Researcher turns skeptic on Bigfoot

[Kensmith]

After many years of searching and getting into deep forests, inteviewing people, and analyzing all films and photos, I have decided there is no Bigfoot
animal after all.

If after 1400 or so years, (since vikings) there has been no Bigfoot body nor bones found, in the North America, then it is unlikely any ever will. No road kill, no hunter kill, no accidents.

Randi skeptics, CSICOP, etc, are correct. There is no animal Bigfoot.

We can all go home and watch football.

Ken

[Stellafane]

Hi. Are you the Ken Smith associated with the Bigfoot Museum and statue in Willow Creek, CA? And if so, may I ask what finally convinced you that Bigfoot does not exist (or was it a cumulative effect)?

[westphalia]

Ditto. I'd love to hear more.

[Huntster]

After many years of searching and getting into deep forests, inteviewing people, and analyzing all films and photos, I have decided there is no Bigfoot
animal after all....

Ummmm......Who are you, and what do you have to support that statement?

[cloudshipsrule]

There is NO conclusive evidence that a bigfoot exists. Only speculation, footprints that could easily be faked, questionable eye-witness accounts, and ONE film that may or may not show a person in a suite.

People love a good story. People love to make up stories. When the first bigfoot sightings occured in North America around 1810, it was a time when fake stories of creatures were rampant in newspapers. Spectacular accounts of creatures sold more newspapers than wagon-dealer adds.

The first accounts of bigfoot have simply evolved into larger stories and are still what they were 194 years ago, urban legend.

[cloudshipsrule]

One more post and I can link!

[Diogenes]

Ummmm......Who are you,

Kensmith?


... and what do you have to support that statement?


Uhhhhhhhhhm, that would be:
After many years of searching and getting into deep forests, inteviewing people, and analyzing all films and photos, I have decided there is no Bigfoot
animal after all.

If after 1400 or so years, (since vikings) there has been no Bigfoot body nor bones found, in the North America, then it is unlikely any ever will. No road kill, no hunter kill, no accidents. Ken


Was that a real stretch for you Hunster ?

Go back to your comic book ...

[cloudshipsrule]

Is this an accurate description of bigfoot history?

http://www.unmuseum.org/bigfoot.htm


If so, think about it for one minute.

Here are a bunch of links to fraudulant creature claims from around the world. People love to fool other people. It's in our nature, and sometimes people make a good living doing it. Bigfoot is great fodder for people who love attention and who like to fool other people! Just like the following examples:


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/great.htm
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/canadianhoax.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1059825.stm
http://www.snopes.com/photos/tsunami/mermaid.asp
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/8390/marine_hoax.html
http://giantology.typepad.com/giantology/2005/10/giant_creature_.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0729_030729_lochness.html
http://skepdic.com/bigfoot.html


It goes on and on and on...... Bigfoot is big business for a lot of people!

I won't fault people for believing in bigfoot, just like I won't fault a girl in 4th grade for believing in unicorns. Belief, however, doesn't make something real.

[Miss Whiplash]

Is this an accurate description of bigfoot history?

<snipped>



Before running headlong into a Bigfoot tirade, perhaps we should wait for Mr. Smith to respond. This may be a spoof of the real Ken Smith by a troll.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Ummmm......Who are you,

Kensmith?

... and what do you have to support that statement?

Uhhhhhhhhhm, that would be:

Originally Posted by Kensmith :
After many years of searching and getting into deep forests, inteviewing people, and analyzing all films and photos, I have decided there is no Bigfoot
animal after all.

Was that a real stretch for you Hunster ?

Nope.

Like you used to claim to be skeptical of "testimony", and liked to ask for evidence, is it a "stretch" for me to do so?

Go back to your comic book ...

I read your post. That qualifies as "comics", IMHO.

Are you sore about something?

[Huntster]

Before running headlong into a Bigfoot tirade, perhaps we should wait for Mr. Smith to respond. This may be a spoof of the real Ken Smith by a troll.

Funny how the request for evidence is sometimes forgotten by hard-core skeptics, isn't it?

I guess sometimes it's a matter of science and skepticism, and sometimes it's not.

I wonder what dictates that?

[Diogenes]

Nope.

Like you used to claim to be skeptical of "testimony", and liked to ask for evidence, is it a "stretch" for me to do so?



I read your post. That qualifies as "comics", IMHO.

Are you sore about something?

Sorry Huntster... I really need to tone down the sarcasm...

...I have decided

Was the key phrase in Kensmiths statement..


The evidence for ' I have decided .. " is " I have decided " ..



Now when Kensmith says ' I know there is no Bigfoot '; you can ask for evidence..

[Huntster]

...The evidence for ' I have decided .. " is " I have decided " ..
Now when Kensmith says ' I know there is no Bigfoot '; you can ask for evidence..

Yeah, decisions are free.

I was mostly interested in this:

After many years of searching and getting into deep forests, inteviewing people, and analyzing all films and photos,...

If this is a bonafide sasquatch researcher who has gotten frustrated to the point of conversion, that's interesting.

If this is a troll, it could be fun dropping bombs on him from the top of the bridge.......

[thaiboxerken]

If it's a troll or a "bonafide sasquatch researcher", he's right either way. There is no Bigfoot. No Bigfoot fur has been found, no Bigfoot crap, no Bigfoot urine, no Bigfoot bones or habitats. There is absolutely no evidence of a Bigfoot.

[Miss Whiplash]

If it's a troll or a "bonafide sasquatch researcher", he's right either way. There is no Bigfoot. No Bigfoot fur has been found, no Bigfoot crap, no Bigfoot urine, no Bigfoot bones or habitats. There is absolutely no evidence of a Bigfoot.

No argument with that. I've always thought it was a hoax, the same as Skunk Ape, MoMo and Lizard Man. Still, I'd like to know how a former researcher finally came to the logical conclusion, if the poster is in fact genuine.

[Kensmith]

Science requires a dead, stinking (or not) body, bones, skull,etc, to verify a new species of animal.

Bigfoot does not qualify.

Now, yes, there are scat, hairs, blood, dna, tracks that cannot be faked, and tracks that do strange things that bother my fellow bigfooters,plus claims of vanishings, ( some weird stuff out there...)and there is a PG Film that has never been successfully discredited,

BUT, there are no bones, "where's the beef?" , valid USA teeth, nothing a
professional scientist can sink his scapel into.

So, from the point of view of science, there is no Bigfoot animal primate.

This is what is required, and it never surfaces.

As Dr Milford Wolpoff, Univ of Chicago, says,

'Where are the roadkill?"

So all you skeptics can relax, open a cold one, do high fives, there is no proof
of an animal Bigfoot.

Ken

[Kensmith]

Sure, there are a few, but what utter FOOL will risk his life and future
running across roads in a fur suit to get shot by some good ol boy
with a 30-06 ?

Something is going on, but it is not hoaxes.

KS

[thaiboxerken]

Sure, there are a few, but what utter FOOL will risk his life and future
running across roads in a fur suit to get shot by some good ol boy
with a 30-06 ?


Penn and Teller did a pretty good hoax. Hunter anecdotes really mean nothing. I mean, have you listened to hunters talk about their kills?

[Miss Whiplash]

Science requires a dead, stinking (or not) body, bones, skull,etc, to verify a new species of animal.

Bigfoot does not qualify.

Now, yes, there are scat, hairs, blood, dna, tracks that cannot be faked, and tracks that do strange things that bother my fellow bigfooters,plus claims of vanishings, ( some weird stuff out there...)and there is a PG Film that has never been successfully discredited,

BUT, there are no bones, "where's the beef?" , valid USA teeth, nothing a
professional scientist can sink his scapel into.

So, from the point of view of science, there is no Bigfoot animal primate.

This is what is required, and it never surfaces.

As Dr Milford Wolpoff, Univ of Chicago, says,

'Where are the roadkill?"

So all you skeptics can relax, open a cold one, do high fives, there is no proof
of an animal Bigfoot.

Ken

As most living things die and leave a corpse behind, I can see why the scientific community would like a body to examine to verify the claim. Perhaps you or some other investigator can shoot a Bigfoot and present the body to a zoologist. Then, you can tell us all "I told you so!" I'll up the ante, if you produce a bigfoot corpse, I will personally eat my nightgown.

[Huntster]

...So all you skeptics can relax, open a cold one, do high fives, there is no proof
of an animal Bigfoot....

Yup. "There is no proof of an animal Bigfoot."

There's also no evidence of a "researcher turns skeptic on Bigfoot".

[thaiboxerken]

There's also no evidence of a "researcher turns skeptic on Bigfoot".

Burp. sorry, that's all the reply your post needs.

[Kensmith]

Yup. "There is no proof of an animal Bigfoot."

There's also no evidence of a "researcher turns skeptic on Bigfoot".

Reply: :

I see no evidence for a huntster either. You are just bits in cyberspace.

Just a name.

Now, go make a name for yourself -- go drag in a dead bigfoot, be famous!

Oprah waits for you.

If you feel there is an animal Bigfoot, then the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.
No proof, no animal.

KS

[Kensmith]

Hi. Are you the Ken Smith associated with the Bigfoot Museum and statue in Willow Creek, CA? And if so, may I ask what finally convinced you that Bigfoot does not exist (or was it a cumulative effect)?


Do not know that person in Willow Creek.

I am Ken L. Smith

My decision was culminative.... when you put in your best for 19 years and
make a sighting or two, but never find any bones, skull or teeth,
it is time to give up and try to look into other explanations.

There is no animal bigfoot.

KLS

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Burp. sorry, that's all the reply your post needs.

As much as I dislike Huntster, I have to give him that one. If the OP had read, "I used to be a skeptic, but now I believe in BF" many of us would be all over him asking for proof of his prior standing as a skeptic, what convinced him to change his mind, etc. We need to think critically, and skeptically, at all times, about all claims, even if they agree with us (1).



(1) caveat being, if we have good reason to trust the source making the claim, provisional agreement can be given, eg I would trust what Huntsman has to say about use of ad-hoc explosives in the US military.

[thaiboxerken]

Claiming to have researched bigfoot and then turn skeptical about it isn't an extraordinary claim. There is no reason to really doubt this person. His claim doesn't turn science on it's head. Yes, Kensmith could be telling a lie, but it doesn't matter. I also do not doubt that either way, Kensmith is as qualified as Huntster as being a "Bigfoot" researcher.

[Kensmith]

Claiming to have researched bigfoot and then turn skeptical about it isn't an extraordinary claim. There is no reason to really doubt this person. His claim doesn't turn science on it's head. Yes, Kensmith could be telling a lie, but it doesn't matter. I also do not doubt that either way, Kensmith is as qualified as Huntster as being a "Bigfoot" researcher.

reply: OK, Call me Henry -- and few will doubt I am a researcher.

Quote:

A view from some place you haven't been to yet
by Brother Locust aka Henry Franzoni

I often read the posts here, with fond memories of the search. I began the search once, camping in the woods,packing binoculars and cameras and night vision gear.Playing tapes, baiting, whatever,.. usually waitingall night on mountain peaks quietly. Almost immediately I hooked up with other researchers, hooked up with funds,then I indirectly helped build some very fancy night
vision gear using seismic detectors and microwave relay video transmissions to a home base. This device was placed in a wilderness area for two years. I helped with a $250,000 scientific analysis of the Patterson film that produced a science report, I started a bigfoot discussion list, tried my absolute best to get people(especially scientists and policy makers), to take bigfoot research seriously. I helped some people run a bigfoot incident report 800 number for 5 years,I helped many bigfooters make web sites including Ray Crowe, Peter Byrne, Rene Dahinden, Chris Murphy,Matt Moneymaker, and Ron Morehead. I helped a lot
of bigfooters, all sizes and shapes of bigfooters.I helped investigate 400 sightings in the northwest. I compiled a huge database of sighting reports, I looked for patterns, I made maps, I studied, and studied and studied. I made movies, I became a bigfoot spokesman,I presented my results at symposiums. Some of you probably know who I am by now. I battled for credibility,I argued scientifically with anyone who'd listen.I did the best possible research I could, I constantly evaluated my methodology, I used logic, I used the rules of good thinking, I went out in the woods, I waited by a phone, I went with groups, I went alone.There was a helicopter with a FLIR standing ready if one of us ever found anything. Nevertheless, I must use a pseudonym, I cannot come
forward with what I have to say. What I have to say is too crazy, too unwelcome, not helpful, not something that would help get bigfoot researchers taken seriously.This is part of why I left the scene. I no longer could participate in something where I had to present a false face all the time. It was too much for me.I had to consider people's systems of belief, people's cherished notions, people's sensibilities; what people thought was plausible; what they thought was not plausible. What was believable. I could play
the game, I could listen and understand what people could accept, and what they could not accept. I respected other people's points of view. I evaluated what was known and unknown, I knew what was speculation and what wasn't. I'm not a total idiot.
But what I have to say, from my perspective, is the truth I learned along the way, the part of the puzzle I figured out. It's not the whole picture. It strikes me as funny. It strikes me as ironic. All the arguments out there about bigfoot's nature: kill, no kill, ape-like/person-like,intelligent/just an animal, flesh and blood/supernatural, real/hoax, misidentified animal/uncataloged animal /perceptual failure/mass hallucination/sociological phenomenon/cultural phenomenon/wishful thinking...well, you know what "they" say; a man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion.All of the major raging arguments can be answered with one simple answer;
BOTH seemingly opposed viewpoints are true. ALL of the above theories have some truth to them, after a fashion.
When you can understand how these disparate viewpoints and raging arguments and hardened
positions and exclusive theories can all be true at the same time, you are on your way to understanding what I have learned about the bigfeet... really.I can't tell you how funny I find this.No doubt I just lost your attention, you might besaying "it's not possible, it's not plausible,it's ridiculous, it's silly, it's not credible,you're not credible, it's not scientific,it's not helpful, what about Occam's Law of limited imagination?" etc. etc. I always ask myself,"Why bother to tell anyone anything about bigfoot?"Everyone will have to find out for themselves and see with their own eyes or they will not believe me. Why? Because they are sane, rational, normal
human beings who have their critical faculties intact....nothing wrong with that. Some truths about the bigfeet are a self-keeping secret. People are just not ready to accept what I've learned on my personal journey. Just remember, I'd like to think I respect truth as much as anybody. I even respect the fact that we each have our own truths, our own beliefs, our own sense of meaning.
I have personally experienced the flesh and blood animal aspect of bigfeet, up close and personal,I have personally experienced the telepathic aspect of bigfeet, on more than one occasion.I have encountered the sense of humor of intelligent bigfeet, I have communicated with intelligent bigfeet. I have been made fun of by the bigfeet. I have walked right up to a bush with a laughing bigfoot in it, and found nothing at all there. No tracks, no broken branches, nothing. I have seen enough with my own eyes
to know that bigfoot is a flesh and blood animal,AND something else beyond my understanding. Something that acts like an animal, then acts like a scientist. Something that can grunt and laugh, something that can can then reach right into your mind and
communicate with you mind to mind. Something that can shape-shift, something that looks like an ape, then looks like almost anything else. Something that eats raw food like a regular primate, then walks away without leaving any tracks.Something that can move in 3D reality in a very unconventional fashion. When they pass nearby,it can even affect time. It's funny to me that
the simplest explanation is not the correct explanation in this particular case. The correct explanation is rather complicated and even, hah,(don't laugh too hard) multi-dimensional. Or so I think today, after along and sometimes arduous journey. If you have enough direct experience and good fortune and have contact with these beings, you will eventually come around to my way of thinking.
Time is on my side.I have been given many gifts by the bigfeet, the biggest one was understanding of course. One particular physical gift I was given in such a way that I knew who gave it to me.This particular gift was left behind a locked door,and done so without unlocking it in a conventional fashion. I even partially figured out what the gift meant and symbolized.I am under no illusion that my personal experiences will ever rise to the level of "scientific proof".I am also under no illusion that somehow my"credibility" will carry the day and make everyone believe me.This too I find ironic, I am not irrational, I am not particularly stupid, yet my personal experiences fly in the face of almost everything that we "know"is scientifically possible. Experience and proof are two very different things, it is easy to confuse them sometimes. Sometimes you just gotta be true to yourself, and hope for the best. You
know what I mean? At times I like this I console myself with the fact that "truth" has a way of out-lasting falsehoods,...eventually, false assumptions wither on the vine, given enough time, and given enough experience and
good fortune. Science needs data. When the data is scarce, people can hold onto extremist views, they can argue their side of the story, who can prove them wrong? More data... that's what we need. The ever elusive concrete proof just around the corner .To me, the most interesting questions needing more hard data>are these:
1) There is a footprint problem. Sometimes there are too few footprints, sometimes the footprints are deeper than they should be,
sometimes they are shallower than they should be. This is related to a weight problem. The seeming inconsistencies always get explained away, almost always without any hard data. People talk about soil compression and the depth that their boot makes in the same soil, but no one really has any hard data about what weight over what surface area compresses to what
depth.Everyone assumes that they have to leave footprints all the time, yet footprints are seldom found in the proper numbers at
incident locations.
2) There is a location problem. Everyone who studies enough knows where the hot areas are, we know where the hot areas were. We all have our pet theories of where they go, when they go there, where they live, etc. etc. Sightings near population centers and
within urban areas are always explained away by some nearby patch of wilderness. Some areas have had sightings for hundreds of years, yet they are never there when we go there, or if they are, we don't see them but they let us know they are around with some
timely wood cracks or screams or footprints or whatever. Just how long will you have to be in the woods in your "hot area" before you find out why you couldn't find them and get a picture? I can't even venture a guess. Maybe you won't find out. Bigfooters are a very stubborn breed. I really am trying to give you a gift of truth, a hardearned small piece of the puzzle... but few,if any at all, will recognize it as such. Who can blame you? Judging by the conversation on this board,you all obviously have your critical faculties
relatively intact. It's ironic to me that to comprehend what is going on with the bigfeet, one has to realize that almost everything that one knows is wrong. That's what makes this puzzle so hard to solve. all the best folks.
I'll be waiting for you.

HF (KLS)

[kitakaze]

WTF!? Come on people, as if this isn't Cedrip! Does Kensmith not reek to high heaven of EB?? OK Cedrip, game's up. You got thaiboxerken and a few others fooled but I ain't bitin'. Get off Mary Green's or Amy Wilson's or whoevers computer you're using and go home and take your meds.

[deBergerac]

If after 1400 or so years, (since vikings) there has been no Bigfoot body nor bones found, in the North America, then it is unlikely any ever will.

Ken

Well that would be 1200 years I suppose since the Viking era (even if there are no exact dates) are supposed to have been roughly between AD 800-1000. But in connection to North America it should probably be 1000 years because it was at the end of the Viking era that they (we) came to North America and decided it was not worth colonising.

I only hope that the post is not insinuating that it is in any way the Vikings fault that there are no Bigfoots around today.

[kitakaze]

Yes, Beckjord loves Vikings, thinks he is one.

[gfunkusarelius]

Funny how the request for evidence is sometimes forgotten by hard-core skeptics, isn't it?

I guess sometimes it's a matter of science and skepticism, and sometimes it's not.

I wonder what dictates that?

are you talking about a request for evidence that there isn't a bigfoot? or evidence that this is really a researcher turned skeptic? if it is the former, then i say it isnt up to skeptics to prove something doesn't exist. if it is the latter, then i know i personally didnt ask for evidence because i didnt take it too seriously. when someone comes in and says something like that, i believe it about as much as someone who calls a conservative radio show and says "i am a liberal, but you are totally right on this [extremely conservative viewpoint]." it's usually a front for someone trying to convince fencesitters that the opposition is converting.

now, if this person had made some real claim in the OP, like "i have been a bigfoot researcher for X years and because of Y scenario with Z documented results, i am abandoning the search" then i would've taken notice and asked for more.

[Stellafane]

...There is no animal bigfoot.

Hi Kensmith. I'm interested in your phrase "animal bigfoot," which you've repeated several times. Are you suggesting Bigfoot exists, but not in animal form?

[Diogenes]

At least he's starting his own thread instead of crapping on another..

Hello moderator.. Erik is back .. Time to ban again...

[UrsulaV]

Sure, there are a few, but what utter FOOL will risk his life and future
running across roads in a fur suit to get shot by some good ol boy
with a 30-06 ?

Something is going on, but it is not hoaxes.

KS

Honey, if you're staking a premise on people being too smart for something, you're shooting yourself in the foot waaaay before you start.

Edit: Beckjord again? Well, heh, just proves I'm not exempt from my point, huh?

[kitakaze]

Do not know that person in Willow Creek.

I am Ken L. Smith

My decision was culminative.... when you put in your best for 19 years and
make a sighting or two, but never find any bones, skull or teeth,
it is time to give up and try to look into other explanations.

There is no animal bigfoot.

KLSPathetic, Cedrip. Just pathetic. I must say you're in fine form, though. You had almost like what, 12 hours to laugh yourself silly.

[kitakaze]

BTW, Cedrip, for your next little jaunt into subterfuge for self-amusement you may want to at least make some effort to alter your writing style and manner of implication so as not be painfully obvious. (The lack of smily abuse was sort of an effort, though.)

[Huntster]

Reply: :

I see no evidence for a huntster either....

There has been ample evidence for a "huntster". You haven't done your research.

...Now, go make a name for yourself -- go drag in a dead bigfoot, be famous!..

I've had my share of fame. I didn't like it.

...Oprah waits for you....

I really don't like Oprah very much. No, thanks.

...If you feel there is an animal Bigfoot, then the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

No proof, no animal....

For you, yes; no proof, no animal.

For me, the evidence leads me to believe they exist. What's more, the evidence leads me to believe that I don't have enough resources or lifetime left to catch one.

Unless I just luck into a shot (the odds are overwhelmingly against that), I'm just a spectator.

[Huntster]

Claiming to have researched bigfoot and then turn skeptical about it isn't an extraordinary claim. There is no reason to really doubt this person. His claim doesn't turn science on it's head. Yes, Kensmith could be telling a lie, but it doesn't matter....

That's because it's the lie you want to hear/read.

...I also do not doubt that either way, Kensmith is as qualified as Huntster as being a "Bigfoot" researcher.

Finally, thaiboxerken writes something that's true. I'm sure it was a mistake on his part.

I'm not a "Bigfoot researcher", nor am I "qualified" to be one. I'm a sasquatch believer.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ummmm......Who are you, and what do you have to support that statement?

The burden of proof is never on the skeptic. You try to prove there is such a thing as a large ape loose in North America.

[Huntster]

...You got thaiboxerken and a few others fooled but I ain't bitin'......

Boy, that's an easy feat. In fact, no third party is necessary to fool thaiboxerken.

He clearly does that to himself on a regular basis.

[bjb]

Yes, there is no animal bigfoot, and it really is time to look for alternative explanations. If bigfoot has been communicating with you telepathically, it is time to get examined to see if you are bipolar, manic-depressive. You aren't crazy for hearing voices in your head but you *can* get help.

[RSLancastr]

and there is a PG Film that has never been successfully discredited,Harry and the Hendersons?

[LTC8K6]

So all you skeptics can relax, open a cold one, do high fives, there is no proof
of an animal Bigfoot.

We know there is no proof. If there were proof, we wouldn't be skeptical.

[thaiboxerken]

Boy, that's an easy feat. In fact, no third party is necessary to fool thaiboxerken.

The problem is that I don't care. If he's a reformed researcher or not, it doesn't matter. His point is valid, there is no evidence of sasquatch. He could claim that he's Santa Clause, and he point would still be good.

[kitakaze]

Is it ok if I playfully chide those who couldn't immediately figure out that Kensmith was Cedrip the nutball's bad attempt at being sneaky? ...No? Nevermind.;)

[kitakaze]

If he's a reformed researcher or not,There's gotta be a support group for that somewhere.His point is valid, Seems you didn't quite actually figure out what the point he was really making was. That's ok, it was convenient for you at the time.He could claim that he's Santa Clause,That's not intentional, right? Nevermind.

[Correa Neto]

Uhmmm...

What about stop answering to beckjord's shapesockshifterpuppet? What about also no longer posting in this -as well as any other- thread started by this foolish troll?

[kitakaze]

For myself, I generally have no interest in engaging that person and if I did, there's plenty of opportunity to do so outside this forum. However, I would certainly want to contribute to his attempts at stealth being roundly recognized as such. That said, maybe doing so in a fashion that doesn't involve addressing him directly might be best.

[LTC8K6]

We can't spot them all.....

[Huntster]

Yes, there is no animal bigfoot, and it really is time to look for alternative explanations.....

Wow, somebody's thinking here.

While looking for alternative explanations, consider the correlation of bigfoot sightings to that area's annual rainfall averages, and also consider why Kodiak Island and Prince of Wales Island (both in Alaska) have such wildly different sighting records.

This ought to be interesting.........

[thaiboxerken]

Consider this as well, there is no bigfoot. Sasquatch are mythical creatures.

[kitakaze]

Harry and the Hendersons?Without a doubt, were a slightly less cute variant of the Harry and the Hendersons costume to be donned, filmed, and purported to be that of a real sasquatch reems would be fooled. Yet, I fail to understand how Harry and the Hendersons discredits the PGF. Could you explain? Please don't misinterpret that as a statement that the subject of the PGF is a real sasquatch.

[LTC8K6]

While looking for alternative explanations, consider the correlation of bigfoot sightings to that area's annual rainfall averages, and also consider why Kodiak Island and Prince of Wales Island (both in Alaska) have such wildly different sighting records.

That sounds like it would be a decent new thread topic, Huntster.

[Huntster]

We can't spot them all.....

They're a lot easier to recognize than a hoaxed sasquatch footprint.

At least, they are to me...............

I guess I'm just "skeptical".............

[Huntster]

Consider this as well, there is no bigfoot. Sasquatch are mythical creatures.

Recognize this one, folks?

[Huntster]

While looking for alternative explanations, consider the correlation of bigfoot sightings to that area's annual rainfall averages, and also consider why Kodiak Island and Prince of Wales Island (both in Alaska) have such wildly different sighting records. That sounds like it would be a decent new thread topic, Huntster.

Just because I know you're a curious kind of guy, LTC, here's something (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3382&st=0) for you to review. You can bring your critique here for me to consider, if you'd like.

[kitakaze]

That sounds like it would be a decent new thread topic, Huntster.I second that. BTW, Huntster, just an off-the-cuff observation but I'm appreciative of willingness demonstrated here to open a conversation on an interesting aspect of the BF phenomenom. By all means, take a crack if you think it's worthy.

[kitakaze]

Consider this as well, there is no bigfoot. Sasquatch are mythical creatures.Tell you what, I'll continue considering it if you consider that you're voicing an opinion without authority (which is fine). Deal?

[thaiboxerken]

My opinion has the authority of reality. There is no credible evidence of sasquatch.

[kitakaze]

No, Ken. You're opinion is and always has been just that, an opinion. The existence of an animal matching the description of sasquatches being highly in doubt is the reality. There is no credible evidence of sasquatch is a point of contention. Repeating your convictions does not give them weight.

[thaiboxerken]

There is no credible evidence of sasquatch is a point of contention.

Actually, it's a fact. Feel free to submit any credible evidence for peer-review by a scientific body.

[Huntster]

My opinion has the authority of reality......

Beautiful. That really is.

Thanks for the new signature line.

I love humor!

[Gravy]

Harry and the Hendersons?
Okay, that's my favorite post of mid-May.

[thaiboxerken]

Beautiful. That really is.

Thanks for the new signature line.

I love humor!

I'm not sure that anyone but you thinks it's funny. Feel free to show that bigfoot is a real creature, then it'll be funny.

[Huntster]

thaiboxerken, I'm finding your posts beyond funny. They are beyond hilarious. My sides are hurting here, guy!

I've noticed your posts here and there, and behold, I've even added another of your priceless gems to my signature line.

You actually believe yourself!

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Please, keep them coming! I'm even showing them to my friends here! We love it!

[thaiboxerken]

Your woo buddies are sure to laugh at reality. It doesn't bother me to be laughed at by bigfoot hunters.

[Huntster]

...It doesn't bother me to be laughed at by bigfoot hunters.

No bigfoot hunters here.

Keep 'em comin', fool!

[kitakaze]

Too bad it's too long for a signature but this is my absolute favourite, I love it. Just imagine it being delivered by Christopher Walken, it's golden. I don't give a rat's-ass about woo-woo fools who pretend to know something that the rest of us don't. These are simply deluded idiots that deserve no more respect than an ant. Forums are my entertainment, and I like to poke at retarded fools who believe in ghosts, pixies and sasquatch.

I'm not prone to frustration, I've just come to realize that woo-woo idiots are not around the forums to learn, become wiser or will they become convinced that what they believe in nonsense. These believers are here for one purpose, to attack skeptics, attack critical thought and attack rationality. I am treating them no worse than they deserve or ask.

I've tried to be polite and ask for evidence, and THAT is considered an attack by such fools. I've waited patiently for evidence for their beliefs, only to be belittled by them as the "blind leading the blind" or some such crap. There is NEVER any evidence to support their beliefs, only fallacy, fabrication, outright lies and excuses. They consider themselves better than anyone who doesn't believe what they believe, enlighted and superior in some way. However, the fact is, they are not. They are inferior to anyone that can smell their BS and know it's BS. They are nothing but deluded pond-scum that deserve not to be spit on if they are on fire. Woo-woos are nothing to me but toys to be played with.Come on, Ken. You gotta admit it, for someone who says he likes to poke woo-woos to make their heads explode, that was a pretty wicked spaz, no?

[valis]

That's because it's the lie you want to hear/read.


The will to belive is universal it would seem.

I've often noticed the testimonials in the newsletter; you know the ones like 'I was a believer and now I've seen the skeptical light' etc. I've often thought how much they sound like Chritian testimonials of 'how I found Jesus'. The spirit is the same only the deity has been changed.

The longer I come here the more I am inclined to think this is just another religion; albeit a nasty and mean spirited one.

[UrsulaV]

The longer I come here the more I am inclined to think this is just another religion; albeit a nasty and mean spirited one.

*grin* As has been said, if non-religion is a religion, then I want a medal for all those Olympic events I don't do, like non-running and the non-long jump. (My non-curling is particularly impressive. I don't even know what curling IS, making me a shoo-in for the non-gold.)

Seriously, though, this is a topic occasionally bandied about over in the Religion and Philosophy forum, and worth pursuing there. I encourage people not to feed Beckjord by dragging this thread out, though.

[Huntster]

...The longer I come here the more I am inclined to think this is just another religion; albeit a nasty and mean spirited one.

Amen.;)

[thaiboxerken]

The longer I come here the more I am inclined to think this is just another religion; albeit a nasty and mean spirited one.

Your thoughts aren't supported with evidence. Critical thought is not a religion.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by valis :
The longer I come here the more I am inclined to think this is just another religion; albeit a nasty and mean spirited one.
Your thoughts aren't supported with evidence....

What does that have to do with an opinion?

Aren't you the one who propounds that "my opinion has the authority of reality"? (See signature below for appropriate links).

...Critical thought is not a religion.

Correct.

Those who apply critical thought properly aren't behaving in a religious fashion.

Those who don't apply critical thought properly are behaving in a religious fashion.

[thaiboxerken]

What does that have to do with an opinion?

It has to do with whether or not the opinion is warranted or not.


Aren't you the one who propounds that "my opinion has the authority of reality"? (See signature below for appropriate links).

Unless you can produce scientific evidence of a sasquatch, you have no point. My opinion on sasquatch/bigfoot carries the authority of reality.

[RSLancastr]

Harry and the Hendersons?Without a doubt, were a slightly less cute variant of the Harry and the Hendersons costume to be donned, filmed, and purported to be that of a real sasquatch reems would be fooled. Yet, I fail to understand how Harry and the Hendersons discredits the PGF. Could you explain? Please don't misinterpret that as a statement that the subject of the PGF is a real sasquatch.Kitakaze, it was a joke, which probably didn't cross cultural barriers very well...

Ken Smith said, in regards to bigfoot, that there was "a PG film which had yet to be discredited" (or something close to that).

In America, everyone other than followers of the bigfoot "controversy" would assume the term "a PG film" referred to a film rated PG (Parent/Guardian must accompany child).

I believe that Harry and the Hendersons was PG-rated. If it wasn't, it should have been, for the sake of my joke.

[kitakaze]

(I apologize for adding another post to nutball's thread but I gotta answer RS' above post.) Oh MAN do I feel stupid!:blush: Being Canadian that hopefully shouldn't present too much of a cultural barrier. Apparently it didn't cross the twit barrier too well, though.:drool: Now, you know you've been following BF stuff too much when you miss a joke like that. Cheers for the heads up RS. (Edited for twit spelling.)