Skeptic finds 4 year Bigfoot project "intriguing"

The stigma matters because scientists won't test it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Google.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Even if I showed you a recording of Bigfoot, you'd just claim it is someone in a suit, am I right or am I wrong? Even a recording is not proof enough for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you said it, the burden of proof is on YOU. I will report you for intellectual dishonesty and lying if you don't prove it yourself.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ahh, the dramatics and dramatism of the conspiracy, monster, Alien brigade.

 

http://theweek.com/articles/466777/11-crazy-bigfoot-conspiracy-theories

11 crazy Bigfoot conspiracy theories
Whether or not you believe in Bigfoot, chances are you live pretty close to somebody who does: Sasquatch sightings have been reported in every state but Hawaii over the course of several centuries. In the process, a number of bizarre theories have been put forth to explain how the mysterious beasts came to be, reproduce, and constantly evade us.

1. A DNA test proved that Bigfoot is a part-human hybrid...and deserves U.S. citizenship!Texas veterinarian Melba S. Ketchum claimed last November to have proved via a Sasquatch DNA sample that the legendary apes are partially human. She even went so far as to insist that the government recognize them as "an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights."

2. The government secretly removed burnt Sasquatch corpses from Mount St. Helens after the 1980 eruption. Following the disaster, a few witnesses reported seeing federal helicopters carrying off the charred remains of several Sasquatches from the area. Prior to the eruption, Mount St. Helens had already been a hot spot for supposed "ape-men" sightings since the 1920s. In fact, so many of these stories were recorded that a nearby gorge was eventually named "Ape Canyon."

3. Bigfoot is really a caveman.In 2007, Vancouver Island resident Robert Wilson claimed to have seen "what I thought was a bear. I drove down and saw what I could only describe as a large, hairy man who looked cave man-like… with sort of Neanderthal features. As big as a bear, easily." Expanding on his claim, a 2011 History Channel documentary proposed that "[the] Sasquatch might not be a giant ape at all, but could be a species of prehistoric human." You can see the segment in question at this video's 55-minute mark.
Mark Mancini

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you a believer? ThinkStock/iStockphoto
March 12, 2013




4. Bigfoot is really an alien.
Two conspiracies for the price of one! In 1973, Pennsylvanian UFO researcher Stan Gordon said he noticed an increase in sightings of Sasquatches entering and exiting extraterrestrial vessels. Fascinated by the possibility that the mysterious primates may actually hail from another planet, Gordon quickly set up a "UFO-Bigfoot Hotline" that still runs to this day.

5. Bigfoot is really a giant ground sloth.While most "experts" believe the Sasquatch to be some form of shaggy primate, a few have opined that these beasts are actually surviving giant ground sloths. For more on these fascinating prehistoric mammals, do go here.

6. Sasquatches occasionally sodomize domestic cows.Animal-on-animal bestiality is far from uncommon. Accordingly, more than a few farmers claim to have witnessed male Bigfeet (which is the plural of Bigfoot) getting intimate with some unfortunate bovines. (Where's Gary Larson when you need him?)

7. Sasquatches appear in the Bible.
A few modern creationists have argued that the giants briefly mentioned in the book of Genesis were actually early Bigfeet.

8. 10 percent of Sasquatches might be gay.Cryptozoologist Loren Coleman recalls having once "lightheartedly wondered aloud if 10 percent of the Bigfoot population, matching the figures we have on Homo sapiens, might be gay." Days later, he was shocked to discover a slew of angry e-mails denouncing him for calling "Bigfoot a homosexual." You can visit Coleman's official website here.

9. Sasquatches bury their dead.
One of the most jarring questions for cryptozoologists is: "If Sasquatches are real, why don't we ever find their bodies?" Many believers argue that, not unlike modern elephants, the elusive apes actually bury their dead. For a lengthy list of purported "sightings" of Bigfoot burials in progress, check this out.

10. The government captured a live Sasquatch in 1999.In 1999, a number of simultaneous fires ravaged Battle Mountain, Nevada. An injured Bigfoot was supposedly spotted in the carnage before being whisked away by government officials for treatment. A brief summary of the alleged event is available at the Sierra Tahoe Bigfoot Research Blog.

11. Bigfoot calls have been documented and can be easily mimicked.
Believers feel that Bigfoot calls are diverse and distinctive, as evidenced in Animal Planet'sFinding Bigfoot series.


Here's another in which the program's host, James "Bobo" Fay, shows off his Sasquatch roar to a confused Conan O'Brien.



http://theweek.com/articles/466777/11-crazy-bigfoot-conspiracy-theories

 

Are you also claiming DNA testing for a new species costs only $100?

 

I'm claiming that one needs to be a total nong dong to accept that Bigfoot exists on what we know.
And what the fuck difference does it make how much it costs?
That's just your red herring that you are grasping at for at least some credibility.

 

All you have to do is a Google search for "DNA testing".

 

I said it was expensive as one of the reasons why we don't have good DNA results yet. Saying it only costs $100 is a insult to my argument. So of course it matters. Daecon is trying to disprove the argument that DNA testing is expensive. So far he hasn't been able to back up his claim.

 

Would you accept my evidence if I told you, "All you have to do is a Google search for "Bigfoot evidence"? No. So don't expect the same of me. Cite your own damn sources or expect to be reported.

 

No it doesn't matter. It's nothing more than a cop out.
The reason why we don't have good DNA results is that there is nothing substantial or convincing enough to test.

 

Really? Threats?

You're pathetic.

 

"Expensive" and "won't test it" are two totally separate things. If scientists truly "won't test it", then it should be easy enough to prove by waving a big bag of money in front of a DNA testing lab and having them reject it. The reality is that you are just tossing around any lame excuse you can think of to try to weasel out of your failure.

 

You don't believe in $100 dollar DNA tests but you do believe giant apemen that use bows and arrows?

 

She's lying ofcourse. All Bell's claims that the 112 samples were contaminated, or really oppossum dna, or really just human dna, were proven to be lies put out by the skeptical bloggers and a Houston chronicle reporter who needs to drum up business for his paper. It also operates on an ignorance of the difference between mitochondrial dna and nuclear dna. You have only to read posts 275, 278, and 279 to see the final conclusion on this matter,

 

You keep making this claim, yet you cannot back it up... at this point, the only one lying here is you, and you are lying to yourself. The fact that you are asserting that any reputable DNA lab would not know the difference between mtDNA and DNA is, frankly, insulting, and showcases the level of deceit and desperation you conspiracy theory lovers will go to to try and make your insane claims sound plausible.

 

Did I say the labs were ignorant of the distinction? No.. Who was I talking about then? Refer to the post itself. I'm talking about the skeptics that repeat the lies that I cited. It's laughable that I have to teach people how to read posts here.

 

The only thing laughable is that you're the one who's repeating lies.