Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab

[bipedalist]

I can only conclude that you have never applied for one, had to present it, defend it or be awarded one. If you had, you would have never made this post.

Applied for two should know about one within a month, about another within four months

[Guest longtabber PE]

:coverlaugh:

And as I already noted longtabber, grants have already been given to do bigfoot research...TBRC got one and Jeff Meldrum has gotten one as well.

P.S. Before you challenge ME on if I have ever gotten grants, the answer is yes...every year for the last 15 years.

Good for them- now where are the results?

Now, before we compare apples to "I love Lucy" reruns- what was the grant for and what was the case presented. ( lets be specific here)- that makes a difference as does the funding organization. We know how that game is played too.

Lets here the specifics before we crow too loud.

Was the title "lets hunt for bigfoot"? Lets have those specifics then see exactly what is being referred to, what the grant was specifically for and all the details. That makes all the difference. You know this as well as I. Lets see what we are exactly comparing to. ( and from whom?) Just so its a level playing field

Edited February 29, 2008 by longtabber PE

[bipedalist]

No thanks........I'll decline on the snitch option.

What's the title of this thread? "Lets challenge Longtabber's manhood, personal sighting report and professionalism"?

Not the last I checked.

don't need to check just read the thread, and respond in kind like I did, its easy :coverlaugh:

[Hairy Man]

Good for them- now where are the results?

Ask them yourself, I'm not your mama.

I find it very very odd that I had already pointed out, in this very thread, that the TBRC had gotten a grant and you replied back asking for their results and then just preceded to make a blatantly inaccurate statement that no one could get a grant to do bigfoot research! Dude! :coverlaugh:

[Guest]

don't need to check just read the thread, and respond in kind like I did, its easy :coverlaugh:

Thanks...........you're the bestest! 8O

[Guest longtabber PE]

Ask them yourself, I'm not your mama.

I find it very very odd that I had already pointed out, in this very thread, that the TBRC had gotten a grant and you replied back asking for their results and then just preceded to make a blatantly inaccurate statement that no one could get a grant to do bigfoot research! Dude! :coverlaugh:

as I have been informed, put my comments "in context" and please address the specifics above. Lets see how well the colloquiallisms match the literal wording of the grant. ( wouldnt want fraud or misrepresentation would we?)

What specifically does the grant proposal read ( as well as the grant proper) and what were the deliverables, processes/methods to be used and the anticipated benefit?

[Bill]

To one and all:

On the subject of the research thing I've been mentioning, a new thread on that might be appropriate in the near future. I do have some more formative work just getting it all together, and I am privately talking with some people from the forum who may help bring it to some form of realization.

I don't want this thing to become like Dfoot's infamous claim to build a suit for $1500 and then later everybody was asking "where's the suit?" So let's take it slow because truthfully, to do any research program right, it does take time. I'm exploring funding options now, and formulating ideas for experiments already. Once the basics are finalized, we may consider opening a thread on that program, so you may know the status and such.

:coverlaugh:

Bill

[wiiawiwb]

Excellent idea Bill and I hope that things do come to fruition. I think most people on this forum, myself included, would be pleased to see your efforts continue and branch into the experimentation phase.

[Bill]

wiiawiwb:

Thank you for that endorsement. I'm frankly surprised at all the kind people in this forum who have been very supportive and responsive to my ideas. The whole experience has been very positive and fascinating.

So once I get further along with this plan, I will try to insure all the research and data is available in the most complete and transparent manner, so it benefits everyone interested.

Bill

[Hairy Man]

as I have been informed, put my comments "in context" and please address the specifics above. Lets see how well the colloquiallisms match the literal wording of the grant. ( wouldnt want fraud or misrepresentation would we?)

What specifically does the grant proposal read ( as well as the grant proper) and what were the deliverables, processes/methods to be used and the anticipated benefit?

Humm...it appears after talking with Craig Woolheater that the TBRC didn't get a true grant...their looks and charm got them the money (and explains why I can't seem to get any). There are deliverables however. Meldrum has gotten grants as well as donations. I don't know the details.

For what it's worth, the AIBR is a 501(e)(3) and when we are financially capable, we'll be giving grants/donations as well.

Sorry for derailing the thread Bill...

[Guest Killain]

Tabber

Just to help you out a little bit, you were actually replying to statements made by someone else when you unleashed your vitriol on me, but that's cool because you don't intimidate me with your intellect or your bravado. You really hate to be disagreed with don't you. It's almost pathalogical how you toss out "Ad Hom" in one breath and then illustrate its effective use in the next. But Tabber, this isn't a chest thumping competition, so you can go ahead and button your shirt.

You are a real piece of work. Nothing in your scenario meets the justification for deadly force. The only thing you could fall back on, which based on your personality is simply impossible for you to do, is to admit that in your youth and your state of panic, ya'll simply screwed up.

This wasn't a case of infantry tactics in Indian country. I believe this was South Carolina. Maybe in your neck of the woods people kill other people after a mere verbal challenge. Up here, idiots like that go to jail.

You slay me: "After proper challenge, it was identified, it was designated as THREAT ( dont need a nametag for that)"

It was identified as what, exactly? You didn't identify squat! You still don't know what you saw. So articulate the threat for me. What did it say in return? Nothing? So then, what did it do that was threatening other than appear to be approaching in your direction? You had guns. What were you afraid of?

"We made the challenge as well as warning and a warning shot to enforce it."

And then you question "my" competence? You're right! As usual. Oh wait, I'd bet you can't find a regulation in any legitimate law enforcement agency that authorizes the use of warning shots or deadly force at an unidentified threat. It's just not done "old boy" as my Brit friends like to say.

"After ignoring all warnings- it moved forth" It moved forth? Jeeez, did your boss let you write purple prose in your reports?

So, it's already been established that you are in fact an expert on every subject between the covers of the Encyclopedia Colliers, but friend, you ain't an expert on deadly force. Further, anyone on this forum who is actually a cop or has been one, will know you stepped on your wheezer pretty badly. You may be an expert on infantry tactics, specialized warfare, HALO, Air Sea Rescue and jungle survival. Next time I want to know about things like that, I'll be sure to ask.

As for you and your little friend's encounter in the wilds of SC...it appears you saw something that scared the prepubescent turds out of ya. Not to worry. It happens. But don't try to justify those actions by challenging my knowledge of the rules of deadly force, or trying to question my credentials. Unlike you, I have not seen the need to continually emphasize to anyone who will listen, how friggin important I believe I am somewhere to some unknown entity. In my own little corner of the world, I'm satisfied with the little things I've accomplished and I doubt I'd be any more impressed with your tracks than you would be with mine.

So. I will let you have the last word. It's much more imprtant for guys like you.

K

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

.....The sequence and how much time occurs between frames doesn't really matter in this case, because the contour is being studied, from one shape to another, and the film more or less conclusively defines the contours we see.

Who says it doesn't matter?

We have seen time and again, how changes in lighting and angle give the illusion of changing form..

But I'm sure you, expert that you are, are aware of that .. I'm surprised you contend it doesn't matter ...

[Guest SoundMan]

SoundMan:

He did no such thing .. Not in this thread, anyway ..

He showed a couple of non consecutive frames of film and claimed it exhibited features ( in motion ) of fat

under skin that would be difficult to duplicate with a suit ..

If one is going to claim certain features cannot be duplicated; it only seems reasonable to give an actual

example of the feature being claimed ..

I beg to differ. I mentioned that he summed up a solid argument as outlined in Post No. 50. in this thread. I was not speaking of this particular item, although I tend to agree with his logic so far on that item as well.

Soundman

[Incorrigible1]

it was called to, WARNED off, CHALLENGED ( as informed on private property and to identify themselves) and even accompanied by a warning shot

At that point, disregarding all the above- it proceeded forth in a speedy and what we viewed as a threatening manner.

At that point, ID was of no consequence. When I have a weapon and am facing a potential predator/tresspasser/whatever- If I call to you ( and you fail to acknowledge) I then warn you and challenge you ( no response) and then give you a courtesy shot in the air to "reinforce" my position and to let you know this is no drill.

After that- you still approach- Be ye man or beast, you will be killed- period! Any necessary ID at that point can be done by the coroner.

I dont know where you are but in the South- thats all it takes.

I provided the bolding in longtabber's post.

Jeff Cooper's four rules:

RULE 4

Be Sure Of Your Target

You never shoot at anything until you have positively identified it. You never fire at a shadow, or a sound, or a suspected presence. You shoot only when you know absolutely what you are shooting at and what is beyond it.

http://www.donath.org/Rants/TheFourRules/

Edit: ****, Bill. I apologize, too, for further detraction from your (once again) quite brilliant thread.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Incorrigible1

[Guest]

Word of advice to those that haven't already learned: though most of the rest of us all see it, he's not going to acknowledge any fault, or you winning any argument, so save yourself the frustration.

Apeman

I hear what you are saying Apeman, it does get frustrating to me when someone argues out of both sides of his mouth and is not called on it, especially if they are calling everybody on almost everything that they are writing. I agree with you. Simply put "Don't feed the Trolls".