Guest Posted July 10, 2011 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.
Guest LAL Posted July 10, 2011 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?
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 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.
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Double Post. Edited July 10, 2011 by NiceGuyJon
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 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
Guest billgreen2010 Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 this ongoing ky bigfoot situation is getting so nutty & bannnas keep me updated....please
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 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.
indiefoot Posted July 10, 2011 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?
bipedalist Posted July 10, 2011 BFF Patron 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
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 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
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 10, 2011 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 !!!!
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 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".
indiefoot Posted July 10, 2011 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.
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 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
Recommended Posts