Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MNskeptic

Flap On The Right Foot

Recommended Posts

Guest

I have no credibility either Cerv, so I have to rely on the expert opinion of those that do have some. That is my whole point here. Skeptics can claim that Dr Meldrum and Bill Munn's, or the people that have supported their work do not have credibility, but unfortunately for them, they are wrong. They do have the credibility required to properly and scientifically address the topic,and they have. I reject anything Kit has presented because it lacks credibility, substance and has no scientific bases at all. You can post the same stuff thousands of times, across as many forums as you want, and it still does not make it accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

You are very correct and it cuts both ways...as in my example Dr. M is a highly educate expert in something but obviously it ain't judging size from a film and witness testimony.

His educated guess is no better than yours or mine other than the first time I saw that footage I said it was a dude in a suit...which it turned out to be....so who's the expert now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bill Munns....and now he teamed up with Dr. Meldrum, because that's what real science does, learns from its mistakes. Hence.....re-search. Together they make a formidable team for evaluating the PGF subject, and they did a thorough, professional job on that paper. I am sure Dr. Meldrum is still learning as he goes as well, but his foundation of knowledge is beyond most internet skeptics comprehension, let alone understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Couldn't agree more...it's just too bad their wrong...it's a dude in a suit.

But hey when a female bigfoot is brought in with diaper butt, and breast that defy gravity along with the endless list of other crappy suit features...I'll gladly review my scientific postion as a self proclaimed bigfoot expert ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You might want to start with reading the paper Cerv. I at least gave the so called skeptics a chance and actually looked at their creative attempts, the first couple hundred times they posted it. Even the glass eyes, diaper butts, breast criticisms, scratches on their mothers cars, bent stirrups, keys in pockets, constantly changing stories on suit construction, laughable attempts at recreation, entertained their theories of scaffolding and helicopters to make the prints, patiently read through their character assassination attempts of the witness's, indulged their double standards of what can be interpreted from the quality of the video, a long with the constant need to imply ridicule through association, and their tens of thousands of posts across multiple forums( Where do they find the time?), and yet the film still stands up.....and technology continues to improve our view of it, and support that its a real living thing. But you have to actually read to understand that Cerv.

 

 

 My apologies for being off topic, I am done with this,sorry MNskeptic, back to the short answer, go read the paper published by Dr Meldrum and Bill Munn's, the supporting paper by the surgeon is interesting as well, and may answer some of your concerns or questions. You may also want to have a look at M.K. Davis's latest deblurred clip as well, it brings out some more new detail that points at the authenticity of the subject.

 

Thanks for the discussion Cerv.

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

All those years of claiming to have 'proof'...... and here we are once again back to the same old thing. Resorting to zoomed and cropped parts of photos, straw man arguments, regurgitated arguments, character assassination and associations.  

 

This just too funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

How did this thread get derailed so quick from 'flap on the foot' to published papers?

 

MNskeptic, if you visit Bill Munn's web site, you will find a section on foot frames.   

You may see it's not a flap.. but lifting of the toes and more. 

 

Bigpattyflop.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^Well they certainly are both foot shaped. I think you're onto something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 Just another regurgitated failure. There really is no reason to continue with any sort of debate with you Kit,you lack the qualifications. 

 

If only I had the qualifications to make Bigfoot believers happy and comforted around their fire....

Bigwallace31.jpg

 

bigmeld.jpg

 

All real according to Meldrum. That one with the square toe and double ball is Patty!

I have no credibility either Cerv, so I have to rely on the expert opinion of those that do have some.

 

And that is critical thinking in Bigfootery in 2014.

 

EAFF96F6-FE20-4842-9482-2DA40FB9D11F_1.j

 

Bigfreeman.jpg

 

Mmmmm.... Bigfoot.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes Roguefooter, all those years of claiming proof, the face melting news, the great documentary he pledged, etc, and etc and etc. Tens of thousands of posts across multiple forums, the same stuff, over and over again.None of its even original. The go to is more character attacks on Meldrum, but last I checked Dr. Meldrum was an accredited respected scientist, who's career has not suffered at the hands of so called internet skeptics.

 

Excellent Kit, this is exactly the response I expected from you. I suggest you know follow up with a "you shall not pass" type of reply, combined with a reference to how blind believers are because they refuse to be convinced by your smoke and mirrors, followed by how disappointed you are in the state of "Bigfootry" and of course a gratuitous mention of unicorn. That will set me straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Huh !  :)

 

Pat...

post-279-0-30626700-1392583325_thumb.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Intellectual honesty is an important practice in Bigfootery...
 

 

Yes, Pat. In that image I was thinking it looked like what was supposed to be a small human sized track could actually be the 15 inch track partially imprinted, what was supposed to be the front actually being the back and what were supposed to be toes rather instead where the heel had dug in when the foot was placed down. I was particularly keeping in mind that other instances with BCM shows rigid stompers not fully impressing the length of the foot...

027.jpg

 

I had not seen full image with the boot prints on either side when I said what I thought it looked like. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Post #24 is too funny. I mean under C you have to throw in an Eric Shipton caste from Nepal.  

 

This is a BFF thread of the PGF.  Thus tracks associated with that event are the only thing relevant.  If we were talking about a gunshot from an AR15 we would tend to stay away from BB Guns, and slingshots for that matter when testing the dynamic of such shooting action.

 

 

Why so much focus on completely unrelated tracks to discuss the actual tracks?  Why all the focus on completely unrelated things to what is on that film?

 

I have observed static photos of suits claimed to match Patty.  The funny thing is the suits that are in these pics fail on several levels. Let's just focus on 2 intellectually dishonest approaches to save everyone time:

 

1)  Are all the pics shown in these collages made form materials from 1967 or before?   Many of these things posted are not.  Those not of that year or before cannot be considered in any serious discussion of the PGF be one a believer or a skeptic of the PGF.

 

2)  Why are these static pics vs a dynamic film. The PGF is dynamic like all film is.  The evidence on that film no matter what it may show must observed dynamically.   It is ok to look at a static pic from the PGF as much as from some other film.  Yet, if one static pic looks a certain way in the sec if was shot and stopped that means nothing to the dynamic film.  If one is to show these 'suits' walking such as the Blivens suit then it will tell us all we need to know  --- FAILURE.  Now if once it to take a static pic of Blivens suit one might be able to have a patty look in a pic. It tells us NOTHING about the suit.

 

Thus it is disingenuous to show a pic under these circumstances for the purpose of a comparing to separate groups:   Dynamic vs static.  Also,  if someone makes a 'messing with Sasquatch' suit today for a commercial, it means nothing to the PGF unless all materials were from 1967 or before.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

Excellent Kit, this is exactly the response I expected from you. I suggest you know follow up with a "you shall not pass" type of reply, combined with a reference to how blind believers are because they refuse to be convinced by your smoke and mirrors, followed by how disappointed you are in the state of "Bigfootry" and of course a gratuitous mention of unicorn. That will set me straight.

 

 

Biggandalf.jpg

Post #24 is too funny. I mean under C you have to throw in an Eric Shipton caste from Nepal.  

 

That thing he argues to be real.

 

2)  Why are these static pics vs a dynamic film. The PGF is dynamic like all film is.  The evidence on that film no matter what it may show must observed dynamically.   It is ok to look at a static pic from the PGF as much as from some other film.  Yet, if one static pic looks a certain way in the sec if was shot and stopped that means nothing to the dynamic film. 

 

 

Slowmotionleg.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 Yes it is, and an attempt to create some sort of association with Ketchum's paper really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. However, not surprising, its a method of deflection often used in such internet discussions. Could you please explain how your own scientific and related accredited expertise surpass's both Munn's and Meldrum's so I put some actual scale to your argument. I am genuinely interested, Dr. Meldrum and Bill Munn's put together a very well organized and comprehensive paper, backed with numerous examples and facts,and presented it professionally. Both have the knowledge, expertise, and education to back their paper. Please stick with the facts though, I have heard enough about bent stirrups,glass eyes,keys in pocket, and scratched cars, I would like to see some genuine research into the suit your alleging. Feel free to use actual comparisons of other suits demonstrating the same characteristics as exactly as living comparisons where presented in the paper that past peer review and has supporting work behind it as Dr. Meldrum and Bill Munn's have. But first and foremost, please qualify your opinions, give me a reason to consider your argument, after all, I can google anyone of your claims and find and number of unqualified people regurgitating the same baseless claims over and over again. 

 

Your a more qualified expert than Dr. Meldrum, Bill Munns, or even Dr. Ketchum for that matter. Awesome.

My bold. Could you please explain Mr.Munns scientific credentials?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...