Sunday, April 29, 2018

Baby Bigfoot Found in Woods


Parabreakdown takes a look at a video where they claim a baby bigfoot was discovered. Can Parabreakdown get to the bottom of things? 

17 comments:

  1. Comments are disabled on youtube.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too bad comments aren’t disabled here.

      Delete
    2. ^ Too bad Jotomi - you can`t handle anybody posting the truth here can you - the reality that bigfoot is nothing but a lie.

      Stuff a sock into your mouth.

      Delete
    3. Hey Stuey. You debunked anything to do with Bigfoot yet?

      Didn’t think so.

      Let’s not forget I have a dossier of new racism and pseudoscience to embarrass you about, eh?

      Delete
    4. Now be a good lad and behave stu. You've been scolded once before by your nanny for your wretched potty mouth
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    5. The poor little man is feeling low... it always coincides with his literary aggression and paranoia. It’s not a nice thing to admit, but I just smile knowing he’s feeling extra crappy about himself when he trolls.

      Oh and Stuey? Bigfoot exists.

      Delete
    6. You can't debunk something that's obvious pure bunk.

      Where's the specimen?

      Delete
    7. Bunk? Stop crying like a pathetic old man, prove it.

      Where’s the expedition?

      “Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.”

      Klutz.

      Delete
    8. Logical fallacies don’t make the boogeyman go away Stuey.

      Would you like a tissue?

      Delete
    9. ^ cheese around his helmet and smegma around his asshole...need a flannel and soap?

      Delete
    10. Stop crying and debunk something, ya wimp. 8 years of crying like a little girl.

      Delete
  2. I see Ikky's still trying that "No True Scotsman" fallacy about bigfoot expeditions.

    Meanwhile he's apparently trying to claim this utter bunkum video of a plastic and hair sculpture is somehow proof of bigfoot that can't be debunked.

    Sorry Ikky, but a plastic and hair sculpture is only proof of the existence of plastic and hair (and sculptors), not bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s a logical fallacy, one of many that indicate you really aren’t all that clever. Not that anybody would dispute that.

      Sorry Stuey... I know 8 years have brought you nout as far as self-esteem goes, but a strawman doesn’t erode the fact that I’ve got peer reviewed, repeatable scientific evidence to reference. When you’ve quite finished putting words in people’s mouths...

      Delete
    2. Still not Stuey,

      > eight years

      Meanwhile it's been sixty plus years without any proof of bigfoot.

      And before you knee jerk squawk out, "Peer reviewed! Peer Reviewed! Ikky wanna cracker! Peer reviewed!" what article, what journal, what peers?

      Delete
    3. PEER REVIEW. There, I know it burns. Shame you can’t demand it like a rhetorical tw*t anymore, eh? It’s funny... as time goes by, and world renowned geneticist are asking questions, evidence is turning up repeatable across continents and the subjects proponents are getting research published... shouldn’t this subject be going the other way if it were so clear cut?

      Two links where I prove you’re Stuey who uses “>>” ad quotation marks like up top;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/the-glagg-saga.html

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/bigfoot-truth-told.html

      You crazy racist. Stop crying about a lack of “proof” when nobody had funded the research to get it. You should be worried more about the science that’s causing you this months long meltdown. People who have a remote level of intelligence don’t tend to base their whole 8 years of existence on mere logical fallacies.

      Klutz.

      Delete
    4. > Two links where I prove you’re Stuey who uses “>>” ad quotation marks like up top;

      So everyone on 4chan is Stuey?

      Cite the article Ikky.

      Delete