Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 What Crow is actually demonstrating is that he can't do the science...and this is citizen science here, not relativity. If you need a body dumped in front of you to move your needle...wow, find something more productive to do with your time, ya know? The evidence says, in no uncertain terms: put in the effort, and this thing will be there. Of course, don't...and it won't. [Cue 'we've been searching night and day day and night 24/7/365 for a half-century now'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Who is the judge of proper evidence? What one person can declare it authentic? Think about it, most of us will be left to accept proof by what we are told to by some authority on TV, or through published scientific literature. If the later, one will have to be able to comprehend the science. So people can be convinced by just the science and evidence that might be less than your particular standard. When it comes to judging the evidence that crosses my path I am the judge of that evidence. Now since photo and video are the most shareable types of evidence I've included another photo to illustrate what good photo evidence should look like. There are those moaning and groaning that bigfoot is hard to photograph and only professional photographers take great wildlife photos with expensive equipment after spending vast amounts of time in the field. Well some bigfoot research groups boast of their great equipment and other boast of putting thousands of man hours in the field. In any event the photo below constitutes the kind of graphic evidence that is good. It is well focused, shows great detail and is in good lighting. It all adds up to the subjects in the photo being real animals. I understand that the usual bigfoot evidence isn't going to get much better so you don't have to tell me how hard it is out there in research land. I also understand that what continues to be brought in will be of the same dubious nature and quality. What Crow is actually demonstrating is that he can't do the science...and this is citizen science here, not relativity. If you need a body dumped in front of you to move your needle...wow, find something more productive to do with your time, ya know? The evidence says, in no uncertain terms: put in the effort, and this thing will be there. Of course, don't...and it won't. [Cue 'we've been searching night and day day and night 24/7/365 for a half-century now'] So what have you got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 12, 2015 Admin Share Posted June 12, 2015 I assume you mean homo erectus! Dang spell check! Doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Is this good enough for the old Crow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 When it comes to judging the evidence that crosses my path I am the judge of that evidence. Now since photo and video are the most shareable types of evidence I've included another photo to illustrate what good photo evidence should look like. There are those moaning and groaning that bigfoot is hard to photograph and only professional photographers take great wildlife photos with expensive equipment after spending vast amounts of time in the field. Well some bigfoot research groups boast of their great equipment and other boast of putting thousands of man hours in the field. In any event the photo below constitutes the kind of graphic evidence that is good. It is well focused, shows great detail and is in good lighting. It all adds up to the subjects in the photo being real animals. I understand that the usual bigfoot evidence isn't going to get much better so you don't have to tell me how hard it is out there in research land. I also understand that what continues to be brought in will be of the same dubious nature and quality. So what have you got? I don't know crow, I mean if bigfoot were standing there instead of the moose, people would just say it had to be photo shopped or a guy in a suit because bigfoot still doesn't exist, so on and so forth. It's just a matter of how far you want to go with the cynicism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I'm wondering why Crow keeps putting up photos of animals we all know about, as if this is advancing some kind of point. Well, it is. But the point is about him, and why I am restricting commentary about him to threads like this one, and keeping it out of the serious ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The wall is still there for many. Incomprehension is a terrible thing to behold. It takes some intellect to appreciate that what you are dealing with is an animal that doesn't fit descriptions of any other, although it is enough like us to draw some comparisons. We know this is the most likely reality because it is the only one that fits the evidence we have. The circular nature of this syllogism seems to baffle some. Perhaps it is too obvious to comprehend? But, the only conclusion a thinking-person can make is this axiom: It is likely what it appears to be. Stop overthinking it. Just stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 12, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted June 12, 2015 Notice the picture that Crow produces to show what good photographic evidence would be is the Moose. They are one of the dumber forest animals, are not smart enough to hide, or be active nocturnally like a deer. When they are around, you often see them in the open in broad daytlight. Taking a picture of a moose is a whole lot different that something that is near human intelligence, hides behind trees even at night, and seems to have some understanding of what cameras are or at least seems to avoid them. A known animal as reclusive as a BF that has similar habitat is the wolverine which is rarely seen and rarely photographed. There are probably more poor BF photos in the wild than there are wild wolverine photos good or bad. A lot of the pictures of wolverines we have are those that were found as juveniles and raised by a human. You really cannot count them as being of a wild animal. Throw them out, and you do not have many wild wolverine pictures left. There are probably people like me who are intentionally withholding BF pictures for their own reasons. No I will not let you goad me into posting it. In my case, my reason is that if I get more, they will be part of a book. Any picture I post can be saved and claimed by others and I don't want to have a copyright battle for a previously unpublished picture that Crow would just declare poor or a puppet. Only a few trusted people have seen it. Family members, Meldrum, and Bindernagel among them. I have been told by BF habbers that it is simply not possible to take pictures of BF. It is difficult but not impossible. They are reclusive and clever but their one weakness is curiosity. Use that and a lot of luck, and pictures are possible. I do have some excellent photos of footprints I have posted but they are part of the body of evidence that Crow claims is not good enough to even consider as evidence. When his position does not allow any possibility of existence, any evidence to the contrary cannot be considered by him good evidence and has to be discounted. So no matter what picture anyone provides to meet his demand, it will be judged as not be good enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 ^Patty was filmed out in broad daylight strolling across a sandbar in the open. Do you believe the PGF is real? Why didn't she have any of the traits you just described? People here always want to put Bigfoot into some kind of impossible odds scenario but at the same time the PGF says otherwise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Squatchologist Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 BEERHUNTER, thats an interesting photo. Is that a zoomed in photo of another photo? Be interesting to see the wide shot if available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Notice the picture that Crow produces to show what good photographic evidence would be is the Moose. They are one of the dumber forest animals, are not smart enough to hide, or be active nocturnally like a deer. When they are around, you often see them in the open in broad daytlight. Taking a picture of a moose is a whole lot different that something that is near human intelligence, hides behind trees even at night, and seems to have some understanding of what cameras are or at least seems to avoid them. Unless an animal is habituated to people - or whatever applies with moose, which are just as you say - forget a casual photo of it, ever. Cited exceptions (there is one for wolverine, off the top of my head) only prove the rule. A known animal as reclusive as a BF that has similar habitat is the wolverine which is rarely seen and rarely photographed. There are probably more poor BF photos in the wild than there are wild wolverine photos good or bad. A lot of the pictures of wolverines we have are those that were found as juveniles and raised by a human. You really cannot count them as being of a wild animal. Throw them out, and you do not have many wild wolverine pictures left. Meldrum asked a researcher about his great wolverine shots. Captive animals. Remember that shot I took of a dot far away on the snow? Only pic he ever got of a wild wolverine. Please do not respond, people out there, if, like Crow, you don't understand why we have captive wolverines and not captive sasquatch. Requires some thought. Do that first then come back to me. There are probably people like me who are intentionally withholding BF pictures for their own reasons. No I will not let you goad me into posting it. In my case, my reason is that if I get more, they will be part of a book. Any picture I post can be saved and claimed by others and I don't want to have a copyright battle for a previously unpublished picture that Crow would just declare poor or a puppet. Only a few trusted people have seen it. Family members, Meldrum, and Bindernagel among them. Don't blame you or anyone like you. When people demand evidence then laugh at it just what the hell do they expect? I'd laugh in their faces and go neenerneenerneener for good measure. The ignant deserve no better. Curious, though. What response did you get from those you've shown? These photos are as compelling as any I am aware of. Reason? You will never postulate an alternative cause for them that makes any sense. (Yes. That is, as always, A CHALLENGE. Good luck.) http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/220-oklahoma-prairie-photos I didn't get to see these before attending the 2009 TX Bigfoot Conference. Reason? NAWAC knew what kind of response they would get from ignorant people. I guess they ramped up their confidence after that showing, which gave a very thorough and convincing backstory, highlights of which are on that link. Edited June 12, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The wall is still there for many. Incomprehension is a terrible thing to behold. It takes some intellect to appreciate that what you are dealing with is an animal that doesn't fit descriptions of any other, although it is enough like us to draw some comparisons. We know this is the most likely reality because it is the only one that fits the evidence we have. The circular nature of this syllogism seems to baffle some. Perhaps it is too obvious to comprehend? But, the only conclusion a thinking-person can make is this axiom: It is likely what it appears to be. Stop overthinking it. Just stop. One problem for the uninformed is that it all appears to be a fake because that is where they stopped looking and thinking. Fine, I get that. I don't get 5,000 posts here and still thinking that. NAWAC says this about these photos: http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/220-oklahoma-prairie-photos Two images, in the possession of the NAWAC, of a wood ape photographed in Oklahoma bear a remarkable resemblance to the Patterson/Gimlin subject, lending further credence to the film (and to the photos). This is where your "too obvious to comprehend" comes in. Look at this; it reinforces that. Now look at that; it reinforces this. They cross-refer. What, indeed, is so hard. (Right. BOTH FAKED!!!!!!!!!! D'OH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [never ever comes back here, ever]) Bigfoot skepticism seems to me like 500 million metric tonnes of scaffolding erected to painstakingly climb over a kernel of truth. Great. Put it in the Metropolitan. Art can show humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 12, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted June 12, 2015 My picture is a juvenile peeking at me over some sword ferns. Mom nearly ran over me and was carrying the juvenile and whooping back and forth with another BF as it approached. Mom went into a crouch with a huge thud when she either saw or smelled me. Bindernagel summed it up by saying he wished the picture showed more of the little guy. Similar comment from Meldrum. I cannot disagree with that, I wish it showed more too. One of those pictures Crow would declare not good enough. But since it is a juvenile it is even more rare. He has somewhat of a sagittal crest showing that is emphasized by Mohawk like hair that is sticking straight up on top of the head. There are parts of his nose and face that are very pink. I think as they age their faces probably get darker as they tan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 There is a very real reason real science and real research does not take it seriously. So you do agree that science does not take this seriously. That could be one major part of the problem with this phenom. I assume you mean homo erectus! LOL! I missed that on his first post. Too funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) My picture is a juvenile peeking at me over some sword ferns. Mom nearly ran over me and was carrying the juvenile and whooping back and forth with another BF as it approached. Mom went into a crouch with a huge thud when she either saw or smelled me. Bindernagel summed it up by saying he wished the picture showed more of the little guy. Similar comment from Meldrum. I cannot disagree with that, I wish it showed more too. One of those pictures Crow would declare not good enough. But since it is a juvenile it is even more rare. He has somewhat of a sagittal crest showing that is emphasized by Mohawk like hair that is sticking straight up on top of the head. There are parts of his nose and face that are very pink. I think as they age their faces probably get darker as they tan. Not surprised at the comments; scientists are gonna be that way, but doesn't sound as if they dismissed it. As with chimps. Gee. Surprise. That would be a good place to begin and guess what I'm easy. There is a very real reason real science and real research does not take it seriously. Yes. They haven't addressed the evidence. It's not a good reason, but quite real, yep. When you walk out of the woods with a bigfoot alive dead or anything in between then I'm 180 deg wrong. I'm not the one chasing monsters to no avail. Meanwhile, scientists do what scientists do and leave ^^^credulous believers to their knitting. Edited June 12, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts