Leaderboard

I never claimed that it was you that said it. Again, it's not about you this time.

You can bet your bottom dollar that I can, indeed! No, we don't want no stinkin' proof. We just enjoy those that come hear and claim a certain knowledge, yet somehow never produce any evidence. My friend, you're one of the many to come here and claim everything from Bigfoot following people home over some 50 miles to leave a book in their truck bed, to claiming that the Big Hairy has provided them with clues to their inner selves. Like you, they claim to have the goods, yet choose to withhold it for whatever reason... usually because we haven't submitted to the will of the enlightened squatch. In other words, we're not worthy, in their opinion. So, forgive me if your reluctance to share the evidence you claim to have doesn't impress me, nor does it surprise me. We've all seen it before. Why would you poll a bunch of people you don't know as to whether to present the evidence? That was never a condition of your previous offers. Again, this isn't a surprise, although the 5th member letting it rip would be. Sorry, but your claims are unsubstantiated, no matter how grandiose those claims are. Up to this point there's plenty of evidence to support my claim. Nobody's turned down any evidence. The person making the claims has refused to provide it after saying they would do so. It's now conditional based on what seems to be the input of other members... other "knowers." Regardless, I know that this train has left the station, as it appears that the OP chooses not to produce the evidence as they claimed they would. They're just dangling the proverbial carrot. After the Smeja and Ketchum claims, this stuff is minor league.

Could be because "Such and such" believer has seen a bigfoot in one of the places you said they did not exist and after they supposedly died out, where as these "Open minded" skeptics you mention have never seen or experienced a bigfoot at all?

He put a little corn in there for texture...

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so SAD!!! A bunch of (supposedly) grown men, (although I'm beginning to wonder), begging like a dog for a Milk Bone!!! At least Milk Bone exists, & the dog has hope of eventually getting what it begs for. Funny that (afaik) there are no women begging. I guess we're all just sitting back chuckling to ourselves, & wondering when you're going to wake up & get a grip. This whole farce might have been a tiny bit less ridiculous if the perpetrator had just claimed that the government has proof that BF exists, since they obviously DO. But to claim that they all died out almost 30 years ago & anyone here will even entertain that thought is beyond amazing!!!!!!

Still no proof?!!? Now, I'm super pizzed!

Redbone: Looks like Stage 3, moving to stage 4. We'll keep you updated.

Which stage are we in? #2 already? Number 1: The Announcement Number 2: Defensiveness or Attack of Critics Number 3: Postponement of Evidence Number 4: Postponement of Evidence Again Number 5: Claim, you are a Victim of a Hoax http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u7cCv2c-6A#t=20

If you weigh a BF against that baloney, which would weigh more?

What, no proof yet?!? I'm pizzed.

Sure. Several videos posted here as I was discovering this story. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/45829-utah-sighting/

There's a lot of corn in this thread, I'll grant you that.

Horse hockey.

OK, this is it. I'm going to politely ask that you to substantiate your argument regarding Sal's claims. You say you have the proof. Please present it, or we must assume that your claims are without merit. When you say by all accounts, I suppose you mean your own.

P.S. Wag, you said a while back you think the BF get sick of us and want nothing to do with us. I think that's true of a lot of BF. But like many people who become weary of war and fighting and start to work for change, some BF just get worn out by the fear of us and start to be hopeful about, and look forward to, a day when they don't have to avoid us and be afraid of us anymore. So some are pretty receptive to people, for that reason. They're not looking for "proof" that people are okay; they're just looking for a cessation of the stupid, endless hostility. I've heard people say, "I want to make contact with a BF, just to show them we're not all bad." I always want to respond, "Too late!" And then I want to go a little further and say, You don't have to take the burden of the world on your shoulders. This wasn't broken in a day, and it's not likely it will be fixed in a day (although technically speaking, it would be entirely possible to do). But there is something you can do. You can give an individual, a family, a break from fear. You can cut them some slack. You can be a nice surprise that day, or for many days. That's worth something, I think.

Why is this thread now on 5 pages? The whole premise of this thread is bogus.

Just wait until I tell my wife, Morgan Fairchild, about this fascinating development.

If you re-read my earlier posts, I do not specifically advocate the whole of Vendramini's hypothesis, nor am I invested in it, but he does raise a couple of questions that I consider objectively valid. I focus specifically on two points from the mindset of an educator (see below). 1. It is self-evident that the size and positioning of the eye orbits in the Neanderthal skull are markedly different from that of a human skull, yet the interpretation of a Neanderthal's appearance in the OP does not reflect this distinct divergence in morphology. If anything, the interpretation seems to have somewhat beady eyes, and they are positioned as human eyes would be relative to the positioning of the eye orbits in a human skull. I don't see how anyone could accurately interpret a Neanderthal's eyes as slitted cat eyes, though others seem to throw this out as if I believe it to be true, which I don't. 2. That the use of human facial reconstruction techniques to overlay the Neanderthal skull with a face is based on the very loose assumption that those techniques can actually be applied to Neanderthals. Vendramini points out that the Neanderthal skull more closely fits the shape of a chimpanzee head than that of a human head, and looking at the two representative overlays, I have to agree with him on that point. Other than that, Vendramini's hypothesis is largely conjecture regarding aspects that cannot be verified. And his hypothesis actually agrees with the prevailing view of Neanderthals on other points. I recall stating that both the OP's and Vendramini's interpretations were based on assumptions. Now it is appropriate to discuss my specialty and qualifications as requested. 1. I am a government-licensed Professional Chemical Engineer. This is akin to being licensed by the State in medicine or another discipline in that a person with my skill and qualifications is required to approve, on behalf of the State, industrial chemical processes, and also to approve the design of both the equipment used in the process line and of the building housing the process line before the whole lot can be constructed. 2. I am the inventor of a novel technology that is going to market late this year. I hold both method and device patents for this technology; two in the U.S., with others pending; and patent awards in the European Union (the U.K., Germany, and France), Mexico, Australia, Israel, Egypt, and South Africa so far. I have patents pending in several other countries. In short, I discovered how to produce a very important compound, that had never before existed in the gas state, as a gas with near-ideal characteristics, and invented devices to produce the gas for use in multiple applications and market verticals. 3. I am a West Point Graduate, served in the Army Chemical Corps as a field grade officer, and hold additional skill identifiers in nuclear and chemical weapon target analysis, electronic warfare, and education, among others more operational in nature. I have an MS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Virginia. PhD's in my specialty offer less earning potential than a professional engineer's license (see points 1 and 2 immediately above), so I chose that path rather than remain in academia (reference point 4 immediately below). I might also state that I served at the Army's High Technology Testbed and was a member of a NATO technology panel back in the day. 4. I also served on the faculty at West Point for four years. As a matter of fact, I directed West Point's largest academic course, with eighteen faculty reporting to me (ranking from Captain to Lieutenant Colonel, along with a few civilian PhD's). I coordinated their instruction of over 900 cadets split into 52 separate class sections. I very much enjoyed these four years. I also had duties as an educator in other assignments, in professional development specifically, training junior officers to serve on battalion and brigade staffs, and to command a company, as I did. And, of course, training is a daily part of military service, and supervision of that training is part and parcel of the culture. And this brings me back to the point of my earlier posts. Though not an anthropologist, I am somewhat acquainted with the scientific method, and I do recognize when someone stretches it. So, as I did with students and trainees, I pointed out a flaw or two in scientific reasoning evidenced in the OP, most importantly that the OP was presenting assumption and interpretation as accepted fact. Assumptions and interpretations are not fact. In subsequent posts, I recall pointing out that the suffix "ology", defined as "the study of", accurately characterizes the disciplines to which it is appended as The Study of This, or The Study of That. By definition, the suffix "ology" is a tacit acknowledgment that the knowledge of such fields is incomplete or, more charitably, an ongoing process of discovery and development. And this actually applies to the hard sciences such as Chemistry and Physics also, and of course the applied sciences represent by the fields of engineering. If this weren't the case, I wouldn't be able to discover, invent, and patent something new. As an aside, my father was a geologist, and growing up in Northwestern Nevada, I spent quite a bit of time poking around geological, archeological, and anthropological sites with him. Lots of fun. We reported Native American remains when we found them (exposed by erosion), but kept arrowheads when we happened upon them. With regard to bias and wild conjecture, I have actually faced that. It is an integral part of the patent application process as one's claims are subjected to scrutiny by patent examiners worldwide. As indicated above, I successfully asserted the novelty, inventiveness, and value of my intellectual property. Then there is the matter of convincing a Board of Directors who do not have scientific backgrounds that certain testing and regulatory processes are objectively necessary rather than subjectively nice to have based on my "biased" advice. Finally, once my points were made and understood that assumptions and interpretations are not fact, that competing interpretations of the same data (each with some value) can exist, and that new information and data within a field of knowledge regularly cause old hypotheses and interpretations to be refined, I withdrew from the discussion. Subjectivity and objectivity are a theme in most threads on this board. We have tons of fun going back and forth with each other over them. Thank you for keeping me occupied while waiting up for the airline to have my lost bag delivered.

My son, grandson & a friend were down at the river driving around, doing whatever they do in those "mud trucks", a couple of years ago, and they got stuck. There was no one else around & no cell phone service there. So they sat around awhile & waited, hoping somebody would come by, but it got dark, & nobody showed up. It was about a mile to the road, where the cell phone would work, & my son decided to walk out & call somebody. The others didn't want to go, so he set off by himself. He said he wasn't even out of sight of the truck before he heard footsteps just to his right. At first he thought it was his son messing with him, but then he realized that he couldn't have walked through the thick brush without getting tangled up. Then he thought it might be a cougar, but ruled that out because it was taking steps that matched his steps. Finally, it dawned on him what it was. He said it was a little creepy, but he just decided that it must be one of the friendly ones walking along with him to keep the cats & alligators off him. After he made his call, he sat there on the road waiting, & he said he could feel "somebody" out there until the truck picked him up. I asked him why he decided that it was a friendly one, & he said it was just better than being scared all the way to the road.

Never counted, but between living....dead....and what you might call a blobsquatch there are enough to keep a skeptic busy for a while. And more pop up all the time. You could even use google But my point was that there ARE pics of purported dead squatches and with technology today, no one takes many of them seriously--despite the chance that they are real.