Saturday, February 13, 2016

Bigfoot 101 Researchers Need To Step Their Game Up


The Crypto Blast posted this video offering some advice to would be bigfoot investigators on stepping their game up. It's obviously a difficult task to come up with evidence of these creatures, let alone prove they exist.


56 comments:

  1. A contributing factor to the difficulty in proving bigfoot exists is the fact that bigfoot doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A contributing factor to the escalating difficulties in proving "Bigfoot doesn't exist", is the fact that for something allegedly as obvious, the trolls can't prove the "evidence doesn't exist".

      Delete
    2. That is a fact !

      And at the end of the day all they end up wit is a sore hand and a red monkey

      Delete
    3. Take a look at this...great images/video of bigfoot encounters...best yet.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZMdT8bEd9c

      Delete
    4. ^ 7;17 - the images from the video ought to be all over the web and news - not proof but pretty darn good images

      Delete
    5. Joe had to change his stockings and panties combination after watching this video...he wet himself with excitement.

      Delete
    6. defiantly not a Snallygaster.
      WILD BILL from Mountain Monsters AIMS team hates them Snallygasters more than anything

      Delete
    7. ^ could it be a smelly-gator ? ..or even a smelly-t@terhole ?

      Delete
    8. I think it IS a "smelly - t a t er hole"

      Delete
    9. ^ sniff sniff - gee you are right on the money - nice smell - sniff sniff sniff

      Joe

      Delete
    10. TRAPPER frum da Mountin Monsters AIMS team still on da mend Sos tham AIMS team boys abin in a worl of hurt findin that thar Bigfoots thay shure is

      Delete
    11. ha ha ha

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG-6k2CydWg

      Delete
    12. ^ hahahahahahahaha that`s a great video

      Delete
    13. ...This is zoology, not philosophy, so
      an advocate might say "The notion that one cannot prove a negative does not apply..After all this time it should have been proven that they do not and cannot exist..."..Seriously, by now a paper of scholarly publication should have come out proving to the satisfaction of all that there is no such thing as bigfoots..Whats good for the goose is good for the gander...lol..

      Delete
    14. ..s\b "paper or some other scholarly publication..."

      Delete
    15. 1;32 - slight misrepresentation there - "good" for the goose/gander doesn`t come into it .. it is "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"

      Delete
  2. Oh no

    Another pic for the trolls to spank the crank wit

    ReplyDelete
  3. joe gets blown the fu ck out every day by the fact that his endeavours to produce the bigfoot fails miserably

    get well soon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ Wakes up thinking of Joe. Falls asleep thinking of Joe. Can't explain away the evidence for "Bigfoot", thinking of Joe. Has a miserable life, anger issues, no self esteem and likely has problems with depression, thinking of Joe.

      Thank god I'm not you.

      Delete
    2. incorrect on all points just like with his fantasy monster^

      keep making us laugh son

      Delete
    3. ^ Thank God I`m not YOU,Joe !

      Delete
    4. 7:31 "evidence for bigfoot" ?

      You haven`t got any.

      Delete
    5. he knows he has no evidence and he has even admit as such, all he has is semantics lol

      Delete
    6. Reading you trying to explain away what should be easy for a "fantasy monster", is the real joke... And you're fooling no one claiming you're laughing pal. I just hope you're as lonely as your behaviour suggests so you can't inflict your sad little issues on anyone else.

      Delete
    7. Hardly... I can reference the evidence that gets your rear end winking.

      Delete
    8. like this reference ?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG-6k2CydWg

      Delete
    9. ^ hahaha it`s called "t a t e r hole Joe"

      hahahahaha what a gag !!

      hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      Delete
    10. Bushbots and shenanigans abouts in South Carolina : )

      Delete
  4. PAGING DR. JOHNSON - PAGING DR. MATTHEW JOHNSON:

    Sir, you have received a dozen red roses from Derek Randles for Valentine's Day. They may be picked up at the SOHA-2 courtesy desk. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Happy days!yesterday i got two Bengal cross kittens and they are gorgeous :) xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are "Bengal" crossed kittens ?

      Hope they`re not a couple of little tigers there Eva ?

      Delete
    2. but not Hillary
      she going to clean up Wall Street and DC

      Delete
    3. Lol they're bad troll eaters 9:41 :) xx

      Delete
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H1dUIlyjxw

      Delete
    5. ^ thanks Eva .. now I know what you mean...very cute xx

      Delete
  6. ha ha ha ha ha

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG-6k2CydWg

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hope y'all are having a happy Saturday.
    I found this video and i'm beyond convinced this is the same lad who posts on here very often as MMG/turd boy/Dmaker/Boy Joerg etc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNTSLfg403w

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No...this is closer

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG-6k2CydWg

      Delete
    2. ^ still obsessed with me eh ?

      Joe

      Delete
  8. The problem with bigfoot "researchers" stepping up their game and doing things properly is that they get reliable data that way. And the reliable data inevitably shows that the thermal image was really a bear or the blurred shape on the trail camera was really an owl or the trackway in the snow was really just melted human bootprints.

    The more diligent bigfoot "researchers" are the less likely they are going to find "evidence" of bigfoot. With the odds approaching zero fast. Bigfoot "researchers" hate that. Instead of taking the time to find the needle in the haystack they prefer to throw out great handfuls of hay and insist they are needles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's funny is for all the hypothetical scenarios "sceptics" like you can conjure up, the tantrums you endure when you can't explain away the evidence you like to sing isn't there is priceless. I mean... Surely you are contented enough in your belief systems that you don't have to worry yourself about convincing others so much? Or are the tantrums that are indicative of a loss of self esteem the reasons why?

      Better watch out when you ask to provide this "reliable data" though! You'd better watch out for them providing examples of bear thermal hits mistaken as "Bigfoot", an owl shape on a trail cam that accounts for primate shapes being dismissed, or a track impression with dermatoglyphics that was made by a boot impression. Oh the wonders of "reliable data", eh? It appears that some "sceptics" don't even feel they need to take responsibility for their claims, hypotheticals will go some length to getting back some of that lost self esteem...

      Until an enthusiast comes along and cites the evidence, anyway.

      Delete
    2. Just because you call it evidence doesn't make it evidence.

      Delete
    3. And just because you say Bigfoot doesn't exist, it doesn't make it so.

      Delete
    4. 5:15... It's not me that calls it evidence, it's the scientists who've verified it... And you can deny it's there until the cows come home. It makes no difference.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, but so-called "proof by authority" isn't.

      Just because you call them scientists doesn't make them scientists.

      Delete
    6. "The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, when the authority cited is not a true expert.[1]"

      ... If you're going to attempt to use logical fallacies, make sure you're applying them correctly and not replacing them with your own (ad hominem), it gets a little cringey.

      Delete