|
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. |
18th August 2007, 08:36 AM | #7081 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 917
|
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. |
|
18th August 2007, 01:37 PM | #7082 |
Philosopher
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… |
|
18th August 2007, 01:40 PM | #7083 |
Philosopher
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… |
|
18th August 2007, 02:48 PM | #7084 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,661
|
.
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 |
|
19th August 2007, 12:07 AM | #7085 |
Penultimate Amazing
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? |
|
19th August 2007, 05:55 AM | #7086 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Here is a statement from your BFF post....
Quote:
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 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." |
|
19th August 2007, 07:22 AM | #7087 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
How long did Green take with Marx's film? How long did Meldrum take with the Snow Walker footage?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
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 |
|
19th August 2007, 08:48 AM | #7088 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
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." |
|
19th August 2007, 09:52 AM | #7089 |
Philosopher
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… |
|
19th August 2007, 10:09 AM | #7090 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Uh-huh...
Sweaty, you need to take your own advice and re-read your post.
Quote:
Quote:
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: Where would you like the goalposts next?
Quote:
|
__________________
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 |
|
19th August 2007, 10:18 AM | #7091 |
Philosopher
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… |
|
19th August 2007, 10:18 AM | #7092 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
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. |
19th August 2007, 10:24 AM | #7093 |
Philosopher
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… |
|
19th August 2007, 11:31 AM | #7094 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
19th August 2007, 04:05 PM | #7095 |
Scholar
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. |
19th August 2007, 05:04 PM | #7096 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
|
|
__________________
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… |
|
19th August 2007, 08:21 PM | #7097 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
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." |
|
19th August 2007, 08:30 PM | #7098 |
Master Poster
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." |
|
19th August 2007, 09:07 PM | #7099 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Quote:
|
__________________
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? |
|
19th August 2007, 09:08 PM | #7100 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Quote:
|
__________________
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? |
|
19th August 2007, 09:10 PM | #7101 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Quote:
|
__________________
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? |
|
19th August 2007, 09:12 PM | #7102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Quote:
|
__________________
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? |
|
19th August 2007, 09:46 PM | #7103 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
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?
Yes! Yes it is. Just what Sweaty needed, a newbie BH reference! Live another day, Sweaty makes a break for it.
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 |
|
20th August 2007, 05:40 AM | #7104 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
|
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. |
20th August 2007, 07:27 AM | #7105 |
Loose Cannon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 475
|
...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!!! |
20th August 2007, 07:46 AM | #7106 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Quote:
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? |
|
20th August 2007, 07:53 AM | #7107 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
|
Originally Posted by Kitakazee
Originally Posted by Kitakazee
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
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. |
20th August 2007, 08:07 AM | #7108 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
|
Originally Posted by LTC
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. |
20th August 2007, 08:21 AM | #7109 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
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:
Quote:
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 |
|
20th August 2007, 08:24 AM | #7110 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Quote:
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? |
|
20th August 2007, 08:36 AM | #7111 |
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:
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. |
20th August 2007, 08:45 AM | #7112 |
Merchant of Doom
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 |
|
20th August 2007, 08:46 AM | #7113 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
|
Originally Posted by Huntsman
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:
|
20th August 2007, 08:58 AM | #7114 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
They're looking for it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
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 |
|
20th August 2007, 09:02 AM | #7115 |
Merchant of Doom
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 |
|
20th August 2007, 09:06 AM | #7116 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
|
Originally Posted by Huntsman
Then you go on to say:
Quote:
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. |
20th August 2007, 09:11 AM | #7117 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
|
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. |
20th August 2007, 09:16 AM | #7118 |
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 |
20th August 2007, 09:16 AM | #7119 |
Penultimate Amazing
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? |
|
20th August 2007, 09:19 AM | #7120 |
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. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|