|
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. |
23rd April 2008, 02:33 PM | #81 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
You "think" the other arm is holding the infant. There is no proof that this is the case. However, int he picture you just produced, the adult is using both hands to hold up the child. Why would a mother use only one hand to hold up a child when two is much more secure? When I do this kind of carrying with my grandkids, my wife gives me hell if I only use one hand and am walking. I think most mothers would feel the same way.
This means the other arm is holding something a bit less precious than an infant. Could it be a mask? In all the blurry images, one never sees the other hand/arm. The transfer from the right to the left would not require any great effort and could easily be missed in these blurry figures. Then again, maybe it was the left hand all along that was removing the mask. One can never tell. You are making wild guesses as to what you think is happening here. I can come up with plenty of alternate scenarios that include masks, hats, backpacks, and toilet brushes. In the end, the images are too blurry to draw a single conclusion and suggest one theory is better than another. You are far too married to this bigfoot with an infant scenario. It is blinding you from thinking critically. |
23rd April 2008, 02:52 PM | #82 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
Quote:
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
24th April 2008, 04:42 AM | #83 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
|
__________________
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." |
|
24th April 2008, 05:38 AM | #84 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Can you show definitively that the subject is truly taller?
Can you show definitively that the subject does not step into a depression at the exact moment in the film which you call the lift? Please don't quote "Witnesses said the area behind the hill is perfectly level" Here is another problem, Apes are typically quadrupedal, it gives them a low center of gravity perfect for navigating hills, trees etc..., Bigfoot is Bipedal, a much less stable platform for navigating 'Steep' hills, and with "Rattlesnake Holes" all over the place. Why would a Bipedal Ape navigating a hill, further reduce his stability by putting a Big-Ol'-Baby, up on it's shoulders. Quadrupedal apes keep them around their torso when navigating treacherous areas IIRC. |
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
24th April 2008, 05:48 AM | #85 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,568
|
|
24th April 2008, 06:41 AM | #86 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
Actually, I thought he presented a pretty good case there was no lift but you ignored it. How typical. As I stated, you are the one who is so blinded by the one scenario that you favor that you are no longer thinking critically.
As far as I am concerned, you have not made your case yet and probably never will. Therefore, your earlier claim that the bigfoot with an infant is the best scenario is a false claim based on what you believed and not on what the evidence, as bad as it is, reveals. |
24th April 2008, 11:36 AM | #87 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Sweaty-
When attempting to provide supporting evidence for an outrageous claim, be aware of the direct relationship between the quality of the evidence, and how seriously that evidence will be taken. |
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
28th April 2008, 10:50 PM | #88 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
|
|
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber |
|
5th May 2008, 05:45 AM | #89 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Astrophotographer wrote:
Quote:
How smart it was.....to ignore Greg's case that there wasn't a lift at all. And how blind you are, Astro, that you can't see the obvious. Here are 2 reasons why there is obviously, and undeniably a lift... 1) The shape of the subject's head changes after the lift. 2) The subject's arm is seen, very clearly, moving down from the head within approx 1 second of the lift. This is not just an un-related coincidence of timing. There is, logically, a connection between the subject's hand being up at it's head, and it's head changing shape. Here are a few frames from before the lift....notice the subject's head...how it doesn't change shape... Here are a few frames from after the lift.....notice, first-graders....how the subject's head changes shape, significantly.... Greggy says "there is no lift...it's just the subject stepping onto a higher patch of ground".....and the first-graders here eat it up. But Greggy can't replicate this strange effect, where walking on sloped ground causes someone's head to change shape.......because it's simply impossible for that to happen. But don't let this deter you, "critical thinkers"....you all continue to play make-believe.
Quote:
You're the blind one, Astro. You can't see the obvious.
Quote:
I made my case, that there is, in FACT, something happening at the subject's head/shoulders......a lift, of some particular thing...whatever it is. |
__________________
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." |
|
5th May 2008, 05:51 AM | #90 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
AtomicMysteryMonster wrote:
Quote:
|
__________________
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." |
|
5th May 2008, 05:54 AM | #91 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
|
__________________
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." |
|
5th May 2008, 06:51 AM | #92 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
|
No offense, but the video you posted is worthless. In fact, just about any "Bigfoot" video is going to be worthless without any supporting physical evidence.
Instead of trying to find the creature itself, why wouldn't they shift their focus to finding a sample of its excrement? I'm not trying to be funny here - that would be physical evidence that could be analyzed by scientists or other interested parties, with the potential to prove more than any video ever could. |
5th May 2008, 06:58 AM | #93 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
I see a lot of blurry video. I am not sure how you can determine it is a bigfoot infant on the shoulders.
So now you don't know what it is? I thought you felt the best possibility was a bigfoot infant (even though one can not see any infant in any of the videos which are clearer). For that you have not made your case. |
5th May 2008, 07:04 AM | #94 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
Blurry videos can cause changes in shape of distant objects.
BTW, wonderful methodology you have. Name calling is something that is reserved for "first-graders". If that is how you like to debate then maybe you ought to debate a bunch of "first-graders". You might have better luck at getting them to believe it is a bigfoot with an infant on its shoulders. |
5th May 2008, 07:54 AM | #95 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
5th May 2008, 08:51 AM | #96 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Just as Bigfoot's prints, never lead to a Bigfoot' foot, Bigfoot poopies will never lead to a Bigfoot's Outhouse.
and as far as
Originally Posted by Sweaty
Originally Posted by Sweaty
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
5th May 2008, 09:09 AM | #97 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Astrophotographer wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your statement is a great example of first grade, juvenile analysis, Astro. There is a major, and distinct difference in the appearance of the subject's head between the first part of the video...the run....and the second part of the video....the walk. There's a reason for that. But you couldn't dispute that difference between the 2 parts of the video.....all you can do is say something as general and meaningless as...."Blurry videos can cause changes in shape of distant objects". Wow.....that's some mighty deep thought there, Astro. Too bad it's of no value in analysing the video. |
__________________
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." |
|
5th May 2008, 09:41 AM | #98 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
What the smack is that, crackerjack!?
Do they study bigfoots at the wilderness study area next to the Chopaka Lake campgrounds? What's more likely - a juvenile bigfoot with its young in tow hanging around about a hundred campers on Memorial Day or a kid messing around? Why don't any of the thousands of people who go to Chopaka Lake every year see anymore bigfoots? I would feel utterly stupid spending time even thinking about this thing that Sweaty labels "strong evidence" for bigfoot. |
__________________
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 |
|
5th May 2008, 09:48 AM | #99 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
I have asked you to defend your opinion that it shows an infant on top of the shoulders of a bigfoot. You have not demonstrated that to date. You state it can not be a mask and it is too massive to be so. Then you agree with somebody's analysis that the lift is only 8-inches, which is the possible size of a mask and not massive at all. Now you are saying that because there is a change in the shape of the head (which would be just what could happen with a mask) indicates your opinion is valid. This is strange reasoning to me.
As for for my statement about blurry videos being of no value in analyzing the video, it is my opinion that the video is too blurry to determine anything. You are the one who keeps claiming you have "analyzed" the video and determined the best answer is a bigfoot with an infant. So far, your analysis is weak and fails to compell. When you can demonstrate something substantial feel free to do so. Changing blurry shapes is not the same thing as scientific analysis. It proves nothing. |
5th May 2008, 09:55 AM | #100 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Here's a brochure for the Chopaka Lake/Chopaka Mountain Wilderness Study area:
http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recr...20APR11_05.pdf Why don't they list "Observe majestic bigfoots" among the recreational activities? Sweaty you need to change this. Bring them your analysis and let the people know. |
__________________
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 |
|
5th May 2008, 11:58 AM | #101 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Thanks for your irrelevant response, Astro. One more time.......just for the fun of it... ....."But you couldn't dispute that difference between the 2 parts of the video.....all you can do is say something as general and meaningless as...."Blurry videos can cause changes in shape of distant objects". Wow.....that's some mighty deep thought there, Astro. Too bad it's of no value in analysing the video." You have yet to dispute my analysis, Astro....because the analysis I posted earlier, with the multiple still frames, is correct. Greg's "analysis", that there is no lift, is 100% crap. |
__________________
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." |
|
5th May 2008, 12:10 PM | #102 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
5th May 2008, 12:29 PM | #103 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
Quote:
You popping in here every few days to remind us of your lack of comprehension of the medium is pathetic ... |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
5th May 2008, 02:26 PM | #104 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
Just one more time before you run away and hide again for another week. Explain to me what your analysis proves or even indicates. That you see changing shapes in a distant blurry video? Can you provide us with numbers and values that can be actually analyzed? I keep asking but you keep ducking the request. I also asked you to show me where the other arm is located in these videos. Again, you ducked that request.
You claim you are doing analysis but you are doing no such thing. All you are doing is cutting and pasting images from the video and claim it indicates a bigfoot with an infant. Unfortunately for you, what you have cut and pasted has shown no indication of this. You also never addressed Greg's original work. You keep avoiding this by disappearing for days at a time hoping everyone will forget (Just like your failure to ever address my analysis of "Bunny" in the PGF even though you promised to get back to me). So far your efforts to demonstrate, without one bit of explanation, that it is not a mask and is a bigfoot with an infant are worthless and weak. For instance, you initially stated the object was too massive to be a mask. Yet you agree it is only 8-inches in size. What kind of "analysis" is that? Not much or pretty lame if you ask me. Keep trying and you might convince somebody someday besides yourself. |
5th May 2008, 02:52 PM | #105 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
5th May 2008, 04:00 PM | #106 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
For what it's worth, here's what references I could find to bigfoot encounters in the Chopaka area outside of the Memorial Day incident.
Quote:
Posted by member Jimbo at the washingtonflyfishing.com board:
Quote:
Quote:
That one I'm not satisfied that it's not a fabricated report. Report # 16518 (Class B) Submitted by witness on Sunday, November 05, 2006. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hunter hears guttural scream while on overnight hike outside of Oroville. Report # 16350 (Class B) Submitted by witness on Sunday, October 22, 2006. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possible vocalizations heard from campground outside Okanogan |
__________________
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 |
|
6th May 2008, 05:04 AM | #107 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
The reason why I ignored those bolded statements is because I have already explained my reasoning concerning the 'approx. 8" height' of the lifted object, and the apparant overall mass of the object. As for this particular statement of Astro's...
Quote:
The 'changing shape of the head', by itself, does not rule out a mask. Other aspects of the lift, however, do make the 'lifted mask' explanation extremely unlikely. One is the overall mass of the object.
Quote:
I've already posted a few reasons why I think a mask is extremely unlikely. You can re-read my posts, kitty...there aren't that many of them. |
__________________
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." |
|
6th May 2008, 06:49 AM | #108 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
But you have not demonstrated that his point is invalid or false. He showed a reference point that demonstrated there was possibly no lift. You then ran into your posting of shape-shifting blobs and lines (with little or no reference points) to demonstrate there was a lift of some kind. If you want to show his claim as false, you need to address his point directly and not reposting the same old junk over and over. It demonstrates, once again, that your analysis is essentially worthless because you are not willing to address problems with it.
I keep asking but you keep ducking/running away. 1) Where is the other arm in the video? 2) Where is your actual analysis? Where are the facts and figures? Where are the numbers you can gather from the data in the video? Failure to present such information demonstrates you are unwilling to do actual analysis but are more interested in showing your own interpretation of what you think is in the video. Your "analysis" not only does not convince anyone your opinion/interpretation is correct, but it demonstrates you are very close-minded in your approach. Yet, you have the nerve to call skeptics close-minded and having a first-grader mentality. |
6th May 2008, 09:54 AM | #109 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
I did...in post #89.
Quote:
Greg's picture with the lines on it also shows there was a lift, btw.
Quote:
Oh, but that little reference line in my animated gif is a very significant little line, Astro.
Quote:
I've responded to that before, Astro...you can go back and re-read my posts.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry, I don't have any numbers for you, at this time, Astro. But does that mean that there was no lift?? Or that the lift didn't happen after the subject's hand let go of the object....as can be clearly seen in the animated-gif? |
__________________
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." |
|
6th May 2008, 10:14 AM | #110 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
How many pixels is that "lift"? Seems awful small to me. Maybe smaller than 8-inches, which makes it practically no lift at all doesn't it?
Sorry, I don't see any comment about where the second arm is located in the video. Feel free to show me the post. To me, the second arm could easily be the reason there is a change in shape. It means your analysis is incomplete and incapable of determining anything. You are trusting your interpretation of what you see, which is dangerous ground and leads to non-scientific analysis. Light and shadows can play tricks on the eyes and video. You say the subjects hand let go of the object, but that is how you interpret it. Again, where are the numbers that can be measured and quantified that something was in the hand in the first place. Demonstrate to me that something of size (through measurements) was in the hand before it went to the head or after it left the head (if the hand even did that). Show all the individual frames in this sequence and not just your select ones or animated gifs. Then maybe you might be working to true analysis that can be looked at by others that is not subjective. However, don't talk to me about a first-grader mentality when most of your analyses look no better than my first-grade grandson's scribbling with a crayon. |
6th May 2008, 10:38 AM | #111 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Sweaty, in your opinion, what are we seeing in this video? I know you are talking about the "baby lift" in the last few moments... but what about the whole scene?
The filming (video) begins with the subject running across a hillside. Then goes behind a rise and is hidden from view. Then reappears and is moving more slowly like a walk. That is the point of the "lift". Here is the video again. In your opinion, is the subject without the baby in the first running part before the rise concealment? Does it pick up the baby when we can't see the figure? Here is a close-up of the first running part. What do you think is going on here? Can you say anything about the lower leg/ankle/foot anatomy shown in this enlargement? |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
6th May 2008, 02:27 PM | #112 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
|
8th May 2008, 01:11 PM | #113 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
As for the first part of the video...the run...there's definitely something hanging/bouncing off the subject's back. If the subject is indeed a Bigfoot, then the only possible explanations, that I can think of, for what that thing could be are either: it's a very young Bigfoot, or a dead animal (it's dinner). One very odd thing about the subject during the run is that, again, we only see one of it's arms swinging...which is even stranger than it not being visible while it's walking. Seems like it must be holding something onto it's body.
Quote:
One possible scenario is that the subject was running to get to the infant, behind the rise, and when it comes back into view again, we're seeing the infant being hoisted up onto it's shoulders. |
__________________
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." |
|
8th May 2008, 05:09 PM | #114 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
That thing looks like a human being running with an article of loose clothing flapping in the wind. Also its gait is such that if its real it automatically make the PGF fake and it the PGF is real then the MD footage is fake. Of curse both could be fake but both can't be real.
|
8th May 2008, 05:38 PM | #115 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2008, 07:35 PM | #116 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
|
What's the point in requesting numbers, values, or any other sort of analysis? Until there is physical evidence to go along with videos like this one, there's nothing worth analyzing. Hypothetically speaking, even if this was an authentic video of a "bigfoot" creature, it would still be impossible to prove without supporting physical evidence. |
9th May 2008, 06:51 AM | #117 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
|
My point is that Sweaty keeps asking for counter analysis when his original analysis is too vague and subjective to provide arguments against. Until he can provide something that can be quantified, it is nothing but what he believes he is seeing in the video. It is not an analysis at all.
|
10th May 2008, 05:07 AM | #118 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
|
Well seems the PGF thread has been well and truly put to bed. It only took 536 pages for Dnuvll to post those immortal words. Its poetic perfection! Sheer perfection. Damn the soul that defiles the perfect ending!
|
6th February 2009, 11:37 AM | #119 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
6th February 2009, 11:39 AM | #120 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
Here.. Brought this over also..
_____________________________ Just take it to the MDF thread - and don't forget to include the audio, which clearly shows no one at the time, seriously thought they were looking at a Bigfoot. Not a word from Owen pate about a Bigfoot, no report from Lines about what he is seeing through binoculars, but we do hear him yanking the chain of a kid, and saying the nut sack would make a nice purse. Start a new thread Sweaty, and we can show Volsquatch's excellent enhancements done with the best state-of-the-art software, instead of your blowups of the LMS crap .. |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|