Why wouldn't bigfoot hunt humans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, OS, when we say there is no evidence for bigfoot, we mean hard evidence. Not stories. Hard evidence that should exist to support the stories.
Please point us to the objective, testable evidence for bigfoot.
Click to expand...
Yes, some of this testable evidence please. Stories about “thousands of trackways” as that numbskull DWA asserts are again just more stories. Though if they actually existed, we could test them.
From the snow: http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/polar-bear-dna-extracted-footprints-snow
From the soil: http://www.biotechniques.com/multimedia/archive/00009/BTN_A_000113001_O_9686a.pdf
From the water: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/4/423

Footie has nowhere to hide anymore it seems. Please, get back to us with your scientific evidence, you know, when you have some.
 
OS, I don't hold a " fragile belief that bigfoot doesn't exist". That is nonsense. It's simply an observation on my part. No one has presented a good case with supporting evidence to incline one to believe that bigfoot is anything other than a myth, or social construct. It's still very interesting even if approached from a myth making, or even psychology point of view.

I would gladly adjust my position if someone were to present some decent evidence to support the claim. If the skeptical position is so "fragile", as you put it, then this should be a simple task. Please, by all means, shatter my world. I dare you.
 
Last edited:
All the professional footers, all the Bigfoot TV shows, all the reports, all the mouth-breathing generic Bigfoot group forum posts, all the amateur enthusiasts.

Add all of that together, and you still get far less evidence than ABP just dropped on the table. ABP walked up to you, Ontario, and dropped the bear evidence on the table in your face, IN YOUR FACE. He posterized you.

ABP (Scottie Pippen) just JAMMED In ONTARIO'S (Patrick Ewing) Face, and then casually walked over Ewing (Ontario) as Ewing lay on the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srl2Bwh6A3I
 
OntarioSquatch said:
You guys accuse Bigfooters of gaming when it's actually you yourselves who are making up stories...
Click to expand...

In order to game, you need to present "beliefs" that are preposterous, yes.

There isn't any other choice. It isn't that people have a hard time believing in bigfoot. They have a hard time believing that YOU believe in bigfoot. But they have an even harder time believing you would lie about it, so it has taken a tremendous amount of evidence to overcome that doubt.

You don't believe in bigfoot. You believe we will respond in perpetuity to the pretense that you believe. This belief has been proven beyond any doubt. Just don't be confused about what power you think you are exercising.

The gamer prefers that we are dupes who are trying to disprove the existence of bigfoot to the master puppeteer who does not believe in the first place. But instead you are our study of gaming.

I think it was my last post where I withdrew the claim about the babes, which is something you never see in a gamer. Even with the support of The Shrike on that, if we can't pony up to the membership at large then we have to withdraw the claim.

Withdrawing your claim about belief will end the game.
 
You know, the talk about "believeing ABP" is pretty much a huge red herring anyway. Whether all those experiences happened to him or not doesn't really matter; we have firm evidence that they have happened. If not to him, then to others. There's ample evidence in photos, videos, bear skins, carcasses, and similar.

So even IF ABP was making up all the stories, it doesn't really matter. The question is still "why do we see these activities/evidence/incidents with other creatures, but BigFoot is somehow different from every other known example in existence?"

And the excuses for why this type of evidence doesn't exist for BigFoot are precisely an example of special pleading. Much like conspiracists use the "of course there's no evidence, the government/illuminati/reptillians hide it from you" canard. LAck of evidence is, itself, twisted as evidence of behavior, instead of being correctly viewed as lack of evidence.
 
Right, it is a combination of projection and diversion: accuse the skeptic of gaming (projection) so you can divert the discussion into having the skeptics prove they are not gaming.

The bait was to say shooting a bigfoot and living to tell about it is improbable. Disproving that assertion, were it sincere in the first place, is to provide evidence of shooting big, powerful animals that are attacking you.

He didn't need that evidence in the first place, but what it does for us is this: a person who is not gaming would look at the evidence and correct their position.

The fact he doesn't correct his position demonstrates gaming behavior. Were it in isolation, cognitive dissonance might be offered because once again, people have a hard time accepting someone would lie about their beliefs.

But we have to look at the record in its totality. Gaming explains it all so perfectly. There is nothing in the record that is inconsistent with gaming. But the record is replete with inconsistencies on belief.
 
Hey OS:
I borrowed this from another thread.
http://www.amazon.com/Forest-Friend...141049&sr=8-1&keywords=Keith+Bearden+Kindlenk
This, and the other books just like it are all inspired by anecdotes you folks call evidence. Read the silly reviews and synopsis, and the reviews for the other recommended books and you'll notice one consistent underlying theme: these are not serious people, and they believe very silly things.

This is what happens when you read too many reports; you lose your ability to separate fact from fiction. A pro-tip might be: If it's about bigfoot, it's made up. Whether intentionally, or in the mind, it's all hooey about fooey.

ETA: Here's some more silliness about footie.
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2015/04/photo-of-day-skiier-finds-huge.html#comment-form
 
Last edited:
RayG said:
So you...<brevity only snip>...call me whatever you wish, but it would make your argument far more persuasive if you were dragging a squatch along behind you.

RayG
Click to expand...
Something always funny to me is how the premise of "coughing up a body" is always the elephant in the room Bigfooters can't address (properly). Worse, it's literally #13 on their list of 15 things to do. Look at the NAWACers, years of "encounters" in the same place no less yet not only is there no body, there's not even a picture of one, dead or alive. It's laughable by design. The single one thing they need to do to gain riches beyond their wildest dreams and/or free them from their life of Bigfoot persecution and...they just can't do it!

Quit asking! :p

AlaskaBushPilot said:
In order...<brevity only snip>...I think it was my last post where I withdrew the claim about the babes, which is something you never see in a gamer...
Click to expand...
I've called ChrisBFRPKY before on this. He's retracted hardly a vowel of his posts, even after being shown obvious "truth". He gives not an inch no matter what. Which makes no intelligent sense if you're seeking actual truth, but if you're playing a role or position in a game it's not so "dumb". Earn, take, steal, deny, but never give points.
 
Hooey is the subject (********), fooey is the object (footie).
 
And people say bigfoot threads aren't educational or informative. You just proved them wrong! We all learned something today.
 
HarryHenderson said:
Something always funny to me is how the premise of "coughing up a body" is always the elephant in the room Bigfooters can't address (properly). Worse, it's literally #13 on their list of 15 things to do. Look at the NAWACers, years of "encounters" in the same place no less yet not only is there no body, there's not even a picture of one, dead or alive. It's laughable by design. The single one thing they need to do to gain riches beyond their wildest dreams and/or free them from their life of Bigfoot persecution and...they just can't do it!

Quit asking! :p


I've called ChrisBFRPKY before on this. He's retracted hardly a vowel of his posts, even after being shown obvious "truth". He gives not an inch no matter what. Which makes no intelligent sense if you're seeking actual truth, but if you're playing a role or position in a game it's not so "dumb". Earn, take, steal, deny, but never give points.
Click to expand...

If and when the occasion arises that I am mistaken, I freely admit it. I have done so in the past and will do so in the future. Sometimes, being mistaken is the only way to turn an overzealous attack back to where I want the conversation to end up. Zeal can be a weakness you know.
Chris B.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
You guys give yourselves away with statements like "there's no evidence for bigfoot" and "the bigfoot in the PGF is a crappy monkey suit".
Click to expand...

There is no evidence for bigfoot.

Patty is a guy in a monkey suit. Give the director credit, he had the restraint to make sure the photography was never good enough to let you see the zipper, but it's a monkey suit.

I'm sure the people on this board have their faults, but most of us don't hallucinate nine-foot apes.
 
Hellbound said:
You know, the talk about "believeing ABP" is pretty much a huge red herring anyway. Whether all those experiences happened to him or not doesn't really matter; we have firm evidence that they have happened. If not to him, then to others. There's ample evidence in photos, videos, bear skins, carcasses, and similar.

So even IF ABP was making up all the stories, it doesn't really matter. The question is still "why do we see these activities/evidence/incidents with other creatures, but BigFoot is somehow different from every other known example in existence?"

And the excuses for why this type of evidence doesn't exist for BigFoot are precisely an example of special pleading. Much like conspiracists use the "of course there's no evidence, the government/illuminati/reptillians hide it from you" canard. LAck of evidence is, itself, twisted as evidence of behavior, instead of being correctly viewed as lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

Really? Since when did all of you get to be so subjective about evidence? Photos, but from where? Videos, yeah, so what? Bear skins, yeah, but who shot the bear? I mean what is the difference in his "evidence" versus bigfoot evidence. I think his honesty matters considering the extent he is going to to explain the psychology of footers and their "game".
 
Jodie said:
Really? Since when did all of you get to be so subjective about evidence? Photos, but from where? Videos, yeah, so what? Bear skins, yeah, but who shot the bear? I mean what is the difference in his "evidence" versus bigfoot evidence. I think his honesty matters considering the extent he is going to to explain the psychology of footers and their "game".
Click to expand...

Bear with me for a moment.

Let's say ABP is making up everything. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all his evidence comes from other peoples experiences. Someone else shot the bears, was attacked, etc, etc, etc.

How does that actually change the argument? Sure, you might get internet points because you've proved something about your latest obsession target, but how does that relate to the dearth of Bigfoot evidence?

The fact that there are bear attacks, that large and reclusive animals are routinely found, that every other animal leave evidence of it's existence, etc, etc, etc...all argue that Bigfoot is nothing but a myth.

I don't care about internet psychology, whoever does it. I care about evidence. And Bigfoot doesn't fit with evidence.

Both sides of your argument are massive red herrings. The psychology doesn't matter in determining the truth of Bigfoot claims. The evidence does.

Since when did you focus on irrelevencies instead of the main argument?

Oh, wait, nevermind.
 
Jodie said:
Really? Since when did all of you get to be so subjective about evidence? Photos, but from where? Videos, yeah, so what? Bear skins, yeah, but who shot the bear? I mean what is the difference in his "evidence" versus bigfoot evidence. .
Click to expand...


As others have mentioned, bears actually exist. So there's that key difference. Clear, unambiguous photos of actual skins, an actual moose, etc.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom