Guest Blackdog Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Nailed the nitpick, missed the point by a mile... What was the point then? It seems your point was all about a road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Yep, making this about "Sides" is attacking the arguer, and not the argument. A very honorable reply. Kudos to you, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) 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. 1... http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigwallace12-1.jpg 2, 3... http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigwallace20.jpg Daddyfoot, Mamafoot, and Babyfoot made of led. Those mismatched tracks stand alone and were just one of the examples of Wallace messing with the Bigfoot chasers. BTW, I'm going to take a wild stab here... Could you name a single piece of Meldrum promoted Bigfoot "evidence" you don't believe came from Bigfoot? Edited February 19, 2011 by kitakaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Excellent. There goes the PGF. XD You're really making it hard for me to dislike you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 What was the point then? It seems your point was all about a road. No, the point was that their behavior reflected two different circumstances. The original question was why would bf A not bother to be stealthy walking down a logging road, but BF b WOULD be stealthy approaching the Skookum bait pile. My answer was to point out that simply walking down the road going from wherever to wherever is a routine and familiar act. There would be no reason for bf A to necessarily want to be "stealthy". In the case of the bait pile, it's a pile of strange fruit placed in/near a muddy spot. It makes sense for bf B to be suspicious and cautious about approaching the bait pile, and doing it in a "stealthy" manner. Dr. Meldrum has personally witnessed chimpanzees showing that level of "situational awareness" under lab conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 And yet this was a road being built and cleared right at that time, with constant traffic and people working the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 wolftrax, on 19 February 2011 - 04:53 PM, said:Yep, making this about "Sides" is attacking the arguer, and not the argument. A very honorable reply. Kudos to you, sir. I was not "making it about sides". I was responding to this rather snarky and attacking comment from wolf: wolftrax, on 19 February 2011 - 12:02 PM, said: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. To which I replied: 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. There are two "sides" to any debate. I was pointing out that wolf's side of the debate has not yet ponied up anything to refute Mr. Green's observations. Yet they continue to demand "proof" (as you define it) that he made those observations and that they are correct, which implies that he is either wrong or not telling the truth. Either way, they still refuse to pony up any evidence to support either conclusion. I point that out, and wolf accuses me of "attacking" him. I don't find that "honorable", Huntster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Nailed the nitpick, missed the point by a mile... Nearly. In the closed Skookum Cast List Re-Posted thread Rick said, The cast site is a straight line distance of 4000 yards away from the center of Skookum Meadows. But, the picture he subsequently posted however, shows the point he's chosen to represent the Skookum cast site is only about 2500 yards from the center of Skookum Meadow. Therefore, we can say that both you and Rick missed the point by nearly a mile. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Well I've seen and posted numerous images comparing and showing a match with the Wallace feet and the tracks, which does stand to refute that the tracks were made by a real squatch foot or that there was natural dynamic movement. Seeing that with my own eyes, and that the images I have seen of the tracks not showing dynamic movement, is a bit more convincing than not being able to see this dynamic movement. I don't have to think, say, or imply Green is lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 1... http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigwallace12-1.jpg 2, 3... http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigwallace20.jpg Daddyfoot, Mamafoot, and Babyfoot made of led. Those mismatched tracks stand alone and were just one of the examples of Wallace messing with the Bigfoot chasers. BTW, I'm going to take a wild stab here... Could you name a single piece of Meldrum promoted Bigfoot "evidence" you don't believe came from Bigfoot? Same tired photos...same invalid argument. You refuse to understand the real issue. The bigger the foot, the heavier the animal must be to make an impression of a fixed depth (because of the "snowshoe effect") Thus to make tracks as deep as those shown, "Daddyfoot" and "Mommafoot" would be much heavier than a human being. A human wearing "stompers" would leave shallower prints. "Babyfoot" as you call it, given sasquatch physiology, would be as heavy or heavier than a human of comparable size, thus making it's tracks as deep or deeper. No one made of lead, just heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 And yet this was a road being built and cleared right at that time, with constant traffic and people working the area. Not in the middle of the night, which was when the animals must have moved through, with their tracks being discovered the next day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Same tired photos...same invalid argument. You refuse to understand the real issue. The bigger the foot, the heavier the animal must be to make an impression of a fixed depth (because of the "snowshoe effect") That depends on the substrate and how it is distributed. Do you know both those variables? Or better yet, even one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Looks like this thread is trying to move in a good direction again. Keep it going. There are some good thoughts here in this thread. Definitely some good points..... and some not so good. Don't ruin it. Do it right. I'm putting on my Clint Eastwood hat and poncho and lighting my cigar. Take a beat and do it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 And yet this was a road being built and cleared right at that time, with constant traffic and people working the area. Which may have been built on a well used game trail (roads usually are), stimulating curiosity, and the sasquatches came at night, when the people were not working and were quietly sleeping or gone. This is classic bear behavior, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I was not "making it about sides". I was responding to this rather snarky and attacking comment from wolf....... I don't find that "honorable", Huntster. You misunderstand, Mulder. Wolftrax made a clear attack on you with his "sides" statement. I called him on it. He quickly replied that his statement was, indeed, an attack on you (the arguer) and not on the argument. I wanted to acknowledge his admission as honorable, which I think it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts