A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest diana swampbooger]

This might give you some insight into the GCBRO "contengency plans"

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29566-the-hunt-for-the-southern-bigfoot/?hl=%2Bhunt+%2Bsouthern+%2Bbigfoot

Thank you for the link, Martin. Interesting read.

What Bobby Hamilton was referring to was after they drop it.

[Martin]

^

Diana:

 

Would you post the link to Bobby's Contengency Plans and the GCBRO side of the story I posted... Please

Edited July 9, 2015 by Martin

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Martin,

I was listening to SasChron Ep:122 @ 53:13. A small mention about 'contingency plans' regarding a drop. There was no mention of the events regarding the story you posted.

Hope this works.

https://www.sasquatchchronicles.com/sc-ep122-sasquatch-at-my-window-part-two/

Part 1 is Ep: 120.

[roguefooter]

One should not have to read an entire thread to understand that material that is posted on any post is not the intellectual property of the person that posted it.   You neither quoted previous posts or gave anyone credit for the picture sequence you posted in 292.     If you wrote a college paper or book using your rules you would have immediate copyright issues.    My reference to hoax was not particularly that you were trying to fool us but that you submitted  what you said was a fabrication and because that fabrication was to demonstrate hoaxed pictures are possible,  it is somehow OK.   If a proponent had done the same thing, or not given credit for the source of a photo,   he would have immediately been called out for doing it as we have seen dozens of times on this forum.     You must consider this forum, research.   It could certainly be but only for a psychiatrist who is interested in all the characters who hang out here both proponent (myself among them)  and skeptic.  

 

You didn't need to read the entire thread. The links and answers to all of your concerns were 1 page before you made the accusation. Is that too much research for you?  How about simply asking me about it before jumping to conclusions of hoaxing? You couldn't even do that. That's how much effort you put into this.

 

 

 If a proponent had done the same thing, or not given credit for the source of a photo,   he would have immediately been called out for doing it as we have seen dozens of times on this forum.

 

 

Beerhunter posted the original photoshopped picture as evidence, and he's a proponent. No credits were given for it. Did anybody call him a hoaxer? Nope. We all asked him multiple times about the backstory and source of the photo, even though he never responded. If you had read the thread you would know that.

 

 

You must consider this forum, research.

 

 

Research is simple investigating. It's a basic part of debate and making claims. It applies to all areas of this field including this forum.

 

There's no mystery or question to it.

 

If you wrote a college paper or book using your rules you would have immediate copyright issues.

 

 

You might want to look into copyright Fair Use pertaining to educational, research, non-commercial, or scholarly activities. I can post any photo on this forum and not violate any copyright. 

 

You're really stretching here for excuses.

Edited July 9, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest DWA]

 

Research is simple investigating. It's a basic part of debate and making claims. It applies to all areas of this field including this forum.

 

There's no mystery or question to it.

If it's that elementary, surely a bigfoot skeptic would be able to point me to a mainstream scientist defending the skeptical point of view that way.

 

Still waiting for my first...and I can show you *books full* of proponent scientists doing it.

[roguefooter]

^The non-existent fossil record is really all a scientist would need to counter the Bigfoot claims. We're talking about a creature that is supposed to have existed for the past how many millions of years, and is still in existence today in numbers.

[Guest DWA]

You're kidding right?  THAT IS AMONG THE MOST UN-SCIENTIFIC NON-ARGUMENTS!!!!

 

At least *two* genera of possible fossil progenitors have been speculated; the fossil record for practically nothing has been unearthed before living species were confirmed (indeed this might be just about the only case it's happened!); and we are *always* finding out how myopic scientists are in this regard.  Witness the scientist who was just gobsmacked by Some Lady Walking Around discovering a 'new' (cracks me up when they use that word about dinosaurs) ceratopsian species; he was absolutely *certain* that there weren't any more to be found.

 

Um, no.  That is one of the markers that tells me right out of the gate that you are out of your depth arguing with me.

[roguefooter]

^Did you miss the part about Bigfoot being still in existence today? Still leaving corpses to be found? That's a far cry from a dinosaur.

[Martin]

If it's that elementary, surely a bigfoot skeptic would be able to point me to a mainstream scientist defending the skeptical point of view that way.

Still waiting for my first...and I can show you *books full* of proponent scientists doing it.

The Dewey Decimal System says you can find books full of skeptical proof in section 2.23 right after the books proving fairies don't exist but before the books proving unicorns don't exist. Edited July 9, 2015 by Martin

[Guest DWA]

Tell that to the people who have shot one and carefully inspected the body, and - almost a continent apart - described the same animal.  And never knew of each other.

 

(The guy in western WA was particularly intrigued by the foot ...and described to Grover Krantz the precise shape Krantz had postulated for a bipedal animal of that height and weight.  Sure, that happens all the time.)

 

When the predominant attitude toward something is incredulous denial, I really don't want to hear about what deniers "accept."

Dewey Decimal System says you can find book full of skeptical proof in section 2.23 right after the books proving fairies don't exist but before the books proving unicorns don't exist.

I'll try not to give this one the further dignity of a response.  It's been shot so full of holes it's more hole than flag.

Edited July 9, 2015 by DWA

[roguefooter]

^You mean people that 'claim' to have shot one.

 

As far as a continent apart goes- have you never heard of the internet? Telephone? Letter writing? Or how about travel?

 

People thousands of years ago were trading spices and technology from one continent to the other. You're acting like a description of a legendary creature is somehow impossible to cross borders. In what century are you referring to?

[Guest DWA]

I'm starting to wonder what *you* have heard of.  And am afraid to ask.

You probably think everyone in the world is guilty of murder because People Do That, do you.

 

You'd have a whole lot more fun getting informed about this.  And you'd be able to laugh at wrong people.  Can't beat it for snobbery, actually.

I mean, just seeing how 85% of what's in your posts wouldn't even occur to a well-informed person to write.  Just that, alone.

[Martin]

Why is every story regarding bigfoot completely unverifiable?

Thousands of stories and no evidence.

50 years of unverifiable stories.

[Guest DWA]

silly Martin.  Of course they're verifiable.  Any scientist worth his thesis would be able to tell you precisely how.  You've been told, in fact, times beyond counting here.

 

Yep, can't be beaten for snobbery, this understanding sasquatch.  I mean, utterly unbeatable.

[roguefooter]

I'm starting to wonder what *you* have heard of.  And am afraid to ask.

 

 

I've heard of all of the above forms of communication, and I hear Bigfoot stories and descriptions all the time. If I wanted people to believe a phony story it certainly wouldn't be hard to do. I've got a wealth of reports to pick details from to maintain the continuity and credibility.

 

Of course they're verifiable.

 

 

Yep, the stories exist. I've seen the actual words.

Edited July 9, 2015 by roguefooter