• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Crowlogic

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
  1. Wrong. I watched the video (such as it is) and while it is said nobody was on the other side of the river that does not mean nobody was on the other side of the river. What is more likely a human on the other side of the river or a bigfoot? You know another classic case of oddball posture and locomotion neither of which make sense for man or beast alone. But get the boy on the bike/trike and suddenly we be glidin' on air. Yeah the evidence is sure looking like human on a powered wheel device.
  2. Well if doc Johnson is a crackpot than are the other phd bigfoot docs far behind?
  3. Bigfoot science has become a clever shell game. As the likelihood of bigfoot being real fades the game takes on new paradigms in order to keep it going. However none of these ever include the beast incarnate. When the going gets really rough the game goes woo like it has in recent times. There must be something to this woo thing. After all a phd is involved with a very intense woo based segment. A phd would never waste their time chasing phony stuff like bigfoot or woo like bigfoot.
  4. ^That's the kind of thing 4th graders do DWA. So you've found bigfoot, woozers. Well anybody can say anything. Back it up, deliver the goods. But you can't, there saved you from the embarrassment a second time. However while you were writing colored post counts of mine you failed to answer the direct question. What was more likely, a human on a motor device or a really really real bigfoot running down Caribou? Dude? Did you say dude? Yikes nothing says Bubba like saying dude. Sorry man never heard that word in higher circles of thought. Lastly about those posts of mine. You mean you've read all of them and can conclude I've contributed nothing ever. Nothing in over 4500 posts? You must find me a rather sharp thorn in the side then. I've read virtually none of yours except when it involves me. That's how much attention I pay to your posts.
  5. ^^^hahaha and I'm soooo irrelavant and mistaken that you have to count my posts? Kewel! Well so while you're bird doging me I'll ask the big question Did you find bigfoot today? No wait let me save you the embarrassment of answering. No you didn't find bigfoot today and you won't tomorrow or any day after. That said what is more likely in your "scientific" mind a bigfoot, opps woodape charging through the herd ready to tear one apart for lunch or a human on a wheeled device helping the herd along so the camera guys across the river can get the shot? Now think very hard and bear in mind that motors exist, wheels exist and the two have been married together for over a century. And what in tar nation is a bloody wood ape (you know they live in the wood) doing up on the tundra in the first place. Yessir ye ol' tundra is prime primate country ain't it?
  6. ^Nothing as gliding as being on wheels. Also it does not have to be a bicycle. It can be something like this. Now since the terrain is rough the rider does what many do gets up on legs to help absorb shock. Ask yourself what is more likely a bigfoot running down the herd or a human on a device that may or may not be connected with the humans filming the whole thing. Also do you think a hunched over bigfoot bent knee etc could really run that fast. We human's can't when all bent up. Fast bibedal running seems to work best upright not bent up or infirm like. We're never given the exact location so the film site could have very easily been closer to humans than Thunker (who didn't cross examine the witness) was told.
  7. I would have thought this this would have gone the way of Skookum cast by now. But thanks for the white lines as it gives a bit of a hint of bike/motor device posture.
  8. Nope they do not. That is not how the game is played. Looks like the second half of 2016 is going to be a might fine time for bigfoot science. There's a nice young man up in Utah hikin' and grinnin' his way to all kinds of bigfoot stuff and a once acerbic skeptic in Maine has gone into full woo mode. It'll help to fill seats at the conventions no doubt.
  9. The great bigfoot hunter Roger Patterson (you know him as the fellow who captured the best bigfoot footage in history) he stated in an interview in the late 60's that we could expect bigfoot to be in hand within ten years. Now those are the words of someone who had nearly miraculous luck in all things bigfoot. And where are we? You know where where we are I don't have to remind you.
  10. I've given this if bigfoot existed thing a bit more thought. Now if bigfoot were real it would likely fart really, really loud. I suspect we could expect blasts on the scale of Krakatoa to be rumbling out of the hills and forests quite often. However as it stands now the hills are only alive with the sound of music.
  11. Well there is no chance that I'll need to be cannibalistic in any way shape or form. The day of proof will never arrive. If it was going to happen it would have happened a long time ago. If you all pay a little more attention to what real science, real naturalists, and even technocrats say you'd be shifting you attention to a more tangible muse. Pokemon anyone?
  12. Actually the entire subject of bigfoot is not worth anyone's time.
  13. The blog from is from Scientific American, that's not exactly a rag publication. Witnesses aren't all liars but they are far more likely to have been mistaken, stressed, mentally primed to have an out of ordinary occurrence morph into bigfoot, and yes Virginia some witnesses are pulling your leg. There is nothing speculative in that article. It is pretty easy to do a search of say supposed bigfoot sounds and have them be totally different from each other. Just look at the cast evidence. Heck there's everything except the kitchen sink, 5 toes, 4 toes, 3 toes, 25 inches, 13 inches, MTB no MTB. Then there's the reported size (not an issue in the article) but worth mentioning. We got em 6', 7'. 8', 9' 12' GASP 15' tall. I don't know about you but I fully understand that with virtually all known wild animals that for instance if say you saw a bald eagle a fairly cohesive and standard image of one can be counted on to represent the sighting or species in general. You know there is a common element in bigfootism that whenever a solid case is made against bigfoot the wagons get circled and the author of whatever doesn't know what they are talking about. But you know every time I hear a bigfooter say bigfoot is this or that, does this or that, or did this or that all I have to do is remind myself of the rational realities of the evidence to know that it's the bigfooters who either don't know what they're talking about or simply refuse to grasp the realities that fly in the face of their muse.
  14. And exactly what is uninformed about the author's position? There is nothing unreasonable about the author's position. In short the author comes to the simple and conclusion that the evidence is suitable lacking and suitable poor to dismiss bigfoot as real. Below are the cornerstones of his position. By all means counter argue the authors claims with evidence saying otherwise. Bigfoot tracks would be more ‘biological’, Bigfoot tracks would be easy to find by people who know what they’re doing., There would be Bigfoot DNA all over the place., Biologically consistent, homogeneous vocalizations would be documented across North America.,