Why wouldn't bigfoot hunt humans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
OntarioSquatch said:
Hoaxing Bigfoot while you're out looking for real evidence sounds so risky and unnatural. By doing so, you are no longer being true to yourself and what you believe in. What would be the point of looking for real evidence if you're faking the stuff you present? It doesn't match up in my mind.

...but then again it would be wrong of me to think that everyone shares the same mentality.
Click to expand...

Explain Paul Freeman who claimed to be a believer and produced elaborate but obvious hoaxes.
Explain why Meldrum promotes Freeman's hoaxes.
 
Paul Freeman was lying. I doubt he believed any of it. Meldrum is being gullible as usual.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
Amazing that no one has taken her to court. If I had a sample that I thought was from an actual Bigfoot and she bleached and contaminated it, I'd be absolutely pissed.
Click to expand...

You have to swear to tell the truth in front of a judge and have your evidence cross-examined.
Not even Patterson and Gimlin wanted to go that far and settled out of court.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Paul Freeman was lying. I doubt he believed any of it. Meldrum is being gullible as usual.
Click to expand...

How can you say that Freeman was lying about everything and yet say that others are not? What secret power do you have to discern a lie from a fact?

Freeman claimed to have seen a squatch and hoaxed only to bring attention to the subject so real efforts would be made to track the beast down.
It is likely that he lost his job with the Forest Service for his games.

Sounds more dedicated than your average footer.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's hard to make any definitive conclusions on the existence of this animal based on the results of the study.
Click to expand...

Studies (plural). You're suggesting that the only people who have submitted putative bigfoot samples for DNA sampling to the FIVE research labs I referenced were people lying about their samples? Not a single one of the people who actually had authentic bigfoot samples submitted them for testing?

Your options are:

a) Though many people submitted putative bigfoot tissue for analysis, no one in possession of authentic bigfoot samples submitted them to any of the 5 labs.

b) No one is in possession of any authentic bigfoot tissue, but bigfoot is still real.

c) No one is in possession of any authentic bigfoot tissue because there is no such thing as bigfoot.

For which one shall I put you down?
 
I think I might have to retract my opinion on Freeman. I remember now that Derek Randles said something about Freeman hiding under a car as soon as he heard that a Bigfoot was in the immediate area. It's one of the things that made him believe that Freeman's video is fake because when that Bigfoot steps out, Freeman sounds all relaxed.

I seriously doubt he wanted the field of research to get more attention though. More like attention for himself.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
Studies (plural). You're suggesting that the only people who have submitted putative bigfoot samples for DNA sampling to the FIVE research labs I referenced were people lying about their samples? Not a single one of the people who actually had authentic bigfoot samples submitted them for testing?

Your options are:

a) Though many people submitted putative bigfoot tissue for analysis, no one in possession of authentic bigfoot samples submitted them to any of the 5 labs.

b) No one is in possession of any authentic bigfoot tissue, but bigfoot is still real.

c) No one is in possession of any authentic bigfoot tissue because there is no such thing as bigfoot.

For which one shall I put you down?
Click to expand...

Those options might not be the case. You're making the mistake of assuming that if an authentic sample was sent, they would have certainly got the DNA they wanted from it. There's both the issue of contamination and hoaxing. Sykes was supposedly good at cleaning the samples, but the number of samples he received is a red flag.

Here's what I think might have happened:

d) No one really has an authentic biological sample from Bigfoot, even though the species exists.

e) By some chance 1 or 2 people did, but the samples were either sent to Ketchum, too contaminated or were overlooked due to all the other promising-looking samples.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Hoaxing Bigfoot while you're out looking for real evidence sounds so risky and unnatural. By doing so, you are no longer being true to yourself and what you believe in. What would be the point of looking for real evidence if you're faking the stuff you present? It doesn't match up in my mind.

...but then again it would be wrong of me to think that everyone shares the same mentality.
Click to expand...
Your "risky" quote is telling. Why would it be so risky? Because of what you said? Because you'll get caught? Why would that be any more risky than say the chances of Bigfoot getting captured on video? Bigfoot apparently lives with impunity yet some bumbling hoaxer is inevitably gonna be "risking" having every miscue possible. In fact, based on your "illusions" about Bigfoot, the chances a hoaxer (no matter his belief) would be caught has to be less than the total number of supposed Bigfoot in existence.
 
The Shrike said:
Studies (plural). You're suggesting that the only people who have submitted putative bigfoot samples for DNA sampling to the FIVE research labs I referenced were people lying about their samples? Not a single one of the people who actually had authentic bigfoot samples submitted them for testing?

Your options are:

a) Though many people submitted putative bigfoot tissue for analysis, no one in possession of authentic bigfoot samples submitted them to any of the 5 labs.

b) No one is in possession of any authentic bigfoot tissue, but bigfoot is still real.

c) No one is in possession of any authentic bigfoot tissue because there is no such thing as bigfoot.

For which one shall I put you down?
Click to expand...

You forgot one:

d) Big Logging swooped in and swapped out the authentic bigfoot samples for raccoon.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I think I might have to retract my opinion on Freeman. I remember now that Derek Randles said something about Freeman hiding under a car as soon as he heard that a Bigfoot was in the immediate area. It's one of the things that made him believe that Freeman's video is fake because when that Bigfoot steps out, Freeman sounds all relaxed.

I seriously doubt he wanted the field of research to get more attention though. More like attention for himself.
Click to expand...

OK...accepting he was just out to get more attention for himself rather than advance the study or search for squatches...how do his statements and evidence and years of prominence in the footer world differ from anyone else in the footer world?

Here's a couple of specific names you can use as examples:

Brian Brown
Derek Randles
 
OS,
Since Chris posts blobsquatches and refuses to provide evidence do you think he's a hoaxer?
 
Last edited:
rockinkt said:
OK...accepting he was just out to get more attention for himself rather than advance the study or search for squatches...how do his statements and evidence and years of prominence in the footer world differ from anyone else in the footer world?

Here's a couple of specific names you can use as examples:

Brian Brown
Derek Randles
Click to expand...

BB and DR haven't come up with anything yet that I personally would call a hoax. The Bigfoot in Freeman's video and sausage-toed tracks give him away. Even back when I was more gullible, I never once considered the possibility that any of Freeman's evidence could be the real deal.


GT/CS said:
OS,
Since Chris posts blobsquatches and refuses to provide evidence do you think he's a hoaxer?
Click to expand...

Yes. It was obvious to me from the beginning, I enjoy reading the reactions to his posts though much like how I enjoyed watching that episode of Mountain Monsters in central Kentucky. It's just so ridiculous that it's funny. With that being said though, you probably won't find anyone who dislikes hoaxers more than me. Chris is an exception though as his posts are pretty entertaining.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
d) No one really has an authentic biological sample from Bigfoot, even though the species exists.
Click to expand...
How is that not my option b?

OntarioSquatch said:
e) By some chance 1 or 2 people did, but the samples were either sent to Ketchum, too contaminated or were overlooked due to all the other promising-looking samples.
Click to expand...
So bigfoot is real, but out of the dozens/hundreds of people who thought they had bigfoot samples, only 1 or 2 of them did? How do you explain that? If bigfoot is real, it should be just as easy to obtain DNA of it from its environs as it is for any other animal in its environs.
 
OS, its good to see you are recognizing how bigfootery is loaded with attention whoring. This put, sorry, but bigfootery pit's bottom is much deeper than you believe. Within bigfootery -just like any woo, by the way- attention whoring walks together with illusion, delusion, ignorance and dishonesty.

Meldrum is supposed to be a gullible guy, according to you.
Now tell me, when he sells copies of casts from alleged bigfoot footprints, is he being gullible? When he tries to raise money for that... uhm... Dubious blimp design and the bigfoot go-team, is he being gullible?

Chris' tall tales, what are the differences between them and things like alleged observations through thermal cams and candies tossed by bigfoots?

Perhaps its about time you should also start considering that Munns' anti-skeptics and self-aggrandizing diatribes may also contain some attention-whoring elements in no small ammounts...
 
William Parcher said:
Do you think it's bad or immoral to create Bigfoot hoaxes like fake stories about seeing Bigfoot and making fake tracks, etc?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it's wrong if someone does that and doesn't reveal that it's a joke afterwards. Usually it's not a joke though; it's often to get attention or promote a scam or both.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom