Jump to content
masterbarber

Olympic Project/ Brown Thermal (Part 2)

Recommended Posts

Sunflower

Maybe thermalman could get another invite to try out his thermal up there??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Cervelo, it appears that you and I have very different standards here. Your manipulated and blurred image does not look anything like a head on a person. But apparently it does to you. That it is not definitive is IMO why you get pushback on this.

 

IMO something else is at play here. The cow thing has been thoroughly debunked at this point. One can only assume that we keep going around with it because the alternatives to a BF skeptic are not pleasant. So 'cow' keeps getting brought up ad nauseum because the implications if it is not (a cow) are problematic for a skeptic. The problem is what creature could possibly make an image that looks like a person?? And in an area where BF are often sighted relative to the rest of the country and where tracks have been found? I imagine this has to be challenging for a skeptic, whose world view might be something like 'BF do not exist therefore this is a <place common creature name here>'.

 

That, IMO, is the real reason this circle game has been going on for so long. I don't see the cow thing as logical in any other context.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Com'on John that's pretty low...you know exactly what the purpose of that was....

Clearly demonstrates that a blurry thermal of a cow could look almost identical to the original image..

5EDDD629-E6F8-42DE-8E67-A1A7216D7D2E.jpg

Your argument is a great example of one of these...but not very sciencey for sure, but kinda you know fishy ;)

:D Hit a home run did you? If I blurred up a comparable distorted human thermal (cut in half by a ridgeline), would you consider that good evidence for a BF? Why not draw conclusions from the facts instead? You seem to think that it is an established fact that this animal "could" have been a cow laying down in front of the ridgeline? Which of the other debunkers confirmed that? Or like you, did they totally ignore the ramifications and conclude that this could have been a headless cow, levitating on an embankment? What's good for the goose, I suppose.

Don't you agree it would be irresponsible for an "expert" to claim a 95% certainty that this was a BF without considering where this animal was located? What branch of science does business that way? Photoshopping blurry headless cows and calling it science gets my knickers in a knot, is all.

I'm not a BF cheerleader, I like to keep debunkers honest with critique and peer review, which they don't seem to care for. :D I don't make any claims myself, I try to rule things out using science and establish facts. After all, the goal here should be to confirm/establish facts that we can draw conclusions from, right? Otherwise, we wind up with petty, defensive debates, agreed?

Expertise is just BS minus peer review. Just explain the science behind your conclusions, otherwise, who cares what your credentials are? Back up you expertise in words, otherwise, it soon becomes apparent whether or not you are a scientist and know what you are talking about. Then accept defeat when dealt to you and bow out of the debate gracefully. Thermography isn't rocket science, after all. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

"A blurry thermal of a cow could look almost identical to the orginal image"???

 

WHAT!?!?!?!?  Bigfoot Is My Dentist is about as serious a proposition.

 

Watch.  I will PROVE to you that if you monkey sufficiently with an image, you can PROVE, CONCLUSIVELY, that an utterly unaltered original image is what the blurry image has been monkeyed all sorts of ways to look like.

 

!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!??!?!?!?!

 

On what planet is that OK?


I'll tell you what planet:  on Woo-Woo Planet, Where Reality Is So Not OK!

 

I do believe this bigfoot skepticism is becoming THE most kwaaaaaaaaaaaaay-zee woo-woo phenomenon I am aware of.


PLEASE stop denying reality to make points.  Please.  PLEASE.  Asking nice, now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cervelo

Well guys like I said.... balls in your court go thermal some cows or a Bigfoot.

Either would satisfy your own doubts about it being a cow or you'd have some reallly cool footage to share.

I'm satisfied its mooooost likely a cow :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^But what is your opinion based on and what is it worth from a scientific perspective?

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Well guys like I said.... balls in your court go thermal some cows or a Bigfoot.

Either would satisfy your own doubts about it being a cow or you'd have some reallly cool footage to share.

I'm satisfied its mooooost likely a cow :)

Yes, we get that you *said* that, but there appears to be a fault in your logic somewhere. The onus is to prove its a cow, isn't it? That is what one would do, if one is making such an extraordinary claim, wouldn't it? Just asking for evidence, only thing is we all know none is coming, and the one person with the most evidence (Derekfoot) says the evidence does not indicate such a conclusion. So the ball is really in your court best I can make out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cervelo

Nah I'm thinking the extrordinary claim would be undocumented, unproven, 8-10' tall 400-800lbs hominid walking amoung us...back in your court!

Nothing extrordinary here...

86A4B0F5-C736-4646-9389-C0ABB56E4CF5.jpg

Edited by Cervelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Again, no, its not. The image posted above looks nothing like the one in the video; does not take much to see that. The deal here is no-one is trying to prove a bigfoot, first we have to see an adequate proof that its a cow. Again, the cow idea is debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

One thing it's apparent to see from way up here....bigfoot skeptics are LOUSY tennis players.  Keep your eye on the ball there!

 

And follow the lesson plan a bit.  That gigantic hominoid is very thoroughly documented and very clearly the front runner in this discussion.  That most scientists insist on remaining in the dark about this don't matter a bit to the evidence.

 

Killing a cow and hoisting it in the air don't make no monkey.

 

[edited as I am a modest man]

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

Even blurry, headless cows can't levitate. I can't say for certain what they got images of that night, but I'm satisfied it couldn't be a cow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cervelo

Again, no, its not. The image posted above looks nothing like the one in the video; does not take much to see that. The deal here is no-one is trying to prove a bigfoot, first we have to see an adequate proof that its a cow. Again, the cow idea is debunked.

Nope it could still be a cow, racoon, opposum, hoax or even a dragon, ghost, alien....or even bigfoot!

But I still think it's mooooost likley a cow ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team

and the debate continues...

post-21915-0-65284900-1392340283.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Cervelo, it appears that you and I have very different standards here. Your manipulated and blurred image does not look anything like a head on a person. But apparently it does to you. That it is not definitive is IMO why you get pushback on this.

 

IMO something else is at play here. The cow thing has been thoroughly debunked at this point. One can only assume that we keep going around with it because the alternatives to a BF skeptic are not pleasant. So 'cow' keeps getting brought up ad nauseum because the implications if it is not (a cow) are problematic for a skeptic. The problem is what creature could possibly make an image that looks like a person?? And in an area where BF are often sighted relative to the rest of the country and where tracks have been found? I imagine this has to be challenging for a skeptic, whose world view might be something like 'BF do not exist therefore this is a <place common creature name here>'.

 

That, IMO, is the real reason this circle game has been going on for so long. I don't see the cow thing as logical in any other context.

No it hasn't. It can't possibly be discounted and is still the *default* choice when the alternative is a creature still yet to be proven to exist. Sorry, but that's what you're up against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×