Notices
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 560

Thread: Cryptozoology

  1. #201  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    1)I didn't realize occums razor hadn't come up in this thread yet.
    It's a science forum, dude, maybe you should really take a moment to learn what science is. Occams razor is ubiquitous in science. Don't be an idiot like this again, please.

    It's come up several times in my "Bigfoot?" thread & I read in an interview with Dr. Meldrum in "Blueridge Outdoors Magazine" where Dr. Meldrum brings it up. He feels that given all the evidence, it's more likely Bigfoot exists than it is that the reports are a result of a system of hoaxes over such a large region & spanning nearly 200 years
    I'm just going out on a very short limb here to say that you have mentioned Dr Meldrum about a million times and then this one other guy a few times as well.

    Do you have any other sources or can we safely say that you're a one trick pony?


    2)There is actually three other films that stand out
    All of which were debunked as hoaxes.


    Lets talk about occams razor. We are going to ask two questions here, lets see which ones rings more true:

    1. People want 5 minutes of fame and will do anything to get it

    2. A giant Ape, 8 feet tall, in all the exploration of north america (not to mention colonization), has never ever been confirmed to exist and is apparently so smart that it knows to hide from anyone looking for it but yet leaves ambiguous evidences to string us along.

    Which one does occams razor agree with?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    1)I didn't realize occums razor hadn't come up in this thread yet.
    It's a science forum, dude, maybe you should really take a moment to learn what science is. Occams razor is ubiquitous in science. Don't be an idiot like this again, please.

    It's come up several times in my "Bigfoot?" thread & I read in an interview with Dr. Meldrum in "Blueridge Outdoors Magazine" where Dr. Meldrum brings it up. He feels that given all the evidence, it's more likely Bigfoot exists than it is that the reports are a result of a system of hoaxes over such a large region & spanning nearly 200 years
    I'm just going out on a very short limb here to say that you have mentioned Dr Meldrum about a million times and then this one other guy a few times as well.

    Do you have any other sources or can we safely say that you're a one trick pony?


    2)There is actually three other films that stand out
    All of which were debunked as hoaxes.


    Lets talk about occams razor. We are going to ask two questions here, lets see which ones rings more true:

    1. People want 5 minutes of fame and will do anything to get it

    2. A giant Ape, 8 feet tall, in all the exploration of north america (not to mention colonization), has never ever been confirmed to exist and is apparently so smart that it knows to hide from anyone looking for it but yet leaves ambiguous evidences to string us along.

    Which one does occams razor agree with?
    1)Hey! YOU are the one who said he was surprised it hadn't come up in this thread yet. Not me.
    2)I have also mentioned Dr. John Bindernagel, Dr. Henner Fahenbach, & Dr. Grover Krantz, & Dr. Lynn Rogers on this thread
    3)I did Google searches for all 3 films & found an article that states MOST people (including myself) believe the Memorial Day footage is a hoax. But not all. I found no such articles stating anything like that for the other two films I mentioned. I'm not the only one who should have to be able to back up his claims here
    4)How does anonymously leaving footprints around & anonymously reporting sightings get anybody their "5 minutes of fame"? Especially nearly 200 years ago. In fact, the opinions expressed on this & other similar forums indicate it brings scorn & ridicule. Not fame
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    How does anonymously leaving footprints around & anonymously reporting sightings get anybody their "5 minutes of fame"? Especially nearly 200 years ago. In fact, the opinions expressed on this & other similar forums indicate it brings scorn & ridicule. Not fame
    How many towns have Bigfoot tours or just tourist destinations?

    1)Hey! YOU are the one who said he was surprised it hadn't come up in this thread yet. Not me.
    No, that was Paleoichneum.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    How does anonymously leaving footprints around & anonymously reporting sightings get anybody their "5 minutes of fame"? Especially nearly 200 years ago. In fact, the opinions expressed on this & other similar forums indicate it brings scorn & ridicule. Not fame
    How many towns have Bigfoot tours or just tourist destinations?

    1)Hey! YOU are the one who said he was surprised it hadn't come up in this thread yet. Not me.
    No, that was Paleoichneum.
    1)Then he shouldn't have called me an idiot
    2)Willow Creek, California has a Bigfoot museum, & there are annual confrences in only 3 other towns & 1 state park. Hardly an indication of a motive for continent wide hoaxing. Besides, to assume it was even possible to achieve fame by doing something like this 100 years ago or more is absurd. Remember, news traveled at a snails pace back then
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    1)Then he shouldn't have called me an idiot
    Shoe. Fitting.

    2)Willow Creek, California has a Bigfoot museum, & there are annual confrences in only 3 other towns & 1 state park. Hardly an indication of a motive for continent wide hoaxing.
    More of motive for $fleecing$ the gullible.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    1)Then he shouldn't have called me an idiot
    Shoe. Fitting.

    2)Willow Creek, California has a Bigfoot museum, & there are annual confrences in only 3 other towns & 1 state park. Hardly an indication of a motive for continent wide hoaxing.
    More of motive for $fleecing$ the gullible.
    That's your opinion & I understand it if you are a skeptic. It's one reason I'm not personally in favor of them. Another reason is like with the confrence in the state park. It's been held there for like 20 years now & is followed by a short field trip to look for evidence. I think when you have something like this in the same spot that long & advertize it online, you're asking to be hoaxed
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Has it ever occured to you that maybe the people who report bigfoot sightings are the ones making the tracks in the first place? Why would someone randomly go around making fake trackways anonymously? It's more likely that someone made the track, took a picture and then wanted 5 minutes of fame for it.

    The reports from 200 years ago are less likely to be hoaxed, but more likely to be just dents in the ground. Education was far less common back then than it is today, people make mistakes more often if they have no idea what they are doing.

    I found no such articles stating anything like that for the other two films I mentioned. I'm not the only one who should have to be able to back up his claims here
    Extraodrinary claims require extraordinary evidences. I'm not the one making such extraordinary claims, infact every other poster thus far has been 100% in concurrence with me. You have yet to get someone to agree. Why don't you tell us why you 'believe' these films to be the real deal? If you post random links other than "this is where the info comes from" and pull an Eanassir, I'll have to defenestrate you again. Just a warning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    Has it ever occured to you that maybe the people who report bigfoot sightings are the ones making the tracks in the first place? Why would someone randomly go around making fake trackways anonymously? It's more likely that someone made the track, took a picture and then wanted 5 minutes of fame for it.

    The reports from 200 years ago are less likely to be hoaxed, but more likely to be just dents in the ground. Education was far less common back then than it is today, people make mistakes more often if they have no idea what they are doing.

    I found no such articles stating anything like that for the other two films I mentioned. I'm not the only one who should have to be able to back up his claims here
    Extraodrinary claims require extraordinary evidences. I'm not the one making such extraordinary claims, infact every other poster thus far has been 100% in concurrence with me. You have yet to get someone to agree. Why don't you tell us why you 'believe' these films to be the real deal? If you post random links other than "this is where the info comes from" and pull an Eanassir, I'll have to defenestrate you again. Just a warning.
    1)In some cases, that's exactly what happens & I agree with your statement that people are more likely to make mistakes if they don't know what they're doing. That's why many times there will be extrordinary track sizes with quite ordinary stride lengths or just REALLY extrordinary track sizes. In most cases, the photos are taken by researchers investigating sighting reports
    2)Some of the old reports give very detailed descriptions of the tracks & were reported by trackers & such, who probably weren't formally educated very well, but tracking was their livelihood & necessary for survival in the wilderness. David Thompson was a surveyor.
    http://www.bigfootencounters.com/leg...idthompson.htm
    http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/classics/bauman.html
    3)I'm pretty skeptical of the Freeman film & I've already stated what I consider the pros & cons of the Snowshoe Mountain video. Once again my point is missed. My point is that there is no evidence to support the claim that those two films have been conclusively debunked. The only one I'm pretty well convinced is real is the Patterson/Gimlin film & that is mainly because of the decades of intense analysis it has stood up to. I believe the 2006 analysis of the gait that concluded it wasn't possible for a human to replicate, is the most recent & best because it took into account the lateral rotation of the leg through each step. Something that was discovered more recently than other analyses of the gait as Dr. Grover Krantz demonstrated in at least one documentary. Another reason I remain convinced the film is real is, if it's a hoax, where is the suit & who was wearing it? Nobody has been able to produce the suit or prove they were the one wearing it. In spite of long standing rewards for both
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    does it concern you in the least that more than half, if not more than 2/3, have deduced that you CAN replicate the gait of that animal in the patterson film? There are more analysis' debunking that film than ones confirming it, how do you reconcile this obvious difference?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    does it concern you in the least that more than half, if not more than 2/3, have deduced that you CAN replicate the gait of that animal in the patterson film? There are more analysis' debunking that film than ones confirming it, how do you reconcile this obvious difference?
    As I said. The analysis in 2006 is the most recent one & to my knowledge, the only one to take into account the lateral rotation of the legs through each step. That analysis was performed & witnessed by 3 scientists
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    the lateral movement meaning what, exactly? You have a bit of a habit of throwing terminology out there and not really explaining what you're meaning. I'm not terribly interested in scientists (as a nice generic term) witnessing and performing it at this point. I'm mostly concerned with the conclusions. Can you substantiate it more please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    the lateral movement meaning what, exactly? You have a bit of a habit of throwing terminology out there and not really explaining what you're meaning. I'm not terribly interested in scientists (as a nice generic term) witnessing and performing it at this point. I'm mostly concerned with the conclusions. Can you substantiate it more please?
    The legs swing or rotate out & then back in with each step. If there was a line being drawn with each step, it would be in the shape of an arc, rather than a straight line. This is in addition to the bent over stance, the knees never locking, & the arms swinging widely
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    I fail to see how a human couldn't do that.

    My roommate and I did some tests. If you walk in an arc, as you said, you'd almost certainly come off with some degree of pidgeon toeing. Try it yourself. Does this observation agree with your observations? It certainly doesn't agree with the orientation of any footprints I've ever seen, both anatomically or sequentially in a track.

    It is annoying to walk in that way, keeping in mind a hunched posture, nonlocking knees and arking in the swing, but is completely possible by the criteria you just gave me.

    Rebuttle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    I fail to see how a human couldn't do that.

    My roommate and I did some tests. If you walk in an arc, as you said, you'd almost certainly come off with some degree of pidgeon toeing. Try it yourself. Does this observation agree with your observations? It certainly doesn't agree with the orientation of any footprints I've ever seen, both anatomically or sequentially in a track.

    It is annoying to walk in that way, keeping in mind a hunched posture, nonlocking knees and arking in the swing, but is completely possible by the criteria you just gave me.

    Rebuttle?
    The analysis proved otherwise. Maybe I'm not explaining it correctly.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    The analysis proved otherwise. Maybe I'm not explaining it correctly.
    Demonstrate it more clearly and post more than just saying what you said otherwise you'll pretty much be forced to admit your only line of evidence for the patterson film not being faked isn't legit. Either that or run the risk of looking very, very silly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    The analysis proved otherwise. Maybe I'm not explaining it correctly.
    Demonstrate it more clearly and post more than just saying what you said otherwise you'll pretty much be forced to admit your only line of evidence for the patterson film not being faked isn't legit. Either that or run the risk of looking very, very silly.
    1)The enhancement by M.K. Davis, shows the legs rotate away from the body & then back toward it during each step
    2)You know very well I've listed other pieces of evidence that I feel indicate the film is real. You seem to have a habit of asking me the same questions over & over. I guess you're hoping I'll get fed up & agree with you
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    There has been quite a bit of discussion on how legitimate peer reviewed scientific papers written about Bigfoot, would go a long way toward convincing skeptics that Bigfoot exists. I thought of a couple subjects that such papers have been written about:
    1)Piltdown Man
    2)The Tasaday Tribe :P
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    1)The enhancement by M.K. Davis, shows the legs rotate away from the body & then back toward it during each step
    Which we replicated quite easily in our tests in my apartment. You still haven't accounted for the pidgeon toeing it would cause...but you countered that very soundly by saying

    The analysis proved otherwise.
    Don't see how I can argue with that...oh wait, I already did. Maybe I have to ask questions more than once because you don't answer them satisfactorily or at all?



    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Maybe I'm not explaining it correctly.
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG

    2)You know very well I've listed other pieces of evidence that I feel indicate the film is real. You seem to have a habit of asking me the same questions over & over. I guess you're hoping I'll get fed up & agree with you
    Way to go.



    In order to make a scientific paper though, you really do need to have something to write about.


    Piltdown man may have squeaked by in 1912, but it really wouldn't get very far these days. See, these days people like to see specimens and evidences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    There has been quite a bit of discussion on how legitimate peer reviewed scientific papers written about Bigfoot, would go a long way toward convincing skeptics that Bigfoot exists.
    Well, if you ever see one, shoot it our way. Of course, the paper would have to include hard evidence, so you may have a serious problem there.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    1)The enhancement by M.K. Davis, shows the legs rotate away from the body & then back toward it during each step
    Which we replicated quite easily in our tests in my apartment. You still haven't accounted for the pidgeon toeing it would cause...but you countered that very soundly by saying

    The analysis proved otherwise.
    Don't see how I can argue with that...oh wait, I already did. Maybe I have to ask questions more than once because you don't answer them satisfactorily or at all?



    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Maybe I'm not explaining it correctly.
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG

    2)You know very well I've listed other pieces of evidence that I feel indicate the film is real. You seem to have a habit of asking me the same questions over & over. I guess you're hoping I'll get fed up & agree with you
    Way to go.



    In order to make a scientific paper though, you really do need to have something to write about.


    Piltdown man may have squeaked by in 1912, but it really wouldn't get very far these days. See, these days people like to see specimens and evidences.
    1)Why would it cause pigeon toeing if the foot straightens back out before it comes back down on the ground?
    2)IF you succeeded in replicating the gait, congratulations! When & where will we be seeing the peer reviewed scientific paper about this?
    3)Piltdown Man was from 1912. But the Tasaday Tribe was from 1971
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    1) Try it yourself, you'll find it rather awkward, especially with the fairly unprimate footshape that is presented as 'the standard'. I can't think of a single primate that has a wide heel, for example.

    There is no rationale behind why it would even have the arc to begin with. If you look at any bipedal animal, and I do mean ones that are obligate and not facultative, you'll see that they all have the limbs lining up directly under the pelvis and working in a forward and back motion. See, the whole reasoning that bipedality is an advantage is that it's energetically less expensive, allowing for longer distance travel and in some cases, great speed (ie ostrich). If you have the arcing in the limbs and non locking knees, does that even make sense for a bipede? The pressures imposed by their own morphology would funnel them towards locking knees and limbs moving back and forth, with no arcing.

    So, what do you think about that? Is bigfoot then a facultative biped or an obligate one? If so, we need some handprints, don't we? Otherwise things are looking a little bit impossible.

    2) You can't just go about making a peer reviewed paper based on you walking around in your apartment, don't be an idiot. I can just imagine how fast nobody would even care, especially if you're going on a film that has been CONFIRMED TO BE FAKED BY ITS AUTHOR as your only line of evidence. That shit simply won't fly, but maybe it does in your little club.

    All I did was a brief, self conducted experiment to confirm for myself that you were incorrect. I encourage you to try it for yourself, but of course then we'd have to account for your bias of thinking that's it's impossible. It took a bit of thinking and careful walking, but you can easily do it, especially with practise. See, unlike what I'm seeing from you, I check things out for myself instead of just assuming things about what some people are saying.

    3)Tasaday tribe is more believeable than piltdown man. Hell, just last year an uncontacted tribe was filmed freaking out as a helicopter watched them- they had no idea what was going on. So finding an uncontacted, stone age tribe isn't that shocking and it's probably pretty easy to fake too.

    So let me get something straight- because Tasaday Tribe and Piltdown man were fakes that some people thought were real, Bigfoot is therefore real? Hmmm...a better fit in that equation would be that bigfoot is faked and some people think it's real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    1) Try it yourself, you'll find it rather awkward, especially with the fairly unprimate footshape that is presented as 'the standard'. I can't think of a single primate that has a wide heel, for example.

    There is no rationale behind why it would even have the arc to begin with. If you look at any bipedal animal, and I do mean ones that are obligate and not facultative, you'll see that they all have the limbs lining up directly under the pelvis and working in a forward and back motion. See, the whole reasoning that bipedality is an advantage is that it's energetically less expensive, allowing for longer distance travel and in some cases, great speed (ie ostrich). If you have the arcing in the limbs and non locking knees, does that even make sense for a bipede? The pressures imposed by their own morphology would funnel them towards locking knees and limbs moving back and forth, with no arcing.

    So, what do you think about that? Is bigfoot then a facultative biped or an obligate one? If so, we need some handprints, don't we? Otherwise things are looking a little bit impossible.

    2) You can't just go about making a peer reviewed paper based on you walking around in your apartment, don't be an idiot. I can just imagine how fast nobody would even care, especially if you're going on a film that has been CONFIRMED TO BE FAKED BY ITS AUTHOR as your only line of evidence. That shit simply won't fly, but maybe it does in your little club.

    All I did was a brief, self conducted experiment to confirm for myself that you were incorrect. I encourage you to try it for yourself, but of course then we'd have to account for your bias of thinking that's it's impossible. It took a bit of thinking and careful walking, but you can easily do it, especially with practise. See, unlike what I'm seeing from you, I check things out for myself instead of just assuming things about what some people are saying.

    3)Tasaday tribe is more believeable than piltdown man. Hell, just last year an uncontacted tribe was filmed freaking out as a helicopter watched them- they had no idea what was going on. So finding an uncontacted, stone age tribe isn't that shocking and it's probably pretty easy to fake too.

    So let me get something straight- because Tasaday Tribe and Piltdown man were fakes that some people thought were real, Bigfoot is therefore real? Hmmm...a better fit in that equation would be that bigfoot is faked and some people think it's real.
    1)I'm a paraplegic. So I can't try it for myself. But if an athlete with 3 assistants couldn't do it, I find it hard to believe you & your friends did it. Which was the point of my remark about the peer reviewed paper. You saying you & your friends did it is just as much anecdotal as the Bigfoot sighting reports that you are so quick to dismiss
    2)As for saying the film was confirmed a hoax by it's author is just you spewing out pure BS hoping people who don't know better, will believe it. Roger Patterson died in 1972 without ever making such a confession. You're really getting desperate here
    3)My point about the Tasaday tribe was that it was a hoax that lasted 15 years in in the days of contemporary scientific analysis. So mainstream science isn't always right
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    1)I'm a paraplegic. So I can't try it for myself. But if an athlete with 3 assistants couldn't do it, I find it hard to believe you & your friends did it. Which was the point of my remark about the peer reviewed paper. You saying you & your friends did it is just as much anecdotal as the Bigfoot sighting reports that you are so quick to dismiss
    I'm a former national champion wrestler- find me a better sport that understands how the body moves and I'll say your generic athlete has me trumped, assuming he is in that sport. So our anecdotal evidence doesn't count, but stories of accounts do? You sir have just demonstrated why you are a hypocrite.

    You should be glad I'm testing this stuff for myself instead of just telling you you're an idiot, which is what alot of people would do, because that's kind of what you're acting like when you pull shit like this:

    2)As for saying the film was confirmed a hoax by it's author is just you spewing out pure BS hoping people who don't know better, will believe it. Roger Patterson died in 1972 without ever making such a confession. You're really getting desperate here

    Yes, I'm the desperate one. My classes on anthropology, comparative anatomy and human osteology are really showing to be unworthy to your high school onslaught. I could have sworn I posted you a link that said that it was a hoax...But then, that again is anecdotal isn't it? Seems there is a pattern: If I someone says bigfoot is real, there is a much higher chance of you accepting what they have to say. So anecdotal evidence only counts if it supports you. Interesting. Hypocrite.

    3)My point about the Tasaday tribe was that it was a hoax that lasted 15 years in in the days of contemporary scientific analysis. So mainstream science isn't always right
    No, it really isn't. One upside of science is that they constantly ammend or correct incorrect things, whereas you do not.


    Mind if I ask you why you even believe bigfoot is real? Have you seen it firsthand?


    also, and most importantly, I'm going to start calling you on your weaseling bullshit question evasions and ignorings. I've let you get away with this far too much:

    There is no rationale behind why it would even have the arc to begin with. If you look at any bipedal animal, and I do mean ones that are obligate and not facultative, you'll see that they all have the limbs lining up directly under the pelvis and working in a forward and back motion. See, the whole reasoning that bipedality is an advantage is that it's energetically less expensive, allowing for longer distance travel and in some cases, great speed (ie ostrich). If you have the arcing in the limbs and non locking knees, does that even make sense for a bipede? The pressures imposed by their own morphology would funnel them towards locking knees and limbs moving back and forth, with no arcing.

    So, what do you think about that? Is bigfoot then a facultative biped or an obligate one? If so, we need some handprints, don't we? Otherwise things are looking a little bit impossible.
    You're complete inability to even TRY to rebut my observations and experience in comparative osteology speak volumes for what you are really all about. I really do want your opinions on things like the above quoted, I'm not just rhotorically demonstrating why you need to ammend what you think about bigfoot, assuming it is real. See, while you are so quick to critisize 'mainstream' science, you really don't address questions that are not only completely fair but asked in an open way. Stop ignoring them or this discussion is over, and not for reasons of you 'winning', but because I'll lose the dwindling respect I have for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    1)I'm a paraplegic. So I can't try it for myself. But if an athlete with 3 assistants couldn't do it, I find it hard to believe you & your friends did it. Which was the point of my remark about the peer reviewed paper. You saying you & your friends did it is just as much anecdotal as the Bigfoot sighting reports that you are so quick to dismiss
    I'm a former national champion wrestler- find me a better sport that understands how the body moves and I'll say your generic athlete has me trumped, assuming he is in that sport. So our anecdotal evidence doesn't count, but stories of accounts do? You sir have just demonstrated why you are a hypocrite.

    You should be glad I'm testing this stuff for myself instead of just telling you you're an idiot, which is what alot of people would do, because that's kind of what you're acting like when you pull shit like this:

    2)As for saying the film was confirmed a hoax by it's author is just you spewing out pure BS hoping people who don't know better, will believe it. Roger Patterson died in 1972 without ever making such a confession. You're really getting desperate here

    Yes, I'm the desperate one. My classes on anthropology, comparative anatomy and human osteology are really showing to be unworthy to your high school onslaught. I could have sworn I posted you a link that said that it was a hoax...But then, that again is anecdotal isn't it? Seems there is a pattern: If I someone says bigfoot is real, there is a much higher chance of you accepting what they have to say. So anecdotal evidence only counts if it supports you. Interesting. Hypocrite.

    3)My point about the Tasaday tribe was that it was a hoax that lasted 15 years in in the days of contemporary scientific analysis. So mainstream science isn't always right
    No, it really isn't. One upside of science is that they constantly ammend or correct incorrect things, whereas you do not.


    Mind if I ask you why you even believe bigfoot is real? Have you seen it firsthand?


    also, and most importantly, I'm going to start calling you on your weaseling bullshit question evasions and ignorings. I've let you get away with this far too much:

    There is no rationale behind why it would even have the arc to begin with. If you look at any bipedal animal, and I do mean ones that are obligate and not facultative, you'll see that they all have the limbs lining up directly under the pelvis and working in a forward and back motion. See, the whole reasoning that bipedality is an advantage is that it's energetically less expensive, allowing for longer distance travel and in some cases, great speed (ie ostrich). If you have the arcing in the limbs and non locking knees, does that even make sense for a bipede? The pressures imposed by their own morphology would funnel them towards locking knees and limbs moving back and forth, with no arcing.

    So, what do you think about that? Is bigfoot then a facultative biped or an obligate one? If so, we need some handprints, don't we? Otherwise things are looking a little bit impossible.
    You're complete inability to even TRY to rebut my observations and experience in comparative osteology speak volumes for what you are really all about. I really do want your opinions on things like the above quoted, I'm not just rhotorically demonstrating why you need to ammend what you think about bigfoot, assuming it is real. See, while you are so quick to critisize 'mainstream' science, you really don't address questions that are not only completely fair but asked in an open way. Stop ignoring them or this discussion is over, and not for reasons of you 'winning', but because I'll lose the dwindling respect I have for you.
    1)I didn't mean to dodge the first part of your post. I apologize for the oversight. Actually there have been possible Bigfoot handprints cast
    http://www.texasbigfoot.org/index.ph...print-evidence
    2)No you didn't send me a link regarding the Patterson/Gimlin film being a hoax. You sent me a link about the 1996 Memorial Day footage being a hoax. This is one reason I think the debate would still be alive even if there was practically no circumstantial evidence beyond the reports. Many skeptics can't keep the facts pertaining to the phenomenon straight. So when someone newly interested in the subject sees a statement like you made about the Patterson/Gimlin film, & checks into it for themselves, they easily find the statement to be incorrect & then start to wonder what else the skeptics have wrong
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Something to chew over:

    http://www.orgoneresearch.com/does_t...lin_film_s.htm

    :wink:

    P.S. That guy's "sole" has always looked like that of a shoe to me.

    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    1)I saw the documentary the man is talking about. It pre-dates the analysis I'm referring to & doesn't take into account the lateral rotation of the legs. In fact, the late Dr. Grover Krantz demonstrated in at least one documentary, that the gait (as it was understood at the time) could be replicated by a human
    2)The claim that the Skookum cast is of an elk in an elk wallow is ridiculous. I'm not saying it was a Bigfoot. but:
    A)The "wallow" was right beside a road & elks don't wallow beside roads
    B)Whatever it was, had hair 3" long
    C)Dr. Daris Swindler felt part of the cast showed the Achilles tendon of a large primate
    3)So while this post itself is new, he's not using the most recent analysis of the gait
    4)If he's not holding onto the pole, why is it even in the shot? Surely when he saw the photo, he noticed how it looked & could've redone it with the pole out of the shot couldn't he?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    4)If he's not holding onto the pole, why is it even in the shot? Surely when he saw the photo, he noticed how it looked & could've redone it with the pole out of the shot couldn't he?
    It is a measuring stick for goodness sake. The photo was taken as an experiment to see what kind of figures for his height they come up with. Besides, there is no stick in the first picture of him on the page.

    It pre-dates the analysis I'm referring to & doesn't take into account the lateral rotation of the legs.
    Do you have a link to this analysis?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    [A)The "wallow" was right beside a road & elks don't wallow beside roads
    I beg to differ, I've seen ungulates do all kinds of 'unpredictable' things.

    C)Dr. Daris Swindler felt part of the cast showed the Achilles tendon of a large primate
    Was this just his feelings that made him think this or can you demonstrate his findings to us, as he demonstrated (and not felt) them?

    3)So while this post itself is new, he's not using the most recent analysis of the gait
    Back up your statement.

    4)If he's not holding onto the pole, why is it even in the shot? Surely when he saw the photo, he noticed how it looked & could've redone it with the pole out of the shot couldn't he?
    or...he was lazy and didn't want to repeat it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    [A)The "wallow" was right beside a road & elks don't wallow beside roads
    I beg to differ, I've seen ungulates do all kinds of 'unpredictable' things.

    C)Dr. Daris Swindler felt part of the cast showed the Achilles tendon of a large primate
    Was this just his feelings that made him think this or can you demonstrate his findings to us, as he demonstrated (and not felt) them?

    3)So while this post itself is new, he's not using the most recent analysis of the gait
    Back up your statement.

    4)If he's not holding onto the pole, why is it even in the shot? Surely when he saw the photo, he noticed how it looked & could've redone it with the pole out of the shot couldn't he?
    or...he was lazy and didn't want to repeat it?
    Here is a link to a video about the most recent gait analysis & there are links to other video clips on the page:
    http://link.history.com/services/lin...ctid1410484286
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    MonsterQuest is your source?

    The player on that page won't load for me for some reason.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Yes it is my source. Do you have a dialup connection? Maybe that's why it won't load for you
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    No, I have broadband. Doesn't work on two different browsers. I will search for it on youtube.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    MonsterQuest is your source?
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Yes it is my source.
    "Finally, a show I can relate to! "Monsterquest" is an investigative program for those of us with over-active imaginations who would like to believe there are more interesting beasties out there than the humdrum critters we see on "Animal Planet." You know what I mean: Bigfoot, giant squids, oversize birds, sea serpents and the like. The kind of colossal creatures that can carry you away and/or eat you."

    http://blog.syracuse.com/tvreviews/monsterquest/

    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    MonsterQuest is your source?
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Yes it is my source.
    "Finally, a show I can relate to! "Monsterquest" is an investigative program for those of us with over-active imaginations who would like to believe there are more interesting beasties out there than the humdrum critters we see on "Animal Planet." You know what I mean: Bigfoot, giant squids, oversize birds, sea serpents and the like. The kind of colossal creatures that can carry you away and/or eat you."

    http://blog.syracuse.com/tvreviews/monsterquest/

    That guy is funny But did you notice than even he considers Bigfoot to be "possibly real"?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    That guy is funny But did you notice than even he considers Bigfoot to be "possibly real"?
    Yes, from an "over-active imagination who would like to believe" position.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    4)If he's not holding onto the pole, why is it even in the shot? Surely when he saw the photo, he noticed how it looked & could've redone it with the pole out of the shot couldn't he?
    It is a measuring stick for goodness sake. The photo was taken as an experiment to see what kind of figures for his height they come up with. Besides, there is no stick in the first picture of him on the page.

    It pre-dates the analysis I'm referring to & doesn't take into account the lateral rotation of the legs.
    Do you have a link to this analysis?
    Another thing that bothers me about the photo with the pole is his left elbow shows his forearm to be parallel to the ground like it would be if he was holding onto the pole & completely unlike any part of the gait of the subject of the Patterson/Gimlin film. Although I don't see why he would have to hold onto the poll since, as I said before, the late Dr. Grover Krantz demonstrated in at least one documentary, that the gait as it was understood then, could be replicated by a human. That's why the "Best Evidence Yet" documentary was such a disappointment. It didn't give any new info
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    have these handprints ever been found in a logical associated way to as suggested hand walking?

    Why is every single video of bigfoot that I've seen, faked or real, showing a bipedal animal only?

    You still haven't answered my questions about bigfoots heel- Why is it ALWAYS large and circular, as opposed to what is essentially a point on EVERY OTHER PRIMATE?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    have these handprints ever been found in a logical associated way to as suggested hand walking?

    Why is every single video of bigfoot that I've seen, faked or real, showing a bipedal animal only?

    You still haven't answered my questions about bigfoots heel- Why is it ALWAYS large and circular, as opposed to what is essentially a point on EVERY OTHER PRIMATE?
    The dodging if sticky issues does get rather annoying after a while....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    have these handprints ever been found in a logical associated way to as suggested hand walking?

    Why is every single video of bigfoot that I've seen, faked or real, showing a bipedal animal only?

    You still haven't answered my questions about bigfoots heel- Why is it ALWAYS large and circular, as opposed to what is essentially a point on EVERY OTHER PRIMATE?
    1)I don't believe any of the handprints indicate hand walking, but numerous reports involve witnesses seeing what they first believe to be a bear because it's large, hair covered & moving on all fours. But then it stands up & starts walking on two legs
    2)I don't know why you keep talking about the wide heel. It is always narrower than the ball of the foot. Although not much. They are large creatures. Would you expect a narrow heel to be adequate for support?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG

    1)I don't believe any of the handprints indicate hand walking, but numerous reports involve witnesses seeing what they first believe to be a bear because it's large, hair covered & moving on all fours. But then it stands up & starts walking on two legs
    2)I don't know why you keep talking about the wide heel. It is always narrower than the ball of the foot. Although not much. They are large creatures. Would you expect a narrow heel to be adequate for support?
    1)Bears can walk on their back legs with great ease, it's why they have plantigrade feet; I've also seen them do it firsthand. Hell, bears can even learn to use ice skates- russian circus anyone? Your arguement holds no water.

    2)Ugh let me repost this for your convenience:



    this is new but shows the same thing:



    Okay, since you believe that bigfoot is basically a cross between a human or a chimp, but you've also said that it is a "primative human" (at least on your site), take a good look at this. Note, as I repeat myself on this, that they both have narrow heels of chimps and humans, compared to the wide heel of bigfoot. You'll notice that chimps and humans, are more bipedal than gorillas, which have a wider heel. So either bigfoot is primarily a quadruped, as a gorilla, and not that related to chimps or humans, or the typical bigfoot track is bogus with a wide heel.

    By narrow, I don't mean "it's kind of narrower wtf are you talking about". I mean that it comes to a what is essentially a damn point in the human and chimp.

    A narrower heel would be immaterial in support, just scale up the size of the foot and viola! You have a bipedal creature with a similar foot to people AND adequate size.


    So what we're looking at in a nutshell here:
    -You say: you don't believe bigfoot walks on its hands all that much if at all (meaning facultative or what you probably think obligate biped)

    -Bigfoot doesn't have a locking knee but has a wide heel (contradictive traits in primates, as I've shown).

    -Bigfoot has a foot orientation closer to that of a facultative biped, but more heavily on the walking on all fours like a gorrilla; this indicates that it would walk on all fours.

    You need to make up your damn mind on a few things. Is bigfoot more like a gorrilla, or is an overwhelming majority of your evidence for bigfoot a crock of crap?



    On more thing I'll point out is that science cannot prove the nonexistance of bigfoot. Science cannot prove a negative, much like how we cannot disprove God with 100% certainty. So, what you're doing, is abusing that innate inability of science to prove a negative, and then calling what you do science. See the issue with that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG

    1)I don't believe any of the handprints indicate hand walking, but numerous reports involve witnesses seeing what they first believe to be a bear because it's large, hair covered & moving on all fours. But then it stands up & starts walking on two legs
    2)I don't know why you keep talking about the wide heel. It is always narrower than the ball of the foot. Although not much. They are large creatures. Would you expect a narrow heel to be adequate for support?
    1)Bears can walk on their back legs with great ease, it's why they have plantigrade feet; I've also seen them do it firsthand. Hell, bears can even learn to use ice skates- russian circus anyone? Your arguement holds no water.

    2)Ugh let me repost this for your convenience:



    this is new but shows the same thing:



    Okay, since you believe that bigfoot is basically a cross between a human or a chimp, but you've also said that it is a "primative human" (at least on your site), take a good look at this. Note, as I repeat myself on this, that they both have narrow heels of chimps and humans, compared to the wide heel of bigfoot. You'll notice that chimps and humans, are more bipedal than gorillas, which have a wider heel. So either bigfoot is primarily a quadruped, as a gorilla, and not that related to chimps or humans, or the typical bigfoot track is bogus with a wide heel.

    By narrow, I don't mean "it's kind of narrower wtf are you talking about". I mean that it comes to a what is essentially a damn point in the human and chimp.

    A narrower heel would be immaterial in support, just scale up the size of the foot and viola! You have a bipedal creature with a similar foot to people AND adequate size.


    So what we're looking at in a nutshell here:
    -You say: you don't believe bigfoot walks on its hands all that much if at all (meaning facultative or what you probably think obligate biped)

    -Bigfoot doesn't have a locking knee but has a wide heel (contradictive traits in primates, as I've shown).

    -Bigfoot has a foot orientation closer to that of a facultative biped, but more heavily on the walking on all fours like a gorrilla; this indicates that it would walk on all fours.

    You need to make up your damn mind on a few things. Is bigfoot more like a gorrilla, or is an overwhelming majority of your evidence for bigfoot a crock of crap?



    On more thing I'll point out is that science cannot prove the nonexistance of bigfoot. Science cannot prove a negative, much like how we cannot disprove God with 100% certainty. So, what you're doing, is abusing that innate inability of science to prove a negative, and then calling what you do science. See the issue with that?
    What you're not taking into account is that often there is some spill-over with casts & that makes the cast wider than the track actually was. Plus on the chart you posted is listed some "Jerry Crew" tracks. Hoaxer Ray Wallace claimed responsibility for those tracks & in some of the others pictured, you can see what was track & what was spill-over
    Here are some photos from the "Sasquatch Research Initiative" website you might be interested in:





    http://sasquatchonline.com/content/view/35/31/
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Those appear to be mostly just scaled up human trackways. Give that the orientation of the big toe in line with all the other toes is exclusive to humans, I'm going to assert a few assumptions on your part:

    1.Bigfoot IS an offshoot or ancestor in the human line (the second point there being basically wrong according to all the data I've seen as per out of africa). So bigfoot as a relative of humanity works, but then your idea of Gigantopithecus is thrown right out the window. Which one is it?

    2. Bigfoot IS an obligate biped, so those stories about it walking on all fours and being mistake for a bear don't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

    3. All trackways without a narrow heel are hereby called fakes by the authority that WVbig has.


    One picture I'd really like to call out is the third one you posted. Since we seem to be exclusively comparing it to humans, I'd like to point out the complete lack of structure in the bigfoot. That lacks a complete arch support, which isn't a total pitfall but just something that needs to be pointed out since it's being compared to humans.

    Now, I see where you were talking about the flexure of the mid tarsals (or at least the distal ones in this case...but whatever). That doesn't look to be terribly structurally sound, at least for a large bodied animal, does it? I realize this is one that is in 'pushing off' position for locomotion, but one thing that makes our foot extremely stable is the 'locking' nature of the tarsals themselves. They fit together in a rigid, immobile way; the bigfoot drawing has no such flexure. The bigfoot foot appears to be...floppy. That simply don't do for any kind of locomotion and weight support.

    This is small and nitpicky, probably just a lazyness on the count of the guy who drew it; I myself am pretty lazy. The heel mark of the human foot appears to be lining up nicely with the drawing of the foot, while the bigfoot ones doesn't at all. Also, the foot-pad of the bigfoot doesn't make any sense. It appears to be an inch or more thick, which is just outrageous- it would be like trying to walk on two densely packed stress balls or something.. What do you have to say about that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    Those appear to be mostly just scaled up human trackways. Give that the orientation of the big toe in line with all the other toes is exclusive to humans, I'm going to assert a few assumptions on your part:

    1.Bigfoot IS an offshoot or ancestor in the human line (the second point there being basically wrong according to all the data I've seen as per out of africa). So bigfoot as a relative of humanity works, but then your idea of Gigantopithecus is thrown right out the window. Which one is it?

    2. Bigfoot IS an obligate biped, so those stories about it walking on all fours and being mistake for a bear don't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

    3. All trackways without a narrow heel are hereby called fakes by the authority that WVbig has.


    One picture I'd really like to call out is the third one you posted. Since we seem to be exclusively comparing it to humans, I'd like to point out the complete lack of structure in the bigfoot. That lacks a complete arch support, which isn't a total pitfall but just something that needs to be pointed out since it's being compared to humans.

    Now, I see where you were talking about the flexure of the mid tarsals (or at least the distal ones in this case...but whatever). That doesn't look to be terribly structurally sound, at least for a large bodied animal, does it? I realize this is one that is in 'pushing off' position for locomotion, but one thing that makes our foot extremely stable is the 'locking' nature of the tarsals themselves. They fit together in a rigid, immobile way; the bigfoot drawing has no such flexure. The bigfoot foot appears to be...floppy. That simply don't do for any kind of locomotion and weight support.

    This is small and nitpicky, probably just a lazyness on the count of the guy who drew it; I myself am pretty lazy. The heel mark of the human foot appears to be lining up nicely with the drawing of the foot, while the bigfoot ones doesn't at all. Also, the foot-pad of the bigfoot doesn't make any sense. It appears to be an inch or more thick, which is just outrageous- it would be like trying to walk on two densely packed stress balls or something.. What do you have to say about that?
    1)I did consider the giganto hypothesis to be nonsense (mainly because I thought the late Dr. Krantz was allowing his belief in the existence of Bigfoot to cloud his judgement & make judgements about giganto that fit with Bigfoot) until I discovered the work by Dr. Weinreich that I note on the homepage of my website
    2)I don't buy those stories either. I was just making you aware that they exist
    3)Based on the fake feet Ray Wallace made, I think tracks that are pretty much rectangular & show basically no narrowing at any part of the foot, are most likely fakes
    4)This structure makes it easier for the foot to grasp the rugged, rocky terrain & the thick foot-pad probably evolved due to the terrain
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    4)This structure makes it easier for the foot to grasp the rugged, rocky terrain & the thick foot-pad probably evolved due to the terrain
    That doesn't hold any ground. Bears, a decent analogy for this, do not have such outrageously thick pads and Grizzly's live in much harsher terrain. Then consider that the Patterson Film, which by your estimation is completely true, doesn't demonstrate this feature of a massively thick foot pad. So, which one is it? Is Patterson right or is that thick pad right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    4)This structure makes it easier for the foot to grasp the rugged, rocky terrain & the thick foot-pad probably evolved due to the terrain
    That doesn't hold any ground. Bears, a decent analogy for this, do not have such outrageously thick pads and Grizzly's live in much harsher terrain. Then consider that the Patterson Film, which by your estimation is completely true, doesn't demonstrate this feature of a massively thick foot pad. So, which one is it? Is Patterson right or is that thick pad right?
    It looks pretty thick to me & more than likely, that drawing is based on it. We base much of what we currently believe to be true about the foot structure & gait on that film
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    so if that film is proven to be faked, what would you do from there?

    It looks no thicker than the sole of a shoe to me...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    so if that film is proven to be faked, what would you do from there?

    It looks no thicker than the sole of a shoe to me...
    If it is ever proven to be a fake, we will have to re-evaluate everything based exclusively on tracks & trackways found in very remote, rugged, rocky areas where people are extremely unlikely to be walking barefooted or traveling just to perpetrate hoaxes. That's the main reason most of us keep our research locations secret. One thing we should all already be doing is trying to figure out ALL possible ways to fake tracks & then determine what evidence those methods leave behind. Unfortunately, there are some who are all too eager to deem every track legitimate. Info from the film being proven a hoax would be invaluable in determining all possible methods of creating fake tracks because of the depth of the tracks left by the subject of the film & because of the 47"-65" stride length between the tracks. One thing I try to stress to researchers is that debunking a piece of potential evidence should never be viewed as bad news. I feel this way because even though we currently believe these creatures exist & want to prove it so they can be protected before they are extinct, everything that is debunked is just as much a piece of the puzzle as those things which have not been debunked. But back to your comment about the foot-pad thickness. Bears & Bigfoots (If they exist) are approximately the same size. But bears are quadripeds & Bigfoots are bipeds. So wouldn't thicker foot-pads be more likely to evolve in Bigfoots due to their weight being put on two legs vs. four legs for a bear?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    A guy on stilts with bigfoot feet on could get good momentum going for making deep tracks with a long stride length.

    As for the Patterson film being the biggest piece of evidence: That is just as shaky as you can get almost. I for one am not at all convinced by all this detailed analysis being conducted where muscle movement and impossible gait and such is being deduced. ALL versions of that film that I have seen have been of VERY poor quality, yet there is claimed to be very good quality ones allegedly made from the original film somewhere. Where the hell are they?

    If you'll remember, I also demonstrated (crudely, but effectively) that an animal big enough to make deeper tracks than a horse, with a man on it's back, on hind legs and coming down and stomping hard is just impossible and even way bigger than the claimed weight of the Patterson bigfoot.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    A guy on stilts with bigfoot feet on could get good momentum going for making deep tracks with a long stride length.

    As for the Patterson film being the biggest piece of evidence: That is just as shaky as you can get almost. I for one am not at all convinced by all this detailed analysis being conducted where muscle movement and impossible gait and such is being deduced. ALL versions of that film that I have seen have been of VERY poor quality, yet there is claimed to be very good quality ones allegedly made from the original film somewhere. Where the hell are they?

    If you'll remember, I also demonstrated (crudely, but effectively) that an animal big enough to make deeper tracks than a horse, with a man on it's back, on hind legs and coming down and stomping hard is just impossible and even way bigger than the claimed weight of the Patterson bigfoot.
    1)The stilts wouldn't allow the flexibility in the foot that is shown in some of the enhancements done by M.K. Davis. Plus the guy would have to get on the stilts at one point & back off of them at another point. This should leave evidence at both points unless he floated onto the stilts & then back off of them
    2)Go to http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/gps.htm for an article about M.K. Davis's work on the film & links where you can see some of the enhancements. Some of them are also on YouTube
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I have seen those and they are still of very poor quality. Finding features and making deductions taken as good evidence is akin to seeing the virgin Mary on a piece of burnt toast or a glob of tea leaves, even worse than.

    I am talking about new higher quality prints made from the original film that I seem to remember you talking about. I might be mistaken though.

    1)The stilts wouldn't allow the flexibility in the foot that is shown in some of the enhancements done by M.K. Davis. Plus the guy would have to get on the stilts at one point & back off of them at another point. This should leave evidence at both points unless he floated onto the stilts & then back off of them
    Oh, it can’t be that difficult to work some flexibility into them. A piece of spring steel (like those used in a wind up clock, but larger) moulded into a rubber mock-up is not that hard for even an average guy to make. Feet made in this way would also allow for marks indicative of the foot deforming as more pressure is applied. The plate could also serve nicely as a fastening point for stilts, like these:



    Or these:



    These tracks are always close to trees, no? They are also close to vegetation or twigs or other things handy for the perpetrator to step on?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I have seen those and they are still of very poor quality. Finding features and making deductions taken as good evidence is akin to seeing the virgin Mary on a piece of burnt toast or a glob of tea leaves, even worse than.

    I am talking about new higher quality prints made from the original film that I seem to remember you talking about. I might be mistaken though.

    1)The stilts wouldn't allow the flexibility in the foot that is shown in some of the enhancements done by M.K. Davis. Plus the guy would have to get on the stilts at one point & back off of them at another point. This should leave evidence at both points unless he floated onto the stilts & then back off of them
    Oh, it can’t be that difficult to work some flexibility into them. A piece of spring steel (like those used in a wind up clock, but larger) moulded into a rubber mock-up is not that hard for even an average guy to make. Feet made in this way would also allow for marks indicative of the foot deforming as more pressure is applied. The plate could also serve nicely as a fastening point for stilts, like these:



    Or these:



    These tracks are always close to trees, no? They are also close to vegetation or twigs or other things handy for the perpetrator to step on?
    1)Both of these pics depict devices much more recent than 1967
    2)Not always
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER

    Or these:

    Oooh. I want those. They look like great fun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    1)Both of these pics depict devices much more recent than 1967
    They had wooden ones back then. :wink: Do the Patterson footprints show only believable characteristics and no suspicious ones? Do they indicate a flexible foot specifically?

    2)No they are not always near trees or vegetation
    Ok then, but do these isolated tracks then also start from nowhere? Where do they end up? If they start in the middle of a clearing, could the hoaxers not have started there also if you conclude that Bigfoot had?

    Oooh. I want those. They look like great fun.
    They do and me too!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    1)Both of these pics depict devices much more recent than 1967
    They had wooden ones back then. :wink: Do the Patterson footprints show only believable characteristics and no suspicious ones? Do they indicate a flexible foot specifically?

    2)No they are not always near trees or vegetation
    Ok then, but do these isolated tracks then also start from nowhere? Where do they end up? If they start in the middle of a clearing, could the hoaxers not have started there also if you conclude that Bigfoot had?

    Oooh. I want those. They look like great fun.
    They do and me too!
    1) The enhancement of the film itself shows flexibility in the feet
    2) No. Tracks that start & stop suddenly are usually discounted based on that alone. I say "usually" because such tracks have given rise to the hypothesis that Bigfoot is a supernatural being that travels from one dimension to another. This hypothesis is also convenient in explaining why no bones have ever been found. But those who subscribe to this hypothesis are regarded by the vast majority of us as being on the fringe of Bigfoot research. While your hypothesis may in fact account for many trackways with an extraordinary stride length, it doesn't explain away the film.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Awhile back, you or someone else pointed out that we are just spinning our wheels. I agree with this to a point. We desperately need to all come to an agreement on one hypothesis for what Bigfoot is & where it came from before we can establish standards in our research that will either prove or disprove that hypothesis. Unfortunately there are far too many egos involved at this point. Too many researchers are unwilling to share information for fear of someone else solving this mystery first. We do need to keep research locations a secret until after the fact to reduce the possibility of hoaxing. But I see no reason to keep research results a secret
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    While your hypothesis may in fact account for many trackways with an extraordinary stride length, it doesn't explain away the film.
    Perhaps not directly. What are the sequence and timing of events directly following the sighting and who related these events?

    The idea of determining the Bigfoot’s size is a bit iffy to me, to say the least. As I recall, re-enactments have been made using people in suits that are much smaller than the size ascribed to the Patterson Bigfoot, with the scale reference markers in the same places. Am I wrong?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    While your hypothesis may in fact account for many trackways with an extraordinary stride length, it doesn't explain away the film.
    Perhaps not directly. What are the sequence and timing of events directly following the sighting and who related these events?

    The idea of determining the Bigfoot’s size is a bit iffy to me, to say the least. As I recall, re-enactments have been made using people in suits that are much smaller than the size ascribed to the Patterson Bigfoot, with the scale reference markers in the same places. Am I wrong?
    Those have been done. But the 7'3" & 7'3 1/2" estimates are based on shooting more film from the same position & using the same type of camera & then measuring a piece of wood (I believe the largest piece lying on the ground) & then calculating the height based on that. I believe the stride length was first measured by Roger Patterson, but several people went to the scene in the following days to take measurements, etc... Among them were taxedermist Bob Titmus, researcher & author John Green, and Jim McClaren. John Green did a reenactment using Jim McClaren, who was 6'5" I believe, without a costume that indicated the subject of the film was quite a bit taller
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Another thing that needs to be done regarding the alleged Bigfoot vocalization recordings in my opinion is, after the methods I mentioned previously eliminate indigenous wildlife as the sources of the sounds, they should be submitted to large zoos for comparison to the vocalizations those animals make. This could determine if someone is using the call blasting technique in order to create false evidence
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    While your hypothesis may in fact account for many trackways with an extraordinary stride length, it doesn't explain away the film.
    Perhaps not directly. What are the sequence and timing of events directly following the sighting and who related these events?

    The idea of determining the Bigfoot’s size is a bit iffy to me, to say the least. As I recall, re-enactments have been made using people in suits that are much smaller than the size ascribed to the Patterson Bigfoot, with the scale reference markers in the same places. Am I wrong?
    Another problem with the stilt hypothesis regarding the P/G film is the subject doesn't appear to be very long legged at all. So that means if it is a person in a costume, he/she would have to have very short legs which the stilts would only make up the difference between his/her real stride length & the normal stride length of an adult
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Another problem with the stilt hypothesis regarding the P/G film is the subject doesn't appear to be very long legged at all. So that means if it is a person in a costume, he/she would have to have very short legs which the stilts would only make up the difference between his/her real stride length & the normal stride length of an adult
    I was only thinking of stilts in regards to tracks found with long stride lengths and/or deep indentations.

    For the Patterson film I am of the opinion that it was a guy in a good primate suit with thick soles and football shoulder pads on, walking in a close to normal gait and that the film was running at 24fps. Patterson's original guess at the height of the guy was around 6'4", 6'5" (about my height).
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Another problem with the stilt hypothesis regarding the P/G film is the subject doesn't appear to be very long legged at all. So that means if it is a person in a costume, he/she would have to have very short legs which the stilts would only make up the difference between his/her real stride length & the normal stride length of an adult
    I was only thinking of stilts in regards to tracks found with long stride lengths and/or deep indentations.

    For the Patterson film I am of the opinion that it was a guy in a good primate suit with thick soles and football shoulder pads on, walking in a close to normal gait and that the film was running at 24fps. Patterson's original guess at the height of the guy was around 6'4", 6'5" (about my height).
    I recently realized how hard it can be to estimate the height of someone/something when I saw my neighbor (who is probably no more than 5'6") get her mail from her mailbox which is in a bricked post with a lamp on top of it. Before this, if I had guessed at the distance from the ground to the top of the lamp, I would've guessed 8'-9' But I now realize it can be no more than 7'-7 1'2" & probably closer to 7'
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Here is a link to a video regarding the unique characteristics of the gait I was trying to explain before
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTEXWx51RCE
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    just wanted to comment that saying bipeds would have thicker foot pads is complete fallacious, especially since your primary (and only, apparently) analogy is people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    just wanted to comment that saying bipeds would have thicker foot pads is complete fallacious, especially since your primary (and only, apparently) analogy is people.
    People who don't live entirely outdoors in rugged terrain AND weigh several hundred pounds though. So who's to say it wouldn't happen?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    just wanted to comment that saying bipeds would have thicker foot pads is complete fallacious, especially since your primary (and only, apparently) analogy is people.
    People who don't live entirely outdoors in rugged terrain AND weigh several hundred pounds though. So who's to say it wouldn't happen?
    Since you are claiming it would...Why? what would be the reasoning for the change?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    just wanted to comment that saying bipeds would have thicker foot pads is complete fallacious, especially since your primary (and only, apparently) analogy is people.
    People who don't live entirely outdoors in rugged terrain AND weigh several hundred pounds though. So who's to say it wouldn't happen?
    Since you are claiming it would...Why? what would be the reasoning for the change?
    Have you ever tried learning to play a cheap guitar with cheap strings or done any gardening type work? You eventually build up callouses. Over time, I think callouses on the bottoms of the feet could evolve into thicker foot pads
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    just wanted to comment that saying bipeds would have thicker foot pads is complete fallacious, especially since your primary (and only, apparently) analogy is people.
    People who don't live entirely outdoors in rugged terrain AND weigh several hundred pounds though. So who's to say it wouldn't happen?
    Since you are claiming it would...Why? what would be the reasoning for the change?
    Have you ever tried learning to play a cheap guitar with cheap strings or done any gardening type work? You eventually build up callouses. Over time, I think callouses on the bottoms of the feet could evolve into thicker foot pads
    Those are activities for which the body is not designed for. Walking for here to there without any protection is EXACTLY what our feet evolved to do and they do not have a thick sole.

    mormoopid can probably explain this better, but basically there is no reason genetically for the foot to change in that way as it would be dong what it evolved to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Over time, I think callouses on the bottoms of the feet could evolve into thicker foot pads
    Evolution does not work that way. Giraffes did not evolve long necks because they stretched all day to get to the higher leaves.

    Also, as Paleoichneum said, our feet are already evolved to walk around in that terrain. Getting calluses is the evolutionary adaptation that deals with that. My father used to be able to run across fields of THESE things without any trouble as a child, since he was both outside and barefoot most of the time growing up. Every time I step on these they stick right into my foot, sometimes break off and burn like hell.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    I can just imagine what a veinous nightmare it would be for bloodflow in a giant footpad like that, with little supporting musculature it could very well just fill with fluid, such as pus. Talk about necrosis city too.

    What you are propsing is bacically Lammarckian evolution, which is completely unreasonable.

    If you look at it, animals that have thick pads on their feet are basically mammaliam predators. Specifically, cats and dogs- but they are always digitgrade, as opposed to plantigrade. Bigfoot meets none of the criteria. It is therefore unreasonable to believe that they would have a thick footpad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    I can just imagine what a veinous nightmare it would be for bloodflow in a giant footpad like that, with little supporting musculature it could very well just fill with fluid, such as pus. Talk about necrosis city too.

    What you are propsing is bacically Lammarckian evolution, which is completely unreasonable.

    If you look at it, animals that have thick pads on their feet are basically mammaliam predators. Specifically, cats and dogs- but they are always digitgrade, as opposed to plantigrade. Bigfoot meets none of the criteria. It is therefore unreasonable to believe that they would have a thick footpad.
    You mean like it's unreasonable for a mammal to lay eggs or a male sea horse to give birth?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    You mean like it's unreasonable for a mammal to lay eggs
    There are three mammalian types: marsupials, placentals and monotremes (mormoopid will contest this :P ), which lay eggs. Their origins are well understood and makes sense. It was understood from anatomical investigations and later confirmed with Phylogenetic methods.

    Having said this though, I actually have no idea what point you are trying to make. Is it that your examples are weird, but they exist, so a bigfoot with thick footpads should not be discounted? Fine, but it is pretty unlikely from what we understand of evolution. Your examples are readily explained by evolution, but Bigfoot’s purported thick pads are not.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    He's trying to say that because certain mammals (or their relatives, right KAL?) can lay eggs and that is unusual or not of the norm, then bigfoot can have super thick and physiologically unreasonable foot pads. It's a non sequitor to be sure.

    Monotremes are even potentially not REAL mammals, though if they are they are certainly a far outlier in the group. Bigfoot, on the other hand, YOU have said is somewhere close to people. That, certainly, isn't an outlier is it?

    Once again I am observing a lack of two things:
    1. Education, in that you honestly just compared monotremes relationship to other mammals with bigfoot and people and
    2. Scientific thought, in that you made a HUGE non sequitor there.


    Hey, here's something to chew on: Reptiles lay eggs, right?

    Wrong. More than 50% of skinks, the most specious group in all the squamata, give live birth ranging from simple internal eggs to 99% placental (in the case of Mabuya heathi. So, what is the real outlier? Egg laying or not? What about snakes? A great deal of them have internal eggs...So, you can see your comparison in this case really doesn't hold alot of ground.

    To further illustrate this, a HUGE number of non-crown group mammals, including all direct ancestors to every major group of mammals, at some point layed eggs. So going back to that time, really, placental birth for mammals would be odd. So you've taken something completely out of context and used it to make a non sequitor.

    also, listen to kal, he's right (cept the part about teasing me, in that instance he's wrong... :P )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    He's trying to say that because certain mammals (or their relatives, right KAL?) can lay eggs and that is unusual or not of the norm, then bigfoot can have super thick and physiologically unreasonable foot pads. It's a non sequitor to be sure.

    Monotremes are even potentially not REAL mammals, though if they are they are certainly a far outlier in the group. Bigfoot, on the other hand, YOU have said is somewhere close to people. That, certainly, isn't an outlier is it?

    Once again I am observing a lack of two things:
    1. Education, in that you honestly just compared monotremes relationship to other mammals with bigfoot and people and
    2. Scientific thought, in that you made a HUGE non sequitor there.


    Hey, here's something to chew on: Reptiles lay eggs, right?

    Wrong. More than 50% of skinks, the most specious group in all the squamata, give live birth ranging from simple internal eggs to 99% placental (in the case of Mabuya heathi. So, what is the real outlier? Egg laying or not? What about snakes? A great deal of them have internal eggs...So, you can see your comparison in this case really doesn't hold alot of ground.

    To further illustrate this, a HUGE number of non-crown group mammals, including all direct ancestors to every major group of mammals, at some point layed eggs. So going back to that time, really, placental birth for mammals would be odd. So you've taken something completely out of context and used it to make a non sequitor.

    also, listen to kal, he's right (cept the part about teasing me, in that instance he's wrong... :P )
    All I'm saying is that at some point in time, the idea of an egg laying mammal was thought of as nonsense. But now is known to exist. So I just think science should still keep an open mind about things. The reason I think it's more likely Bigfoot exists than it doesn't, is because of the few pieces of circumstantial evidence that remained unexplained. For example. Something made the tracks & trackways that have been found by researchers in areas where nobody knew they would be and no hoaxer would have a reasonable expectation of ever having them discovered. Granted, these instances are few & far between. But as long as there is even one such instance, doesn't that warrant further investigation?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Mammals laying eggs wasn't thought of as nonsense because it wasn't thought of at all. Science doesn't just randomly think of things and then exclude them, they OBSERVE something and then go on from there. Your evidence is circumstantial like you said, and that's not good enough plain and simple.

    You'll notice that it wasn't long after biology really formalized itself that egg laying mammals were confirmed, because the subtle reproductive patterns of obscure mammals on the other side of the planet from the base of biology at the time were pretty obvious, as compared with the elusive truth behing the bigfoot, a giant ape. So either bigfoot KNEW we were coming and deliberately avoided us, hiding all evidence of existence and remaining elusive, even in plane and helicopter overflights that, during surveys, are low enough to CLEARLY see a bigfoot...or it doesn't exist. So basically it boils down to the bigfoot having a conspiracy coverup to make sure we don't know they exist because they knew we were bad before we even arrived, or they don't exist. Occams Razor wins this one, not you.

    Just because something isn't explained doesn't mean it's inexplicable. By that same logic, just because something isn't explained doesn't mean that it confirms your personal beliefs.

    It isn't really something that is pressing to science because much of the evidence that has been followed has been demonstrated to be faked. It's not pressing to science because a giant ape would have been pretty obvious, especially when you consider just how much exploration and settlement has gone on in the last 200 years, especially in places like west virginia. You'd think, somwhere along the line, someone would have shot one or found something that is genetically REASONABLE to identify as 'close to humans but clearly not'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    Mammals laying eggs wasn't thought of as nonsense because it wasn't thought of at all. Science doesn't just randomly think of things and then exclude them, they OBSERVE something and then go on from there. Your evidence is circumstantial like you said, and that's not good enough plain and simple.

    You'll notice that it wasn't long after biology really formalized itself that egg laying mammals were confirmed, because the subtle reproductive patterns of obscure mammals on the other side of the planet from the base of biology at the time were pretty obvious, as compared with the elusive truth behing the bigfoot, a giant ape. So either bigfoot KNEW we were coming and deliberately avoided us, hiding all evidence of existence and remaining elusive, even in plane and helicopter overflights that, during surveys, are low enough to CLEARLY see a bigfoot...or it doesn't exist. So basically it boils down to the bigfoot having a conspiracy coverup to make sure we don't know they exist because they knew we were bad before we even arrived, or they don't exist. Occams Razor wins this one, not you.

    Just because something isn't explained doesn't mean it's inexplicable. By that same logic, just because something isn't explained doesn't mean that it confirms your personal beliefs.

    It isn't really something that is pressing to science because much of the evidence that has been followed has been demonstrated to be faked. It's not pressing to science because a giant ape would have been pretty obvious, especially when you consider just how much exploration and settlement has gone on in the last 200 years, especially in places like west virginia. You'd think, somwhere along the line, someone would have shot one or found something that is genetically REASONABLE to identify as 'close to humans but clearly not'.
    There are plenty of areas in North America, especially in West Virginia, that are in- accessible & only viewable from the air or by river as you float by. There are also plenty of large pieces of private propert that people by & then just use a small very small portion of. They buy the large pieces of land only to be left alone
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    I just said...

    So either bigfoot KNEW we were coming and deliberately avoided us, hiding all evidence of existence and remaining elusive, even in plane and helicopter overflights that, during surveys, are low enough to CLEARLY see a bigfoot...or it doesn't exist. So basically it boils down to the bigfoot having a conspiracy coverup to make sure we don't know they exist because they knew we were bad before we even arrived, or they don't exist. Occams Razor wins this one, not you.


    So is it by chance alone that they inhabit only areas that we don't inhabit or were they pushed back? If they were being pushed back, we would have found something, since we are insanely invasive in north america.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    I just said...

    So either bigfoot KNEW we were coming and deliberately avoided us, hiding all evidence of existence and remaining elusive, even in plane and helicopter overflights that, during surveys, are low enough to CLEARLY see a bigfoot...or it doesn't exist. So basically it boils down to the bigfoot having a conspiracy coverup to make sure we don't know they exist because they knew we were bad before we even arrived, or they don't exist. Occams Razor wins this one, not you.


    So is it by chance alone that they inhabit only areas that we don't inhabit or were they pushed back? If they were being pushed back, we would have found something, since we are insanely invasive in north america.
    As we invade more & more areas of the continent, we ARE finding more evidence. More tracks, hair, etc...
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    It's seriously like talking to a brick wall. We've spent the last 15 or so pages on this thread debunking much of your evidence. If by 'more and more', you mean stuff that is fake to someone with a formal education but real to someone who wants to believe and doesn't listen to people who have been trained to discuss these things reasonably, then YES.

    It is really getting pathetic how much you are looping back and just ignoring everything that was said. You also keep moving the goal posts, making you no better than a radical fundamentalist for <insert religion of choice here>. Go back and read the last 15 pages of this thread again before you spout shit like

    As we invade more & more areas of the continent, we ARE finding more evidence. More tracks, hair, etc...
    And, next time you are clearly and soundly demonstrated to be wrong on a point, you should concede the point instead of dodging, changing the subject and then not paying attention to the outcome.

    What you are doing is not science, WVBIG. You come in with a preconception, trying to force the evidence into what you think rather than allowing the evidence to allow you to think. You keep changing criteria, you keep dodging out of things and then looping back in a reacharound fashion. STOP BEING A FUCKING IDIOT, FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE WHO REPLIES TO THIS THREAD.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    It's seriously like talking to a brick wall. We've spent the last 15 or so pages on this thread debunking much of your evidence. If by 'more and more', you mean stuff that is fake to someone with a formal education but real to someone who wants to believe and doesn't listen to people who have been trained to discuss these things reasonably, then YES.

    It is really getting pathetic how much you are looping back and just ignoring everything that was said. You also keep moving the goal posts, making you no better than a radical fundamentalist for <insert religion of choice here>. Go back and read the last 15 pages of this thread again before you spout shit like

    As we invade more & more areas of the continent, we ARE finding more evidence. More tracks, hair, etc...
    And, next time you are clearly and soundly demonstrated to be wrong on a point, you should concede the point instead of dodging, changing the subject and then not paying attention to the outcome.

    What you are doing is not science, WVBIG. You come in with a preconception, trying to force the evidence into what you think rather than allowing the evidence to allow you to think. You keep changing criteria, you keep dodging out of things and then looping back in a reacharound fashion. STOP BEING A FUCKING IDIOT, FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE WHO REPLIES TO THIS THREAD.
    ARGHHHHHHH!!! I've said a million times that when we find something, we attempt to find more logical explanations for it & most of the time, we do just that. Our belief comes from that evidence which is left unexplained. Ignoring the info I provide just because it doesn't fit into YOUR preconceptions, or isn't in a form you deem acceptable, makes YOU the FUCKING IDIOT!!! not me. Contact Dr. Bindernagel about the amount of unexplored wilderness in the area we are talking about here if you don't believe me. Yes you have provided a possible explanation for many of the contemporary tracks & trackways. But not the ones from years ago. Yes there were wooden stilts in 1967 & before. But none as technologically advanced as the ones in the photos provided here. You are ignoring the work done BY SCIENTISTS because it doesn't fit your preconceived, closed-minded, notions. If the best you can do is lob insults, I suggest you concede failure
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    It's seriously like talking to a brick wall. We've spent the last 15 or so pages on this thread debunking much of your evidence. If by 'more and more', you mean stuff that is fake to someone with a formal education but real to someone who wants to believe and doesn't listen to people who have been trained to discuss these things reasonably, then YES.

    It is really getting pathetic how much you are looping back and just ignoring everything that was said. You also keep moving the goal posts, making you no better than a radical fundamentalist for <insert religion of choice here>. Go back and read the last 15 pages of this thread again before you spout shit like

    As we invade more & more areas of the continent, we ARE finding more evidence. More tracks, hair, etc...
    And, next time you are clearly and soundly demonstrated to be wrong on a point, you should concede the point instead of dodging, changing the subject and then not paying attention to the outcome.

    What you are doing is not science, WVBIG. You come in with a preconception, trying to force the evidence into what you think rather than allowing the evidence to allow you to think. You keep changing criteria, you keep dodging out of things and then looping back in a reacharound fashion. STOP BEING A FUCKING IDIOT, FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE WHO REPLIES TO THIS THREAD.
    ARGHHHHHHH!!! I've said a million times that when we find something, we attempt to find more logical explanations for it & most of the time, we do just that. Our belief comes from that evidence which is left unexplained. Ignoring the info I provide just because it doesn't fit into YOUR preconceptions, or isn't in a form you deem acceptable, makes YOU the FUCKING IDIOT!!! not me. Contact Dr. Bindernagel about the amount of unexplored wilderness in the area we are talking about here if you don't believe me. Yes you have provided a possible explanation for many of the contemporary tracks & trackways. But not the ones from years ago. Yes there were wooden stilts in 1967 & before. But none as technologically advanced as the ones in the photos provided here. You are ignoring the work done BY SCIENTISTS because it doesn't fit your preconceived, closed-minded, notions. If the best you can do is lob insults, I suggest you concede failure
    The problem is you automatically take the stance that unexplained=BIGFOOT!

    This is as UNscientific as you can possibly be!

    There are too many possible reasons for why things are the way they are found, and too many if ands and buts in the reasoning used to defend the bigfoot position.

    Nioses are easily distorted, faked, replicated. I have heard Stellers Jays outside my house which sound exactly like Stellars jays one minute then ealges then things I have never heard before. All from ONE bird the size of a scrawny pigeon.

    The fact that the "tracks" are found and reported at all shows the areas thay are at are not as inaccessable and secluded as one would think.

    The COMPLETE lack of fossil/subfossil/modern bone evidence is damming. Remember the ENTIRE eastern 1/3 of the united states was hardwood forest less then 300 years ago, Now the vast majority of that area is dominated by humans. The odds on there NOT being a find of some type of bone material are minute.

    The areas that are left as wilderness are minuscule compared to what they once were and i doubt very very much that the amount of TRULY unexplored wilderness left contains any large undiscovered mammals.

    To a scientist the evidence against Bigfoot and more importantly against the evidence which is presented for bigfoot is damning. The simple fact is we will ALL be jumping up and down in joy if irrefutable evidence is found for the existence of BF, HOWEVER we are sensible and objective enough to realize that the evidence at this point is NOT pointing in that direction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    It's seriously like talking to a brick wall. We've spent the last 15 or so pages on this thread debunking much of your evidence. If by 'more and more', you mean stuff that is fake to someone with a formal education but real to someone who wants to believe and doesn't listen to people who have been trained to discuss these things reasonably, then YES.

    It is really getting pathetic how much you are looping back and just ignoring everything that was said. You also keep moving the goal posts, making you no better than a radical fundamentalist for <insert religion of choice here>. Go back and read the last 15 pages of this thread again before you spout shit like

    As we invade more & more areas of the continent, we ARE finding more evidence. More tracks, hair, etc...
    And, next time you are clearly and soundly demonstrated to be wrong on a point, you should concede the point instead of dodging, changing the subject and then not paying attention to the outcome.

    What you are doing is not science, WVBIG. You come in with a preconception, trying to force the evidence into what you think rather than allowing the evidence to allow you to think. You keep changing criteria, you keep dodging out of things and then looping back in a reacharound fashion. STOP BEING A FUCKING IDIOT, FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE WHO REPLIES TO THIS THREAD.
    ARGHHHHHHH!!! I've said a million times that when we find something, we attempt to find more logical explanations for it & most of the time, we do just that. Our belief comes from that evidence which is left unexplained. Ignoring the info I provide just because it doesn't fit into YOUR preconceptions, or isn't in a form you deem acceptable, makes YOU the FUCKING IDIOT!!! not me. Contact Dr. Bindernagel about the amount of unexplored wilderness in the area we are talking about here if you don't believe me. Yes you have provided a possible explanation for many of the contemporary tracks & trackways. But not the ones from years ago. Yes there were wooden stilts in 1967 & before. But none as technologically advanced as the ones in the photos provided here. You are ignoring the work done BY SCIENTISTS because it doesn't fit your preconceived, closed-minded, notions. If the best you can do is lob insults, I suggest you concede failure
    The problem is you automatically take the stance that unexplained=BIGFOOT!

    This is as UNscientific as you can possibly be!

    There are too many possible reasons for why things are the way they are found, and too many if ands and buts in the reasoning used to defend the bigfoot position.

    Nioses are easily distorted, faked, replicated. I have heard Stellers Jays outside my house which sound exactly like Stellars jays one minute then ealges then things I have never heard before. All from ONE bird the size of a scrawny pigeon.

    The fact that the "tracks" are found and reported at all shows the areas thay are at are not as inaccessable and secluded as one would think.

    The COMPLETE lack of fossil/subfossil/modern bone evidence is damming. Remember the ENTIRE eastern 1/3 of the united states was hardwood forest less then 300 years ago, Now the vast majority of that area is dominated by humans. The odds on there NOT being a find of some type of bone material are minute.

    The areas that are left as wilderness are minuscule compared to what they once were and i doubt very very much that the amount of TRULY unexplored wilderness left contains any large undiscovered mammals.

    To a scientist the evidence against Bigfoot and more importantly against the evidence which is presented for bigfoot is damning. The simple fact is we will ALL be jumping up and down in joy if irrefutable evidence is found for the existence of BF, HOWEVER we are sensible and objective enough to realize that the evidence at this point is NOT pointing in that direction.
    1)We regard the unexplained as "possible" Bigfoot evidence. This is also something I've said here before numerous times. Quite a bit of possible evidence has been debunked. Some of the vocalizations have been identified, some films determined to be hoaxes, etc...We as individuals debunk things all the time. But that is something someone with a narrow mind who doesn't bother reading the forums, watching the documentaries, listening to the internet radio shows, etc... would know
    2)The tracks & trackways in question are found by researchers who go to these remote areas in secret. The odds against a hoaxer getting to exactly the same area first, is astronomical. Especially when going to such a remote spot would be pointless to a hoaxer. Hoaxers go where their handy work is LIKELY to be discovered
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    The tracks & trackways in question are found by researchers who go to these remote areas in secret.
    But how do they choose where to go? Do they pin up a map and throw a dart at it? Don't they still go to where they think Bigfoot evidence might be found? Assuming your answer is in the affirmative, why can't hoaxers follow the same rationale?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The tracks & trackways in question are found by researchers who go to these remote areas in secret.
    But how do they choose where to go? Do they pin up a map and throw a dart at it? Don't they still go to where they think Bigfoot evidence might be found? Assuming your answer is in the affirmative, why can't hoaxers follow the same rationale?
    Sometimes they choose to go to an area based on a checklist of features such as food & water availability, seclusion, terrain, etc... Sometimes they choose a region because it has been named after Bigfoot by Native Americans. Skookum Meadow for example, which was near where the alleged Bigfoot body impression was cast. Robert W. Morgaqn has compiled a checklist of 20 features to look for when choosing an area to explore
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The tracks & trackways in question are found by researchers who go to these remote areas in secret.
    But how do they choose where to go? Do they pin up a map and throw a dart at it? Don't they still go to where they think Bigfoot evidence might be found? Assuming your answer is in the affirmative, why can't hoaxers follow the same rationale?
    Sometimes they choose to go to an area based on a checklist of features such as food & water availability, seclusion, terrain, etc... Sometimes they choose a region because it has been named after Bigfoot by Native Americans. Skookum Meadow for example, which was near where the alleged Bigfoot body impression was cast. Robert W. Morgaqn has compiled a checklist of 20 features to look for when choosing an area to explore
    Ok, but don't you think hoaxers can also look at these criteria? All they have to know is that Bigfoot researchers are in town and then they can go out and make a few tracts or whatever. Have researchers never found obviously faked evidence in these secret and remote places?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The tracks & trackways in question are found by researchers who go to these remote areas in secret.
    But how do they choose where to go? Do they pin up a map and throw a dart at it? Don't they still go to where they think Bigfoot evidence might be found? Assuming your answer is in the affirmative, why can't hoaxers follow the same rationale?
    Sometimes they choose to go to an area based on a checklist of features such as food & water availability, seclusion, terrain, etc... Sometimes they choose a region because it has been named after Bigfoot by Native Americans. Skookum Meadow for example, which was near where the alleged Bigfoot body impression was cast. Robert W. Morgaqn has compiled a checklist of 20 features to look for when choosing an area to explore
    Ok, but don't you think hoaxers can also look at these criteria? All they have to know is that Bigfoot researchers are in town and then they can go out and make a few tracts or whatever. Have researchers never found obviously faked evidence in these secret and remote places?
    How would they know Bigfoot researchers are in town? Like I said, we keep that info a secret until AFTER the fact. To my knowledge, no obvious hoaxed evidence has ever been found in these secluded locations. Obvious fake tracks have been found at the site pf an annual Bigfoot confrence in Ohio that has been held at the same state park for 20 years. This confrence is heavily promoted online & it's common knowledge that some of the researchers go out & look around for evidence afterward. This is one of the reasons I'm against such confrences
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I found these for a bit of humour.

    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I found these for a bit of humour.

    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    I forgot to mention there is one organization that advertises it's upcoming expedition locations in some of the bigger newspapers in the state they are going to. But in my opinion, their main purpose is to make money. They are still casting doubt about "The Jacobs Creature" when most of us, including Dr. Meldrum, have decided it's just a mangy black bear
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #289  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I forgot to mention there is one organization that advertises it's upcoming expedition locations in some of the bigger newspapers in the state they are going to. But in my opinion, their main purpose is to make money. They are still casting doubt about "The Jacobs Creature" when most of us, including Dr. Meldrum, have decided it's just a mangy black bear

    Except that a blackbears build would never look like that, so calling it such is kind of silly. I've seen their skeletons first hand and can tell you that unless it's a black bear with Scoliosis and an abnormally small rib cage, that wouldn't be a black bear. Also, the back legs are too long and spindly, this picture looks ALOT more like a man in a suit than a black bear to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I forgot to mention there is one organization that advertises it's upcoming expedition locations in some of the bigger newspapers in the state they are going to. But in my opinion, their main purpose is to make money. They are still casting doubt about "The Jacobs Creature" when most of us, including Dr. Meldrum, have decided it's just a mangy black bear

    Except that a blackbears build would never look like that, so calling it such is kind of silly. I've seen their skeletons first hand and can tell you that unless it's a black bear with Scoliosis and an abnormally small rib cage, that wouldn't be a black bear. Also, the back legs are too long and spindly, this picture looks ALOT more like a man in a suit than a black bear to me.
    Chris Ryan, biologist & leader of the West Virginia Black Bear Project also says it's a black bear with mange. He even correctly guessed the photo was from Pennsylvania because there had been several reports of Black Bears with mange from Pennsylvania in 2006. Several people on various Bigfoot forums also posted pics of mangy Black Bears & that is what they looked like
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Just a quick question: Are there any close-up shots of the Bigfoot's sole as in this picture:



    I can't see any toes!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Just a quick question: Are there any close-up shots of the Bigfoot's sole as in this picture:



    I can't see any toes!
    There is a close up somewhere on YouTube that someone just cropped out from a frame of film & didn't bother adjusting the contrast or anything. So it's very washed out. You might want to check the M.K. Davis enhancements I posted the link to a few pages back
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #293  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I still can't see anything. I have seen a picture of M.K. Davis standing next to a life sized blow-up of the Bigfoot in the film, but I can't find any others, especially not one where he shows the sole of his foot.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #294  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I still can't see anything. I have seen a picture of M.K. Davis standing next to a life sized blow-up of the Bigfoot in the film, but I can't find any others, especially not one where he shows the sole of his foot.
    I found it on YouTube. It's called "PATTERSON BIGFOOT FAKE! PROOF!" The way the heel looks is because of the lighting in mu opinion
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #295  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    That isn't what a bear skeleton looks like. At a casual glance alone, look at the freaking canines! It also looks like it has carnassials, something bears don't have. It's also digitigrade, wheras the hindfoot of a bear is plantigrade. Dude, that's a cat skeleton.




    PLEASE please please tell me you can see the difference

    He even correctly guessed the photo was from Pennsylvania because there had been several reports of Black Bears with mange from Pennsylvania in 2006
    There are mangey animals all over the place, that's totally retarded to think that way. You also don't appear to know what mange means:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mange

    The animal in your photo doesn't even LOOK mangey!

    I found it on YouTube. It's called "PATTERSON BIGFOOT FAKE! PROOF!" The way the heel looks is because of the lighting in mu opinion
    copout! firstly, saying it looks that way became of lighting is moving the goal posts; you're adding criteria to an arguement that you are losing so that you cannot lose. That's bullshit. Also, your opinion is null and void as far as morphology and physiology goes, because you've demonstrated over and over again that you don't know what you're doing- look above this paragraph at the sillyness of using a cat skeleton to say something is a bear. Absolutely outrageous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #296  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I REALLLY hope you are not going to start asserting these to be individuals of relict Smilodon populations!!!!


    That is what this image is, a (rather bad) drawing of a Smilodon skeleton. being that Smilodon sp were apperently a plains dwelling cat similar to the modern lion and are definitely extinct as of ~10,000 years ago, this is NOT what you are looking at!

    Here is an actual reconstructed skeleton of Silodon californicus found in the La Brea tar deposits.



    Restorations of Smilodon look like bulky lions with large teeth and short legs, not thin ragged looking bears.

    PS why exactly are we even discussing this picture as it does not actually have anything to do with what we were talking about half a page ago!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #297  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    That isn't what a bear skeleton looks like. At a casual glance alone, look at the freaking canines! It also looks like it has carnassials, something bears don't have. It's also digitigrade, wheras the hindfoot of a bear is plantigrade. Dude, that's a cat skeleton.




    PLEASE please please tell me you can see the difference

    He even correctly guessed the photo was from Pennsylvania because there had been several reports of Black Bears with mange from Pennsylvania in 2006
    There are mangey animals all over the place, that's totally retarded to think that way. You also don't appear to know what mange means:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mange

    The animal in your photo doesn't even LOOK mangey!

    I found it on YouTube. It's called "PATTERSON BIGFOOT FAKE! PROOF!" The way the heel looks is because of the lighting in mu opinion
    copout! firstly, saying it looks that way became of lighting is moving the goal posts; you're adding criteria to an arguement that you are losing so that you cannot lose. That's bullshit. Also, your opinion is null and void as far as morphology and physiology goes, because you've demonstrated over and over again that you don't know what you're doing- look above this paragraph at the sillyness of using a cat skeleton to say something is a bear. Absolutely outrageous.
    1) I got the pic of the skeleton from a google search for bear pics
    2) To claim to know more than a Biologist AND black bear expert who works for the Department of Natural Resources is pathetic
    3) The fact that you are arguing AGAINST a logical explanation for what at first, seemed to be a piece of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, proves you just like to argue
    4) I made my judgement about the lighting of the heel based on my formal training as a professional photographer
    5) I think you agree with Q so much because you ARE Q & you had to create this second ID to make it look like there is more support for your side. Truly pathetic
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #298  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    5) I think you agree with Q so much because you ARE Q & you had to create this second ID to make it look like there is more support for your side. Truly pathetic
    After checking all used IP addresses by both members, I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that they are not the same person.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #299  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    5) I think you agree with Q so much because you ARE Q & you had to create this second ID to make it look like there is more support for your side. Truly pathetic
    After checking all used IP addresses by both members, I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that they are not the same person.
    Maybe not then. Unless one is from home & the other is from a library or net cafe
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #300  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    I got the pic of the skeleton from a google search for bear pics
    Obviously you don't know the difference between a cat and a bear. I got mine from google too and it appears the internet isn't that stupid as to mix things up. The URL source of your picture has the word bigfoot in it, so I think you are more likely getting it from some bigfoot site than just google.

    To claim to know more than a Biologist AND black bear expert who works for the Department of Natural Resources is pathetic
    I have a major in university as biology as well as a class in mammology, taught to me by a bear specialist (polar bears though, but they are so damn close) so you could say I am a biologist too, couldn't you? I also just demonstrated that I do know more than them, unless you were the one that screwed the pooch there and not them.

    The fact that you are arguing AGAINST a logical explanation for what at first, seemed to be a piece of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, proves you just like to argue
    It wasn't a logical explaination because it was incorrect. I'm just correcting you, calm it down there cowboy.


    I made my judgement about the lighting of the heel based on my formal training as a professional photographer
    I'd like to see more rationale behind this and if you have duplicated your results or if you are just speculating (which allows for alot more bias than testing does). I gave you rationale for why it is that picture was what it was, and then showed you using another picture. Can you afford me the same kindness?

    I think you agree with Q so much because you ARE Q & you had to create this second ID to make it look like there is more support for your side. Truly pathetic
    That's awesome that you think that, the only person I've agreed fully with EVER on this site is paleoichneum.

    Edit: Paralith is certain listen to her!


    Also, Thanks for posting that Smilodon stuff paleo- I am trying to make my posts shorter for WVbig so I can be sure he won't dodge stuff.
    PS why exactly are we even discussing this picture as it does not actually have anything to do with what we were talking about half a page ago!
    Because someone is desperate to discredit me as he has been discreditted like 100 times so far, and it's another dodge of the topic...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •