Guest Crowlogic Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 So the next question is: Why don't you post them....? Because then the skeptics would have yet another reason to not go out and find the beast and prove it for ourselves. Or perhaps photos never lie and can't be faked.................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Or because it's not worth trying to convince someone on a forum who has decided BF is not real. Like any skeptic here would ever change their mind and openly announce it for all the other readers. How could they be sure it was real? .......and wouldn't it be a disgrace if any got fooled!!! hmmmm??????????? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) 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. You still haven't cited evidence to support your initial statement that the "leg seems a bit longer". And while you have the anatomic position correct, they are at different viewing angles. Our view of Patty's leg is posterior and the foot is in a different plane from the rest of the hip and knee while our view of the Thinker thunker one is lateral, which means no meaningful comparison due to the spacial discrepancy, so no cigar. Edited July 14, 2015 by ChasingRabbits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 So the next question is: Why don't you post them....? Um...for YOU GUYS...? Animal's proven already; but you can't be bothered until one pees in yer cornflakes. Why don't *you* find it...and catch up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 You still haven't cited evidence to support your initial statement that the "leg seems a bit longer". And while you have the anatomic position correct, they are at different viewing angles. Our view of Patty's leg is posterior and the foot is in a different plane from the rest of the hip and knee while our view of the Thinker thunker one is lateral, which means no meaningful comparison due to the spacial discrepancy, so no cigar. You were looking at the Patterson figure which is the best type specimen images in bigfootism. I have demonstrated that the Patterson figure as it appears in the published frames has shorter legs than the figure on the right. Furthermore the figure on the right has a locked right knee which according to the bigfoot gospel written from the Patterson images bigfoot don't lock their knees. Remember the almighty compliant gait everybody waves around? So no I don't owe you any more than I've demonstrated but you now have the ball in your court to answer mamma and her locked right knee and show me how her legs are short as with Patty. Assuming you can. Um...for YOU GUYS...? Animal's proven already; but you can't be bothered until one pees in yer cornflakes. Why don't *you* find it...and catch up? Don't you mean you can't because you haven't got anything to actually impress the real world? But here's a taste of real science and what real science actually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 ...when it's doing something, which...surprise! IT IS DOING HERE, just you choose not to read it, or think about it. 'Sokay, 'cause this is the way science always works. When stuff is first proven, the vast majority of the community doesn't know about it. The evidence can be properly interpreted in only one way; hoaxes lies and misidentifications are handily ruled out; and for those of us who have placed ourselves on the cutting edge, the only thing a body will do is make us sad because it wasn't necessary. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, science takes a specimen for taxonomic purposes only; they have their proof that the thing is real and need to convince no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 In my humble opinion, it's not a baby mama. Interesting note: 1. the frontal bone - not as angled as Patty. 2. Coronal suture rather pronounced - young male adult? 3. Do I see junk?. Do I notice movement of another squatch initially before young male emerges from behind rock? Is that why photog was able to creep up on 'them'...people be busy bumping uglies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) You were looking at the Patterson figure which is the best type specimen images in bigfootism. I have demonstrated that the Patterson figure as it appears in the published frames has shorter legs than the figure on the right. Furthermore the figure on the right has a locked right knee which according to the bigfoot gospel written from the Patterson images bigfoot don't lock their knees. Remember the almighty compliant gait everybody waves around? So no I don't owe you any more than I've demonstrated but you now have the ball in your court to answer mamma and her locked right knee and show me how her legs are short as with Patty. Assuming you can. Don't you mean you can't because you haven't got anything to actually impress the real world? But here's a taste of real science and what real science actually does. In summary, Crow 1. doesn't believe Big Foot exists. 2. makes a statement that the subject on the Thinker Thunker video has a leg that "seems a bit longer". 3. posts a 'comparison' pic of a human in an ape suit and claims that the leg lengths are the same as the subject in question which doesn't support his claim that the leg seemed "a bit longer". 4. posts a 'comparison' pic of Patty, calling it "Man in monkey suit miming other man in monkey suit, it's monkey business either way." which doesn't substantiate at all his initial comment that the subject's leg "seems a bit longer", again. 5. explains that he used Patty because that is the standard in bigfootism without realizing that if he uses Patty as the evidence for his conclusion he too is engaging in "bigfootism" and not real science. 6. attempts to change the topic from leg length to "locked knee" because he can't find any evidence to support his leg length claim. Edited July 14, 2015 by ChasingRabbits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 In summary, Crow 1. doesn't believe Big Foot exists. 2. makes a statement that the subject on the Thinker Thunker video has a leg that "seems a bit longer". 3. posts a 'comparison' pic of a human in an ape suit and claims that the leg lengths are the same as the subject in question which doesn't support his claim that the leg seemed "a bit longer". 4. posts a 'comparison' pic of Patty, calling it "Man in monkey suit miming other man in monkey suit, it's monkey business either way." which doesn't substantiate at all his initial comment that the subject's leg "seems a bit longer", again. 5. explains that he used Patty because that is the standard in bigfootism without realizing that if he uses Patty as the evidence for his conclusion he too is engaging in "bigfootism" and not real science. 6. attempts to change the topic from leg length to "locked knee" because he can't find any evidence to support his leg length claim. Nope Patty is the goddess of bigfootism. Anything less is substandard evidence. Bigfoot in general is claimed to have longer arms and shorter legs than the general human ratio of leg and arm length. You know this BTW. My claim is based on the descriptions given by bigfoot witnesses and based on the visual evidence shown in the PGF. Now this is about as good as it gets for bigfoot evidence. Now then go back and study the mamma bigfoot and Patty and let your eyes be your guide not your negative bias towards me. If you feel mamma has suitably correct for bigfoot legs great but heck friend I see long legs and oh there's this lock knee going on too. Now I've delivered the goods about the leg length even if you disagree so now you tell me about how mamma gets to have a locked knee OK? You won't because humans lock the knee not bigfoots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Nope Patty is the goddess of bigfootism. Anything less is substandard evidence. Bigfoot in general is claimed to have longer arms and shorter legs than the general human ratio of leg and arm length. You know this BTW. My claim is based on the descriptions given by bigfoot witnesses and based on the visual evidence shown in the PGF. Now this is about as good as it gets for bigfoot evidence. Now then go back and study the mamma bigfoot and Patty and let your eyes be your guide not your negative bias towards me. If you feel mamma has suitably correct for bigfoot legs great but heck friend I see long legs and oh there's this lock knee going on too. Now I've delivered the goods about the leg length even if you disagree so now you tell me about how mamma gets to have a locked knee OK? You won't because humans lock the knee not bigfoots. 7 Fails to grasp the concept that if Big Foot does not exist, 'evidence' based on witness accounts is not 'evidence' because the creature does not exist, ergo no evidence available for him to make the conclusion on Big Foot leg lengths. 8. Uses subjective witness accounts as supportive evidence, when he has stated in this and other threads that witness accounts are not "best evidence". 9. Uses PGF as evidence, which he has labeled a "man in a monkey suit", to support his claim that the Thinker Thunker subject's leg "seems a bit longer". 10. Attempts to portray our discourse as an ad hominem to deflect from the fact that he cannot support his conclusion that the "leg seems a bit longer" with real science<----the same real science to which he holds Big Foot proponents. 11. Continues to use the locked knee appearance to deflect from the fact that he has no evidence to support his leg length claim. Edited July 14, 2015 by ChasingRabbits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 7 Fails to grasp the concept that if Big Foot does not exist, 'evidence' based on witness accounts is not 'evidence' because the creature does not exist, ergo no evidence available for him to make the conclusion on Big Foot leg lengths. 8. Uses subjective witness accounts as supportive evidence, when he has stated in this and other threads that witness accounts are not "best evidence". 9. Uses PGF as evidence, which he has labeled a "man in a monkey suit", to support his claim that the Thinker Thunker subject's leg "seems a bit longer". 10. Attempts to portray our discourse as an ad hominem to deflect from the fact that he cannot support his conclusion that the "leg seems a bit longer" with real science<----the same real science to which he holds Big Foot proponents. 11. Continues to use the locked knee appearance to deflect from the fact that he has no evidence to support his leg length claim. OK you win the mamma has normal bigfoot legs because she's a normal bigfoot. So since you've proven me wrong I'll ask you one more time as I go down in flames to an ignominious end .....Mamma has a locked knee so look you've dis proven my stand and by disproving my leg length stand you've put mamma well into the realm of reality with a locked knee to boot. Better notify Meldrum that bigfoot locks the knees................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Did anyone see lactating breasts or a shadow of breasts? I saw nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Or because it's not worth trying to convince someone on a forum who has decided BF is not real. Like any skeptic here would ever change their mind and openly announce it for all the other readers. How could they be sure it was real? .......and wouldn't it be a disgrace if any got fooled!!! hmmmm???????????Clear pictures would put some doubt in my mind and I would reevaluate my stance. So how about it Diana swampbooger care to be the first person in BFF history to post a clear picture of a Sasquatch? Or do you have an excuse why you can't/won't. Edited July 14, 2015 by Nakani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Roger Patterson took a clear image of a sasquatch. Moving image at that. It's clear enough to see breasts and even lips. Patty ain't no blobsquatch. If clear moving image isn't going to do it for you I doubt stills are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 ^Well it couldn't hurt to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts