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.
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.”
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...
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
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.
Kittalia A. sent us the following questions about Patty, the Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimlin film. They are all very good questions that we we wish we knew the answers to. We're no "Henry May" and it's times like this that we wish we had his number. Since we don't have Henry around whenever we need him, here are some easy questions for all you Patterson-Gimlin believers to try and answer:
Thanks to Matt Moneymaker for sharing this story with us from a guy named Thomas S. who was camping with some friends near the French Meadows Reservoir in August 2012. This remote, forested basin is located on the American River approximately 58 miles east of Auburn in the Sierra Nevada's. Before his encounter, the man thought Bigfoot "was just for entertainment purposes", but he changed his tune when he ended up with messy drawers that night. "That will teach to goof on our show," says Matt.
Uh Oh. Here we go again, folks. M.K. Davis originally brought up this theory called the "Bluff Creek massacre" theory back in 2008 at a conference. The controversial theory was immediately rejected by the Bigfoot community and Davis was shunned from ever speaking about it again. According to Davis, based on his expert film analysis and color enhancements of frame 352 of the PG film, he theorizes that the Patterson party had been to the Bluff Creek site at least once before returning to capture their famous Bigfoot video. His theory also suggests that the party probably murdered a family of Bigfoots and buried their bodies. Davis points to an enhanced anomaly resembling a bloody dog print and a pool of blood as proof of his theory.
Comments are disabled on youtube.
ReplyDeleteToo bad comments aren’t disabled here.
Delete^ Too bad Jotomi - you can`t handle anybody posting the truth here can you - the reality that bigfoot is nothing but a lie.
DeleteStuff a sock into your mouth.
Hey Stuey. You debunked anything to do with Bigfoot yet?
DeleteDidn’t think so.
Let’s not forget I have a dossier of new racism and pseudoscience to embarrass you about, eh?
Now be a good lad and behave stu. You've been scolded once before by your nanny for your wretched potty mouth
Deletecheers
Joe
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.
DeleteOh and Stuey? Bigfoot exists.
You can't debunk something that's obvious pure bunk.
DeleteWhere's the specimen?
Bunk? Stop crying like a pathetic old man, prove it.
DeleteWhere’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.
^ Baby mentality
DeleteLogical fallacies don’t make the boogeyman go away Stuey.
DeleteWould you like a tissue?
^ cheese around his helmet and smegma around his asshole...need a flannel and soap?
DeleteStop crying and debunk something, ya wimp. 8 years of crying like a little girl.
DeleteI see Ikky's still trying that "No True Scotsman" fallacy about bigfoot expeditions.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile 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.
That’s a logical fallacy, one of many that indicate you really aren’t all that clever. Not that anybody would dispute that.
DeleteSorry 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...
Still not Stuey,
Delete> 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?
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?
DeleteTwo 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.
> Two links where I prove you’re Stuey who uses “>>” ad quotation marks like up top;
DeleteSo everyone on 4chan is Stuey?
Cite the article Ikky.