Guest Crowlogic Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 so in the 5 decades that you have been looking at evidence there is not a shred of it that convinces you that they are real Crow? No the clocked ticked against the evidence representing a real animal one tick too long for me to accept it any longer.. He didn't look at anything worth looking at for five decades. And he still isn't. He keeps talking about Today's Latest Ha-Ha Special like it's The Heart Of The Evidence. He went from believing to unbelieving. Because the universe wasn't on his personal schedule. That's all you need to know. Your ignorance of what I've looked at is astounding. Yet you've got nothing to bring to the table. Someone is a blowhard around here and it isn't me. So put up or put a sock in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 so in the 5 decades that you have been looking at evidence there is not a shred of it that convinces you that they are real Crow? Not directed at me but I would like to answer. In the 4 decades I've been exposed to BigFooT not a shred of evidence has convinced me that they could be real. It's not hard to accept that one can maintain an interest in BF without actually believing in an heretofore never discovered/documented bipedal primate and you know the drill... BigFooTerY ... But no, not a single shred of evidence that convinces me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Not directed at me but I would like to answer. In the 4 decades I've been exposed to BigFooT not a shred of evidence has convinced me that they could be real. It's not hard to accept that one can maintain an interest in BF without actually believing in an heretofore never discovered/documented bipedal primate and you know the drill... BigFooTerY ... But no, not a single shred of evidence that convinces me. Hey have you guys heard about the Mt. St. Helens find? We're talking science fact here guys-look it up and then convince yourselves that it's all made up and fake-do your JOBS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 It seems you are basing your belief in Bigfoot on consistencies within Bigfoot stories. Covered in hair....check Big feet...........check Tall...............check Smelly. ...........check Cone shaped head...check, must be true. Is that how your science is done? I don't think you understand that the reports are going to have similarities because of the internet and television. Therefore there is no key to finding real reports. Everyone who is interested in Bigfoot knows the makings of a good encounter story. You are not privileged to bigfoot details that nobody else is. So we see right there why if you don't know, you really don't know. If this is all the congruent information you think is contained in the sighting reports, you either have not read enough of them, or you need to read them more carefully AFTER you've done some reading on zoology in general, biological adaptation and wildlife observation specifically AND spend some serious time in habitat employing the knowledge and experience you've gained. No, I won't tell you what to look for. Yes, it will require effort on your part. No, you can't take any shortcuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 As to the Mt St Helens find it here is the interview from his Coast To Coast appearance this week; http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2015/07/does-this-coast-to-coast-guest-have.html here it is on YouTube https://youtu.be/VbpBie5Vg8w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 So we see right there why if you don't know, you really don't know. If this is all the congruent information you think is contained in the sighting reports, you either have not read enough of them, or you need to read them more carefully AFTER you've done some reading on zoology in general, biological adaptation and wildlife observation specifically AND spend some serious time in habitat employing the knowledge and experience you've gained. No, I won't tell you what to look for. Yes, it will require effort on your part. No, you can't take any shortcuts. Oh yeah lets not forget about, bipedal, said "whoop" real loud, threw something and peeked around a tree. The parameters of the Bigfoot sighting report are too narrow. Any similarities are the result of common knowledge regarding the Bigfoot myth and a lack of variables to work with. Boiled down every report is essentially "I saw Bigfoot" and the only differences are what was the witness doing, what was Bigfoot doing, then what did the witness do and what did the Bigfoot do. The person making the report doesn't have a lot of options, especially if they want their story to sound believable. Congruent details are the result of a large amount of reports with limited variables not a nine foot ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 This is great, and I agree with ThinkerThunker; The Real deal Thinker Thunker has a fairly low standard of what is believable. Legs seem a bit long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 ^^^Said those who continues to demonstrate what they dosn't know. And this is eminently knowable. It just isn't easy to know. At that point where radial meets roadbed, we can expect many to fall behind. Time's a-wastin' though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Thinker Thunker has a fairly low standard of what is believable. Legs seem a bit long. Cite the evidence supporting your conclusion that the legs are longer than the average lower extremity length of the Big Foot. Edited July 10, 2015 by ChasingRabbits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 ^^^ Agreed, that’s a fair request Crow … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Cite the evidence supporting your conclusion that the legs are longer than the average lower extremity length of the Big Foot. Figure on the left is human in a suit. Demonstrating well the proportions of the legs. Figure on the right scaled to same size and using the same red marker indicator at same scale has the marker coming up a little short even . Note the space in the right figure where the backlight shows through. Long vertical light gap = long legs backs up the red markers that indicate long legs too. Edited July 10, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) ^^^Said those who continues to demonstrate what they dosn't know. And this is eminently knowable. It just isn't easy to know. At that point where radial meets roadbed, we can expect many to fall behind. Time's a-wastin' though. I'm tempted to say it's an indictment of our educational system, but I will. The reading and thinking, an honors student in middle school should be able to do. I mean, you know, a thoughtful one. Now of course it may just be that social media are magnifying the problem, although a number of scientists are on the record as indicting their own advanced degrees when it comes to this topic. (Yes, this is a glue trap.) Edited July 10, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 There goes Crow again "hey look over here!!! No OVER HERE!!! I told you to look here, now what are you doing?" Thinker Thunker's genius is that he has devised the height of a real bigfoot's leg lift in comparison to a human. Now why would any person use a man in a bigfoot suit to demonstate a point? Hmmm let me think, oh yea because it's what all trolls do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 There goes Crow again "hey look over here!!! No OVER HERE!!! I told you to look here, now what are you doing?" Thinker Thunker's genius is that he has devised the height of a real bigfoot's leg lift in comparison to a human. Now why would any person use a man in a bigfoot suit to demonstate a point? Hmmm let me think, oh yea because it's what all trolls do There you go whining again. Old Thunker has had more than one of his "genius" observations shot to pieces and not by me mind you. Case in point the Yellowstone Buffalo video. I didn't say anything about the leg thrust I said leg length, leg length do you understand when someone is calling attention to leg length? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Thinker Thunker's genius is that he has devised the height of a real bigfoot's leg lift in comparison to a human. Yeah he demonstrated that on a turkey hunter wearing hunting clothes. Then he showed us how four guys in Yellowstone have inhuman proportions. This logic that he's using to create Bigfoots out of ordinary humans, you call genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts