MovieChat Forums > Finding Bigfoot (2011) Discussion > Take A Look At This Video

Take A Look At This Video

posted 10 years ago by agswain1987
134 replies | jump to latest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRurxAtiLkM , analyzed perfectly by ThinkerThunker.

[–] Head_Cheese74 10 years ago

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

Fixed.

[–] agswain1987 10 years ago

Thank You for fixing that for me, now what is you're opinion of the video?

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Here's the original video. Nice not to have to listen to the commentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRHtI3LkDjw

It does seem as though they cover quite a distance in a very short time. I don't think that a human could do that so quickly, especially in those conditions. Very interesting video.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Fixed

Tell who your doctor is so that the world can send him/her a heartfelt thank you note. And could you please refer namaGemo?

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

This guy is SO full of sh!t. First, he's LYING about how they are measured at the shoulder. The shoulder IS NOT like a humans, the shoulder is THE HIGHEST POINT. So NOW you're reading this FACTUAL information: The American Buffalo (Bison) is the largest mammal in North America. The best description of a buffalo's temperament is unpredictable. A female buffalo stands about 5 feet tall and weighs between 800-1100 pounds, a male stands about 6 feet tall and weighs between 1000-2200 pounds.
Does this guy actually EVER think? These could all be females, and just because the HEIGHT LIMIT for male and female is those listed heights, does NOT mean they all end up being that big. I guess because Robert Wadlow was nearly 8' tall, that means any and all speculation when comparing animals to people means the baseline for conversation is humans CAN BE that tall, so might as well use the EXTREME.

Those are FOUR MEN walking back there. When you actually try and figure things out instead of making the dumbest of speculations, you might actually discover the truth. Also, this idiot first take into account that they are walking in snow. So, of the snow is 8" deep, and you use a still with his legs buried that deep in the snow, you know what.......his legs will look short compared to his arms.

Do you even bother examining the videos, or do you just believe every idiot who posts their ridiculous notions because they CHOOSE to believe that things that don't exist...exist?

[–] agswain1987 10 years ago

well that is you're opinion, I believe in bigfoot, and you don't, it has to be four men walking back there to you. I'm not going back and forth with you about this like I used to. I will say that it could be four men walking back there, just to keep an open mind, but all the risks involved mentioned in the video, make me think it's four sasquatches.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

It doesn't matter if you believe in Bigfoot or not, it matters if you understand which explanation is most logical. You can walk by bears and not be attacked, no less herbivores who don't see you.

[–] Head_Cheese74 10 years ago

Due to over pixilation from enlarging the video I see a bunch of blocks or blurring.

I can't tell if those are Bison or Cows on a ranch.

It could be three Bison and one cow. From what I have read a Bison will mate with a Cow. The reason why I say this is because a few minutes into the video there appears to be a Cow on the lower right portion of the screen.

Since I don't know if they are Bison or Cows I don't see where a supposed BigFoot or BigFoot's fit in with what Thinker Thunker is saying.

If I had to choose between BigFoot or a Human. I'm picking Human every time.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

What makes the Bigfoot story so ridiculous is he's nocturnal, yet all video evidence is in the daytime, and so are all the sightings. Wtf are four Bigfoot creatures doing out in broad daylight when they are so mysterious and elusive, and who does not walk down to the site of the footprints to look for evidence UNLESS they knew it was just four guys?
Oh, is this the part when we hear that the disinterested bison would change their mind after ignoring four Bigfoot creatures, and attack humans for no reason?

[–] Head_Cheese74 10 years ago

I don't know. Maybe BigFoot and Bison's can't tell each other apart?😄

[–] SomeCreepinaVan 10 years ago

Cows? Lol

-----
If you dont know Bigfoot then you dont know SQUATCH

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Crustacean_Predation 10 years ago

It was a good analysis but there's not enough info there to really conclude anything. The guys definitely look big to me, but I can't help but think there's something really strange with how they're walking. The lead one when he appears from behind the tree almost looks like he's dancing out there. The guy in the video says limping, I don't know. They don't look like rangers and I've never been to Yellowstone but I imagine he's right in saying the public isn't allowed to go mingle with the buffaloes. Tough to say what the thing was, but it definitely looks like it has no neck. Then again it's cold, it could be a guy with a thick jacket pulled over his head I guess. So not sure what to say about it, I'm 50/50 I guess.

[–] agswain1987 10 years ago

Their arms are longer than human arms, their all black from top to bottom, and the one at the back is probably 8 foot tall or more. I read a comment on youtube that I agree with, anybody trying to pull off a hoax, wouldn't do it in that kind of weather.

[–] Crustacean_Predation 10 years ago

Their arms definitely appear long, that's true. Someone in the comments posted an extended recording and there's a lot of people walking around between the geysers, so it could be these just strayed off a trail since this area doesn't look too remote at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnpdCGSwXBc&feature=youtu.be&t =9m53s

I wouldn't be surprised to see this Mary Greeley appear on a future episode of FB getting interviewed by the team.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Good catch. I think this qualifies as a debunk. The reason that they got to that point so quickly may have been because they had skis on. That could be why the one appears to be limping. Yeah, just people.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Head_Cheese74 10 years ago

I recall...

This reminds of a very recent hoax that was in Arizona. Where they showed on the news a family of BigFoot's. Later to be recanted. I recall this event was in the same type of area. It was little more distinct in detail than this video described by Thinker Thunker. The supposed BigFoot's looked to be exact in appearance as the ones described by Thinker Thunker.

It was later recanted as too trying to bring tourist's in the area..

The News announced it as a Family of BigFoot's? ...Oh yes the question mark..

And

Still someone showed this same picture on the internet a few weeks later with the same question mark at the end..

So yes humans can do stupid things like approach supposed Bison's out in the wilderness. They can conspire perhaps out of boredom. They can walk barefoot in the snow.

[–] SomeCreepinaVan 10 years ago

They're clearly bigfoots on a hunt. The first thing you notice is their odd body type. No neck with the shoulders close to the head, massive thick bodies, head looks a little tiny for the body size. All the creatures look massive even at a distance.

Look how cold the area looks with the wind blowing the snow up a few feet. Then you throw in that bison are within 50 yards. I've seen bison up close and their size is very intimidating. Also check out the widths of the bison and bigfoots. Those are bigfoots not humans.
-----
If you dont know Bigfoot then you dont know SQUATCH

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

Can you believe how stupid the posted comments above your comments are??? It's already proven to be people, and his childlike thought process shows him to completely ignore every damn bit of factual evidence to sustain his fantasy.

It's amazing how delusional people have no rational thought processes. Where anyone with an ounce of logical thought easily sees people in ski or snow mobile suits, thus making their necks appear thicker and more ape like, along with their feet being hidden by snow making their legs seem shorter, captain fantasy here dismisses all of it for hoax.

[–] Head_Cheese74 10 years ago

I'm having a hard time figuring out if those who call themselves believers think BigFoot exists in the paranormal or physical world.

What's the point here. Metaphysical or Physical World.

.

[–] WhoToTrust 10 years ago

by namaGemo » Can you believe how stupid the posted comments above your comments are??? It's already proven to be people, and his childlike thought process shows him to completely ignore every damn bit of factual evidence to sustain his fantasy.

It's amazing how delusional people have no rational thought processes. Where anyone with an ounce of logical thought easily sees people in ski or snow mobile suits, thus making their necks appear thicker and more ape like, along with their feet being hidden by snow making their legs seem shorter, captain fantasy here dismisses all of it for hoax.

You should REALLY consider getting a new schtick, because you're now just reminding me of a parrot that says the same thing all the time even though you know it doesn't have any clue it doesn't know what it's saying.

It's one thing to disagree with others, it's another to come across as having a knee-jerk, black or white, one-track-minded compulsion to label anyone crazy/delusional/irrational/illogical/etc who doesn't share your exact/specific viewpoint.

nama want a cracker? 

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

Sorry that delusional types can't cope with reality. That's when you should seek professional help. If anyone is a parrot, it's those claiming EVERYTHING is Bigfoot. I'm not going to apologize for stating facts when it's proven to be humans, and ALWAYS will be proven to be humans....BECAUSE BIGFOOT DOESN'T EXIST!!!

Not once has anyone remotely presented an ounce of evidence for Bigfoot, NOT ONCE!

Let me ask YOU this question, if you knew for a FACT that something didn't exist, or for example, someone kept saying the earth was flat when IT'S A FACT that it's a sphere, would you just let this delusional person go on looking like a COMPLETE FOOL, or would you try to explain to this person why it's not the way they say it is? And after arguing using facts and evidence to explain the REAL WORLD CONCLUSION, if this person continues spouting off lies or behaving in a delusional manner, you just let them persist in continual lies???

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

Let me ask YOU this question, if you knew for a FACT that something didn't exist,

You do not know for a fact that Bigfoot does not exist. You just don't think that creature exists, you certainly can't prove that it doesn't.

someone kept saying the earth was flat when IT'S A FACT that it's a sphere, would you just let this delusional person go on looking like a COMPLETE FOOL

It's ironic that you've said this because you actually fit the description of the people who refused to believe the Earth was in fact a sphere. You refuse to consider that what you believe may not be the truth.... just like all the flat-Earthers when others tried to tell them the Earth was not flat.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

And this is where your logic fails at this point. I base all my opinions on facts. When it comes to Bigfoot, THE FACT is any and ALL evidence had been bunk and easily proven to be junk. People keep saying you can't prove something doesn't exist, and while there could always be the possibility, the more likely conclusion it's that people choosing to consider that a hoax is reality are delusional or gullible based on the mountains of fraudulent supposed findings.

It's not just the fact that there are over a thousand false sightings and all the evidence is crap, it's THE FACT that not one shred of evidence has EVER been real. Conclusion, people are liars and delusional and Bigfoot doesn't exist, at least not on this planet or at this present time.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

And that is exactly the kind of argument that flat-Earthers would use when people would ponder whether the Earth was round. What you think are facts may not necessarily be so.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

How can you honestly say, that when EVERY SINGLE BIT OF BIGFOOT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PROVEN TO BE 100% B.S., that THAT is not a fact when it's a fact???

That's NOT flat earth mentality. That's EXAMINING the FACTS and drawing a rational conclusion that people are liars, attention seekers, or thought they saw something that they actually didn't.

Let's examine the facts.

1. Do humans lie? Yes

2. Do humans embellish stories to make them sound better? Yes

3. Are humans capable of having delusions? Yes

4. Are people gullible enough to believe others anecdotal stories without ever seeing any evidence at all? Yes

5. Has all dna evidence for Bigfoot been fraudulent? Yes

6. Have scientists ever found any evidence to conclude Bigfoot is a real creature? No

Are your answers the same as mine? If not, explain.

At some point, you must conclude Bigfoot doesn't exist ON THIS planet. They're isn't even evidence Bigfoot ever existed, yet we have fossils for creatures dating back billions of years.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

They're isn't even evidence Bigfoot ever existed, yet we have fossils for creatures dating back billions of years.

And we're discovering new creatures all the time. Either old fossils that were previously identified wrong, recently discovered fossils or even finding new species that exist or finding a species that they thought was extinct that still lives.

How can you honestly say, that when EVERY SINGLE BIT OF BIGFOOT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PROVEN TO BE 100% B.S., that THAT is not a fact when it's a fact???

Because I disagree with the following statement: "EVERY SINGLE BIT OF BIGFOOT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PROVEN TO BE 100% B.S.". You'd like that to be true because it fits with your argument but I don't believe it is. I think there's probably more than a handful of people who sit on their experiences because of people like you. People who are incapable of having an open mind who throw out words like "crazy" and "gullible" and "delusions" in regards to things you don't understand.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

By namaGemo: I base all my onions on facts.



I'm surprised that you didn't catch that one.

Onions aren't the same as beefs.  I meant to say that opinions aren't the same as beliefs.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

I base all my onions on facts.

 I can't believe I missed that either. If I hadn't missed it the first time, I wouldn't have been able to read the rest of his post. I would have been laughing too hard.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

NamaGemo is like an onion: you peel off layer after layer never finding anything but stink.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

^^^Look^^^! He fixed it. And he said it was a typo.  Which is it? Is it his phone's fault or a faulty finger-brain connection? I'll go with the latter.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

^^^Look^^^! He fixed it. And he said it was a typo.

He's far too arrogant and egotistical to be able to laugh at himself.

Which is it? Is it his phone's fault or a faulty finger-brain connection? I'll go with the latter.

Opinion is a word. If he'd actually typed in "opinion", his phone wouldn't have auto-corrected it. It's the latter.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

Opinion is a word. If he'd actually typed in "opinion", his phone wouldn't have auto-corrected it. It's the latter.

What do you have an old Nokia flip phone with T9 typing? You must, because if you had an iPhone, you realize exactly how easy it is to make a typo when typing fast...all it takes is missing a letter to produce onion from opinion (get it? PRODUCE...ONION? No? Ok....)

I think his point was that if you had any cogent argument besides "prove me false" (which is a moronic request) then you wouldn't have to nit pick his grammar. I understand that this is the Finding Bigfoot board, and a typographical error is the closest you'll get to an intellectual discussion, but still...

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

...you realize exactly how easy it is to make a typo when typing fast...all it takes is missing a letter to produce onion from opinion

uhhh... that's the point. An educated and intelligent mind can think about the word "opinion" and know there's a "p" in there. If you can't remember that when you're typing fast then maybe you're not smart enough to type fast.

I think his point was that if you had any cogent argument besides "prove me false" (which is a moronic request) then you wouldn't have to nit pick his grammar. I understand that this is the Finding Bigfoot board, and a typographical error is the closest you'll get to an intellectual discussion, but still...

And if you'd been able to understand what you read you would have seen that I addressed his post. When the typo was pointed out to me, I laughed. It's a funny typo. If you don't agree then maybe you have a stick in your anal orifice that should be removed.

ETA:

"prove me false"

If you're going to use quotes, make sure it's something somebody actually said. I have never told somebody to prove me false.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

An educated and intelligent mind realizes that the very definition of a typographical (as opposed to grammatical) error is that the user KNOWS there is a 'p' in there, they just missed it because they were typing fast. Hence TYPo. It has nothing to do with memory, and everything to do with speed. I'm imagining the general vibe was that your responses are too weak to require much time investment.

I'll agree that it was maybe a mildly funny typo, but hardly something to carry on for 3 or 4 posts. I mean, the pretty one sided dismemberment of you and your compatriots is far more amusing than a missing "p", so please understand why I overlooked it.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

I'll agree that it was maybe a mildly funny typo, but hardly something to carry on for 3 or 4 posts.

LOL!! You're a post nazi?? Nice. You can't deal with the subject at hand so you keep finding other subjects to have a cow about.

An educated and intelligent mind realizes that the very definition of a typographical (as opposed to grammatical) error is that the user KNOWS there is a 'p' in there...

Now you're making assumptions about a poster you don't know. Pretending you know what's going on in his head. You're not a god. You have no idea what Namagemo was thinking or not thinking when he made that post. You're just pretending like you do so can act superior.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

LOL!! You're a post nazi?? Nice. You can't deal with the subject at hand so you keep finding other subjects to have a cow about.

Post nazi? Weren't you the one that harped on about onion vs opinion? So it's perfectly ok to rant about typography, but it's not ok to call out someone that rants about typography? Interesting....The one not dealing with the subject at hand is you. Do you or do you not believe in bigfoot?

Now you're making assumptions about a poster you don't know. Pretending you know what's going on in his head. You're not a god. You have no idea what Namagemo was thinking or not thinking when he made that post. You're just pretending like you do so can act superior.

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm eliciting a clear understanding of the concept of 'typographical error'. I don't need to know 'what's going on in someone's head' to know the conditions that arise that cause a typography error.

I don't need to 'act' superior, it's clear my superiority is conferred by the strength of my arguments.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

Check his next comment below. He laughs his ass off about a typo. He must find drying paint incredibly funny too.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Your onions are incredibly funny.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

Check his next comment below. He laughs his ass off about a typo. He must find drying paint incredibly funny too.

LOL!! You're so butthurt that you don't care if it's making you look like a little girl. There's a big difference between "I base my onions on facts" and paint drying. Come on namagemo, did your tiny brain fall out your ear or something?

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

I've told these two Fkwadds I use Swype, and it will choose the correct word 80% of the time, and I always go back to correct typos.
That said, they have nothing, they never have had anything, but they have lost so many discussions when it comes to logic, common sense, and facts, that's all they can do after they have cried themselves to sleep. Complaining about typos. Genius.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Complaining? Nah! Laughing our asses off.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

Instead of you and the A hole making fun of a typo, why don't you answer ALL my questions? Second, please present the evidence that ALL scientists have agreed is legit evidence of Bigfoot and those findings are peer reviewed and 100% irrefutable?

You made the claim some is legit, so indulge my inquiry for this evidence.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

1. Do humans lie? Yes

Does not prove that all Bigfoot stories are untrue.

2. Do humans embellish stories to make them sound better? Yes

See #1

3. Are humans capable of having delusions? Yes

See #1

4. Are people gullible enough to believe others anecdotal stories without ever seeing any evidence at all? Yes

Belief requires evidence. And see #1.

5. Has all dna evidence for Bigfoot been fraudulent? Yes

Presupposes that all those who presented DNA evidence knew it was not that of Bigfoot.

6. Have scientists ever found any evidence to conclude Bigfoot is a real creature? No

Wrong question. You should be asking, Is there any evidence that can be objectively verified as proof of Bigfoot's existence? But then if you had that, why would anyone believe?

I'm just peelin' the onion.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

Instead of you and the A hole making fun of a typo, why don't you answer ALL my questions?

I responded to your post. I'm sorry you're too hurt to be able to realize that but that's on you.

And if you don't want people laughing at your typos, stop making them.

"I base my onions on facts" is funny as hell.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

I would say that if you want people to stop making fun of your ridiculous unfounded beliefs, you'd better stop having them.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

I would say that if you want people to stop making fun of your ridiculous unfounded beliefs, you'd better stop having them.

Again, please show me where I've claimed any beliefs.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Who's this cutty2000 fool? Obviously another one who's comprehension is about as sharp as a marshmallow. I don't know about you, but I've never said that I believe in the existence of Bigfoot. 

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

Riiiiiight, you don't believe in Bigfoot, you just believe in the possibility that Bigfoot exists, but you don't realize what a meaningless statement that is. Anything can POSSIBLY exist, that does not in any way contradict the fact that certain things DO NOT exist, or that there are things SO UNLIKELY to be true that there is really no good reason to consider them.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

I don't give two spits what you think I believe. The fact is I've never stated any position on the existence or nonexistence of Bigfoot. The fact that you automatically think that I do believe says a lot. All I've done is stand up for those who choose to believe against insecure little bit shags like you, namaGemo and others. 

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

Ok, defender of the weak...you seem to be laboring under the delusion that because two propositions are possible, that they are somehow equally possible. This is not a 50/50 proposition, this is a 1:1,000,000,000 proposition, too remote to even be worth considering. Hence the general air of derision from logical people.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that your delusions about me aren't delusions.

Truly logical people don't feel the need to ridicule those who believe in something that they don't.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

Really? Richard Dawkins made a career of ridiculing theists. The Westboro Baptist Church is derided on a daily basis. There is a long and storied history of people ridiculing indefensible positions, this can't possibly be news to you.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Enjoying your straw man?

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

Enjoying tossing out logical fallacies you demonstrably don't understand?

You:

Truly logical people don't feel the need to ridicule those who believe in something that they don't.

Me:
(lists examples when 'truly logical' people have done just that)

You:
Erp Derp Straw Man *drools* (This is paraphrasing, not a direct quote, this seems to cause you some confusion)

Me: LULZORLY? (writes this post)

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

By employing a fallacy? 

Ridiculing those who believe in something that you don't is illogical because it does nothing to qualify your own belief. Because as far as atheists (or nonbelievers in whatever) are concerned, they're in the same position as theists (or believers in whatever) when it comes to belief. So when they try and make theists seem ignorant, they are in fact ridiculing themselves. They are therefore not truly logical. They are in fact behaving like children. Congratulations.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

Ridiculing those who believe in something that you don't is illogical because it does nothing to qualify your own belief.

Straw man. I never claimed I ridicule to qualify my belief. My belief needs no qualification, it stands on its own. I do it for teh lulz. Try harder.

Because as far as atheists (or nonbelievers in whatever) are concerned, they're in the same position as theists (or believers in whatever) when it comes to belief. So when they try and make theists seem ignorant, they are in fact ridiculing themselves.

False. All belief is not created equal. If you believed it was ok to beat up gay people, I could safely ridicule that belief without ridiculing my own belief that it is not ok to beat up gay people. I don't even know where you came up with that argument...so dumb.

They are therefore not truly logical. They are in fact behaving like children. Congratulations.

And yet you have people imminently respected in their field doing exactly the things you describe, as I have pointed out.

So, as a singular example, we have, say, Bertram Russell, world renowned thinker, notorious quackery troll, inventor of the Space Teapot, ridiculer of theists and mushy thinking bigfoot believers, and on the other hand we have....SquintAnd_EatWood, random IMDB hobbit, claiming he holds the definition of what is truly logical in his greasy little hands.

DECISIONS DECISIONS......

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Straw man. I never claimed I ridicule to qualify my belief. My belief needs no qualification, it stands on its own. I do it for teh lulz. Try harder.

Nonsense. Beliefs don't stand on their own. Your belief in the nonexistence of Bigfoot is qualified the same as someone who believes: by subjective interpretation of evidence. You are in the same boat. So when you ridicule believers you are ridiculing yourself.

Throw on top of that the ridiculous claim that people like you will believe AFTER Bigfoot's existence is proven. Think I'm being silly? Just ask yourself what type of evidence you require in order to believe. Then ask yourself if you believe in the existence of trees.

False. All belief is not created equal. If you believed it was ok to beat up gay people, I could safely ridicule that belief without ridiculing my own belief that it is not ok to beat up gay people. I don't even know where you came up with that argument...so dumb.

All belief is created the exact same way, therefore there is equality.

This is a stupid argument, and one meant to ridicule. What you offered is outside of the context of belief/non belief in the existence of Bigfoot. This is so not just because it has been established within our society that it is wrong to beat up gay people for being gay (therefore it's not a BELIEF that it's wrong) but also because the context is the belief in the unproven existence/nonexistence of a creature. It isn't about little cunny2000 believing that its next door neighbors dog is a cat.

And yet you have people imminently respected in their field doing exactly the things you describe, as I have pointed out.

Then they are illogical and behaving like children. 

So, as a singular example, we have, say, Bertram Russell, world renowned thinker, notorious quackery troll, inventor of the Space Teapot, ridiculer of theists and mushy thinking bigfoot believers, and on the other hand we have....SquintAnd_EatWood, random IMDB hobbit, claiming he holds the definition of what is truly logical in his greasy little hands.

Yep. Pretty much. 

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

Get ready for a laugh. He mentions SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE.Failing to realize their isn't a damned bit of evidence, and there never has been, and never will be unless they create a Bigfoot.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

The fact that you don't reply directly to me shows that you have zero faith in your ability to defend your position (probably because you know it's horsespit) and instead need to play the sycophant and rely on someone else to try and do it. Talk about cowardice. 

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

Just in case you're reading, I don't respond to people who have found out personal information about me and have threatened to call my employers, and also lie, have ego issues, and think they are better than others while trying to be humorous and only making one follower laugh.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

Just in case you're reading, I don't respond to people who have found out personal information about me and have threatened to call my employers..

No, you just respond to posts that are days old as you desperately try to get somebody to talk to you. You're lonely, namagemo. That's one of the consequences of being a closed-minded, judgmental jerk. Besides, cutty has made a few comments that leads me to believe she's very religious. I know how you feel about people who believe in God. Poor nama... so many people to judge but nobody to play with.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

The info is freely available on the internet.  You're the one who gave out enough personal information about yourself on THIS internet website (might it have been your ego that made you do that? ) which allowed me to find you in about five minutes.

Anyone with half a brain would have seen that my threat to call your employer was just me f#$%ing with you. Not you, of course. But hey, you bringing it up so often just proves that I was right in saying that you were using the company computer to surf the internet while you were on the clock.

And I guess me assuring you via PM that I would never give the info out EVER, and also that I have NEVER personally acted on any of it, is irrelevant. 

You are a prime example of the feminization of the American male.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

You have a habit of using big words that have little to do with the subject at hand when you don't seem to have an argument but want to argue. He already told you what he's done and all you do is deride him for it and continue blathering on about delusions and the odds of possibilities. What is your problem and why do you care so much about the beliefs of others?

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

Really, done? It seems like you and your bigfeetsisreal cohorts love to toss out derision and typographical critiques when it suits you, but when the tables get turned you blow your internet word rape whistle, take your ball and go play in your own yard. I mean, three or four posts about someone getting auto corrected from 'opinion' to 'onion' and you say I'M just here to argue?

I'd say obvious troll is obvious, but I don't think you're smart enough to be trolling. This smacks of ignorant sincerity.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

I mean, three or four posts about someone getting auto corrected from 'opinion' to 'onion' and you say I'M just here to argue?

Seriously? First, I made two posts... learn to count. Second, like I already stated, if he had typed in the "p", it would not have been auto corrected to "onion". He didn't type "opinion" yet you seem so sure he did. I wonder how you'd even be privy to that information. Oh, that's right... you wouldn't. You're making assumptions.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

He didn't type the 'p', that's why it's a typographical error. Do you understand what a typo is? Have you ever used an iPhone? Do you realize how easy it is to think you hit a letter when you in fact did not? If you try to type 'opinion' into an iPhone and you miss the 'p', then you have typed 'oinion', which the iPhone autocorrects to 'onion'. I don't need to assume this, I have an iPhone right in front of me, and can confirm that this is the case.

Do you understand now?

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

You ignored this question before. I'm really curious if you're capable of providing an answer...

Why do you care so much about the beliefs of others?

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

I mean seriously, you're not the first one to drop the "I don't believe in Bigfoot PER SE, just the POSSIBILITY" cop out...you all can't really believe that's a zinger? Like your big ace in the hole? It goes without saying that all things are possible, it's as well known and useless a statement as beginning a story about your day with "I woke up and time was moving forward in a linear progression."

It serves no purpose other than to highlight those with such weak convictions that they can't even say what they definitively believe in...I mean I get it, if I believed in Bigfoot I'd be embarrassed too...

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

You quoted me. I'd like a link to the source of that quote. If you can't provide it, guess what? You're full of spit.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

If I wanted to quote you, I'd use quote tags. You say right above this, and below, your intentions in posting. No quoting required, taken right from the horse's (or maybe jackass's) mouth.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Seriously? Provide a link to where I dropped the cop out.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

Really? A link? Isn't it like 5 posts up in the first part of this respo...POST DELETED...

Ohhhh.....I see what you did there...

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Translation: Cunny2000 is full of spit.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

Further translation: EatWood deletes his post, demands to be quoted from his deleted post, derides opponent poster for not quoting his deleted post, fails to grasp that a big empty POST DELETED sits directly above the initial call-out from opponent poster for all the world to see.

So please, continue this farce. Or, you know, say something of substance. You either believe in bigfoot, don't believe in bigfoot, or have no opinion on the existence of bigfoot. You can dance around all day, or you can just man/woman/hermaphrodite up and make your statement.

I'm content to allow you to keep embarrassing yourself no matter what you choose :)

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

She may be obsessive and insane as well. She stalked WTT over here from another board. I have multiple posts from her. I'm sure you do as well. Most of these posts are just strings of nonsensical words that prove she is incapable of understanding what she reads. She is quite capable of freaking out and changing the subject if she can't deal with the subject at hand. She also seems to believe she is a god that is capable of knowing what is inside an individual poster's head. She's suffering from delusions of grandeur.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

And Wookie is a kettle in a pot store, marveling at the blackness...

He believes he is a god, knowing the gender, age and intentions of people he's never met before. He has the audacity to call foul on all kinds of message board prevarication that he himself commits, and then acts shocked and confused when he's called on it.

His message board tactics are the equivalent of slapping someone in the face, and then calling the police and claiming that THEY were the one slapped in the face, and then looking around in wide eyed innocence, astounded that anyone could disagree with the narrative he has constructed.

[–] WhoToTrust 10 years ago

by cutty2000 » And Wookie is a kettle in a pot store, marveling at the blackness...

He believes he is a god, knowing the gender, age and intentions of people he's never met before. He has the audacity to call foul on all kinds of message board prevarication that he himself commits, and then acts shocked and confused when he's called on it.

His message board tactics are the equivalent of slapping someone in the face, and then calling the police and claiming that THEY were the one slapped in the face, and then looking around in wide eyed innocence, astounded that anyone could disagree with the narrative he has constructed.

Oh the irony.

I'm personally becoming more and more convinced that this is just I_I/N_T_F_M/Molarmaven/S_Spadoski/etc/etc/etc in just it's latest iteration.

After all, cuttys' argument, the progression of cuttys' argument, and cuttys' theft of responses from the comments of others then trying to create the perception that cutty was the FIRST to originally come up with said responses is once again EXACTLY the same.

It's really sad when you think of ALL the time invested just because cutty wants to call other people delusional/illogical/etc/etc.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

He believes he is a god, knowing the gender, age and intentions of people he's never met before.

LOL!! Poor Cutty can't come up with her own arguments so she has to steal from others.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Cunny's trying to lay that deleted post on me because it can't back up what it says about me. Fact is that deleted post was its own. 

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] WhoToTrust 10 years ago

by cutty2000 » I mean seriously, you're not the first one to drop the "I don't believe in Bigfoot PER SE, just the POSSIBILITY" cop out...you all can't really believe that's a zinger? Like your big ace in the hole? It goes without saying that all things are possible, it's as well known and useless a statement as beginning a story about your day with "I woke up and time was moving forward in a linear progression."

It serves no purpose other than to highlight those with such weak convictions that they can't even say what they definitively believe in...I mean I get it, if I believed in Bigfoot I'd be embarrassed too...

Interesting that you're now suggesting such a stance should be viewed as a "cop out".

It seems that's the best that trolls like you can EVER do when your viewpoint is questioned and you can't back up your own definitively stated claims with the proof you demand of others...resort to trying to discredit those who challenge you.

If your own convictions weren't so weak, you'd be able to defend them objectively and based only on the facts.

As things stand though, you, like all of the other trolls before you who attempt to mock/ridicule/discredit/dismiss your way out of the arguments you've started...have yet to do that.

Or did you honestly think that you were the first troll to ever try to drop that zinger here obviously thinking it was YOUR ace in the hole? 

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

She appears to be another moron that can't read. No, I've never stated whether I have a belief in Bigfoot.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Moron? Definitely. She? How do you know? It's cutty2000 not cunny2000.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

lol... that reminds me of a Penthouse story I read many, many years ago.

I'm assuming, she strikes me as a shrewish female.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

SquintAnd_EatWood > Cunny2000 for an insult name pun any day.

Try harder!

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

Why? Cunny2000 is perfect for you.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

I mean it's not bad....but you only changed 2 letters, that's pretty intellectually lazy...(go figure!)

But SquintAnd_EatWood....that's gold right there, my friend.

Solid gold.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

You removed two and added two. BFD!  Plus you put on display your homophobia.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

She seems to be about the mental and emotional equivalent of an 8 year old child. She is so proud of her ability to move letters around to create another word. Her lack of maturity is amusing.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone redo my name exactly like that. It's so unoriginal and obvious. But what cunny2000 doesn't get is that it's not about how much effort you put into it, it's about how appropriate it is.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

No, I've never stated whether I have a belief in Bigfoot.

Yeah, you've just consistently defended people that believe in bigfoot while at the same time decrying anyone who says otherwise. It's like your buddy says "Hot dogs are the best!" and then some other guy goes "Hot dogs are the worst!" and then you go "Why would you say hot dogs are the worst you stupid idiot?" and then you get confused as to why people would infer that you like hot dogs. (Trust me, I'm pretty sure you love to gobble a good dog, if ya know what I mean *wink wink*)

So I mean, yeah, it's conceivable that you have absolutely no opinion on the existence or non existence of bigfoot, but seeing as we are on the Finding Bigfoot board, and you are in the front lines of the "Let's defend Bigfeeters camp" and you're walking, and you're quacking....I'll just go ahead and assume you're a duck.

Feel free at any point to end all your semantic chicanery and make a statement to your belief or non belief, it's not like your haughty maintenance that you are above the fray because you haven't stated your beliefs make your posts any less moronic...

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

Yeah, you've just consistently defended people that believe in bigfoot while at the same time decrying anyone who says otherwise.

Your reading comprehension still sucks.

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

And your refusal to stop wiggling around the issue and just make a simple statement of belief still indicates a lack of conviction.

There are examples all over the board of you doing just what I said, defending the belief in bigfoot and attacking those that hold that a belief in bigfoot is stupid. Are you really going to make me quote every one?

[–] WhoToTrust 10 years ago

by cutty2000 » And your refusal to stop wiggling around the issue and just make a simple statement of belief still indicates a lack of conviction.

There are examples all over the board of you doing just what I said, defending the belief in bigfoot and attacking those that hold that a belief in bigfoot is stupid. Are you really going to make me quote every one?

As wookie said, your reading comprehension STILL sucks...since you're obviously yet to understand the belief that wookie HAS stated on this subject.

Or are you really going to persist in illustrating the apparent fact that you're only capable of the two-dimensional, black-or-white "conviction"-based level of intelligence you've illustrated repeatedly so far?

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

They still don't get it. They are noncommittal on their belief, but are still taking sides, and while taking sides, being insulting to one and not the other. Oddly enough, they bash the side which is the logical side.
Pretty foolish to agree with the gullible people, but it's there choice to look stupid on top on gullible.

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 10 years ago

I've proven many times that I am by far more logical than you, as evidenced by the numerous internet ass whoopins I've laid on you in the past. Hell, how do you think I found you so fast? Do you think I just got lucky?

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

Does he want some cheese with that whine? Somebody hand namegemo a tissue before he starts crying.

[–] WhoToTrust 10 years ago

by namaGemo » They still don't get it. They are noncommittal on their belief...

nama still doesn't get it...

...no matter how many times we tell nama that nama claiming we believe in something doesn't automatically mean that we've stated we believe in something...nama still doesn't get it...

Apparently, nama just wants someone to argue NAMAs' belief with...even if nama has to fabricate a few make-believe people with lies to do it...

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Beehandz 10 years ago

It's ironic that you've said this because you actually fit the description of the people who refused to believe the Earth was in fact a sphere.

absolutely ridiculous and intellectually dishonest comparison

[–] WhoToTrust 10 years ago

by namaGemo » Sorry that delusional types can't cope with reality. That's when you should seek professional help. If anyone is a parrot, it's those claiming EVERYTHING is Bigfoot. I'm not going to apologize for stating facts when it's proven to be humans, and ALWAYS will be proven to be humans....BECAUSE BIGFOOT DOESN'T EXIST!!!

Were you in need of another cracker. and that's why you once again resorted to parroting the same thing?

by namaGemo » Not once has anyone remotely presented an ounce of evidence for Bigfoot, NOT ONCE!

Well obviously, not that YOU have accepted as evidence anyway. Or is there something we're not aware of that makes YOU the arbiter of anything and everything that should be considered as evidence of this subject matter? 

by namaGemo » Let me ask YOU this question, if you knew for a FACT that something didn't exist, or for example, someone kept saying the earth was flat when IT'S A FACT that it's a sphere, would you just let this delusional person go on looking like a COMPLETE FOOL, or would you try to explain to this person why it's not the way they say it is? And after arguing using facts and evidence to explain the REAL WORLD CONCLUSION, if this person continues spouting off lies or behaving in a delusional manner, you just let them persist in continual lies???

Are you seriously trying to equate the possible existence of bigfoot with the known and proven fact that the world is a sphere?

News flash, one has definitively been proven, one has not, so the FACT that you are trying to equate the two as having similarly been proven as factual says a lot about how objectively you approach your scientific conclusions.

But again, as I've repeatedly requested, please provide your proof for you claim that the NON-existence of bigfoot has definitively been proven.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cutty2000 10 years ago

Nothing in the above post is insulting to anyone. No where in the above post did I fail to distinguish between believers and non believers. In fact, if you had bothered reading it, you would have understood that I MYSELF have just stated that from a technical standpoint, I agree that there is a possibility that bigfoot exists. I just think that that statement is semantically meaningless, because EVERYTHING can possibly exist. I think that it's incredibly unlikely that bigfoot exists, so much so that I don't even think a reasonable debate is possible.

You on the other hand, are not slightly insulting or obnoxious at all, are you? That's why you're justified in calling people socially maladjusted egocentric morons?

Eh?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Wookieebitch 10 years ago

And incidentally, flagging other peoples' posts simply because they don't share your viewpoint is ANOTHER thing the troll you're painting yourself as an EXACT copy of used to do.

She may be flagging other people's posts but it appears that hers are the ones being deleted. I guess another thing she doesn't understand is the Administrators don't like the report games that some posters play. It can end up backfiring. So can stalking.

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

please provide your proof for you claim that the NON-existence of bigfoot has definitively been proven.

So now people are supposed to prove a negative? Can you prove you don't molest little boys? Cause if not then you're obviously a paedophile. Sicko.

[–] WhoToTrust 10 years ago

by imadbasayev » So now people are supposed to prove a negative? Can you prove you don't molest little boys? Cause if not then you're obviously a paedophile. Sicko.

If you don't already understand why a person making a definitive claim should be required to provide proof for that definitive claim, then I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you.

Strange that the example for proof that first came to YOUR mind involved molesting little boys.

Sicko indeed.

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

So you can't disprove that you molest little boys...just as I thought.Sicko.

[–] WhoToTrust 10 years ago

by imadbasayev » So you can't disprove that you molest little boys...just as I thought.Sicko.

So you're STILL fixated on the thought of molesting little boys? Please turn yourself in to the authorities immediately and seek treatment...but mainly...to get you off the streets.

With the one-track-mind you've illustrated so far, it's the LEAST you could do for society.

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

Typical projection of a guilty man. You must be a Duggar fan.

[–] WhoToTrust 10 years ago

by imadbasayev » Typical projection of a guilty man. You must be a Duggar fan.

Says the person who brought up molesting little boys in the first place.

[–] imadbasayev 9 years ago

If you don't want me to bring it up then stop doing it, pervert.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

I suppose after this long you need reminded once again that it was you who brought it up.

If you're going to resurrect old threads, at least try reading through them again first before posting so you'll know who you should be accusing of what.

Based on what's apparently still on your mind, guess you never got that treatment huh?

[–] imadbasayev 9 years ago

Sorry but you never proved that you're not molesting little boys, so until then we call all assume that you are. Feel free to disprove.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

What YOU HAVE proved though is that molesting little boys seems to be constantly on YOUR mind.

Again...get help.

[–] imadbasayev 9 years ago

Yes, I admit it, the fact that you molest little boys bothers me.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

The only fact that's been established is that the thought of molesting little boys is apparently on your mind a lot.

[–] imadbasayev 9 years ago

The sad part is there's no rehab for perverts like you. You're born that way and society is still trying to decide how best to deal with degenerate paedophiles like yourself.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

No, the sad part is that the only apparent way intellectual deficients like you can think of to try to distract from your own failing logic and opinions is to accuse others of having thoughts that obviously permeate your own mind.

Face it, you're still trying to defend people who have made DEFINITIVE claims of non-existence even though they've provided no proof to back up that claim. That they were too stupid to realize they wouldn't be able to provide proof for that claim is their own fault, and yours for not understanding why it was an illogical claim in the first place.

But then YOUR mind is obviously clouded with thoughts of molesting little boys all the time so your problem is obvious. They on the other hand have no apparent excuse.

[–] imadbasayev 9 years ago

Methinks the paedo doth protest too much.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

Troll.

[–] imadbasayev 9 years ago

Paedophile.

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

Methinks thou dost project too much.

[–] imadbasayev 9 years ago

Look at you, doing your part to help the environment.. 

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by imadbasayev » Look at you, doing your part to help the environment..

It must be sad for you to know that these types of internet message board comments are apparently all you have to contribute to society.

[–] imadbasayev 9 years ago

Am I expected to acknowledge criticism from a gay paedo? Did you have to announce your status to all your neighbours?

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

You just get sadder and more pathetic as an IMDB poster by the minute.

[–] namaGemo 10 years ago

Isn't it great when you have pathetically stupid people over a barrel? Keep up the good work. I love watching delusional fools wrestle with reality.

[–] WhoToTrust 10 years ago

by imadbasayev » Typical projection of a guilty man. You must be a Duggar fan.

by namaGemo » Isn't it great when you have pathetically stupid people over a barrel? Keep up the good work. I love watching delusional fools wrestle with reality.

And now nama talking about having people over a barrel. Birds of a feather eh nama.  You should REALLY start putting more thought into who you associate with.

[–] runit73 9 years ago

Has to be Bigfoot. I think they forgot where they parked their UFO, and were searching for it.