• 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.
Question: What would the present status be of the "Wallace Fake Bigfoot Prints" if nobody ever knew Wallace was hoaxing and nobody ever saw those wooden feet?
 
Diogenes said:
How telling..

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

Humiliate us Lu .. Bring us a Squatch ..
Click to expand...

:D
The fact that I'm a mean and thoroughly horrible person who makes fun of people who state absurd conclusions based on zero (0) quantifiable data should in no way hinder anyone from actually finding, photographing, or otherwise proving the existence of gigantic, smelly, howling apemen in North America.
But hey, whatever helps keep delusions alive...
 
William Parcher said:
Question: What would the present status be of the "Wallace Fake Bigfoot Prints" if nobody ever knew Wallace was hoaxing and nobody ever saw those wooden feet?
Click to expand...


Those who know tracks would say they're obvious fakes.
Those who want BF to be real would say they're obviously real.
Sorta like now, only less embarassing for the self-deluding believers.
Woah!
There I go being mean again!:cool:
 
Well, believers never feel humiliated because they are never wrong.

When you can toss out the claim that Ray Wallace copied bigfoot's footprints with a straight face, what is going to humiliate you?

When you can put up a page like Meldrum's and defend it vigorously, what would humiliate you?

When you can seriously refer to the BFRO for info, how can anything humiliate you?

For my last example of how footers can't be humiliated, I have but two words.

Skookum cast
 
kitakaze said:
Again, Lu, you are glaringly contradicting yourself.

Addendum to interlude:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070222/sc_livescience/firstamericansettlersnotwhowethought

Why do you cite and skew scientific discovery where you think it supports bigfoot and elsewhere blame science for not finding the object of your fascination?

And again you downplay human ability and endeavours to support your ideas of bigfoot.

NA native peoples haven't been too keen on hunting 8' apes but they didn't shy from mastodons?
Click to expand...

You're talking about paleoindians. I'm talking about Indians. No contradiction.

http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/museum/mammoths/mam&pind.htm

Do you suppose paleoindians tended to stick to the plains where the megafauna was?

We don't really have their legends and petroglyphs, do we? We don't know what taboos they might have had about hunting something so manlike if they did encounter them. We don't even know if Homo erectus actually hunted Gigantopithecus in Asia. (If they did, that might account for the avoidance behavior, if any, in a descendant, might it not?)

Is there any evidence paleoindians hunted in the deep forests?
 
kitakaze said:
Again, Lu, you are glaringly contradicting yourself.

Addendum to interlude:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070222/sc_livescience/firstamericansettlersnotwhowethought

Why do you cite and skew scientific discovery where you think it supports bigfoot and elsewhere blame science for not finding the object of your fascination?

And again you downplay human ability and endeavours to support your ideas of bigfoot.

NA native peoples haven't been too keen on hunting 8' apes but they didn't shy from mastodons?
Click to expand...

You're talking about paleoindians. I'm talking about Indians. No contradiction.

http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/museum/mammoths/mam&pind.htm

Do you suppose paleoindians tended to stick to the plains where the megafauna was?

We don't really have their legends and petroglyphs, do we? We don't know what taboos they might have had about hunting something so manlike. We don't even know if Homo erectus actually hunted Gigantopithecus in Asia. (If they did, that migh account for the voidance behavior, if any, in a descendant, might it not?)

Is there any evidence paleoindians hunted in the deep forests?
 
LTC8K6 said:
For my last example of how footers can't be humiliated, I have but two words.

Skookum cast
Click to expand...

"OK... for those that may not know this stuff, although I am sure it has been posted here before... The original impression is a female. A Hydrocal cast was made from it, destroying the original impression. Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Ron Brown at Derek Randles residence cleaned the cast. The cast was used to make a latex rubber female mold with a mother mold backing. This in turn was used to make a latex rubber male mold and mother mold. The two pieces exhibited at the Texas museum were made from these rubber mother molds and then painted to simulate the original mud coloration. BC artists produced them. They typically color their works. These pieces were made out of gel coat and fiberglass with a light plaster backing and steel rod reinforcement with a wood border.

Each of the molds contains three dissimilar materials and the actual copies contain yet again three dissimilar materials. This is mentioned because the rubber molds do not fit the pieces anymore since the dissimilar materials contracted and expanded differently from one another with curing. Steel, Hydrocal plaster, gel coat, POP, fiberglass and polyester resin, wood. The paint detracts from the pieces if the desire is to quantify. Do not think these pieces are like something from Bone Clones.


Mixing of all materials was by eyesight and experience. I do not think they are museum grade pieces though they serve the purpose they were intended for." -DDA


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15671&view=findpost&p=335686
 
LAL said:
"OK... for those that may not know this stuff, although I am sure it has been posted here before... The original impression is a female. A Hydrocal cast was made from it, destroying the original impression. Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Ron Brown at Derek Randles residence cleaned the cast. The cast was used to make a latex rubber female mold with a mother mold backing. This in turn was used to make a latex rubber male mold and mother mold. The two pieces exhibited at the Texas museum were made from these rubber mother molds and then painted to simulate the original mud coloration. BC artists produced them. They typically color their works. These pieces were made out of gel coat and fiberglass with a light plaster backing and steel rod reinforcement with a wood border.

Each of the molds contains three dissimilar materials and the actual copies contain yet again three dissimilar materials. This is mentioned because the rubber molds do not fit the pieces anymore since the dissimilar materials contracted and expanded differently from one another with curing. Steel, Hydrocal plaster, gel coat, POP, fiberglass and polyester resin, wood. The paint detracts from the pieces if the desire is to quantify. Do not think these pieces are like something from Bone Clones.


Mixing of all materials was by eyesight and experience. I do not think they are museum grade pieces though they serve the purpose they were intended for." -DDA
Click to expand...

How does any of this have any bearing on whether or not an actual sasquatch left a buttprint?

RayG
 
LAL said:
Yeah, just forget the physical evidence and the thousands of credible sightings by people with no kids in the camp.
Click to expand...

And yet not a single body found. No Sasquatch run over by a car. Ever. None.

It's a good thing real biologists don't rely solely on "sightings".

And to which "physical" evidence are you refering ?

Maybe I should put this another way. They don't share the same biological niche. Neither do black bears and grizzlies. Sasquatches and Black Bear do.
Click to expand...

Faith is a powerful thing, isn't it ?

Counting Canada there are probably around 10,000 of them.
Click to expand...

An estimate based on ... what ?

You would have us believe Ray Wallace was up all night with armloads of fakes making them?
Click to expand...

He really only needed two, yes ?

People have been making CROP circles, for crying out loud.

Ten yard loss for attempting to reverse the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes it is.

My dad had a plane. I remember him commenting on the downdrafts when we flew the Columbia. I remember listening to the scanner in Stevenson years later when a light plane went down in the river. I saw some hot rodder fly under the Bridge of the Gods, but normally pilots were smarter than that.
Click to expand...

Again a very convenient fact. Not only are bigfeet afraid of bears, cameras and publicity, but they also repell planes.

Rick Noll estimates 30 in Washington.
Click to expand...

I hope they use LavaLife.

One of the earliest mentions was from a missionary among the Spokane in 1841. There' a newspaper account of hairy giants in North Carolina in 1792. A "wildman" was reportedly captured by Indians and sent to England (King James' court).
Click to expand...

Ghosts are also frequently reported. As are UFOs. Got anything beyond "sightings" ?

I don't think they do. I think they just happen to inhabit areas that don't get a lot of human traffic.
Click to expand...

You know, if bigfoot enthousiasts said "well, I do believe that bigfoot exists, and we're looking for evidence, but frankly, it seems more and more unlikely that they do, due to the fact that no such, irrevocable proof has ever been found," I'd have more respect for them.
 
Same old flawed reasonings, misinformations, obfuscations, diversions and unreliable evidence... Bigfoot myth is a castle of cards. We have been presented with elaborated "theories" about their numbers, behavior, etc., all based in... Sighting reports and... Uhm... Ahm... Erm... More speculations? and a lot of data cherry picking?

The bigfoot sightings map at
http://penn.freeservers.com/bigfootmaps/
shows a remarkable decrease in sightings beyond USA/Canada border.

I guess most of the poor BFs can't pass through Canada customs... Since there's not much difference when it comes to climate, fauna and flora, Canada's custom is the only remaining alternative. After all, we know bigfeet are real and not a modern myth, mainly from USA. Thus its not a case of a cultural boundary...<-that was sarcasm

One could also ask why there are no sightings in Mexico. But this may be because most English-speaking people do not consider Mexico as part of North America (well, at least this is what Wikipedia, says...), and not due to overzealous customs officers.

A single fossil gorilla tooth... Yes, but got any bigfoot teeth (or any other part, sorry, butt casts are not accepted)? And bigfoot defenders refuse to note the number of gorillas shot by poachers or killed by other reasons (disease, etc.). They also forget to mention the number of specimens (dead an alive) at zoos, museums, etc. Any bigfoot specimen avaliable?

Not to mention that gorilla's geographic distribution is much smaller than the alleged bigfoot habitat. And mostly composed by metamorphic rocks or sedimentary rocks that are too old to contain their fossils. But guess what? A fossil tooth was found at rocks with the right age, even tough their distribution is restrict. Got any remains, fossil or not of any creature roughly similar to bigfoot in North America?

But now enters the bigfooter's piece du resistance, Gigantopithecus... Actually, their distorted view of the critter, since they ignore the facts that they did not looked like Patty or the most common bigfoot rendering, were restricted to Southern Asia and were herbivores.

Note:
The sanbenitos are not fireproof. The reason is simple: The bonfires from Bigfoot Inquisition burn with a fire that is as real as bigfeet themselves...

Its becoming harder and harder for me to write relatively serious posts on this subject. The line dividing some bigfoot proponents from Buzz Lightyear and CTs seems to become fainter each day...
 
Question: Did Bigfootery ever "Jump The Shark"?

IOW, were it's ideas and propositions once good, and then became bad? If you think so, try to explain when and how.


sharklogo4.gif
 
William Parcher wrote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
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 bizzare 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.
Click to expand...
Well, actually......a Reptile is a MUCH more "bizarre" explanation....or, in other words...less probable explanation....than Bigfoot being a Primate.

Because, from the fossil record, there are many known intermediate species of primates between apes and man.......but as far as I know....there are NO fossils of intermediate forms between any reptiles and man.

Are there any crocodiles that occasionally get around on their hind legs only...like chimps do? Maybe I've missed something. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
You know, if bigfoot enthousiasts said "well, I do believe that bigfoot exists, and we're looking for evidence, but frankly, it seems more and more unlikely that they do, due to the fact that no such, irrevocable proof has ever been found," I'd have more respect for them.
Click to expand...


Now, that's funny. I can name a few. They seem to engaged in hijacking threads on BFF these days.

There actually is compelling evidence. If "enthusiasts" choose to jump on whatever skeptical bandwagon happens to be rolling by, I can't stop them, but I think it's good they're out of the field. They might get hurt.
 
belz wrote:
Originally Posted by Belz...
You know, if bigfoot enthousiasts said "well, I do believe that bigfoot exists, and we're looking for evidence, but frankly, it seems more and more unlikely that they do, due to the fact that no such, irrevocable proof has ever been found," I'd have more respect for them.
Click to expand...
And if the skeptics could actually analyse the evidence....in terms of "probabilities"....I'd have more respect for their ability to THINK.

As it is....they only seem able to say "there's no proof" ....and then "analyse" the evidence using circular reasoning.
Deep thinkers...the lot of them.

Example..........

kitakaze, in his attempt at analysing Joyce's sighting report and later phone call to me, was only able to come up with one reason why "something other than Bigfoot" (nutcase, liar, lousy memory) is the most likely explanation for both her report and phone call.

His reason......no OTHER good evidence for Bigfoot.

Bottom line.....when a skeptic "analyses" evidence "A"....they point to evidence "B", "C", "D". etc...and say "well, all that evidence is worthless, so "A" must be worthless too!!! :rolleyes: (I did good, mommy!)

And then.....to complete the CIRCLE.........

...When asked why "B" is meaningless....they'll say "because "A", "C", "D", etc., are ALL meaningless!!! :rolleyes:

And round and round we go....:boggled:

Lovely little bit of circular reasoning....isn't it?! :D
 
LAL said:
Belz... said:
You know, if bigfoot enthousiasts said "well, I do believe that bigfoot exists, and we're looking for evidence, but frankly, it seems more and more unlikely that they do, due to the fact that no such, irrevocable proof has ever been found," I'd have more respect for them.
Click to expand...

They seem to engaged in hijacking threads on BFF these days.
Click to expand...

Yeah, heaven forbid anyone express any doubts. The romantics consider that hijacking. :boggled:

RayG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom