beerhunter Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I truly believe some people are purposely placed on this forum, although I have no idea by who. They have to be, no one in their right mind would spend such time on a subject that they don't believe is real in the first place and repeat themselves over and over and over and over again saying it. +1 The most interesting video I have seen was the baby BF on all fours crossing the road in Oklahoma. I am not smart enough to know how to re-post it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I truly believe some people are purposely placed on this forum, although I have no idea by who. They have to be, no one in their right mind would spend such time on a subject that they don't believe is real in the first place and repeat themselves over and over and over and over again saying it. Well, let's remember the key phrase there. I have bolded it for rapid location. It takes something...um...special to insist that science and lack of evidence say that something isn't real for which serious applied science has pretty much made a conclusion based on a very high volume of consistent evidence. And to continue to say that, as if nothing contradicting the notion has ever been brought to one's attention. Special. It is a mindset that could not get a human through most days...yet it predominates when it comes to this topic. Odd indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) I truly believe some people are purposely placed on this forum, although I have no idea by who. They have to be, no one in their right mind would spend such time on a subject that they don't believe is real in the first place and repeat themselves over and over and over and over again saying it. I've said that it is interesting to view the evolution of the belief system and the means with which it gets perpetuated. This video makes a number of good points. One great point is made starting at 46:50 Edited June 11, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 As I said. Special. JREF assures that video doesn't get opened. If that is all you have...that is *all you have.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 As I said. Special. JREF assures that video doesn't get opened. If that is all you have...that is *all you have.* If I've learned anything at all it is that you don't have very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 You have not made a more telling point here...just not in the way you would like. But of course the very point I have just made a few posts up is that "If I've learned anything at all" is highly doubtful for a certain sort here. You know, instead of wasting all this bandwidth you all could be making the case against sasquatch, instead of repeatedly underlining that there is not one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 11, 2015 Admin Share Posted June 11, 2015 If I've learned anything at all it is that you don't have very much. Your trying to make the point that people want to believe in Bigfoot to gain acceptance within a group? Yes? I have demanded clear videos and photos of said bigfoot. I have stated why there is only junk graphic evidence. I have backed up my position by posting excellent photos of real animals. I can walk my talk in presenting what real world photographs of real animals look like but the bigfoot community can't. It never has and it never will. One more time it's been half a century and nothing even resembling a decent photo. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'll go to the wall and say I'm right about this. No your wrong. If your mindset is that Bigfoot cannot exist? Then every photo one looks at will be a hoax. There are plenty of clear photos of a hairy upright bipedal creature. Meaning its not a bear or a stump. But is it a hoax? A picture will not resolve this issue, and I'd venture to say it wont resolve it for you either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Acting like the Patterson/Gimlin film is somehow not a clear video of a bigfoot - something I'd like to note that Crow has in the past considered it to be - is a "skeptical" dodge way past expiration date. Were that a person I knew I would recognize the person. The analyses that have for all intents and purposes proven it genuine were utterly legitimate to perform with information right on the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted June 11, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2015 This thread was created knowing full well that the bigfoot community is unable to produce the kind of evidence that in the real world of evidence actually has substance. It is well understood that the evidence bar is set preposterously low and impresses only those minds that are impressionable that way. Take away the PGF and the entire graphic history of bigfoot falls flat on it's face, That is untrue. IMO you opened the thread because you don't accept actual evidence. Without the PGF this evidence would still exist. The footprint was found less than 15 hours after a young lady in her early 20's that was at our house for a get together of people came back from her car very upset and told us a big man was watching her from the edge of the woods. She took her dog out to her car to get her dog's food and coming around the front corner of her car closest to the woods, her dog started growling. She looks up to see what she told us was a big man standing in the edge of the woods. It was dark and she backlit it against the distant lights because we do not have a security light on the property. When it noticed that it had been seen it turned an ran into the woods. The area that it ran into and cleared in seconds I have a hard time walking thru in the daylight with the steepness of the terrain and the deep holes and the cat briers that make it look like a jungle in the summer time. We went to the other side of this area and worked our way back toward the house figuring that we had this "person" trapped in the mess. We found nothing. The next day I looked further in the direction that she said it ran and seen the print from a little distance and figured that I had found the boot print of the "person" we had looked for except it was not a boot print but a 20" long 10" wide track that looked like a bare foot. The track was almost an inch deep in hard packed dry red clay soil which means it had to be very heavy. The tree bow I found weeks later when I started looking around from the direction that we heard a lot of the sounds at night come from. A tree "sprung" like that against another tree is not natural. I tried pulling over another tree the same species and just slightly smaller around growing next to it by climbing to the top of it and riding it over. I could not do it, it would have taken a block and tackle to pull it over. That is the best physical evidence that I have collected. Two other family members have seen one at different occasions and different from the first seen by the young lady, all have been backlit either by a distant light or moonlight.This combined with the multiple other experiences that I have experienced myself but do not offer physical proof has for me been enough for me to come to my own conclusion of them existing. The splay in the big toe suggests that the subject has never worn shoes or boots in its life. This splay is the way natural human prints would look if we did not wear shoes, but we do so the big toe is bent towards the little toes; deformed by shoes over the life of the wearer. I think the actual lessor digits occur below where you suggest them in the outline. Good point about the pebbles that got moved! Those two rocks that fell off the foot do seem odd. Will our own feet have this same problem when or if we walk on a rock? will it stick the same way as our own human feet? Of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 This thread was created knowing full well that the bigfoot community is unable to produce the kind of evidence that in the real world of evidence actually has substance. It is well understood that the evidence bar is set preposterously low and impresses only those minds that are impressionable that way. Take away the PGF and the entire graphic history of bigfoot falls flat on it's face, note that the response to ALL challenges is, ignore them so one can continue to post uninformed statements. This animal has yielded all evidence traditionally used to run species to ground ...and more than we have for many species we recognize. It is well known that for some people the bar for the ability to absorb and think upon the evidence is set preposterously high; this impresses only those minds that are impressionable that way. Take away the PGF and this discussion would be no different for those in the know. Never mind which "take away the PGF" means, well, you know, were it not proven already... Crow only impresses minds that are impressionable that way. I am not precisely sure how the strategy to appear not to look ignorant through ignoring is working. Somebody ask Crow. Somebody who, I mean, can get an answer. Now, to most of us, the strategy is actually pretty obvious: the can't-let-go True Believer is trying to be convinced. He just doesn't know how a scientist goes about that, so he's relying on scientific thinkers to do his heavy lifting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) That is untrue. IMO you opened the thread because you don't accept actual evidence. Without the PGF this evidence would still exist. The splay in the big toe suggests that the subject has never worn shoes or boots in its life. This splay is the way natural human prints would look if we did not wear shoes, but we do so the big toe is bent towards the little toes; deformed by shoes over the life of the wearer. I think the actual lessor digits occur below where you suggest them in the outline. Good point about the pebbles that got moved! Of course! I no longer accept the tripe that passes as evidence. You see I learned a few things along the way and if something seems to arse poor to be good you can bet it is too arse poor to be good. You have not made a more telling point here...just not in the way you would like. But of course the very point I have just made a few posts up is that "If I've learned anything at all" is highly doubtful for a certain sort here. You know, instead of wasting all this bandwidth you all could be making the case against sasquatch, instead of repeatedly underlining that there is not one. The case against bigfoot is made each and every single day that it remains uncatalogued. The case against bigfoot has been made more times than I can count by more people than I can name. I support the case against bigfoot by realizing and pointing out that the the bigfoot continuum invalidates itself by fostering stupendously poor reasoning and evidence. Especially the graphic evidence. When the bigfoot continuum delivers professional caliber evidence and by professional I mean truly vetted objective evidence then you might have a leg to stand on. However as it stand snow it is on one hand a mutual admiration society an on the other a gaggle of bickering amateurs playing researcher. I don't need color bold print to make this case. Edited June 11, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Salubrius , yes I am outside the track with the line almost all the way around it. I am not that steady of a hand in the paint program. I just wanted to give an idea where the print was and general shape. I like to remind people that the current world record for a human foot is held by Brahim Takioullah. His left foot measures 1 ft 3 inches (15" or 38.1 cm) and his right foot is 1ft 2.76inches (14 3/4" or 37.49 cm). he is very tall and not what you would call athletic and has been referred to a doctor to deal with his medical issues, Meaning he would not be doing any very fluid running in the woods. You find a track that is 15" inches or more in an area it was not made by a human going barefoot it is either a real Sasquatch print or a hoax. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 The build of the subject is classic and corresponds to patty and perhaps a few other films like the Freeman footage and the oklahoma photo controlled by NAWAC. The video notwithstanding, the OK photo (there are actually two I've seen) is to me as compelling a piece of evidence as exists. There simply is not a good alternative explanation for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Your trying to make the point that people want to believe in Bigfoot to gain acceptance within a group? Yes? No your wrong. If your mindset is that Bigfoot cannot exist? Then every photo one looks at will be a hoax. There are plenty of clear photos of a hairy upright bipedal creature. Meaning its not a bear or a stump. But is it a hoax? A picture will not resolve this issue, and I'd venture to say it wont resolve it for you either. Until right an proper evidence arrives, and I think you understand what I mean bigfoot does not exist based on the evidence available. As for the social context all one needs to do is look at the current state of the art to understand that it has taken on a social aspect. After all does not the Finding Bigfoot crew welcome people into the club almost every week? Only the original researchers were loners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 11, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted June 11, 2015 "Bigfoot does not exist based on the evidence available." What evidence can prove something does not exist? Trying to prove a negative again? You can say that there is insufficient evidence to prove existence but by doing that you acknowledge there is some evidence and you don't want to do that. To say there is no evidence is intellectual dishonesty and you should know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts