Tuesday, March 13, 2018

The British Bigfoot


Deborah Hatswell and Chris Turner answer some of the FAQ they receive about the British bigfoot subject. Enjoy.

37 comments:

  1. Aint no British bigfoot. They be straight up clowning you dogg. The British are a bit retarded. Know what im saying yo.

    Dingo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ain`t no bigfoot in the USA either - or any place, full stop.

      Joe Rogan explains it well...(explains JoTomi rather vwell too = UFWD)

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

      Delete
    2. When Joe Rogan trumps peer review... let me know.

      Science, an incredible thing.

      Delete
    3. Yes, too bad you make a mockery of it.

      Delete
    4. Why don’t you tell me all about it Einstein?

      Delete
    5. I notice that whenever you suffer a beat down you post like a speed demon on meth the next day.

      Delete
    6. There’s almost an hour between our comments. Are you aware the same was originally said of you on a previous comment section?

      Why don’t you tell me how science works? Tell me aaaaaaaaaaall about it.

      Delete
    7. What's the point? It's been explained to you a hundred different times and a hundred different ways and none of it ever sinks in to you. You are so stubborn and such a fanatic about Bigfoot's existence that you will never entertain anything to the contrary. For all your evidence you cite you have nothing that can conclusively point to it coming from a Bigfoot. Hair? Disputed. DNA? Disputed. Skeletons? STRONGLY disputed. Science works on evidence and quite simply there is nothing currently available for them to consider worthy of strong interest.

      When there is an actual body or part to examine then you and other believers will be vindicated but until then you and the others are simply storytellers.

      Delete
    8. funny when a chap named dingo is quoting a moron like Joe Rogan as scientific fact then we know things are very skewed towards insanity. Rogan is a third rate comedian at best .You'll have to do better than that boyo
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    9. “Science works on evidence and quite simply there is nothing currently available for them to consider worthy of strong interest.”

      Let’s have a look at what best describes this typical approach to this subject...
      Special Pleading
      noun
      Argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.
      "he has produced a piece of special pleading that does not wholly stand up"
      ... Though there is more than adequate reasons to invest enthusiasm on the authenticity of your list of evidence that you claim allegedly doesn’t exist... There is no level of special pleading, whining, sidestepping, ignoring or general attempts at relegating the footprint evidence to insignificance, that makes it unworthy of referencing it as the adequate sign of a genuine biological foot. There is not one single expert, scientist or academic in the world that can explain away that evidence, and there is a growing body of the world’s best scientists who are agreeing that it is worthy of scientific recognition. This is because it is simply impossible for the amount of very reliable people to have reported them, to merely be lying or misidentifying. And it is impossible for the same anatomically accurate foot to be leaving its impression on multiple continents, having been witnessed by government employees. This is why this level of evidence is worthy of being peer reviewed... it is consistent to how field biology has always been applied to tracking animals. There is no good reason, other than faith, to ignore it.

      “”The key, Schaller said, will be finding dedicated amateurs willing to spend months or years in the field with cameras. So far, no one has done that." This reminded me of the two dedicated amateurs who had become the most fruitful contributors to the science of primates: Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey. Besides dedication, talent and courage there was another indispensable ingredient to their success—money. It was the famous paleoanthropologist Dr. Louis Leakey who obtained funds to launch the long-term field study of chimpanzees by Goodall and mountain gorillas by Fossey. Now, there is no lack of dedicated hominologists willing to spend months or years in the field, but where is the money? Where is the famous primatologist or anthropologist who, like the late Dr. Leakey, would obtain funds for the dire needs of hominology?”
      - Dmitri Bayanov, Chairman, Smolin Seminar on Questions of Hominology, Darwin Museum, Moscow, Russia

      Until someone actually funds an adequate expedition to find a body... you’ll have the nice little headache of footprint evidence that’s good enough to be peer reviewed. A lack of process to find one, does not mean it doesn’t exist. That’s a child like logical fallacy. And no desperately pathetic attempt to special plead that away for mere “storytelling”, is ever going to adhere to how science is meant to be testing and scrutinising. In short... stop crying every day of your life & shift your burden. If I was as obsessed as you, I’d simply find better arguments. Even design my own.

      Delete
    10. Laughable considering it coming from the king of special pleading.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. There is not one little excuse that anyone ten times cleverer than you has ever come up with, that I haven’t acknowledged and taken apart with ten minutes’ worth of logical thinking and genuine scepticism.

      Delete
    13. this is gonna be a Joe Rogan kinda day filled with skeptrolls trying to convince us believers that we are wasting our time believing in large hairy primate running around the North american woods. Well, the trolls seem to be obsessed with something they claim does not exist so who are the real nutters here?
      ***CREASING***
      Cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    14. IktomiMonday, March 12, 2018 at 11:50:00 PM PDT
      I have all the time in the world for you.

      This is really all you have, isn’t it?

      Delete
    15. The power of smart phones. I can kick a$$ on the go!

      If trolling on BFE didn’t occur... Neither would my participation. And given that very basic fact, I think it’s very, very clear who needs this place more than anyone else.

      Delete
    16. https://www.google.com/amp/s/jncahill.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/writing-tip-of-the-week-dont-overuse-words-like-very/amp/

      Delete
    17. “Use capitals for proper nouns. In other words, capitalize the names of people, specific places, and things. For example: We don't capitalize the word "bridge" unless it starts a sentence, but we must capitalize Brooklyn Bridge because it is the name of a specific bridge.”
      The Rules of Capitalization | Scribendi

      Delete
    18. How about words like “iPhone” or “ikdummy”? Now that’s very, very, very funny! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    19. Not as funny as when you needed explaining to the meaning of “Homo”. Now that was very, very funny.

      Delete
    20. ... Or like when you claimed I was wrong to use “ancient” to describe Palaeolithic skull morphology.

      Now that was very, VERY funny.

      Delete
    21. I don’t recall those conversations, you might be thinking of when I told you to change your underwear because it was very, very, very “ancient”! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    22. Hmmm, indeed... like you didn’t remember the peer review yesterday, that’s been rubbed in your face for the past few months.

      Delete
  2. The idea of a British bigfoot is asinine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Join the expedition to search for Mokele Mbembe in Congo/Cameroon - November 2018 -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mIkPDcU7g0

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since they don't conform to time and space, they can be anywhere, and no-where, hahahahahhaah.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Replies
    1. I’ve spoken to a couple of very credible eyewitnesses who clearly are not mistaken or making things up about what they’ve seen in the UK. The trouble for me is, the lack of trace evidence, as well as history of it. When that starts routinely coming in, personally I’d be happy to happy to go on record and say they’re here. Until then, it’s not scientifically prudent to make that claim... even if I do find the eyewitnesses I’ve spoken to reliable.

      Delete
    2. Would you consider them to be very, very, very reliable?

      Delete
    3. I agree with you Iktomi. Even the most credible witnesses make it hard for me to wrap my head around trying to believe we have bigfoot here without having credible trace evidence such as footprints as we do in North America. Perhaps one day i shall announce that i do believe there are bigfoots living in the UK and i'd also be happy to say it but til there is more evidence I'll think otherwise
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    4. I guess there must be a conspiratorial army of gorilla suit wearing hoaxers in Britain then — remember, there is no such thing is bigfoot role playing. Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    5. What I don’t find very, very reliable... is the idea that role-playing hoaxers are just by coincidence avoiding hunters’ bullets.

      And your last attempt at a coherent sentence didn’t make sense.

      Delete
    6. I know it doesn’t make any sense because it’s copied from some idiotic mantra that you’ve endlessly repeated. At least we agree that your arguments are nonsensical! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    7. Nargh!

      Still doesn’t make senses. Anyone would think you’d be desperately trying to come up with a logical idea for your role-playing empire...

      48 hours and still not one logical answer.

      Delete