roguefooter Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Yea but I don't believe one second the claim George Lucas said Chewbacca was based on his dog. Why not? Looks like a dog to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Maybe their definition of definitive HD footage and my definition are different, but this is hogwash, IMO. Based on what I've seen here, I won't be wasting my hard-earned cash on any upcoming documentary from these guys. No wonder the subject isn't taken seriously. They're lucky that George Lucas hasn't sued them for trying to profit from a unlicensed/unauthorized use of the Chewbacca likeness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Another disappointment/objection I have with the sleeper, is that it had been stated, I think by Ketchum (Probably referenced in one of those billion post threads) that the respiration rate was outside the range of human. Welllll, on that clip of the vid there I seem to be getting about 10-12 breaths per minute, which seems to be in range for a deeply sleeping adult human (Or someone faking it). I think 6 breaths per minute was stated, which "sounded" at the time relatively unusual, but a human through conscious deep breathing at rest could sustain 3-4 breaths per minute for a long period... so until we video 100+ sleeping sas and get a species average, I don't think we can say much about that. I am aware that might just be part of a much longer piece of video of the subject, but still, if they put in the "best bits" and the best bit doesn't demonstrate something outside human range, then it rather makes one doubt the claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) I'm curious about something. Ketchum seems to be the champion of the "they are human" crowd. But any photos associated with her seem to be of Chewtilda who looks very decidedly not human. That seems rather odd. Would one not expect photos that are supposed to support her research would look more human than...wookie? Chewtilda seems to me to be the least human looking of all the alleged BF photos. That seems pretty ironic. Edited October 3, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 @Dmaker.. Well, I am capable of reserving judgment and/or keeping my judgments to myself. As hard as it might be to comprehend, there are those who do not feel the world is entitled to their immediate opinions on every piece of proposed evidence that crosses their path, just because they can give it. Too much of that goes on, in my opinion, and it stifles what probably is good, along with the bad. As I commented yesterday, that just drives a lot of the public sharing underground and into peer-to-peer sharing, which sort of defeats the highest and best use of this forum. More often than not, the appropriate response might just be, "Hmmm....can you tell me more about that?" Me-my-own-personal-self just thinks we have way too much popping off to be thought the smartest one in the room. Heaven forefend that somebody might just insert a modicum of humility and admit they don't really know what the second-hand evidence truly is, and resist the urge to point out the shortcomings of others who bring first-hand accounts. Lay the good, the bad and the truly horrible evidence all on the table, I say. Time will tell us what stands up, and what doesn't. No need to race to get your marker down, just exhibit some patience for the process. Instead, we get this whole "I told you so" culture of being the first on your block to call "Hoax!" It gets really tiresome and has done lasting damage to the integrity of what should be a much more serious field of study. Radical thinking, I know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 They're lucky that George Lucas hasn't sued them for trying to profit from a unlicensed/unauthorized use of the Chewbacca likeness. Doesn't Disney own the rights now? I've heard that they get their lawyers directly from the Dark Side! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) @Dmaker.. Well, I am capable of reserving judgment and/or keeping my judgments to myself. As hard as it might be to comprehend, there are those who do not feel the world is entitled to their immediate opinions on every piece of proposed evidence that crosses their path, just because they can give it. Too much of that goes on, in my opinion, and it stifles what probably is good, along with the bad. As I commented yesterday, that just drives a lot of the public sharing underground and into peer-to-peer sharing, which sort of defeats the highest and best use of this forum. More often than not, the appropriate response might just be, "Hmmm....can you tell me more about that?" Me-my-own-personal-self just thinks we have way too much popping off to be thought the smartest one in the room. Heaven forefend that somebody might just insert a modicum of humility and admit they don't really know what the second-hand evidence truly is, and resist the urge to point out the shortcomings of others who bring first-hand accounts. Lay the good, the bad and the truly horrible evidence all on the table, I say. Time will tell us what stands up, and what doesn't. No need to race to get your marker down, just exhibit some patience for the process. Instead, we get this whole "I told you so" culture of being the first on your block to call "Hoax!" It gets really tiresome and has done lasting damage to the integrity of what should be a much more serious field of study. Radical thinking, I know. You don't really keep your judgments to yourself, though, with things like eye witness reports. You seem to be okay with pronouncing them most likely true simply based on the credibility of a witness you have never met, nor that has any supporting evidence. But when it comes to stuff like this, that reeks of fabrication and hoax ( and not even a good one), suddenly you wish to refrain from comment while getting in a few shots at those that do comment? It is certainly your prerogative, but I do find it puzzling. Edited October 3, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD-40 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 On this thread I have learned two new terms: "Chewtilda" and "Rugsquatch" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) As a class of evidence Dmaker, yes, I generally do, for reasons I've explained many times, but I don't ever pretend to know for sure and I try to keep those opinions as close to me as I can. How could I know for sure? What I do refrain from doing on this forum is taking any of those reporting such encounters to task, for that reason. Doing that would advance my knowledge not at all and would just be mouthing off about something I don't know about, really. I am looking for patterns and signal in the static, and I do find that in the sighting reports. I think one of the more useful descriptions of evidence I've ever heard are the immortal words of DWA: "I don't know what this is, and neither do you." Does that mean you have no use for what it shows? Absolutely not. Many things are useful that are ambiguous. It is that ambiguity, I think, that compels people to declare it unambiguous. Being able to entertain something as neither this nor that is a learned skill that some never achieve. But, there is no certainty in this field for anyone unless, and until, somebody brings you a dead BF, or you run into a live one some fine day. Until then, life is uncertain. Edited October 3, 2013 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Soon, someone will provide us with video proof of sasquatch children, and they'll be Ewoks. lolololololol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Drs. Bindernagel and Meldrum have never seen a sasquatch, so I can give them the benefit of of the doubt that they gave the footage the benefit of the doubt (even though there are too many hoaxers with this subject to do that) but Mr. Moneymaker claims to have seen one. He should know better! This is probably where Moneymaker gets the idea they have a black nose like a dog. He's actually said that on Finding Bigfoot. I actually had to ask myself if he was attempting a disinformation ploy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 well then why not get out there and outdo them because it's so much easier to act like the cool kids in the back of the classroom who suss any and everything out as being false. I have a strong belief that the naysayers are all afraid of something, whether it's afraid to be made a fool or afraid of the boogie man come to get them it's all the same. Me? I believe that there are such a thing as a sasquatch and believe that a lot of people have seen them, HAVE proof and even some of the usual suspects who continually get trashed around here are the real deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I'm curious about something. Ketchum seems to be the champion of the "they are human" crowd. But any photos associated with her seem to be of Chewtilda who looks very decidedly not human. That seems rather odd. Would one not expect photos that are supposed to support her research would look more human than...wookie? Chewtilda seems to me to be the least human looking of all the alleged BF photos. That seems pretty ironic. There is all kinds of irony in the realm of bigfoot. Perceptions and more literal interpretations of evidence conflict all the time. It's actually the norm,............( human and non-human at the same time). I could name many examples of it across this whole community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) " Many things are useful that are ambiguous. It is that ambiguity, I think, that compels people to declare it unambiguous" -WSA Fair enough. Do you truly think the photos of Chewtilda are ambiguous? Do you not recognize the startling resemblance to a certain popular culture icon from the Star Wars films? You place your trust in the perception of eye witnesses in the BFRO reports, yet none in the perception of the many people here, and elsewhere, that have pointed out this glaring issue with the Erickson photos. That perception, in your view, is the act of self-appointed judges. I just don't understand how one groups perception is fine for you, yet another is not. It seems you would rather just declare everything as real or potentially real in the event that you might be wrong by stating an opinion on something that looks pretty obviously fake to many others. Which is fine, but when you accompany that with moral high ground like you do, it comes off as a bit hypocritical. Edited October 3, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) Dmaker...what does it matter what I think about that? I've never seen such an animal. Now, I know of many who say they have. I'd be much more interested to know what THEIR opinion is on looking at these films. Those who do have that knowledge, I listen to. Instead, a bunch of people yammering about how something HAS to be this or the other? Not very interesting to me and I don't call it progress. It is sort of like the whole piling on of Sasquatch Ontario. I found myself asking, so, what is a BF supposed to sound like? We are so enamored with our own opinions we can't just sit on our hands and consider what we are being shown and admit what we couldn't possibly know. Edited October 3, 2013 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts