• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
LAL said:
Do you need a cough drop? I've got plenty.
Click to expand...
It's all the BF BS lines being fed, you see.
I PMd Kathy. Maybe she'll realize you guys are nice, polite bunch and come back.
Click to expand...
I eagerly await her slant on the ridiculously obvious.

Again,
Kushtaka and Kooshdakhaa are simply both renderings of kû'cta-qa as I have proven to be obvious and she is utterly and completely busted as having been talking out her butt or she proves they are separate characters with separate stories and I eat massive crow and prostrate myself in apology to her.

Admit it, Lu. Read the posts, she got busted and she knows it. She can do nothing to obscure the fact so she is MIA.
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
Haven't seen much, have you?
Click to expand...
Too much for too long. A belief in bigfoot rests on nothing but circular self-reciprocating yet contradictory excuses.

Tell me, why are so many of the long term BFF members now skeptics? Be a truly critical thinking proponent for long enough and you will become a skeptic. The evidence supports this.
 
kitakaze said:
Admit it, Lu. Read the posts, she got busted and she knows it. She can do nothing to obscure the fact so she is MIA.
Click to expand...

That's not why. If you'd like to PM me an apology about the heritage issue I'll see she gets it.
 
Gbob said:
For the record, the Jane Godall reference was a shout out to the famous Gary Larson Far Side strip (which, and I may be recalling this wrong, featured two gorillas. The female picks up a piece of hair from one and says "Conducting more 'research' with that Jane Goodall tramp?"). For the record, I always found Goodall's work with the Gombe chimps to be fascinating ever since I was a child. Questions of methodology aside, she inspired a whole new dimension in primate studies and if nothing else should be greatly admired for defining a generation of research. Heck, I even donated to her "Roots and Shoots" campaign about 8 or 9 years back...although I might have done it just for the t-shirt. It was a while ago.

Trust me, my statement was meant as a joke. If my remarks were taken wrong, then I apologize. Jane kicks ass.
Click to expand...
I adore 'The Far Side' and I missed the reference but it wasn't exactly apparent. I do remember the one you refer to now but I'm sure you can understand how it looked. In any event being a specialist in one field doesn't automatically qualify statements beyond your ken.
 
LAL said:
That's not why. If you'd like to PM me an apology about the heritage issue I'll see she gets it.
Click to expand...
Total BS diversion. She clarified her claims of being a Native American and you are deflecting from what she was busted about. It had nothing to do with heritage issues but nice try. The silly PC obfuscation won't work. It's desperate for you or her to try and obscure her getting busted. It's about her talking BS about kushtaka/kooshdakhaa and nothing else.

Truly and utterly transparent. For shame.
 
kitakaze said:
Again,
Kushtaka and Kooshdakhaa are simply both renderings of kû'cta-qa as I have proven to be obvious and she is utterly and completely busted as having been talking out her butt or she proves they are separate characters with separate stories and I eat massive crow and prostrate myself in apology to her..
Click to expand...

Oh for the love of…

I have no idea why this is bothering you so much but since I’m not going to spend the time on it (which you have every right to expect), here you go….you’re right and I’m wrong. I apologize.

However, for the record, I would like to note that you never apologized for insulting me about my heritage; you didn’t apologize for making a misstatement about what I said in the first place (see here), and as a reminder, you made a bold statement that I questioned you about that you never addressed (see here).

AND, I would love for you to prove that I talk out my ass…cause if you do, forget bigfoot….both of us could be rich with that act.
 
Last edited:
RayG wrote:
I've even told you the reason I haven't answered your incoherent question,
Click to expand...
You have your "reason".
Scotto had his "reason".
kitakaze has his "reason".
In actual fact, they're excuses. Make-believe reasons.

Hey Ray....why did you ALSO have trouble answering my question about what other type of animal Bigfoot could be if not a Primate?

I asked you the same question about 5 or 6 times before you finally came up with some kind of an answer.(which wasn't actually a real answer.)
What was your EXCUSE that time? :)
Was that question also incoherent?

Feel FREE to answer the questions, Ray...GO AHEAD...it won't hurt. ;)

The next skeptic who tries debating this same issue will end-up having his own "reason" for not answering my questions.
And that's fine.....when a skeptic goes "belly-up" and refuses to answer questions.....it just shows his inability to discuss, analyse, and weigh the evidence for Bigfoot.

The only thing skeptics here can do is say "you don't have proof...ha ha ha ha.......AH ha ha ha ha ha!" :D Now that takes brains!
 
SweatyYeti said:
Hey Ray....why did you ALSO have trouble answering my question about what other type of animal Bigfoot could be if not a Primate?

I asked you the same question about 5 or 6 times before you finally came up with some kind of an answer.(which wasn't actually a real answer.) What was your EXCUSE that time? :) Was that question also incoherent?
Click to expand...

Not long ago I answered that question. It reads like a joke, but in a way it is not. Bigfoot could be a reptile that shows evolutionary convergence (near match of phenotype, but not of genotype or proximal ancestral lineage) with a hairy bipedal ape. The reason it isn't a complete farce is because that sort of thing happens in nature by natural selection from various proposed cause/effects.

Until a Bigfoot body (or part) can be scientifically examined and evaluated.... it remains as a bizarre possibility. But it is no more bizarre than Bigfoot itself (as we are told), and most importantly no more strange than the people who firmly believe that Bigfoot is not a myth.
 
Hairy Man said:
Oh for the love of…

I have no idea why this is bothering you so much but since I’m not going to spend the time on it (which you have every right to expect), here you go….you’re right and I’m wrong. I apologize.
Click to expand...
Kathy,
first I want to say that I appreciate you finally addressing the issue and being big enough to admit your falsehood. I will not pursue the matter further beyond this post nor seek to exploit your admission. As I've felt from the beginning it was quite apparent that you were a kind and decent person genuinely interested in the idea of the existence of sasquatch. Yet as I've said, nice doesn't equate correct. Especially when you go to questionable lengths to appear so.

I do disagree that you could not see why I took issue with it from the first place as I have proven that you made a claim under the pretense of authority as an anthropologist and archaeologist that I was in error and then sought and continued to back it in such manner that was not intellectually honest. Unfortunately, for myself and others, I'm sure, this reflects on your handling and representation of factual data as a professional and person of note and influence in the field of bigfootery.

I assure you that had I been shown in error I would wear my mistake on my sleeve, profusely apologize, and earnestly bear it in mind in further debate.
Hairy Man said:
However, for the record, I would like to note that you never apologized for insulting me about my heritage; you didn’t apologize for making a misstatement about what I said in the first place (see here), and as a reminder, you made a bold statement that I questioned you about that you never addressed (see here).
Click to expand...
I should never aplogize to you about your heritage because I never insulted it. You claimed to be a Native American and I questioned it. When you emended it to part native I ceased to question your claim.

Also, I've made no mistatement concerning anything you said. If you disagree, don't simply link a post but explain in detail how I did so.

If you feel I made a bold statement on native traditions concerning bigfoot then you will find my relevant points on the matter after the posts about your dishonest kushtaka/kooshdakhaa claims.
 
Summary for those who don't want to wade through 60+ pages:

1) Proposal: Those claiming that Bigfoot prints are real must be able to demonstrate an ability to differentiate real from fake prints.
2) Response:
General Consensus is yes, this is reasonable.
Believers cry foul and throw out accusations, insults, refuse to acknowledge basic facts.
3) Discussion about how misidentifications of casting artifacts led to erronsous reports of "dermatoglyphics" as believers throw out red herrings.
4) Continued discussion about footprint morphology, tracking, and casting as believers recruit more believers from another forum to show up and throw out more red herrings.
5) General consensus that those claiming to be infallible when identifying prints are full of it, believers are up to their eyeballs in red herrings, start using debate tactics of 6 year olds, resulting in several leaving in a huff and one getting banned.
6) On-going discussion about mythology and folklore.
7) Thread starter posts summary.

Thank you.
 
kitakaze said:
Tell me, why are so many of the long term BFF members now skeptics?
Click to expand...

How many would that be? Would you say they're outnumbered by the new members who seem to be quite convinced? Do you suppose there's a correlation between their areas of "research" and their cynicism? Do you think this can be said of active researchers in or near "hot" areas, such as Rick Noll, Autumn Williams and Jeff Meldrum? How about John Green? He's a BFF member.

Be a truly critical thinking proponent for long enough and you will become a skeptic. The evidence supports this.
Click to expand...

You have evidence? Let's see it.
 
desertyeti said:
Summary for those who don't want to wade through 60+ pages:
Click to expand...

Posted by one who turned down a chance to humiliate "believers" on national TV and is way, way ahead of them all when it comes to insults and accusations. He's also pretty good at mischaracterizations.

But don't take my word for it. Read the thread.
 
LAL said:
Posted by one who turned down a chance to humiliate "believers" on national TV and is way, way ahead of them all when it comes to insults and accusations. He's also pretty good at mischaracterizations.

But don't take my word for it. Read the thread.
Click to expand...
How telling..

Lu thinks this is all about which side can humiliate the other the most..

Humiliate us Lu .. Bring us a Squatch ..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom