Jump to content
Guest

Discovery Channel Bigfoot Gait Analysis

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

^ 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?"

 

 

 

I'm glad you pointed that out, rogue... ;) I was going to make the same point myself, last night.

 

There was no distinction...(regarding any 'specifics')...in his broad-sweeping statement.

 

It's only when kit is called-out on his inconsistent statements, that we hear all about the "specific exceptions".

 

 

roguefooter wrote:

 

 

 

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."

 

 

 

The "weirdish dinner guest" statement of kit's is just the latest example of kit going from a 'generality' to a 'specific'....(when confronted with inconsistent statements.)  
When I asked kit if Brian Gosselin would make a "weirdish dinner guest"....kit went straight for a (new) 'specific'....(the 'type of person' listening to Brian's testimony')....in an attempt to create an exception to his rule...

 

kit wrote:

 

 

To the average person outside of Bigfootery, yes, because the whole topic is highly weird. Not at my table, but I openly accept being weird myself...

 

 

In his original statement....kit makes no such distinction. It simply applies broadly to Bigfoot proponents, as a whole...

 

"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. "

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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.

 

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

You can exise whatever issues you have with this piece of antiquated hoax film, ask me whatever occurs to your mind in gotcha fashion, and come to a place where you feel empowered by your beliefs in this thing you call Bigfoot . In the real world, Bigfoot does not exist, the reasons for thinking it should are either the purview of anecdote or an embarrassment to emprical methodology, and the belief in it does not represent any manner of "freethinker" status. It's tabloid Internet culture. It's the desire for self-important maverick thinker ideology. You think you're asking great questions of the world while speaking with only those that support your worldview. I can think of nothing more narrow and limiting. When myths don't make bodies, the world rightly understands them to be myths. Bigfoot is the 20th century mermaid. It's not 21st century and has no place in it. It's an idea, a belief, that is becoming naturally more bizarre as each year carries on without something on a table anyone could agree is this manbeast you believe in.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-140

 

 

:bbq:

 

Barbequed... :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Isn't it reasonable for someone who thinks they see something to indeed trust what they saw.

 

If I go outside and see a fox running past the backyard and dash into the woods, I don't try to come up with all the things it could have been other than what I saw.  

 

If a person has an encounter with what they happen to think is Bigfoot they also know what they think they saw.

 

Apparently If the witnesses sees a fox, that is the end of the story.   But if that witness instead sees Bigfoot, they seem to be required by the skeptic to come up with multiple other reasons to account for what they saw.   This is not required in eyewitness accounts of other subject matter, only if the sighting is a bigfoot.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-video-footage-wild-red-pandas.html 

Another example

Scientists have captured Myanmar's first wild film footage of one of the world's most adorable – and endangered – species – the red panda.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-video-footage-wild-red-pandas.html#jCp

 

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

I do not think it is impossible that Bigfoot exists, just unlikely in the extreme. ..................................Yes, but without reliable evidence for me the filtration stays set at purely social construct.

 

????

 

You say many things......not many these days I put much stock into tho.....I think it's some form of pandering or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Saying Bigfoot is impossible makes one a skoftic/denialist. Saying you think Bigfoot is not impossible is pandering.

 

Can't win for losing in Bigfootery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Saying Bigfoot is impossible is simply not being scientific as science states no such thing.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Isn't it reasonable for someone who thinks they see something to indeed trust what they saw.

 

If I go outside and see a fox running past the backyard and dash into the woods, I don't try to come up with all the things it could have been other than what I saw.  

 

If a person has an encounter with what they happen to think is Bigfoot they also know what they think they saw.

 

Apparently If the witnesses sees a fox, that is the end of the story.   But if that witness instead sees Bigfoot, they seem to be required by the skeptic to come up with multiple other reasons to account for what they saw.   This is not required in eyewitness accounts of other subject matter, only if the sighting is a bigfoot.

 

Backdoc

 

This is a red fox that I happened upon suddenly two months ago at a shrine in Sapporo, Japan...

 

Bigfox.jpg

 

I was able to get about a dozen or so photos. You may be inclined to think this is a hoaxed fox as it is a bit blurry and obscured a bit by vegetation. You don't need to believe my photo as evidence of a fox encounter. You can go to your nearest natural history museum and they very likely will have some fox bones that you can examine. If you have a nagging suspicion that those bones may have been hoaxed, you can then proceed to your nearest zoo and confirm for yourself that foxes are indeed real creatures and not social constructs...

 

vixen.jpg

 

You unfortunately can not do this with Bigfoots or Dogmen or Mothmen or Reptoids or ghosts or Jersey Devils and the like.  Please don't compare Bigfoot to Mothmen as a social construct, nobody claims to see that anymore, you might say.

 

Hello, how are you? Double witness Mothman sighting July 2014...

 

http://monstrumathenaeum.org/new-mothman-sightings-colorado/

 

That it was seriously suggested as a comparison why if a person sees a fox and trusts it was indeed a fox with why if a person sees what appears to be Bigfoot should they trust it was indeed a Bigfoot...

 

Not only compared but yeah, what he said, plussed - it is something I do not have words for. My hands immobilized beyond face palm capability. Deer in headlights, mesmerized, phasers set to stun...

 

patrick-stewart-facepalm-gif-i19.gif

 

Backdoc, people to not question themselves and think of alternatives if they see what appears to be a fox because foxes are real animals, documented, common, known to exist.

 

People very reasonably doubt their eyes and try to think of alternatives if they see what looks like Bigfoot because just between you, me and the Internet Bigfoots have never been proven to exist and are widely considered a myth. If one is satisfied they are seeing that and not something else such as a man in a suit, another animal, it is not unreasonable to accept what they see, but neither is it unreasonable to really try and find a mundane alternative.

 

No, really. Here's why...

 

Henry May believes very strongly in Bigfoot. Henry May thinks he has seen Bigfoot twice. One of his sightings a white Bigfoot in front of a person's house on a road side in Mississippi, the other from the comfort of the patio of his own home in Georgia. The white Bigfoot Henry is 95% sure of being a Bigfoot while he concedes that the sighting from his patio could have been a hoax. Here are his words about those sightings followed by the details of the sightings...

 

Quote:
My first sighting I am a bit dubious of because it COULD have been a guy in a suit. The second one, well, there is about a 95% chance I saw an actual Sasquatch. Hope you guys enjoy reading those reports.
Quote:
Sighting Report: Cherokee County, Georgia, Woodstock

Date: 1-31-84

Time: around 10:00 P.M. EST

Witness: Henry M.

Henry saw a large, rust-brown-colored Sasquatch-type creature, standing approximately 8 feet tall, behind a residence, standing under a porchlight. The creature's face was apelike and humanlike, flat nose, thin slit for lips and large black eyes. 

Terrain: Wooded, mountainous region

Activities of witness: Standing on elevated back patio, watching creature 50 yards away at bottom of hill; witness left first.

Sighting Report: Bolivar County, Mississippi, 3 miles south of Shaw, on Highway 61

Date: 1-13-98

Time: 1:15 A.M. CST

Witness: Henry M.

Henry saw a large, dirty-white-colored Sasquatch-type creature walking across the highway approximately 150 yards ahead of him from left to right. When he reached the point where the creature had crossed, saw large, approximately 7 1/2-8 foot tall creature standing in a ditch with its back turned. Witness saw creature for approximately 15 seconds.

Terrain: 4-lane highway, going towards wooded area

Activities of witness: Driving north from Greenville, Mississippi towards the town of Shaw

 

Further comments by Henry on his sightings...

 

"Well, I left first because I was scared. LOL I think the second case is more credible because there were people in that Georgia neighborhood who knew of my interest in Bigfoot and could have taken advantage of that. The second sighting was on a highway in front of total strangers' house, and i doubt any 8-foot tall people are living in that area with a dirty-white gorilla suit. As to height, well, I just kind of compared it to the size of the home it took place in front of and got the height estimate from that. Hope that answers your questions."

 

What would you have to say to Henry about his sightings, Backdoc? Do you think he should be reasonably considering alternatives? 95% sure he saw a 7 and a half foot to 8 foot tall white Bigfoot in front of someone's home three miles south of Shaw, Mississippi. 

 

What in your Searching For Bigfoot: What is Required?, the remoteness of the glorious PNW and lost autistic children thinking mind do you think of that? I sincerely and with great interest would like to know what alternatives you think Henry should consider if any for his very unambiguous sightings. I do not think Henry was lying. Let's hear from you.

 

If Henry's sightings are not sufficient example, let's consider the following harrowing 1977 Bigfoot encounter from British Columbia, Canada...

 

SIGHTING OF LEGENDARY BIGFOOT REPORTED IN CANADA

"The 1977 Canadian Bus Driver Hoax" 

(Three Articles)

 

MISSION, British Columbia (AP) - A furry creature about seven feet tall lumbered across Highway 7 near this Fraser Valley community Sunday and made some believers in the legendary Sasquatch.

The sighting, 35 miles east of Vancouver, occurred as a Pacific Stage Lines bus driven by Pat Lindquist was westbound a mile east of Lake Erroch on the Harrison Hot Springs-to-Vancouver run.

The passengers and Lindquist saw ahead of the bus a glimpse of something they all described as a seven-foot tall, 300-pound beast with dark brown to black fur or hair and a light-colored face.

"At first we thought it was a prankster in a fur suit," said Lindquist, 28, a reserve Vancouver city police officer. "But people were shouting 'what is it, what is it', so I slammed on the brakes to have a look.

"To tell the truth, I thought it was someone trying to con us so I took off after it. I guess I thought I was going to pull off his hat and bawl him out. I don't know why I did it. I'm not sure I really intended to catch up with it."

Lindquist, who police here describe as "very nervous and pale" when they arrived on the scene, later described what happened when he gave pursuit.

"The first thing I noticed was the smell...a horrible smell like very rotten meat. The bush was thick and I was pushing the branches apart when I saw it about 20 or 25 feet away. I just couldn't believe it."

"At first I was mad. But then I went to awe and then to fright and I began to shake. I couldn't stop shaking and then I got out of there." The smell has been a common element in the reports from numerous people who claim to have been close to the Sasquatch, also known as Bigfoot.

Lindquist, who is 6-foot-2, said the thing before him was no more than seven feet tall, only "much heavier than I am." "It had flat, flared nostrils like a monkey and large, wide eyes. It didn't make any sound except heavy breathing. It had a

broad chest and it was heavy up and down."

"It could have taken two steps and grabbed me, but it didn't do anything. It didn't growl. It didn't show its teeth. It just looked at me." Lindquist said the hair on its face was a light brown and "it appeared to have the mange; the skin underneath looked kind of white."

© Oklahoma City Times; Monday, May 16, 1977

Credit: T. Adams, article courtesy Ron Schaffner's Creature Chronicles

- --- 

Second Follow-up article

SASQUATCH HUNTER CAN'T BELIEVE MONSTER SIGHTING 

IS JUST A HOAX

New Westminster (CP) - Radio Station CKNW broadcast reports Monday that a Sasquatch sighted 10 days ago near Erroch Lake in the Fraser Valley was a hoax perpetrated by three persons, but veteran Sasquatch hunter Rene Dahinden wants proof.

The radio station said three persons faked large footprints using plaster casts and one of them dressed up in a fur suit. Dahinden said in an interview he'd like to see the suit. "If they can produce the evidence that this was a hoax, I would like to see it. The hoax would be more important than a real Sasquatch sighting...it would teach us a lesson to smarten up."

Dahinden said he heard similar reports of a hoax involving the legendary ape-like forest creature. "It (the report) claimed the three persons involved would also fake sightings in Washington, Oregon and California." "CKNW doesn't know whether or not it was a hoax because it doesn't have any evidence. Let them produce the fur suit and the material used to make the footprints."

Dahinden said he was in the Fraser Valley community of Mission when RCMP questioned Pacific Stage Lines bus driver Pat Lindquist who reported seeing the sasquatch a mile east of Lake Erroch on his run from Harrison Hot Springs to Vancouver.

"The questioning was very professional and I cannot see how Lindquist could have mistaken a man in a fur suit for the real thing." "Maybe my view was colored but if there was a hoax, let's see them re-enact the whole thing." Dahinden said Lindquist would have to be in a state of shock to make such a mistake.

© Victoria Times; Tuesday, May 24, 1977

Credit Source: Ron Schaffner's Creature Chronicles

- ---Third follow-up article:

'BIGFOOT' WAS JUST MAN IN MONKEY SUIT

VANCOUVER, Canada (AP) - A bus driver and several passengers who reported seeing the legendary man-beast Sasquatch were tricked by four practical jokers using a $200 monkey suit and shoulder pads, according to the hoaxsters.

"It was a good practical joke, we thought it might fool a few people," said Ken Ticehurst, the 5-foot-11, 165-pound man who dressed up in the gorilla costume. "I was running like O.J. Simpson."

The pranksters said the hoax took three weeks to prepare, including buying the suit from a costume shop, manufacturing a foot to make a footprint, checking bus schedules so enough people would see it "to make it more believable" and planting a phony witness on the bus to make the first move and get passengers

excited.

The reported sighting occurred on May 15 as Pat Lindquist was driving a Pacific Stage Lines bus westbound on the Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia-to-Vancouver run May 15 when he and several passengers saw what they thought was a Sasquatch lumber across Highway 7 about 35 miles east of Vancouver.

Lindquist stopped the bus and pursued the creature into the bush. "At first we thought it was a prankster in a fur suit," said Lindquist, a 28-year-old Vancouver city policeman, at the time of the incident.

"It had flat, flared nostrils like a monkey and large white eyes. It didn't make any sound except heavy breathing." Ticehurst, 24, of Port Coquitlam, revealed the scam Thursday in an interview on a radio talk show along with Don Ticehurst, 26, and Rene Quesnel, 19 of Port Moody. The three said they planned the stunt with Gordon Jacobi, 26.

They said they based their pattern for a resin-cast Sasquatch foot on a book about the creature by Don Hunter and Rene Dahinden.

Don Ticehurst, one of six passengers on the early morning bus, said he "had to act pretty excited. Some people were still asleep." Royal Canadian Mounted Police Constable Bob Eyford, who did some independent investigation, said he's convinced the pranksters are telling the truth.

For years, stories have persisted that the gorilla-sized Sasquatch, North America's version of the Abominable Snowman, lives in the woods of the Pacific Northwest.

From time to time sightings are reported and there is at least one photograph of an alleged Sasquatch, although it looks more like a blurry picture of a gorilla. Several books and articles have been written about the beast.

© San Antonio, Texas; Evening News; Friday, May 27, 1977

Credit: Tom Adams 

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/canadianhoax.htm

Saying Bigfoot is impossible is simply not being scientific as science states no such thing.

 

Backdoc

 

And saying it is not impossible is "pandering"...

 

 

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. ..................................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.

 

 

????

 

You say many things......not many these days I put much stock into tho.....I think it's some form of pandering or something...

 

 

Can't win for losing in Bigfootery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

A lot to respond to and I will offer more here in a bit.

For now I love the idea you took a picture of a fox. We can then study the actual picture. We can see if it can be measured and see if such a pic cold be duplicated. We can see what type of camera you used. We can consider if this fox changes positions in all the photos or holds still like a stuffed fox.

One thing is certain: attempting to find any dirt on the photographer and your backstory does not change what is on the film. It is either a fox or it is not. This would not change even if you had stole the camera.

(More later)

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Patterson stealing cameras and conning investors does not affect what is on the film. The provenance of the film affects what is on the film, especially when there has never been any conclusive evidence submitted that what is on the film could not be a man in the suit. You can wish it so, but that does not make it real.

 

No, really, what alternatives, Backdoc, should Henry consider for his sightings?

 

Sweet mother, an 8 ft white Bigfoot in front of someone's house in Mississippi. 

 

Do you want to touch that or would it be safer to stick with the lost autistic kid?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Saying Bigfoot is impossible makes one a skoftic/denialist. Saying you think Bigfoot is not impossible is pandering.

 

Can't win for losing in Bigfootery.

 

No I don't think that's what he's saying. You claim you don't think Bigfoot is impossible but then your words tell a different story. Sweaty has posted several quotes that you've made that leave no room for possibility. You enjoy mocking the community and exploiting the lack of evidence. Either you have multiple personalities or you don't even know yourself what you stand for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

1) none of this changes the fact: any person claiming science says the existence of bigfoot is impossible is 100% wrong as science says no such thing.

2) as proof of statement #1, why would Stanford even study if a man can walk like patty if it was accepted science bigfoot could not exist? They did not do a EasterBunny walking study.

3). Kit has taken the "lost autistic kid" from another thread. To bring others up to speed, I put fourth the idea the woods are hard to search. I used as an example a lost autistic boy in Virginia. He was lost and it took 3,000-5,000 searchers, helicopters, tracking dogs, night vision equipment, and lots of supplies and resources to find the boy. It took 6 days(!) to find the child. They had so many volunteers they had to turn people away. The search area as only 3 mile radius.

Thus I can see why Kit just hates that example as it objectify applies a real world event to a concept. For those who might be interested in this further I will suggest the "searching what is required" thread on the BFF.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Exploiting the lack of evidence... rad. By all means, post a quote that shows I think Bigfoot is impossible rather than extremely unlikely...

 

 

kitakaze said

These books started my lifelong passion for Bigfoot. From the age of 8 until my late 20's I was an ardent believer of Bigfoot. I researched every bit of evidence put forward, ready every book I could get my hands on, and would passionately argue for the existence of Bigfoot. It was by so deeply pursuing all claims of evidence that I eventually found that each thread pulled on comes to nothing. It was about 8 years ago that I went from believer to fence-sitter and finally to being fully a skeptic. That did not diminish my love of the subject and passion for researching it. I still love Bigfoot movies, books, and other material, but I enjoy Bigfoot as a myth. What interests me now are reliable claims of evidence. The reason this interests me is because I do not think it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. I have argued against those who have said that it is not possible for Bigfoot to exist. When asked I usually state that I put the possibility of Bigfoot existing to be somewhere between 0.01 - 1%. That may seem next to zero, but that extremely small margin is what keeps me interested.

 

Recently there was a claim of a non-human primate arm found in Florida. This is precisely what interests me. It's not an anecdote, it's not a piece of blurry footage, it's not tale told round the campfire. It's flesh and bone and something that can be examined objectively and definitively. I went in with the same skepticism I have always had, but no less interest. After researching all the photos of the bones available to me, I concluded this was not a non-human primate arm. It was no primate, not mammal, not even an arm. It was the hind limb of an alligator. My conclusion was later confirmed by the scientists and professionals who examined the bones. I was not in any way disappointed by the conclusion, nor was I relieved, I was simply satisfied to have a definitive answer about that particular claim of reliable evidence. There's no emotional involvement in whether Bigfoot exists or not. The only thing I can say is that it would be incredibly awesome if Bigfoot did exist, but I have never seen any evidence that would persuade me to make that conclusion.

 

http://bigfootforums...e-4#entry865904

 

This is not a statement of Bigfoot being impossible, which goes against me explicitly arguing the opposite countless times including citing such finds as Homo floresiensis, this is a statement how Bigfoot is perceived outside of Bigfootery...

 

kitakaze wrote:

Quote

 

 

You can exise whatever issues you have with this piece of antiquated hoax film, ask me whatever occurs to your mind in gotcha fashion, and come to a place where you feel empowered by your beliefs in this thing you call Bigfoot . In the real world, Bigfoot does not exist, the reasons for thinking it should are either the purview of anecdote or an embarrassment to emprical methodology, and the belief in it does not represent any manner of "freethinker" status. It's tabloid Internet culture. It's the desire for self-important maverick thinker ideology. You think you're asking great questions of the world while speaking with only those that support your worldview. I can think of nothing more narrow and limiting. When myths don't make bodies, the world rightly understands them to be myths. Bigfoot is the 20th century mermaid. It's not 21st century and has no place in it. It's an idea, a belief, that is becoming naturally more bizarre as each year carries on without something on a table anyone could agree is this manbeast you believe in.

 

http://bigfootforums...bshell/page-140

 

I have only one stance and that is a former ardent believer who became a skeptic by examining the evidence in greater detail than I was ever able to before. I understand believers from their point of view, fence-sitters from theirs and skeptics from theirs. There are close-minded skeptics, there are close-minded believers. I expected when becoming involved in the debate for the former to be the rule and the latter the exception. I was very surprised as a believer to find it the opposite, that the skeptics were being patient and open-minded and actually interested in examining the best evidence, and so often but not always it was the believers who were being dogmatic, fundamentalist and so clearly indoctrinated. 

 

You have a very difficult time controlling the urge to make the discussion about the arguer, not the argument. The reason in my case is a sense of indignation and being insulted. Welcome to Bigfootery is welcome to all the absurdity that happens in the gong show. Non-radical Bigfoot proponents have no problem acknowledging and themselves making fun of the silliness that is rife in Bigfootery. If a skeptic does it, former believer or not....

 

 

Your indignation means nothing to me. You are the fringe. I would consider it the ranting of the radicalized, but I know you view the silliness in Bigfootery much the way I do. You or Sweaty or anyone who feels so inclined can try your very best at black-hatting the opposition but it is seen as only that by the moderate majority.

 

If you can find any non-PGF fanatic who is a Bigfoot believer who feels I have been insulting or been intolerant of their beliefs, particularly someone who claims a sighting, by all means let that person be heard and I will gladly apologize to them and clarify my views.

 

Remember, simply believing the PGF does not earn my ridicule. Henry May, Rictor Riolo, HRPuffnstuff, Mike Rugg, Steven Streufert, Bill Munns all do and I think they are fantastic people with perfectly reasonable views and beliefs. 

 

It is the behaviour of the extremist to try and project that same extremism in their opposition.


Kit,

1) none of this changes the fact: any person claiming science says the existence of bigfoot is impossible is 100% wrong as science says no such thing.

2) as proof of statement #1, why would Stanford even study if a man can walk like patty if it was accepted science bigfoot could not exist? They did not do a EasterBunny walking study.

 

I fully agree and have not refuted it in any way, thus the above is a straw man argument. I would direct you to Kerry if you have further issue with this.

 

 




3). Kit has taken the "lost autistic kid" from another thread. To bring others up to speed, I put fourth the idea the woods are hard to search. I used as an example a lost autistic boy in Virginia. He was lost and it took 3,000-5,000 searchers, helicopters, tracking dogs, night vision equipment, and lots of supplies and resources to find the boy. It took 6 days(!) to find the child. They had so many volunteers they had to turn people away. The search area as only 3 mile radius.

Thus I can see why Kit just hates that example as it objectify applies a real world event to a concept. For those who might be interested in this further I will suggest the "searching what is required" thread on the BFF.



Backdoc

 

What alternatives do you think should be considered, if any, for the 8 ft white Bigfoot Henry claims to have seen in front of a home in Mississippi? If you have no suggestions then remote PNW Bigfoot arguments mean nothing.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Oh Kit,

How did we get on the porch with an 8 ft bigfoot?

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The white Bigfoot was in front of the house in Mississippi. The brown one seen from the patio in Georgia.

 

We got on it when you compared seeing a Bigfoot to seeing a fox.

 

So what are Henry's alternatives?

 

I'll wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...