Jump to content
Guest

Discovery Channel Bigfoot Gait Analysis

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

You may not realize it yet, kit....but people aren't putting any real weight in any of your 'word arguments', anymore.

 

Sorry... :)

 

 

This is the most interesting observation to me, and one that shows how deep the marginalization is. 

 

I can easily acknowledge there are people putting weight in your arguments. Pretending there are not Kerchaks and xspiders would be actual denialism.

 

Conversely, there is no shortage of people who put weight in mine. No, really, I could not possibly have the kind of impact on you and the fervent and desperate effort you make to counter me if people were not putting weight into my arguments. This is what drives you. The lack of self awareness is highly entertaining. Ah, people aren't putting weight in my arguments anymore? Try google. Try explaining that green thing that keeps going up. Try explaining this if my arguments have no impact...

 

Thank you, kit. That statement will come in handy, in my upcoming Blog...dedicated to your many and varied 'statements'. - SweatyYeti

 

I plan on starting a Blog site....in which I am going to be posting lots and lots of statements made by kitakaze- SweatyYeti

 

Only the truly indoctrinated pretend as if the opposition has not made any impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^ So where exactly does the "impossible or the intolerant" apply to this sweeping comment of yours? Where exactly did you make the distinction? Because I'm not finding it.

 

"The only actual fact in Bigfootery is that a dwindling subculture of people still in the 21st century believe that North America is populated by forest hairy apemen. Why do we seriously continue doing this in 2013?"

 

 

Not finding it in this quote either Kit:

 

"Bigfoot is a subculture not about an animal on this Planet Earth. It's an experience based in the need to vent anger to other humans. It will make you fat, make your hair quicken grey, cause you to be lethargic, and just be a generally weirdish dinner guest. IMO."

 

 

Why waste so much energy coming up with these false explanations? We can see your position just by reading your comments, and it's not what you're claiming it to be. If anyone doesn't agree with you or follow your dogma then the entire Bigfoot belief system gets mocked and ridiculed in one sweeping blow- every time. Kerry is exactly the same way, hence the reason why he created this thread. The guy blasts Meldrum and Bigfoot believers every chance he gets, and every issue he finds gets rolled up into one big ball like we're all a single entity with one viewpoint.

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChrisBFRPKY

Personally, I'm glad to have Kitakaze on the forum.  I enjoy reading his posts. It's no sin, and no secret, his study is largely Bigfootery rather than Bigfoot. Nothing wrong with that. I think it's actually good to keep the forum in check.

 

What's wrong with trying to convince others of your opinion? Nothing. I think many would be less offended if they realize Kit is not actually studying the evidence, he's likely studying your responses to questions and criticism of that evidence and you. But that's just my opinion.

 

If you find a flaw or error in his posting or method and point it out, hey that's debate.  Everything is debatable except a body. Why if you have a special need to prove Kit wrong, when you find a body you can name it "Kitakaze was wrongicus". It's not personal, it's Bigfoot.  

Chris B.

Edited by ChrisBFRPKY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I am confused here. We seem to be on a discussion of some type of continuum.

If someone has a Bigfoot sighting that = ridicule in some cases or " I am ok with that " mindset in other cases.

Yet, if someone has a sighting of a suit and say it was used in the PGF such a sighting is somehow different.

In both, there may be no proof, no picture for us to consider. We are just to go by the word of the witness only. Yet one

Experience with no proof is the person being foolish greeted by "welcome to bigfootery". The other type is being a reasonable scientist?

My confusion continues.

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Personally, I'm glad to have Kitakaze on the forum.  I enjoy reading his posts. It's no sin, and no secret, his study is largely Bigfootery rather than Bigfoot. Nothing wrong with that. I think it's actually good to keep the forum in check.

 

 

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a POV and debating that POV, but when your only tactics are mockery and trying to degrade people then you're just being the class clown. It's childish and has no value.

 

There's nothing wrong to having two sides to a debate- that's keeping things in check. That's just not what we're seeing here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChrisBFRPKY

roguefooter, I agree that mockery and degrading personal comments are of no value to a discussion of bigfoot evidence and yet valuable to a discussion of Bigfootery. I think it'd be simple to point that out in a response. Chris B.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Yes please point that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 Edited to remove post.

 

More about this, later... :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

The mental acrobats you have to contort to, to believe Bigfoot exists, are telling.

 

To believe Bigfoot exists you have to believe:

 

A. A giant hairy apeman with a caloric requirement of a large bear is living in close proximity to people's families, children and homes, undetected.

 

B. Thousands of years of human destruction of environments, both from European settlers, and Native American Burn cycles, have yet to produce classification or remains.

 

C. A Fossil record which contains large mammals from the periods and areas that Bigfoot would have existed, is distinctively thorough, yet does not contain Bigfoot.

 

First on his list: the fossil record. Why, he asked, would a legacy of large mammals reported to exist throughout North America (and beyond) simply disappear from the same soil that has preserved everything from the dinosaur bones pictured here, to woolly mammoths, to tiny marine crustaceans?

"There's no fossil record of anything fitting the description" of Bigfoot, said Radford. "There's simply nothing there."

 

 

D. Giant goofy footprint casts are considered evidence of a creature.  If you think a huge creature is running around leaping 20 yards per leap, is lugging those monstrous things around on the end of his legs, you are gravely mistaken.

 

slide_22307_271067_huge.jpg

 

E. Game Cameras.  To make the leap that Bigfoot can avoid game cams is hilarious upon itself, but to further make the leap that even a Bigfoot can't ever make a mistake and get caught on a game cam, some where, some how, is even more preposterous.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/jaguar-photos-arizona_n_3512002.html Jaguar in Arizona

 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/wolverine/ Wolverines in California

 

F. Deaths.  A Bigfoot never has a coronary next to a rest area.  It never eats fermented berries, and stumbles off a rocky ridge landing on an RV, it never has a territorial battle that ends in the death of one of the creatures, it never gets caught in an avalanche, or hit by a Petrbilt, slips off an icy deck while peering in the window of a trailer in a trailer park.  

 

 Lioness wounded by Cape Buffalo

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sT7fJopw8s   Deer locked at antlers

 

Head on collision with Moose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

The basic question here, Drew...isn't the 'likelihood/probability' of Bigfoot's existence....it is how one person can give it both an "absurd" probability and a "reasonable" probability at the very same time.

 

This is the equivalent of 'Quantum Duality/Strangeness'....on a Highly Macroscopic scale... :lol:

 

 

I am confused here. We seem to be on a discussion of some type of continuum.

If someone has a Bigfoot sighting that = ridicule in some cases or " I am ok with that " mindset in other cases.

Yet, if someone has a sighting of a suit and say it was used in the PGF such a sighting is somehow different.

In both, there may be no proof, no picture for us to consider. We are just to go by the word of the witness only. Yet one
Experience with no proof is the person being foolish greeted by "welcome to bigfootery". The other type is being a reasonable scientist?

My confusion continues.

Backdoc

 

 

Welcome to the club, Doc. Expect more confusion... ;)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Drew,

 

If a tree falls in the forest, are you saying it didn't actually fall if no one was around to see it, hear it, or hit it with a car?

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Migrantworkers

I read through four pages and the devolution of the conversation was so much that I knew that it wasn't brought up on page 5 or 6

I will absolutely accept that the Stanford study was able to replicate the PGF gait...in a controlled and flat environment, with the benefit of computer analysis of the PGF, computer analysis of the Patty double, coaching of the double and 40+ years of studying all details that are available

So what type of technology and knowledge was used by Patterson, Gimlin and Bob H to come up with that gait and stride length?...the proportions for the body that would take so long to replicate?

Just asking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Personally, I'm glad to have Kitakaze on the forum.  I enjoy reading his posts. It's no sin, and no secret, his study is largely Bigfootery rather than Bigfoot. Nothing wrong with that. I think it's actually good to keep the forum in check.

 

What's wrong with trying to convince others of your opinion? Nothing. I think many would be less offended if they realize Kit is not actually studying the evidence, he's likely studying your responses to questions and criticism of that evidence and you. But that's just my opinion.

 

If you find a flaw or error in his posting or method and point it out, hey that's debate.  Everything is debatable except a body. Why if you have a special need to prove Kit wrong, when you find a body you can name it "Kitakaze was wrongicus". It's not personal, it's Bigfoot.  

Chris B.

 

 

To be accurate, my greatest interest is claims of reliable evidence because as I have said many times over, I do not think it is impossible that Bigfoot exists, just unlikely in the extreme. That was why I went to such lengths to study and determine the origin of the Florida "unknown primate arm" (alligator hind limb). I'm not interested in the blobsquatches, stick structures, talking Bigfoot nonsense. Unambiguous footage, physical specimens, anything that has the potential to be reliable evidence or better yet proof is what I am most interested in.

 

What is undeniable to anyone that has spent any time in Bigfootery, it is more often than not a gong show of characters and personalities and why wouldn't it be? You're getting together a bunch of people that are interested in Bigfoot. That said, there is a lot of very cool things that happen in Bigfootery which I pointed out in an earlier post. If I thought simply having a belief in Bigfoot is delusional, then that would mean I think I spent most of my adult life being delusional, which I do not. It's the specific manner of belief which becomes an issue. If you think Bigfoot lives all over North America, that is just nonsense. If you believe in Bigfoot because you think you've seen one, that is not unreasonable. The problem is that with sightings popping up all over the place and never any remains found like we have for every other North American large mammal, it becomes more and more clear that there is the same thing at work that is behind alien abductions/sightings, ghosts, etc - IOW a social construct that our culture created.

 

Could there be a social construct and a real animal? Yes, but without reliable evidence for me the filtration stays set at purely social construct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

The mental acrobats you have to contort to, to believe Bigfoot exists, are telling.

 

To believe Bigfoot exists you have to believe:

 

...

 

Drew, a lot of those points are only if Bigfoot is what people believe it to be. How do we know it's not something else? Something known perhaps, or maybe a variation of something known that doesn't look like what we're accustomed to?

 

Remember when there were 'mental acrobats you had to contort to' to believe the Yeti? That was a hoax too, until it wasn't. The problem is that skeptics have the same dogma in their head that believers do, and in the end everyone got a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

If I thought simply having a belief in Bigfoot is delusional, then that would mean I think I spent most of my adult life being delusional, which I do not. It's the specific manner of belief which becomes an issue. If you think Bigfoot lives all over North America, that is just nonsense. If you believe in Bigfoot because you think you've seen one, that is not unreasonable. 

 

 

I'd love to see you say that over on JREF... :lol: I dare you. 

 

 

How about David Griffin....is it reasonable to think that he is being honest in his testimony, when he says...."I saw what I saw...and, I know what I saw"....(at about the 3:50 mark)...

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...