief, I was comparing the flawed concept of denialism as practiced by the scofftics practicing medicine at that time. You know, the ones who were killing their patients with infections caused by their lack of understanding about this concept of "Germs".

I have no doubt these men also believed they were correct and "wise" in their procedures. That's the problem with denial. It throws critical thinking out the window in favor of accepting what the majority believes to be true. Even if/when that majority belief is incorrect. Chris B.
 
Um, no. Those so-called scofftics of Germ Theory in the 19th Century lacked the ability to be shown those germs. Though I regret that the theory and the revolution it wrought in medicine didn't take hold as quickly as it should have, I can give a pass to people clinging to competing ideas before Pasteur, Lister et al. caught on for realz.

People who don't get a pass are those who think there are giant wood apes running around the marginally forested areas of a densely populated superpower in the year 2015. Again, there's no technological advance beyond a spear necessary to prove the reality of bigfoot.
 
I should first apologize for taking a bigfoot enthusiast thread off topic with real science.

The Shrike said:
Germ Theory could only be confirmed through careful experimentation in the 19th Century and advanced microscopy in the 20th.
Click to expand...
The term "cell" came from Robert Hooke's Micrographia in 1665. The earliest detailed work with high quality microscopes was by Leeuwenhoek in 1673. Pasteur is largely credited for proving germ theory in 1860. And, of course, this led to Lister's promotion of antiseptics in 1867. For viruses, you have Beijerinck's detection of the tobacco mosaic virus in 1898.

In contrast, we've had the technology to confirm bigfoot since the latter Pleistocene.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'm referring to the official sightings database, there are none. I'm sure you will find some articles written online that speculate about Bigfoot in Hawaii, legend comparisons etc, but no evidence of tracks or ongoing investigations.
Click to expand...

There is actually an aquatic form of bigfoot in Hawaii that have elongated fingers and toes with webbing in between. For this reason, they are usually referred to as bigflipper. They are known to eat sharks and coconuts. They have been observed body surfing in the Banzai Pipeline. Many people have come across the impressions left when they crawl onto the shore to make sand angels on the beach.
 
That's the problem with denial. It throws critical thinking out the window in favor of accepting what the majority believes to be true. Even if/when that majority belief is incorrect.
Click to expand...
This isn't a problem for bigfoot denialism as there is no such creature, so the denial is perfectly correct.

However, bigfoot denialism is falsifiable; I await Chris or any lurking proponents to do the deed.

ETA. As a hint: it's gonna take a footie.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
...Undoubtedly, in your mind you are always the victor in every debate. I see things as they are however.

I simply asked you for the definition of "BLAARGING" since you seem to throw it around so much. If you'll remember, I was kind enough to not only provide you with the definitions of a few terms in question previously, but I also provided you with the sources of the folks who coined them.
Can't you be so kind? Chris B.
Click to expand...
I will ALWAYS be the victor in a debate with you in real life too. And you know you didn't "simply asked you for the definition" of ANYTHING. A constant source of hilarity here is you thinking you're responding intelligently.

Do you realize the only "evidence" you've presented so far for Bigfoot's existence is the notion that YOU couldn't be wrong? Even your own posts/arguments highlight how "amazing" that really is. They're often along the lines of "Yeah yeah I know it seems amazing to me too that Bigfoot lives, but he does cause I seen him with my own two eyes." Yes of course, there's no way your eyes could have deceived you. And you were there and we weren't, right? You're so right in fact that you're willing to declare ALL scientific knowledge, convention and pursuit as suspect, misguided, questionable and even bogus whenever and wherever it intersects with your premise that Bigfoot lives. Cause once again, YOU were there and saw the beast and <insert favorite scientist here> wasn't. Science and biology and the cosmos and nitrogen and woodchucks can all go pound sand because there's just no way YOU could be wrong.

Maybe the biggest mystery of all is your unrelenting incredulity that we would have a problem with that.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Well to be fair if you'll recall from my post, I did offer that the US state of Hawaii does not have any sightings of Bigfoot listed. Beyond that, I can't offer anything valid on the supposed UK Bigfoot because I've simply not done the work.

If Bigfoot is just a tall tale how do you account for the lack of Bigfoot sightings in Hawaii? Chris B.
Click to expand...

I just did a simple Google search of "Bigfoot in Hawaii" that turned up quite a few stories and sightings of the same quality as we see anywhere else in the USA.

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=is+there+bigfoot+in+hawaii

1st result: "Bigfoot Creature On Sacred Hawaiian Mountain."

Even "Bigfoot Evidence" has a page on Bigfoot sightings in Hawaii, including sightings of a supposed 'hairy dwarf:' "Local folklore tells of hairy dwarfs who purportedly travel in large groups of up to twenty individuals."

I don't get how this has any bearing on the British Bigfoot, and if anything, what you said would suggest that you do lend credence to there being a British Bigfoot, because, if they were just tall tales, why aren't they in Hawaii? In weird Bigfoot logic, that means that they MUST be in the UK.

Here's a recent story: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/...-for-help-from-police-after-bigfoot-sightings

I can find a few stories re: tracks etc, too.
 
Last edited:
HarryHenderson said:
Do you realize the only "evidence" you've presented so far for Bigfoot's existence is the notion that YOU couldn't be wrong?
Click to expand...
The hubris runs deep.

HarryHenderson said:
Maybe the biggest mystery of all is your unrelenting incredulity that we would have a problem with that.
Click to expand...
If that incredulity were sincere, I agree that it would be a baffling mystery.
 
HarryHenderson said:
I will ALWAYS be the victor in a debate with you in real life too. And you know you didn't "simply asked you for the definition" of ANYTHING. A constant source of hilarity here is you thinking you're responding intelligently.

Do you realize the only "evidence" you've presented so far for Bigfoot's existence is the notion that YOU couldn't be wrong? Even your own posts/arguments highlight how "amazing" that really is. They're often along the lines of "Yeah yeah I know it seems amazing to me too that Bigfoot lives, but he does cause I seen him with my own two eyes." Yes of course, there's no way your eyes could have deceived you. And you were there and we weren't, right? You're so right in fact that you're willing to declare ALL scientific knowledge, convention and pursuit as suspect, misguided, questionable and even bogus whenever and wherever it intersects with your premise that Bigfoot lives. Cause once again, YOU were there and saw the beast and <insert favorite scientist here> wasn't. Science and biology and the cosmos and nitrogen and woodchucks can all go pound sand because there's just no way YOU could be wrong.

Maybe the biggest mystery of all is your unrelenting incredulity that we would have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Nominated for proper use of 'seen' in Bigfooter Speak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom