dmaker Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) Oh, I get that. I do. It still does not make anecdotes the most powerful evidence there is, nor does it suddenly confer necessary attributes like falsifiability. False anecdotes can have investigations chasing their tail for years. Thousands of bigfoot reports and not a single bigfoot found. Maybe those reports are not the best road map to a bigfoot after all? Another thing? Responsible scientists own up to their contradictions and respond to challenges to their claims. You? Not so much. Silence and dodging is your response. Not very laudable for one who claims to be the best bigfoot scientist ever. If you care to correct that you can always visit threads where you have ignored questions like your claim regarding police ignoring 911 calls involving alleged bigfeets and your claim of documentation proving unknown primate DNA. These have been asked of you repeatedly and you just ignore them. Not very responsible for a super scientist like you. Edited June 7, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 ^^^Yes, whatever this is you said, but answer my questions anytime you're ready. OK, we've answered yet another of your 'objections' in this thread. You know, it might just be easier to spend more time actually thinking about this, rather than putting variations on the same post up...waitaminnit...3,875 times, and coming up with points rather than stale rejoinders. Always trying to help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 ^^ LOL. Yeah, that's what I thought. I have thought about this topic and have detailed my conclusions and how and why I arrived at them many, many times. Perhaps you may want to visit my previous posts before you accuse me of giving this no thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 ^^^Yes, whatever this is you said, but answer my questions anytime you're ready. I wouldn't call anyone out for not answering a question if I were you. Pot, kettle, all that ya' know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Yup. A one-trick pony if there ever was one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share Posted June 7, 2014 Yes, I already said thank-you once. Provide an address and I'll send flowers if you wish. Your welcome, but I'm not letting you off that easily........... What do you think about specific interviews such as the USFS Ranger that claims that the USFS knows about them and even studies them but will not admit to the public they are real? Or how about the Monster quest episode in which the Colorado fish and game officer investigated a track way and built a device to test the depth of the track? I'd like to hear your feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 I don't think all that much of one persons claim. How many employees are there in the USFS? One out of that group making a claim I don't find terribly compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 ^^^Irony noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) The USFS employs 34, 000 people. Mr.Branson represents exactly 0.0029411 % of the employees of the USFS. That in itself is not too much to get excited about. The retired USFS ranger is Charles Branson, no? The same Charles Branson that had the TBRC shooting incident on his property? The same one that calls bigfoot " wonderful people", " super smart", "spiritual"? That Charles Branson? I'm not going to get too excited about his claims. Does he provide any documentation to back up this alleged secret investigation? Of course not. I would think that if you put so much faith into Mr.Branson's claims, Norseman, that you might not be so eager to go off and kill one of these super smart, spiritual people after all? Clearly you must find Mr.Branson's testimony compelling or you wouldn't be highlighting it. So what about it Norse? Is he legit? Are bigfoot super smart, spiritual people? Are you reconsidering your pro-kill stance? http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2011/10/forest-ranger-charles-branson-shocking.html MonsterQuest is a joke. Edited June 7, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keninsc Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Monster Quest is a joke. On that I have to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) I actually like the Colorado fish and game officers test better! And no I have not rethought my position. Is Mr. Branson telling the truth? You and I know bud there is only one way to settle that! Edited June 7, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clubbedfoot Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 I am here to summarily dismiss any government employee's contention that goes against the grain....They are not to be believed....Why? Because I say so... Sardonic is my name and anything counter-intuitive is just lame and not true....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 Monster Quest is a joke. On that I have to agree. I think you owe it to yourself to watch the episode I linked. The Colorado Fish and Game ON CAMERA built a weight press with stompers attached to try to simulate the depth of the track found by a fisher man and reported to them. Don't quote me but the weight needed to replicate the depth of the track was like 800 lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 what if the soil was wet when the tracks were initially made? Wouldn't that account for the depth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keninsc Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 I think you owe it to yourself to watch the episode I linked. The Colorado Fish and Game ON CAMERA built a weight press with stompers attached to try to simulate the depth of the track found by a fisher man and reported to them. Don't quote me but the weight needed to replicate the depth of the track was like 800 lbs. I saw that episode and to be honest the test they preformed had one rather glaring flaw. They loaded up a pair of flaux footprints in a static, or stationary manner. That is not going to give a true and accurate indication of weight because when any bipedal creature walks they walking one step at a time. Meaning that one foot plants and the full weight is transferred to one foot then the other foot plants and repeats. Not only that but when walking the foot plants heel to toe, plant the heel, a smaller area of contact, then the foot rotates through the step and then pushes off with the forward part or the ball of the foot and toes. Walking is dynamic and complex, what they did was not even something I would consider a reasonable facsimile of walking. It could only be applicable if they compared it to a pair of static, or standing, prints which they did not show or even elude to and the comparison. Nice for a TV show for the uneducated and simple minded who can't see beyond the smoke and mirrors. That is not to say that they didn't find footprints, just that what they did for a comparison to determine the weight was flawed terribly. However, in fairness to them, making a machine to simulate a Bigfoot's walking pattern is not possible since it has to be done using an entire body so that stride, foot angle, and area can be determined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts