Guest Crowlogic Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 As I said before sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride (not rude)! Why should folks post proof when other folks don't appreciate it, but rather depreciate it? Proof in terms of bigfoot after all of the fakes and nonsense is something that bowls you over, hits you over the head and screams at 200 decibels this is real and there is no way to turn it into anything but real. We have an entire world that this kind of proof can be furnished for virtually everything that exists in the physical world. So if you have that kind of proof bring it on if not you're better off not. It's easy to play for the captive audience of bigfootism but the real world is a tough stage.
Guest DWA Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Folk's would appreciate "proof" but no one has any..... big footers keep talking about but no one is delivering. Animal's proven. Proof is in, as reading and thinking about this has made clear to anyone who's done it, and as analyzing the evidence has made clear, without exception, to every scientist who has done that. Proven. All a body will say is that the proponents were right all along. The reason footers get so frustrated is because they are asked for verifiable evidence of fantastic claims.... Nope. Mindless repitition of blatant falsehoods and intellectual rigidity disgust proponents. It is not the skeptics fault there is no evidence. It is the skeptics' fault that the discussion is where it is, absolutely. The skeptics are 100% at fault for obstructing a scientific investigation, oh yes you are.
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Being as well versed in anatomy as you obviously are, I'm curious as to why you wouldn't use the more clinically accepted patella versus kneecap, or femur instead of the more awkward "femoral bone"? Also, and more significantly, you claim that the red line in the "squatch" picture ends at the lateral epicondyle. The lateral epicondyle is located at the lateral distal end of the femur. The red line obviously angulates and then extends to the subjects lower leg, well beyond the location of the lateral epicondyle. Given that a portion of the subject's lower leg and foot are obscured in the picture, the lateral malleolus of the fibula seems a more likely terminus, no? I'm just gonna leave this alone. Your right, should have said lateral malleolus. I tried to put the parts into laymens terms & gave up. Shouldn't have been in a hurry. Apologies.
salubrious Posted July 13, 2015 Moderator Posted July 13, 2015 I am not a denier. I have been around this nearly 20 years and have heard thousands of tall tales regarding what people see and know. Stories and tales are not evidence. Bring CLEAR, IN FOCUS and high res. pictures or movies. Until then you have nothing but words from strangers and Internet buddies. Nothing ever get accomplished in bigfootery. Your new friend will most like provide blob-squatch picture, something will happen in his research area to run them off or he will get tired of all on the DENIERS deciding to with hold his "superior" evidence. SHOW ME THE BIGFOOT and I will be the happiest guy in the world. That is how it works out 100% of the time Actually the PGF is shown to be an unknown creature. We don't know if its BF or Sasquatch since we don't know what those things are. But- given the nature of things its a pretty good bet that all three are the same thing. At any rate, the PGF has been well analyzed and its apparent that no human could have made a flexible suit do what Patty does. The joints are simply not in the right places and this is easy to see once you get into it. But you have to cause your hand to move as they say in legal circles. If you make no action to at least debunk the film (disproving a theory being a very accepted form of science) then you really are not in a position to complain (although that never stopped anyone on the internet...). So, if you look into it, you should be happy as you say above. IOW I am saying that the PGF is showing you the bigfoot; you should be happy. If not, please please show your work about how the joints that Patty expresses really are identical to those of a human. 1
Martin Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) ^ Patty is obviously not definitive in any way. I agree its the best there is as far as evidence but its not good enough. For one I see Patty with severe problems in the hip area. Diaper butt..... Very Clearly to me.... That's my work and I can't help it if you can't see it... But this isn't a Patty thread.... FWIW..... I have read the entire body of Patty work on this site and more..... I still see a suit. .... and that's good enough for me. There should be so much evidence yet there is none outside of unverifiable stories. Edited July 13, 2015 by Martin
beerhunter Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Proof in terms of bigfoot after all of the fakes and nonsense is something that bowls you over, hits you over the head and screams at 200 decibels this is real and there is no way to turn it into anything but real. We have an entire world that this kind of proof can be furnished for virtually everything that exists in the physical world. So if you have that kind of proof bring it on if not you're better off not. It's easy to play for the captive audience of bigfootism but the real world is a tough stage. You have me confused with someone else especially that first sentence. I don't care at all for the fakers, however, I don't see everything out there as a fakery like you obviously do. And the last sentence tells me all I need to know about you playing to your "Captive Audience" here. I am still searching for the truth, You, on the other hand, know every person having something positive to say about Bigfoot to be a liar and faker. You have it all figured out in the negative sense with the subject and the only reason you live right here on this site is to play up to the captive audience that you will never have in the "Real World!" 1
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 You have me confused with someone else especially that first sentence. I don't care at all for the fakers, however, I don't see everything out there as a fakery like you obviously do. And the last sentence tells me all I need to know about you playing to your "Captive Audience" here. I am still searching for the truth, You, on the other hand, know every person having something positive to say about Bigfoot to be a liar and faker. You have it all figured out in the negative sense with the subject and the only reason you live right here on this site is to play up to the captive audience that you will never have in the "Real World!" No the captive audience is the world at large. All I do is reflect the real world. However what difference does it make said proof is never going to arrive it's had more than a fair shot to get here. Believe whatever you need to believe.
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Bad pictorial example because the leg position of the subjects are different. The brown colored subject's leg is externally rotated at the hip. The black colored subjects leg is extended at the hip. 2 different anatomical positions that are not comparable. Additionally, you stated that the "legs seemed a bit long". Yet in your pictorial "evidence", you attempted to show that they were in fact the same length, directly contradicting your assertion that they were "a bit long". So again, I ask cite your evidence that supports your initial statement that the " Legs seem a bit long." Man in monkey suit miming other man in monkey suit, it's monkey business either way. But here's the gold standard. Patty vs mamma bigfoot. Patty has shorter legs and no straight locked knee. Seems mamma has a kinda straight locked knee too.
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Clearly she failed to shave her legs for your viewing pleasure
Bonehead74 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Your right, should have said lateral malleolus. I tried to put the parts into laymens terms & gave up. Shouldn't have been in a hurry. Apologies. No worries. Just wanted to be sure we were all on the same page.
Guest Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 It's a win-win if you do your own investigations, Nakani. If you don't care enough to do that, you're in the wrong room. I asked you why your profile states that you have never had an encounter, yet you claim to have seen this orange muscle meat. I am doing my own investigation, hence my question : How can this be?
beerhunter Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Clearly she failed to shave her legs for your viewing pleasure LOL she must be French, but I digress.
Martin Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 So the next question is: Why don't you post them....?
Recommended Posts