Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 There is no Bigfoot, no shootings, no bodies and no Bigfoot "slice-of-thigh" or any other body part forthcoming. My sources are irrefutable. There IS no DNA. There is no (to say the least) convincing Erickson video. Isn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 There is no Bigfoot, no shootings, no bodies and no Bigfoot "slice-of-thigh" or any other body part forthcoming. My sources are irrefutable. There IS no DNA. There is no (to say the least) convincing Erickson video. Isn't there. And your irrefutable sources are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 There is no Bigfoot, no shootings, no bodies and no Bigfoot "slice-of-thigh" or any other body part forthcoming. My sources are irrefutable. There IS no DNA. There is no (to say the least) convincing Erickson video. Isn't there. That looks like fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Double Post. Edited July 10, 2011 by NiceGuyJon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Your talking about yourself in the third person. Get some help before it gets too serious. [/quote You are right. After a while why do want to be "on the net" as a bigfoot source? SF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billgreen2010 Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 this ongoing ky bigfoot situation is getting so nutty & bannnas keep me updated....please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 And your irrefutable sources are? One is a famous (in his field) taxidermist and hunter. The other is a scientist and DNA expert. Beyond that I cannot say, as they have signed NDA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockinkt Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Gold - pure gold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 One is a famous (in his field) taxidermist and hunter. The other is a scientist and DNA expert. Beyond that I cannot say, as they have signed NDA's. Let me get this straight, the persons who disclosed the information to you can't be named because they have signed non-disclosure agreements. This makes them credible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 10, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 10, 2011 And these are the same people jumping witnesses for their lack of details, etc etc. Cut me a break.......geeesh, suddenly-like the NDA is everybodies attention getter. Pardon me while I yawn loudly, there, much better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Let me get this straight, the persons who disclosed the information to you can't be named because they have signed non-disclosure agreements. This makes them credible? Well, there's that and their request that I not divulge their names. Oh and their credibility is outstanding. Did I also mention unquestionable? Edited July 10, 2011 by WTB1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Well, there's that and their request that I not divulge their names. Oh and their credibility is outstanding. Did I also mention unquestionable? Right. So the 'credible people' who signed a NONdisclosure agreement told you the stuff they weren't supposed to disclose, but made you promise not to disclose so you could post it on an internet forum? :D !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Right. So the 'credible people' who signed a NONdisclosure agreement told you the stuff they weren't supposed to disclose, but made you promise not to disclose so you could post it on an internet forum? :D !!!! I think he's making a point. That's what many people sound like when they discuss "proof". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I'll have to remember to only enter into non-disclosure agreements with folks of questionable character then, maybe they'll keep their word when they give it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Right. So the 'credible people' who signed a NONdisclosure agreement told you the stuff they weren't supposed to disclose, but made you promise not to disclose so you could post it on an internet forum? :D !!!! Yep! What's wrong with that anyway? I don't follow your logic. NiceGuyJon's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts