Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Covering 50 yards uphill in 3 seconds gives credibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Covering 50 yards uphill in 3 seconds gives credibility You realize that's a CLAIM that it did/does that? Right? Emphasis on "claim". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 If both Hairy Man and Bipto say it happened, then it's good enough for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) I would have to agree with this. Some of the tree breaks that get reported are unreal. Mother nature sure seems unreal at times. Edited October 10, 2012 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 If both Hairy Man and Bipto say it happened, then it's good enough for me I appreciate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 If both Hairy Man and Bipto say it happened, then it's good enough for me That's cool, but its not good enough for the Science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) Bipto who is not telling what actually happened with the first DNA sample sent for testing? You or Mayo2? The accounts are not even close. Why give out false information? To think that people are going to harass the lab is somewhat fanciful. What is the real fear? That's cool, but its not good enough for the Science. That's because science has shown again and again that memory and eyewitness recall are very unreliable in many instances. The mind fills in blanks and what one expects to see they often see even though what they expect to see is not there in reality. Also, people in a group can have their memory altered due to the discussion or statements of others. That is not my opinion but rather the facts as numerous studies have shown. I have linked to a very good analysis of this phenomenon in the past on this forum and I had hoped that people would have taken the time to educate themselves. A lot of people convicted by eyewitness testimony in court have been exonerated later due to DNA comparisons. The witnesses were for the most part not conciously lying but were just mistaken in their perceptions. People that deny that their perceptions and memories can be false are not accepting reality. Took the trouble to find it again. Here is a very important passage. So what is an "original memory?"6 The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it. http://agora.stanfor...her&tversky.htm Edited October 10, 2012 by Transformer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Covering 50 yards uphill in 3 seconds gives credibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 SY, What do you know? Is there "scientific knowledge from biological evidence" that proves BF are human? I absolutely respect your position, but it seems to be based on anecdotal evidence just as the TBRC's position seems to be. Also, you didn't answer my question. With a 100 yd zero, my 1895 shoots approximately 2 inches high at 50 yds using 350gr & 405gr JSP bullets. Nothing hard about it. A good number of deer would agree with me. What is your load exactly what powder are you burning to get those results ? At what range are you zeroing for ? That is outstanding . Please share how you achieve this . I have no problem with the TBRC harvesting a specimen, I'm just having a hard time with the fact that after half a dozen shootings, still no body. I personally don't think the species is human as we know it and threats of being charged with murder seems ridiculous to me, unless its somebody in a suit, Which I find unlikely if the shootings are happening. Take a look at research on number of rounds fired to produce a single casualty in war . Take a look at number of artillery rounds fired to produce a single casualty . While the same thing it may shed some light on it for you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 He probably has a long barrel model. A hot load through a 22" or 24" barrel will be flatter compared to an 18" .45-70 with shoulder friendly commercial loads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baboonpete Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) If both Hairy Man and Bipto say it happened, then it's good enough for me okay I'm gonna go there: It shouldn't be. Evidence always, without exception. Way too many star footers fall short when put to the light; MK Davis, the stars of teh Elbe trackway. Operation Persistence isn't at the end of its saga yet, but solid evidence hasn't been free flowing so until then, your heroes and anyone's ought to have to pony up the evidence like anyone else. Edited October 10, 2012 by baboonpete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) He probably has a long barrel model. A hot load through a 22" or 24" barrel will be flatter compared to an 18" .45-70 with shoulder friendly commercial loads. Irish is correct. 22" barrel with relatively hot handloads and a Burris fixed 4x. I'm at work now, I don't remember the exact powder load but I know it's Hodgdon Varget under Barnes bullets. Zero is 100 yds as mentioned above. They run around 1900 fps at the muzzle IIRC. It does kick a bit. Edited October 10, 2012 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I looked up a facepalm pic earlier today to post on a different thread and this was the one I selected but chose to not use. Awesome. Bigfoot celebrities, heros... The TBRC has it all! Their scientific rigor and analysis has been spot on , honest, and thorough. If I were a betting man, I'd side with Ontario on this. They'll be the first to agree that their observations don't prove anything. That's one of many reasons they are reliable sources. Edited October 10, 2012 by James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baboonpete Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I looked up a facepalm pic earlier today to post on a different thread and this was the one I selected but chose to not use. Awesome. Bigfoot celebrities, heros... The TBRC has it all! Their scientific rigor and analysis has been spot on , honest, and thorough. If I were a betting man, I'd side with Ontario on this. They'll be the first to agree that their observations don't prove anything. That's one of many reasons they are reliable sources. thats the problem with veneration of ***star*** footers, it clouds critical thinking for one and creates the delusion that there's some kind of chain of command in the research, when there clearly isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I was up Saskatchewan hunting whitetail a couple years ago and i saw a moose walk though a meadow, it stopped on the other side about 200 yds or so and it turned facing my direction. When it did I could easily see how some one can mistake one as a BF, the front legs where inside the back, it looked like the back legs looked like arms the way it was positioned. They are very tall, and when looking strait on at a distance, it looks like the face blends in with it's neck, and looks like it has 2 giant eyes. I'm not saying that's what everybody is seeing, but some that isn't very experienced with seeing them could easily make that mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts