IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags film , bigfoot , patterson gimlin

Closed Thread
Old 18th August 2007, 08:36 AM   #7081
tube
Muse
 
tube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 917
Originally Posted by Correa Neto View Post
Well, when someone says "It makes no sense P&G making a female gorilla bigfoot costume", I just ask "Why?" and remind him/her of Roe's sighting.

I also remind the person that several renderings of female "apemen" were available back in the 60s. Not to mention that a dangling male genitalia probably would not be something you would like to show in your movie back then...
Another possibliity may be even more simple: your basic gorilla suit, as supplied, is neuter, with neither breasts nor genitalia.




If you want to take it to the next level, and attempt to pass if off as a real animal, you would want to make that modification.

My speculation is that Patterson put the breasts on because he HAD to, not because he wanted to. I'll go further and suggest that Patterson made his breasts on the stiff side, as floppy breasts would provoke an instant ridicule factor.

A film of a giant hairy ape-man in the woods of Northern California already begs credulity, why make it worse with big breasts flopping around?
__________________
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6

(Bigfoot) evidence doesn't look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse. David Daegling

The Bigfoot hypothesis is tested daily.
tube is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th August 2007, 01:37 PM   #7082
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
No no no no no and no!

The feet are soes' soles, no toes!
The hair is too long and shaggy!
There are no muscles!
The mouth is open!
The fingers do not move!
The IM is wrong!
No one could walk like Patty using a costume like that!

No no no no no and no!
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th August 2007, 01:40 PM   #7083
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
*bumping the questions below*
Why should one consider the "Patty-like" renderings closer to the "real animal" than the others?
What are the criteria used to draw the line?

From my point of view, the alleged consistency in the descriptions obtained from eyewitnesses reports and PGF is not real; its created by a biased selection of reports. Unless "hairy and bipedal" is considered as a good enough match... But please, anyone feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong.

Or there are lots of species of humanoid cryptids roaming around in North America?
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th August 2007, 02:48 PM   #7084
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,661
Originally Posted by Correa Neto View Post
*bumping the questions below*
Why should one consider the "Patty-like" renderings closer to the "real animal" than the others?
What are the criteria used to draw the line?

From my point of view, the alleged consistency in the descriptions obtained from eyewitnesses reports and PGF is not real; its created by a biased selection of reports. Unless "hairy and bipedal" is considered as a good enough match... But please, anyone feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong.

Or there are lots of species of humanoid cryptids roaming around in North America?
.
The exact point I brought up over on the BFF more than a year ago. At least twice.

I don't think Patty proponents will be satisfied unless the replication matches exactly (fur, stride, height, bulk, length of limbs, shape of head, etc.).

RayG
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts.
--------------------
Scrutatio Et Quaestio

Last edited by RayG; 18th August 2007 at 02:52 PM.
RayG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 12:07 AM   #7085
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Ivan Marx satisfied John Green and others with a suit that looked nothing like Patty...
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 05:55 AM   #7086
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by RayG View Post
.
The exact point I brought up over on the BFF more than a year ago. At least twice.

I don't think Patty proponents will be satisfied unless the replication matches exactly (fur, stride, height, bulk, length of limbs, shape of head, etc.).

RayG

Here is a statement from your BFF post....

Quote:
And how is it determined whether the replication "looks as real" as the PGF?
Easy....

When you look at the picture on the left....it takes approximately 1 second to realize it's a guy-in-a-suit.

In SHARP contrast...people have been looking at the picture on the right for approximately 40 years, and are still scratching their heads, wondering...."is it a real creature...or a man-in-a-suit???"...




Do you see the difference, Ray?

1 second for positive determination....versus 40 years of wondering...

That's what determines what "as real-looking as Patty" is.


Quote:
Keep in mind I was talking about the film subject being an exact match, not the film. As I've said before, if the fur, stride, height, bulk, length of limbs, shape of head, and any other number of criteria don't match, then most PGF proponents are going to point a finger and say it doesn't look like the subject in the PGF

Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.

Nice try...but an "exact match" of Patty is not required....by anybody.

Got REALISM?
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 07:22 AM   #7087
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
When you look at the picture on the left....it takes approximately 1 second to realize it's a guy-in-a-suit.
How long did Green take with Marx's film? How long did Meldrum take with the Snow Walker footage?
Quote:
In SHARP contrast...people have been looking at the picture on the right for approximately 40 years, and are still scratching their heads, wondering...."is it a real creature...or a man-in-a-suit???"...
So that disqualifies it as reliable evidence? You mean a bunch of adult RPGer's are are convinced it's a real sasquatch while clutching dearly to it in lieu of reliable evidence?
Quote:
Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.
That's all anybody's asking for? How about some reliable evidence of giant bipedal primates all over the continent? Well, I guess your question is answered by the two footage examples I gave above. Don't let that stop your burden of proof confusion, though.
Quote:
Got REALISM?
Said the Martian civilization pareidolia king.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

Last edited by kitakaze; 19th August 2007 at 07:25 AM.
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 08:48 AM   #7088
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
kitakaze wrote:

Quote:
How long did Meldrum take with the Snow Walker footage?
The Snow Walker video is irrelevant. The subject isn't seen in a comparable resolution...and it's not seen from the front.


Quote:
So that disqualifies it as reliable evidence? You mean a bunch of adult RPGer's are are convinced it's a real sasquatch while clutching dearly to it in lieu of reliable evidence?
The point is not so much convinced as it is unclear.

Maybe you should re-read my post, kitakaze....

ONE second....and you KNOW you're looking at a man-in-a-suit...with every other image of a suit that's comparable in resolution.

40 Years.....and it's UNCLEAR as to whether or not the PG Film subject is a man-in-a-suit.

Do you understand the difference??


Again....the job for skeptics, should they accept the challenge, is to provide an image of a suit which closely approaches the realism of Patty.

According to many skeptics....the film is weightless as evidence of Bigfoot.....so therefore, it should be a simple matter to produce a suit as realistic-looking as Patty.
But.....evidently.....it's not so simple.

BTW...thanks for starting a Mars anomalies thread for me!
I hadn't even seen it. I'll add some more images to it, one of these days.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

Last edited by SweatyYeti; 19th August 2007 at 08:51 AM.
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 09:52 AM   #7089
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
That reasoning was so... Luminous!

Conveniently, it left aside most if not all problems already pointed out regarding PGF and is based on nothing but personal perceptions and opinions.

PGF defenders say Patty is a real bigfoot. Its their job to prove it is. And after 40 years trying, so far no success. They seem to be unable to provide any solid support to such a claim (a specimen, DNA, more footage or stills not suspected of being a hoax).

They try to shift the burden of proof. Here goes the burden for you again: Those who say Patty is real bigfoot could also try to build or modify some gorilla suits and remake PGF. Should not be hard, after all it takes one second to "know" Patty is not a bloke in a suit... Money should not be an issue, since they buy books on bigfoot, go to conventions, make field trips...
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 10:09 AM   #7090
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.
How long did Meldrum take with the Snow Walker footage?
The Snow Walker video is irrelevant. The subject isn't seen in a comparable resolution...and it's not seen from the front.
Uh-huh...



Sweaty, you need to take your own advice and re-read your post.
Quote:
The point is not so much convinced as it is unclear.
That's funny, I thought that the PGF was some ambiguous old film that a bunch of irrational fringe belief people were clinging on to for dear life.
Quote:
ONE second....and you KNOW you're looking at a man-in-a-suit...with every other image of a suit that's comparable in resolution.

40 Years.....and it's UNCLEAR as to whether or not the PG Film subject is a man-in-a-suit.

Do you understand the difference??


Again....the job for skeptics, should they accept the challenge, is to provide an image of a suit which closely approaches the realism of Patty.

According to many skeptics....the film is weightless as evidence of Bigfoot.....so therefore, it should be a simple matter to produce a suit as realistic-looking as Patty.
But.....evidently.....it's not so simple.
Every single aspect of the PGF film subject that has been put forward by proponents as showing it's veracity as an actual sasquatch has been shown in many suits in this very thread. Your Credibility Quest isn't going very well.

Oh... Hey, look!:



Brrr... Scary! Look at those muscles.



Mommy!

Now before you make another break for the goalposts let me give you a hand:
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
For Kerry, Sweaty, Lyndon, and all the Pattycake lurkers who demand a bigfoot suit comparable to Patty:

Harley Hoffman's bigfoot video.

WOW! Look at those muscles! Check the glossy short black hair! Neck? What neck?

By all means, proceed to move the goal posts by complaining it's not contemporaneous with Patty.
Where would you like the goalposts next?
Quote:
BTW...thanks for starting a Mars anomalies thread for me!
I hadn't even seen it. I'll add some more images to it, one of these days.
Riiiight.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

Last edited by kitakaze; 19th August 2007 at 10:11 AM.
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 10:18 AM   #7091
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...bHaHaHaHa2.jpg
The bigfoot on the right is from a different subspecies...
The bigfoot on the right has a different gender...
The bigfoot on the right has a different age...
The bigfoot on the right was storing fat for the winter...
[add excuse here]
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 10:18 AM   #7092
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Here is a statement from your BFF post....



Easy....

When you look at the picture on the left....it takes approximately 1 second to realize it's a guy-in-a-suit.

In SHARP contrast...people have been looking at the picture on the right for approximately 40 years, and are still scratching their heads, wondering...."is it a real creature...or a man-in-a-suit???"...

Do you see the difference, Ray?

1 second for positive determination....versus 40 years of wondering...

That's what determines what "as real-looking as Patty" is.





Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.

Nice try...but an "exact match" of Patty is not required....by anybody.

Got REALISM?


You got me there. I do not see much difference between the two, beside contrast and color. You say 1 second, well in 1 second I determined both are fairly identical. I thought they were both taken from the PGF...

So you might want to recalculate your estimate. And you might also say where are the difference between both that a superficial examination can show. Because frankly, without being biased, you are wayyyyy exaggerating your case here.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 10:24 AM   #7093
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
K., comparing uruks with bigfeet...

Do you have an idea on how hard Saruman had to work to create them?

Shame on you!
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 11:31 AM   #7094
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
.....

Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.
Why do you get more than a few seconds, when it doesn't take any longer than that to determine this is a suit ?

__________________
Maybe later....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 04:05 PM   #7095
Geno
Scholar
 
Geno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 69
No comparison?

I am new here so I do not have all the options but if you take the better resolution picture of Bob H in the suit and frame 352 and put them together, I for one see quite alot of similarity especially with the arms, shoulders and legs.

I have been studying BF for over 30 years and have always had a fascination with the PG film.
Geno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 05:04 PM   #7096
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
Originally Posted by RayG View Post
.
The exact point I brought up over on the BFF more than a year ago. At least twice.

I don't think Patty proponents will be satisfied unless the replication matches exactly (fur, stride, height, bulk, length of limbs, shape of head, etc.).

RayG
Ray, I think you are correct.

They will find a minor difference and say "SEE? THEY COULDN'T DO IT!!!"

Quote:
*bumping again the questions below*
Why should one consider the "Patty-like" renderings closer to the "real animal" than the others?
What are the criteria used to draw the line?

From my point of view, the alleged consistency in the descriptions obtained from eyewitnesses reports and PGF is not real; its created by a biased selection of reports. Unless "hairy and bipedal" is considered as a good enough match... But please, anyone feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong.

Or there are lots of species of humanoid cryptids roaming around in North America?
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 08:21 PM   #7097
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Geno View Post
I am new here so I do not have all the options but if you take the better resolution picture of Bob H in the suit and frame 352 and put them together, I for one see quite alot of similarity especially with the arms, shoulders and legs.

I have been studying BF for over 30 years and have always had a fascination with the PG film.

Actually....the arms are quite different in length, in proportion to the body....




It's a real shame...Bob "Erronious" Heironimus tells 2 or 3 different stories of his wonderful adventure in the suit....and his body proportions don't quite fit.
It's a rather sad story....he didn't quite make it into the hoax of the century. But at least he still has his "believers".
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

Last edited by SweatyYeti; 19th August 2007 at 08:31 PM.
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 08:30 PM   #7098
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Another comparison.....



Bob is oversized in comparison to Patty...and Patty's arms are still longer than Bob's.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 09:07 PM   #7099
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Quote:
the arms are quite different in length, in proportion to the body....
Well, I can't tell how long the actor's arms are. The suit is hiding that info. Presuming it's a suit, of course. It's a bit silly to compare the suit's arms to a person's arms, isn't it?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 09:08 PM   #7100
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Quote:
Bob is oversized in comparison to Patty...and Patty's arms are still longer than Bob's.
Wrong angle, arms at different points, can't compare suit to person, etc.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 09:10 PM   #7101
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Quote:
When you look at the picture on the left....it takes approximately 1 second to realize it's a guy-in-a-suit.
Sure, it does today. What is that supposed to mean?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 09:12 PM   #7102
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Quote:
40 Years.....and it's UNCLEAR as to whether or not the PG Film subject is a man-in-a-suit.
Unclear to who? Bigfooters? So what?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th August 2007, 09:46 PM   #7103
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Sweaty looks left, looks right... Where's he gonna go now people? Moved the goalposts all over, tried the old BoP switcheroo and bombed... Wait just a second... What's that?
Originally Posted by Geno View Post
I am new here so I do not have all the options but if you take the better resolution picture of Bob H in the suit and frame 352 and put them together, I for one see quite alot of similarity especially with the arms, shoulders and legs.

I have been studying BF for over 30 years and have always had a fascination with the PG film.
Yes! Yes it is. Just what Sweaty needed, a newbie BH reference! Live another day, Sweaty makes a break for it.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Actually....the arms are quite different in length, in proportion to the body....

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...BobPatty2a.jpg


It's a real shame...Bob "Erronious" Heironimus tells 2 or 3 different stories of his wonderful adventure in the suit....and his body proportions don't quite fit.
It's a rather sad story....he didn't quite make it into the hoax of the century. But at least he still has his "believers".
Ohhh, that made Sweaty happy.

Hey Sweaty, think fast! Patterson- pinned by horse or slid of the back, camera in hand?
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 05:40 AM   #7104
Melissa
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Fair enough. Where did I misquote Meldrum? Are you arguing that he doesn't support Green's position on the lack of female sasquatch reports? Where was I dishonest?
I do not know why Dr. Meldrum choose to quote Mr. Green on this point. Maybe because it was phrased in a chapter on statistical analysis in his book Sasquatch Legend Meets Science. I could find no quote by Dr. Meldrum that said he agreed or disagreed with these comments (I looked). Just because he included that in his book does not mean he either agrees or disagrees - he simply created a chapter on it - and opened up the information for discussion and conversation.

Dr. Meldrum does say (and I quote) Pg. 212 paragraph 1 " Taken individually we are not only at the mercy of the veracity of the story teller, but also limited by the witnesses' individual power of observation and accuracy of interpretation. Furthermore, the compiled data do not represent a systematic, regimented sampling taken under controlled conditions. These data represents the sum of scores of serendipitous encounters, which may or may not be credible, that happened to get reported and happened to make their way into the files of John Green".

*emphasis mine*

Dr. Meldrum then goes on to say: Pg. 212 paragraph, 2 " However, upon reflection it will be recognized that this sort of anecdotal data forms the basis for many valid statistical analyses".

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree to be honest. While there is no information within the number of reports compiled by Mr. Green that amounts to absolute evidence, it is information that does help build the case, and it is information researchers can use to help in the work they are attempting to do.

If we are to find out if this mystery is in fact real or hundreds of misidentification's - we need information to start with. We need something to work from. These reports help us do that. I will be honest, I am much more curious about reports that were turned in prior to the internet. I personally think there is too much information out there for hoaxers to latch onto, and use.

But thats just my personal opinion.

I have no idea if Dr. Meldrum supports the comments made by Mr. Green or not. You would have to ask him, but the quote you used was taken out of context - just because he puts something in his book, or relays information from someone else - that does not mean he is in full support of those comments.
Melissa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 07:27 AM   #7105
Mad Hom
Loose Cannon
 
Mad Hom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 475
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Here is a statement from your BFF post....

Easy....

When you look at the picture on the left....it takes approximately 1 second to realize it's a guy-in-a-suit.

In SHARP contrast...people have been looking at the picture on the right for approximately 40 years, and are still scratching their heads, wondering...."is it a real creature...or a man-in-a-suit???"...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...bHaHaHaHa2.jpg


Do you see the difference, Ray?

1 second for positive determination....versus 40 years of wondering...

That's what determines what "as real-looking as Patty" is.


Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.

Nice try...but an "exact match" of Patty is not required....by anybody.

Got REALISM?

...and in 40 years you have nothing....absolutely...NOTHING to corroborate your and the rest of Bigfoot Nation's contention that this is in fact a real flesh and blood hairy Biped of Unusual Heighth.

We the less fanciful beings of earth have countless other video which obviously depict schmoes in suits along with a list as long as my arm of Class A sightings (yeah right) that happen on the fringe of suburbia in the vast unexplored wilds of such exotic,remote locales as Indiana,Kansas and Ohio,and countless examples of how Roge and Gimlin contradicted each other at damn near every oppurtunity.

Not to mention the fact that time is on the side of skeptics...it has been 40 years and you have absolutely...BUPKIS!!!

You have exactly ONE...single...solitary ambiguous to the nth degree film made by a con man on his very first attempt to go out a film a Bigfeetsus.

Oh and you also have ,folders and folders of sighting reports, probably about 10,000 or so feetprints casts,countless hoaxes,loads of Blobsquatches....some bison hair,a huge pothole in the mud, Biscardi...Freeman...that nutty broad in Tennessee who has a group of Bigfeetsuses who borrow sugar from her...and so on and so on...and so on...

This is why Bigfoot Nation clings to the Con Man's Flick so tightly....without it they basically have a giant heaping pile of....NOT FREEKING MUCH!!!
Mad Hom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 07:46 AM   #7106
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Quote:
I agree to be honest. While there is no information within the number of reports compiled by Mr. Green that amounts to absolute evidence, it is information that does help build the case, and it is information researchers can use to help in the work they are attempting to do.
I don't think the info does anything to build the case.

If anything, the inconsistencies in descriptions only hurt the case. The lack of critical examination of the reports also hurts the case. Often, no real investigation is done.

The failure to weed out and denounce the kooks is still hurting the case, imo.

If bigfoot is ever to be taken seriously, then a major shift needs to occur within the community of believers.

Those who are serious, and want to approach the subject in the proper scientific manner, need to distance themselves from the cranks, and the dollar hunters, and woo-woos, running around the woods in packs of idiots hollering, beating on trees, and scenting the area to death with baboon sweat and gorilla pee.

The next group that needs to be weeded out are the experts who manufacture data in support of Bigfoot, such as Meldrum. His mid-tarsal break nonsense is not helping any, imo. Nor is the invented skeleton, and the invented walk, etc., shown in LMS. Chilcutt's dermal ridge baloney has now come home to roost, too. Time to cut your losses...

These people are what is killing sasquatch. It's not the skeptics.

It's the BFRO... It's the Skookum cast...
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 07:53 AM   #7107
Melissa
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Kitakazee
2. You made incorrect sweeping generalizations about the people posting here and the nature and intent of the discussions here.
As opposed to the generalized comments about those active in research? I have been in the field many, many times - and experienced nothing I could say was positive proof of a bigfoot. Yet, I am called a "believer" and lumped in with those who hear a bigfoot every time they hit a tree line. If you don't like broad sweeping generalizations and assumptions, try not to do the same. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Kitakazee
3. You commented on actual research and were invited to discuss your own actual research, not for the first time. Again, no comment. Seems like you don't want to discuss your search for bigfoot here. Why not? Not worth engaging?
I have addressed this issue many times on my blog. I am a member of a group of researchers. Most of my research is out with them. I do not speak for that group and do not want to be placed in that position. We have a person who has been assigned that task. Now, I have discussed my own research on my blog - and if you ask me questions that are pointed toward my own personal work in the field thats fine. I just haven't seen any. I am always happy to discuss what I do - but it isn't very exciting, I have never seen this animal... But, as I have said here, I have had a very interesting experience which you can read about on the TBRC website, and if you have questions about it (my involvement) I will be happy to answer them. Here, I will even give you the link - TBRC

I think this report among others shows the TBRC is interested in doing research that is of a scientific nature. We employ a variety of methods in scouting areas for operations and we go in with all the necessary equipment and gear. While we have yet to document the animal in Texas - our effort is not that of a group of idiots strapping on backpacks and just simply heading out into the woods. We utilize reports from specific areas and actually put feet to the ground before we even consider the area a good place for research. The TBRC actually has an ongoing Camera Trap operation employing numerous game cams that photograph areas in East Texas as well as Oklahoma. These camera traps stay out for months at a time and to retrieve them and reload requires a large group of hikers and days out there to get to them, and get out. These are tough areas, and extremely remote- they are not day hikes by any stretch of the imagination. We have had members injured and a couple contracted serious illness - these areas are dangerous, but the decision was made to employ these types of ongoing operations because it is felt they are necessary. But, they are volunteer only, and separate from other operations performed. I myself have come dangerously close to heat stroke, and just this past weekend became very dehydrated and sick, but I am willing to put myself out there to help figure out what people are seeing.

But, reports are all we have to work off of at this point, because this animals presence in one specific area has yet to be documented. We use reports and field observations to help determine where to look.

Now, if you have any questions about these operations I will be happy to answer what I can, but my knowledge of the camera trap operations is very limited and I have only been on one of those operations - but I don't remember you ever asking any serious questions about my actual work - that wasn't filled with ridicule. I am out there to help figure out what is going on - regardless of what I find out. I think its great when someone can identify a vocalization, as a known animal and take it out of the category of possible sasquatch, because it narrows the field down - and gives us something to work with as a known cause when we receive reports from witnesses who may have heard this very sound. I personally am unwilling to call anything a bigfoot - until I see it with my own eyes.

Originally Posted by Kitakazee
4. I asked you a simple, straightforward question concerning any skeptical questions you asked in your 'Let's Talk Bigfoot' interview with Squatchcommando.

...Scratch that, Melissa. I just went to your board and realized what you were talking about when I asked before. I was not aware of the fact that he had passed away which I hope was apparent. My apologies and condolences.
Thank you. I appreciate your kindness.

Also, sorry for the slow response, but I have had a very rough few days - and I just got back late yesterday from a weekend in the hot and humid wilds of Texas.
Melissa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 08:07 AM   #7108
Melissa
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by LTC
The next group that needs to be weeded out are the experts who manufacture data in support of Bigfoot, such as Meldrum. His mid-tarsal break nonsense is not helping any, imo. Nor is the invented skeleton, and the invented walk, etc., shown in LMS. Chilcutt's dermal ridge baloney has now come home to roost, too. Time to cut your losses...
Manufactured data? How is information and data compiled from witnesses manufactured? Whether you think it is valid information is your opinion - but Im not sure whatelse we would have to work from. Assumptions? Guess work? How appropriate is that? If we simply ignore the information being put out by witnesses - then what do we have to go on?

Why is it that the 14 seconds of footage for Cornell University so much better information on the Ivory Billed Woodpecker and various other sightings - than the information I as a bigfoot researcher receive? There is no difference in my methods and theirs - other than their work is accepted because of 14 seconds of fuzzy footage (thats worse than the patterson film) and the Ivory Billed was known to exist at one point. But they are not employing methods any different than what bigfoot researchers use every time they go into the field.

Giganto was known to exist - we just cant put it here in North America.. Yet, but remains have been found in other areas outside of China. So - that case has yet to be built.

Oh, and the Ivory Billed hunters have had no better luck than we have had. So it seems scientists in the field cant find something a lucky person with a camera could find. So, does that mean the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is truly extint? Who knows, until science finds one living.
Melissa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 08:21 AM   #7109
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
Originally Posted by Melissa View Post
Manufactured data? How is information and data compiled from witnesses manufactured? Whether you think it is valid information is your opinion - but Im not sure whatelse we would have to work from. Assumptions? Guess work? How appropriate is that? If we simply ignore the information being put out by witnesses - then what do we have to go on?

Why is it that the 14 seconds of footage for Cornell University so much better information on the Ivory Billed Woodpecker and various other sightings - than the information I as a bigfoot researcher receive? There is no difference in my methods and theirs - other than their work is accepted because of 14 seconds of fuzzy footage (thats worse than the patterson film) and the Ivory Billed was known to exist at one point. But they are not employing methods any different than what bigfoot researchers use every time they go into the field.
WRONG.

They are employing different methods. They have actual data of what an IBW looks like, what features it has, it's size, its characteristics, and so forth. These are what was compared to the video to see if it matched. They know the types of environments in lives in, what it eats, and other such information that confirms it could be living in the are reported. Even then, there is still doubt (but they've also recorded audio calls and compared them, nit just video).

With bigfoot, there's no reference. No one knows what its environment is. No one knows what it eats. No one knows what size it should be, or what it should sound like, or what features it should have. There is no way to determine what is a "real" bigfoot from a "fake" bigfoot, or an accurate report from an inaccurate report, even assuming Bigfoot exists. Which makes all this "information" from Meldrum and the like bad science, at best, and outright fraud at the worst.

Quote:
Giganto was known to exist - we just cant put it here in North America.. Yet, but remains have been found in other areas outside of China. So - that case has yet to be built.
And if Giganto looked anything like the reported Bigfeet (beyond big hairy ape) you might have the beginnings of a case, As it is, that straw won't hold you up for long.

Quote:
Oh, and the Ivory Billed hunters have had no better luck than we have had. So it seems scientists in the field cant find something a lucky person with a camera could find. So, does that mean the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is truly extint? Who knows, until science finds one living.
Yeah, but they've only spent a couple years looking for it. And, as I stated, they have gotten closer, some audio calls for example. Also, birds are smaller and require less food and territory, and can hide more easily than a 7' biped.

Again, you're trying to falsly gain legitimacy by trying to compare the Bigfoot forever-fiasco to legitimate research founded in reasonable claims.

Do you have a case at all, or are you simply going to continue this blatantly false analogy (that you've already been corrected on once before)? Do you actually understand logic and scientific method? Because if you do, you're being intentionally dishonest with this comparison...so are you ignorant or decietful?

ETA: And just to continue this, to show how extremely silly your comparison is...how long do you think they'll look fdor the IBW? DO you think that, 40 years down the line, if nothing has still been found except that initial video, that people will still be looking for it? IF all they had at that point was a grainy video and a mound of anecdotes (many of which contradict each other) do you think the mainstream would still be saying "but it could exist! We need to spend money on it!" Do you think they'd be making up things about it actually having featherless wings, or digging burrows, or having gills, to explain why no physical evidence can be found?

You need to quit insulting the real scientists who are working in fields of biology and ecology, especially since your understanding of science is so inadequate.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell

Last edited by Hellbound; 20th August 2007 at 08:40 AM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 08:24 AM   #7110
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Quote:
Manufactured data?
Yes, manufactured. There is no evidence at all to support the Krantz/Meldrum foot skeleton ideas or the Meldrum MTB idea.

The foot skeleton is made up. The MTB is made up.

What else can you call it?

You answered your own question about the IBW.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 08:36 AM   #7111
Melissa
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
I am thinking the person who wrote the book: The Human Foot: A Companion to Clinical Studies

Might disagree as to the evidence of midtarsal break being made up or not.

Here is one quote from that book on the issue of Midtarsal break:

Quote:
"... bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees (Pan paniscus) using force plates and pressure mats (RScan International). They found that there was a midtarsal break as a consequence of a flexible midfoot. ..."
No, I dont think the issue of Midtarsal break was made up, as it has been identified in other primates, with the same reference to the flexible midfoot.

So, while Dr. Meldrums theory may be based on anecdotal information at this time, there is precedent for such a theory. The only way it will go from anecdotal evidence to concrete evidence is for a body to be brought to a lab.

Last edited by Melissa; 20th August 2007 at 08:39 AM.
Melissa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 08:45 AM   #7112
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
Melissa:

There's no evidence at all for his flexible foot. That's the problem. It's a feature he's made up not to explain evidence, but to expalin away discrepencies instead of admitting that particular evidence doesn't support his conclusion. The tracks he uses to "prove" a felxible foot are the same type of tracks a human foot can make in sand, as one example.

He draws an inappropriate conclusion from insufficient data in order to prevent having to modify his pet thesis. Yes, it is manufactured evidence. There is NOTHING out there that can show a mid-tarsal break. And nothing that shows this is a feature of Bigfoot, of which we have no accurate data on what its features are.

Meldrum (and other BF researchers) simply play buffet with the anecdotes in the adsence of evidence. They pull out things like "mid-tarsal break" so they can keep this bit of story. Then they pull out another bit of story for some other point. Seriously, has Meldrum discarded all the BF prints that don't show a mid-tarsal break as not evidence for Bigfoot? Something like, oh, I don't know, the PGF and PAtty's prints?
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 08:46 AM   #7113
Melissa
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Huntsman
Yeah, but they've only spent a couple years looking for it. And, as I stated, they have gotten closer, some audio calls for example. Also, birds are smaller and require less food and territory, and can hide more easily than a 7' biped.

Again, you're trying to falsly gain legitimacy by trying to compare the Bigfoot forever-fiasco to legitimate research founded in reasonable claims.

Do you have a case at all, or are you simply going to continue this blatantly false analogy (that you've already been corrected on once before)? Do you actually understand logic and scientific method? Because if you do, you're being intentionally dishonest with this comparison...so are you ignorant or decietful?

ETA: And just to continue this, to show how extremely silly your comparison is...how long do you think they'll look fdor the IBW? DO you think that, 40 years down the line, if nothing has still been found except that initial video, that people will still be looking for it? IF all they had at that point was a grainy video and a mound of anecdotes (many of which contradict each other) do you think the mainstream would still be saying "but it could exist! We need to spend money on it!" Do you think they'd be making up things about it actually having featherless wings, or digging burrows, or having gills, to explain why no physical evidence can be found?

You need to quit insulting the real scientists who are working in fields of biology and ecology, especially since your understanding of science is so inadequate.
Well, where is the video? Where is the body? Here we have a University effort to find something that was captured on video - where is it?

Man, your a hateful person. Where did I insult anyone involved in the IBW research? They have been working hard to try and determine if this animal exists. I SAID they have had no luck - how is that being insulting? Why is it not ok to question those who would question me, and be insulting in their remarks? There is no more proof that the IBW woodpecker exists today - than there is of a bigfoot. That video could have been hoaxed for all you know. Yet because it was known to exist at one time, a university devoted resources to find out if this fuzzy footage was for real.. I say, good for them. But they have no more concrete evidence than I have.

One search is excepted one is not. Why you keep getting your panties in a twist is beyond me. Im not saying anything that isnt true.

Quote:
There's no evidence at all for his flexible foot. That's the problem. It's a feature he's made up not to explain evidence, but to expalin away discrepencies instead of admitting that particular evidence doesn't support his conclusion.
You may want to read my post before this one. This was not something "made up". It is being discussed as a possible trait to be aware of in Tracks, and there is a precedent for it, but it is not made up. So, your wrong.

Last edited by Melissa; 20th August 2007 at 08:58 AM.
Melissa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 08:58 AM   #7114
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
Originally Posted by Melissa View Post
Well, where is the video? Where is the body? Here we have a University effort to find something that was captured on video - where is it?
They're looking for it.

Quote:
Man, your a hateful person. Where did I insult anyone involved in the IBW research?
When you comapred the Bigfoot farce to the valid efforts being conduscted to find rthe IBW. The comparison is insulting on it's face, like comparing a paper-airplane club to the Blue Angels as if they were the same type of thing.
Quote:
They have been working hard to try and determine if this animal exists. I SAID they have had no luck - how is that being insulting?
No, you implied that they had nothing more substanstial than the bigfoot evidence, which is false and insulting. You're discarding a lot of knowledge and work beyond that, not to mention compeltly ignoring the fact that science builds on past knowlewdge.
Quote:
Why is it not ok to question those who would question me, and be insulting in their remarks?
Where did I say that? Please quit making up what you wish I were saying.
Quote:
There is no more proof that the IBW woodpecker exists today - than there is of a bigfoot.
Actually, even here you are wrong. The video they have is better evidence than the PGF. Why? BEcause that video can be compared tot he known traits and characteristics of the IBW and obtain a level of authenticity. The PGF film ahs nothing it can be compared to to determine its accuracy. You may have the same quantity of evidence, but the quality is substantially different.
Quote:
deo could have been hoaxed for all you know.
And unlike the footers, I leave that possiblity open.
Quote:
Yet because it was known to exist at one time, a university devoted resources to find out if this fuzzy footage was for real.
Yep. All correct.
Quote:
I say, good for them. But they have no more concrete evidence than I have.
And this is why I say you are either ignorant or decietful.

Quote:
One search is excepted one is not.
One search is based on a real creature and has been going on a few years. The other is based on stories, with no concrete evidecne the creature ever existed, and still no evidence after 40 years of searching. THIS is the type of comparison that is insulting. You insult the real researchers working on actual issues in science and you insult the intelligence of those you're arguing against. It's like telling someone "Because I said so"; it may be a valid argument for a two-year old, but not an adult.
Quote:
Why you keep getting your panties in a twist is beyond me. Im not saying anything that isnt true.
Yes youa re. You're also implying a heck of a lot that isn't true. In addition, you're showing an amaxing lack of ability to understand evidence in context, to seperate things by both quality and quantity, or to understand the difference between evidence and explanation.

Quote:
You may want to read my post before this one. This was not something "made up". It is being discussed as a possible trait to be aware of in Tracks, and there is a precedent for it, but it is not made up. So, your wrong.
ANd agaion, you have no clue what you're talkign about, and absolutely NO ability to understand a statement in context. Yes, mid-tarsal breaks exist in some primates. NO ONE HERE DISPUTES THAT. You simply want to strawman us into that position because that's the only one in which you might have a case. Show me ANY evidence that Bigfoot has a mid-tarsal break. That's what's mad-up. It's something Meldrum picked up from legitimate research in order to keep from having to discard any of his "evidence".
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell

Last edited by Hellbound; 20th August 2007 at 09:01 AM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 09:02 AM   #7115
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
Melissa:

From your responses, I'll put you down as "decietful."
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 09:06 AM   #7116
Melissa
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Huntsman
They're looking for it.
Now, if I went on any board and used that as an excuse - I would expect to be torn to shreds. That is not a valid excuse. As someone who is skeptical of anything I can not see with my own eyes - I say "Show me the bigbird". Otherwise, your chasing legends the same as me.

Then you go on to say:

Quote:
In addition, you're showing an amaxing lack of ability to understand evidence in context, to seperate things by both quality and quantity, or to understand the difference between evidence and explanation.
Back atcha. They have no more proof than I have - so what makes their cause more noble or necessary than what I am doing? They have no more proof this animal exists than I do a bigfoot is out there - but they are searching none the less, and they should be commended for that search, yet you would call me nuts - and I have about as much info for my search as they do.

You sound like an IBW researcher - or someone who has profited off the tourism increase in Arkansas The IBW and that fuzzy footage sure has done tremendous things for tourism (from what I hear).

We can go back and forth about this until one of these animals is discovered.. But the truth of this is simply - you are basing your opinion on information that is incomplete. There is no body of an IBW, there is no more footage..No feathers nothing. Yet you will strongly defend the reason for that research - yet insult me for the research I do with no more information than they have.

I find that a bit funny.
Melissa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 09:11 AM   #7117
Melissa
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Huntsman View Post
Melissa:

From your responses, I'll put you down as "decietful."
Well, you can put me down as anything you like - your opinion of me personally really makes no difference, as you do not know me. It does say a lot about you.. You are making decisions before having all the available information - in this example it would be me. You don't know me or anything about me, yet you have decided in a few posts I am deceitful - I think you should actually take the time to know someone before making a statement like that - you are making a judgment about a subject you have little to no real information on.

Thats not really making an informed decision based on actual knowledge. A decision based on emotion is not an informed or educated decision.
Melissa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 09:16 AM   #7118
Melissa
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
By the way, how many years had people been discussing the IBW in Arkansas before that video?? I know its been more than a couple years.

So, all those people were just crazy too - LMAO.. Did you apologize to those witnesses? LOL. Yes, it is two different animals, but Im pretty sure the witnesses were treated the same way. "There is no way the IBW was spotted in your neck of the woods, its been extinct for years".. LOL.

Taadaaaa
Melissa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 09:16 AM   #7119
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Ummmm.....Sasquatch's MTB is made up. There is no evidence for an MTB in bigfoot, anecdotal, footprint, or any other kind. None.

No one said MTB's in general were made up.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th August 2007, 09:19 AM   #7120
Melissa
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
But the precedent does exist, and there have been tracks photographed with this feature. The precedent does exist for a theory to be worked on. That is all I am saying.

Its not made up.
Melissa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.