Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
kitakaze said:
Florida skank ape hoaxer with shady past Dave Shealy should meet Florida skank ape hoaxer with shady past Eddie Page, or whatever his real name is. (BTW, that link is hilarious. BFF member Robert spent a month with the guy and some of the stuff he pulled was really over the top.)
Click to expand...

I've been reading that gem of a thread. But Kitakaze, you missed the real bait-and-switch scam. Pat is a Skunk Ape hoaxer who is buttressing her(his?) credibility by pointing out the dirty deeds of Eddie. Who is taking Pat to task in that thread? Hmmm? Pat gets a free ride on BFF by climbing onto Eddie's back and riding him like a lame donkey. Mostly Pat talks about Bad Eddie, but then she slips in her own found evidence and sighting of the big skunky. She has named individuals that are regularly seen. Why are the Bigfooters leaving her alone? Because one is "supposed to believe" that when somebody busts a hoaxer like that, they themselves ought not to be a hoaxer. Pat gets a free pass and the Skunk Ape lives on in Florida. Yeehaaa! :D
 
William Parcher said:
Yeah, the reports are obviously fiction. I don't know how one pursues this line of thinking (as you say), other than to evaluate each report and give it critical analysis. A kind of forensic inquiry.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I admit trying to pursue the matter or out one such writer would be difficult. The best I can think of is to link a few of the reports I think were written by the same guy and see if the follow-ups bear any pattern that would support the idea. Maybe Kathy, having been in the BFRO, might know of some instances where they identified someone doing something like this.
William Parcher said:
The BF sighting reports have always reminded me of the published "letters" to Penthouse Magazine...
Click to expand...
Holy Viagra! William you might want to put a 'Rated R' or 'Sweaty, cover your eyes:covereyes ' at the top of that. :D JK. But, yeah, that's the idea. Footer stimulation.
 
kitakaze said:
You interpreted it just fine. If you still feel you have any issues, Sweaty or carcharodon seem particularily willing to help.:D
Click to expand...
Uhm... Not sure if interpretating correctly the sentence actually brings me some relief, since I have a very graphic imagination, LOL...

Help? From a guy who slipped several opportunities to contribute to any of the ongoing discussions (tracks, myths, reliability of sighting reports, existence or not of reliable evidence for bigfoot, wildlife experts are or not at the spot, etc.) but pulled out unbacked accusations, sweeping generalizations and ad homs? No, thanks.

BTW, contrary to what is suggested at Carcharodon's post, Huntster do has the opportunity to answer. I asked Hairy Man to tell him about her opinion. All he has to do is ask her to send me his answer, if he's willing to give any.
 
William Parcher said:
I've been reading that gem of a thread. But Kitakaze, you missed the real bait-and-switch scam. Pat is a Skunk Ape hoaxer who is buttressing her(his?) credibility by pointing out the dirty deeds of Eddie. Who is taking Pat to task in that thread? Hmmm? Pat gets a free ride on BFF by climbing onto Eddie's back and riding him like a lame donkey. Mostly Pat talks about Bad Eddie, but then she slips in her own found evidence and sighting of the big skunky. She has named individuals that are regularly seen. Why are the Bigfooters leaving her alone? Because one is "supposed to believe" that when somebody busts a hoaxer like that, they themselves ought not to be a hoaxer. Pat gets a free pass and the Skunk Ape lives on in Florida. Yeehaaa! :D
Click to expand...
Doh!:blush: Pat, not Robert! Hey isn't Pat a guy? Check post #36 where Robert mentions talking to Pat on the phone. Yeah, your right. Pat is totally getting a free ride.
 
William Parcher said:
Yeah, the reports are obviously fiction. I don't know how one pursues this line of thinking (as you say), other than to evaluate each report and give it critical analysis. A kind of forensic inquiry.

The BF sighting reports have always reminded me of the published "letters" to Penthouse Magazine. I snuck my dad's copies as a kid, and read them when he wasn't around. The letters are meant to create sexual fantasy in the mind of the reader by taking them right to a supposed fantastic sexual encounter that happened to the writer. Some may actually be true, but it makes no difference either way. They typically sound like this: "My boss at work is a gorgeous middle-aged blond with an amazing figure. I've thought about screwing her many times, but never pursued it and we have always had a good professional relationship. But last Tuesday changed everything. Stacy came into my office at about 3pm, giving me a look that she has never gave me before. A button was undone on her blouse that had never before been outside of the confines of the hole designed for it. My mind was spinning with confusion, but my instant hard-on told me the ultimate truth about what was going on and how the coming evening might play out. She parted her sultry lips to say...."
Click to expand...

Hey, where's the rest of the story?

Knowing the rest of it would be very usefull to draw more detailed comparsions, you know...

Bribe attempt: the rest of it might earn you another TLA nomination...
 
Last edited:
Correa Neto said:
BTW, contrary to what is suggested at Carcharodon's post, Huntster do has the opportunity to answer. I asked Hairy Man to tell him about her opinion. All he has to do is ask her to send me his answer, if he's willing to give any.
Click to expand...
Today after posting the VIM info I was think about posting some links to ground squirrels and BF in general and where it's been discussed before on this board and after locating this post I found a rather lengthy example of Huntster's thoughts on scientists in the field all around it. Not that Huntster's opinions on the matter aren't easily found but if carcharodon is interested in showing he wasn't engaging in more bum chatter he's free to start there.

Anyway, more BF ground squirrel musings here.
 
Not sure I agree with the 'creative writing' angle. Sure, there may be some folks fabricating things on purpose, but there may be an even greater number that aren't.

Years ago I had an incident happen that some folks chalked up to bigfoot activity. If I were romantically inclined, I would have agreed with them. There was never any supportive evidence that what I experienced that night was bigfoot related, even though the telling of the story is entertaining for bigfoot proponents.

RayG
 
Glad to see you are giving him a starting point, for he will need a lot of help to back his claims.

More than one pro-bigfoot poster here made false accusations against me before. All were challenged to back their claims. All sullied or removed the claim. He will not manage to back it.

I think its incredibly funny to see one complaining against alleged "cheap shots" and lies when its one of the debate tactics some of them use so frequently. For example, when asked about the lack of reliable evidence, they try to obfuscate making ad homs, blaming it on the people who work in the field (more specifically they claim these professionals do not work propperly or do not work at all).

I said it before and I'll say it again: This line of reasoning -as well as many others such as "the PGF negatives were not tampered"- triggers the "these guys don't have a clue" reaction. Their only effect is to damage the claim and its defenders.
 
RayG said:
Not sure I agree with the 'creative writing' angle. Sure, there may be some folks fabricating things on purpose, but there may be an even greater number that aren't.

Years ago I had an incident happen that some folks chalked up to bigfoot activity. If I were romantically inclined, I would have agreed with them. There was never any supportive evidence that what I experienced that night was bigfoot related, even though the telling of the story is entertaining for bigfoot proponents.

RayG
Click to expand...
I'm surprised, if I understand you correctly, Ray. Do you mean that you outside of deliberate hoaxes and misidentifications that you don't think fabricating and submitting a report of a bigfoot encounter and it making it's way onto BF websites has not occurred numerous times?

For myself, I know that if I didn't find myself skeptical of BF's existence I could submit and stand behind with full confidence an encounter report that would persuade many.

Maybe I misunderstood but I think it has most certainly happened. I do agree that it's in no way behind a majority of the reports. Would you agree that BF investigators have been guilty of trying to make reports seem more credible than they are?
 
kitakaze said:
Hairy, in the recent article on you, you suggested the Pinecrest-Strawberry area as a good area to try and see a sasquatch. Have you endeavoured with the AIBR to implement any measures to find anything in the way of evidence from this area? I note that this might produce job related issues and that you have also been reported as never having mixed your BF activities with work. Forgive me if the question is rather simple.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, we do. We have two main research areas were we spend most of our free time...the Stanislaus River watershed (which includes the Strawberry area) and the Clavey Watershed. Since I'm on my own time, it doesn't conflict with my job.
 
Hairy Man said:
No, I hadn't seen it before...too bad too, cause I would have enjoyed the laugh <it only got an eye roll this morning>. Bobbie notes that the hair isn't bigfoot related, so I'm not sure why it's on her site.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the photo might be the waste to be discarded after vacuuming a llama or possibly mysteries from Dione Warwick's hairbrush.
 
Hairy Man said:
Oh yes, we do. We have two main research areas were we spend most of our free time...the Stanislaus River watershed (which includes the Strawberry area) and the Clavey Watershed. Since I'm on my own time, it doesn't conflict with my job.
Click to expand...
Anything in the way of prodigous hairballs or other such tangibles to speak of?:D
 
kitakaze said:
I rushed my previous post as I was anticipating you to log off soon but concerning poaching, you don't think BF face any danger of poaching. Why is that? Is it simply because we have no record of a poacher felling a sasquatch or is there more to it than that?

ETA: For when you return, I hope you had a fun and problem free trip.
Click to expand...

At least here in California, poaching is mostly done for food purposes, so they are targeting deer. Cash poaching occurs occasionally involving bear, but not so much. I would think, and I could be wrong, that if poaching is being done with bigfoot in mind, it would be for cash...not food...and therefore those pieces would be showing up somewhere.
 
kitakaze said:
I'm surprised, if I understand you correctly, Ray. Do you mean that you outside of deliberate hoaxes and misidentifications that you don't think fabricating and submitting a report of a bigfoot encounter and it making it's way onto BF websites has not occurred numerous times?

For myself, I know that if I didn't find myself skeptical of BF's existence I could submit and stand behind with full confidence an encounter report that would persuade many.

Maybe I misunderstood but I think it has most certainly happened. I do agree that it's in no way behind a majority of the reports.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm trying to say that yes, there are those people who will purposely fabricate bigfoot stories, but I believe there are a great many who truly believe they have had a bigfoot experience/encounter. That doesn't mean they actually did, they just believe they did.

Some bigfoot proponents will read my 'encounter' and are convinced it was yet another case of bigfoot 'stalking'. Personally, I think that's romanticism or wishful-thinking on their part, and I prefer to make decisions and come to conclusions based on facts, not speculation.

One of the reasons I joined the BFF was the skepticism being leveled at bigfoot reports by some of its members. If you hang around there (BFF) for awhile, you'll see not everyone is a romantic 'believer' in bigfoot.

Would you agree that BF investigators have been guilty of trying to make reports seem more credible than they are?
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. When one starts whittling away at the embellishments to determine the actual facts of an encounter, one is sometimes left with very little indeed.

RayG
 
kitakaze said:
Anything in the way of prodigous hairballs or other such tangibles to speak of?:D
Click to expand...

No, but I have had witnesses send me hair samples from the Yosemite area which both turned out to be (mountain) sheep. That hairball looks strangely like the pile of hair I get after brushing our four dogs and/or our four cats, i.e., it looks like "waste" hair vs. a natural shedded lump.
 
RayG said:
I guess I'm trying to say that yes, there are those people who will purposely fabricate bigfoot stories, but I believe there are a great many who truly believe they have had a bigfoot experience/encounter. That doesn't mean they actually did, they just believe they did.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.
 
Correa Neto said:
Hairy Man, could you do me a great favor?

Please tell Huntster that there are indeed scientists doing fieldwork at "bigfoot country". One of our countless discussions was regarding this topic. He claimed more than once scientists are not "out there". Maybe he will hear you...
Click to expand...

Will do!

As a side note, yesterday I was with Craig Woolheater (from the TBRC) and other bigfooters plotting the take over of the world, and Craig stated that they are in the midsts of a very long term camera trap project in the National Park and National Forest in eastern Texas. This work is being done in complete cooperation with both agencies and with a grant from Baylor University. The cameras (around 60 high tech digital/infrared types with batteries that last 45 days and can take 500 pictures) are in very remote areas (so much so that it takes 3 days to service 8 camera in one location). They do nothing else (no call blasting, no baiting) in the area so to limit human influence. I suggested that they place cameras in areas they are also working with call blasting, etc. so that we can judge the results better. Pretty cool!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom