Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 So........ I take it you cannot post anything showing dynamic movement in the tracks.... So, I take it you cannot post anything to refute Mr Green's testimony... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Who needs stilts or trucks? Think like a hoaxer. Look at those shots along the logging road. There are human tracks everywhere. You wouldn't have even needed to put the stompers on your feet. You could literally walk along the road and bend down and plop the stompers with your hand wherever you like. You could even be a wild trickster and do insane things like put grossly mismatched prints side by side just to screw with the Bigfoot chasers. Look, it worked... Highly anomalous... highly anomalous... Aside from the obvious observation that for those tracks to be from the same individual, that said individual would have to be moving by doing the Bunny Hop, I would direct your attention to the fact that there were TWO individuals involved in trackways at BCM, one larger and one smaller, something you acknowledge in a post I'll be getting back to here in a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 So documentation of this exists, but isn't posted here. You can play these little games of accusations of calling someone a liar, and all the other little things you do, but it's just a big waste of time if the evidence itself isn't presented. I agree...it's a complete waste of time for your side to continue to not present evidence that Mr Green's statements are not correct, if you have any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 It's interesting how sasqatch's behavior changes according to the evidence. In the case of the Skookum cast, sasquatch was very careful not to leave his prints and crawled on his belly through the mud, yet at Onion Mtn. sasquatch left their tracks all over the soft dirt road, back and forth saying "Hey look at me, look at me!" Did it ever occur to you that there is a difference in circumstance between walking down a road in the middle of the night with no one else around and finding a pile of strange fruit smack dab in the middle of a meadow? That an animal with a reasonable level of intellect (such as a higher primate) might not approach the two situations differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 No, I dont accept that they have been completely refuted, if so, how and by who? By the internal inconsistencies in their own stories, as pointed out by myself and many many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Did it ever occur to you that there is a difference in circumstance between walking down a road in the middle of the night with no one else around and finding a pile of strange fruit smack dab in the middle of a meadow? That an animal with a reasonable level of intellect (such as a higher primate) might not approach the two situations differently? The Skookum cast wasn't in a meadow. It was on the side of the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Mr Green while sincere is subject to the limits of emmeory as years go by, no offense to him as none is meant. As a journalist, Mr. Green has documented his work at the time it was done. Wallace, Heironimous, Marx, et al, did not. Indeed, they didn't document squat. At any time. It's all their word (40-50 years late) vrs. Green's documentation. Kit even tries to use Green's own documentation against him. He likes the photos until Green describes them. Frankly, I find it rather amusing........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 By the internal inconsistencies in their own stories, as pointed out by myself and many many others. Excellent. There goes the PGF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Pertaining to Skookum, what kind of tracker did they have with them, that they could not find any evidence as to what made the body impression? My guess is that they were only looking for those kinds of tracks that have displaced earth. A good tracker should have been able to follow back from the body impression to the foot (or hoof) prints that made it. BTW, in the act of standing up, if the impression was made by an elk, its hoof prints should be plainly obvious, right in front of its forearm prints. Unless elk learned how to levitate. Pertaining to the BCM prints, if dynamic processes were evident, then it rules out a stomping mechanism. This does not necessarily only mean observed movements between the toes, but things like kick-out as well. If a stomper was placed on the ground and then weighted or pounded down, all of the ground under it would be compressed. In the act of walking, the rearward thrust and rolling of the foot (which does not happen with a hard foot) causes the initially downward compacted soil to expand toward the back at the edges of the contact points. In other words, with a stomper, all of the ground is pressed flat, but with a real foot, you will find ridges where the ground is loose. The pictures are difficult to see this, but I should think someone studying them up close would have noticed. I don't have any bare ground readily available to me, but someone else might make casts of their own bare footprints (using concrete), and then make a bare foot trackway, a trackway wearing the casts, and a trackway stamped out with the casts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 The Skookum cast wasn't in a meadow. It was on the side of the road. Nailed the nitpick, missed the point by a mile... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Did it ever occur to you that there is a difference in circumstance between walking down a road in the middle of the night with no one else around and finding a pile of strange fruit smack dab in the middle of a meadow? That an animal with a reasonable level of intellect (such as a higher primate) might not approach the two situations differently? It's occurred to me that when in an argument, a person will look away from images showing a match between tracks and the wooden feet or the elk that made them, and cling to any reasoning or comments from anybody other than the evidence right before their eyes, just to be "Right". Edited February 20, 2011 by FuriousGeorge Please behave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Aside from the obvious observation that for those tracks to be from the same individual, that said individual would have to be moving by doing the Bunny Hop, I would direct your attention to the fact that there were TWO individuals involved in trackways at BCM, one larger and one smaller, something you acknowledge in a post I'll be getting back to here in a second. Actually there were 3, according to Green, but the smallest one was very human looking and could have been a human footprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 That's really all this is to you, isn't it? "Sides", you need a conflict, an enemy, in your life. It isn't even about sasquatch anymore... What is it they say?: Attack the argument, not the arguer? I really hate to point out "the rules" to others, but it appears that there are plenty who ring the bell in order to shut me up. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Yep, making this about "Sides" is attacking the arguer, and not the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Actually there were 3, according to Green, but the smallest one was very human looking and could have been a human footprint. It was within human range but landing on the rocks called its humaness into question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts