Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) I read the report and like what it had to say. Edited July 8, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I can't see anyone dismissing this without showing, at the same level of detail, what it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Read the report and listened to the posted link last night. If there is anything I detected be worrisome was the oft repeated that here is incontrovertible proof of the being's existence. The jury is still out on that. A second detail that caught my attention was the oft repeated statement of no tool marks on the bones. I sensed that the presenter was trying to push the two details I mention too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 That's your sense. But you have a confirmation bias going in. Nothing even close to the idea "incontrovertible proof of sasquatch" is discussed in the paper. Unless you are gonna show me. What you won't be able to show me is that an unconfirmed North American primate isn't a reasonable contender supported by pretty much everything that is in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Sure, sure, Crow. BigTreeWalker forgot to test the Pacu(South American freshwater fish) or the promacheuthid squid at a depth of 6,600 feet under the southern Atlantic Ocean or Sheepshead fish. Cause, gosh, those 3 have human looking teeth!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Sure, sure, Crow. BigTreeWalker forgot to test the Pacu(South American freshwater fish) or the promacheuthid squid at a depth of 6,600 feet under the southern Atlantic Ocean or Sheepshead fish. Cause, gosh, those 3 have human looking teeth!! I didn;'t say the report was false. I did say that in it's there was a lot of pushing of this is "undoubtedly real folks and nope no tool marks", this is the read deal kids. He used all the right words good vocabulary too. Did you ever watch a NASCAR race and the drivers will quote the name of the sponsor as often as they can, push the product of the sponsor, keep mentioning Penzoil or Skool or whatever is feeding NASCAR these days. Keep pushing the no tool marks, keep pushing the this is 100% real proof, keep saying it, push the product. That is what I found in question. Yes the average bigfooter knows it's real the are already hooked. But often it sounded like pushing the product to me and yes it's a product just like everything else in bigfootism now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Crow. Read the report. And I keep telling you: trying to jinx bigfoot into being won't work. It's already real. So that won't be what did it. Honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I didn;'t say the report was false. I did say that in it's there was a lot of pushing of this is "undoubtedly real folks and nope no tool marks", this is the read deal kids. He used all the right words good vocabulary too. Did you ever watch a NASCAR race and the drivers will quote the name of the sponsor as often as they can, push the product of the sponsor, keep mentioning Penzoil or Skool or whatever is feeding NASCAR these days. Keep pushing the no tool marks, keep pushing the this is 100% real proof, keep saying it, push the product. That is what I found in question. Yes the average bigfooter knows it's real the are already hooked. But often it sounded like pushing the product to me and yes it's a product just like everything else in bigfootism now. Whew! Not false. Glad that's cleared up. Oh, I get it! You don't like his passion for the topic? Naw, that wouldn't be right. Pushing = Passion...oops..... mmmmm My condolences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Crow. Read the report. And I keep telling you: trying to jinx bigfoot into being won't work. It's already real. So that won't be what did it. Honest. The report is still many many steps away from being certified. A pro bigfoot person discovered some bones they are curious to be sure but the all possibilities haven't been explored. Want real science? Find the bones write your report then take it to the scientific community first not first your buddies in bigfoot. Many are the times something seems to be but isn't. The bones have a very long road in front of them which is not to say it's good or bad evidence but it is something with very little precedence for bigfoot. That is to ask the question have your people found bone piles like that with similar markings? If not why not? It indicates a species trait. Many many questions all sides of the question need to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 The why not is because people didn't know what to look for. Crow, it wasn't to give it to our bigfoot friends. It was to get it out there; to make it available for everyone to know and use. Other than being curious and interested in the subject, I was never part of the Bigfoot crowd. I can't fault Mr Townsend for being enthusiastic about the subject and the research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 BigTreeWalker, this is huge, what you've done. You can see, from the meaningless sputtering you're hearing from some quarters, how huge it is. (Not that I imagine you needed that kind of confirmation; but still, how sweet it is! To my ears, anyway. I hope to yours, too.) I wish you the greatest luck with it going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 The why not is because people didn't know what to look for. Crow, it wasn't to give it to our bigfoot friends. It was to get it out there; to make it available for everyone to know and use. Other than being curious and interested in the subject, I was never part of the Bigfoot crowd. I can't fault Mr Townsend for being enthusiastic about the subject and the research. I'm not anti report and if it is not the cryptoid responsible there is still some real science to explore how they got there like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 The report is still many many steps away from being certified. A pro bigfoot person discovered some bones they are curious to be sure but the all possibilities haven't been explored. Want real science? Find the bones write your report then take it to the scientific community first not first your buddies in bigfoot. Many are the times something seems to be but isn't. The bones have a very long road in front of them which is not to say it's good or bad evidence but it is something with very little precedence for bigfoot. That is to ask the question have your people found bone piles like that with similar markings? If not why not? It indicates a species trait. Many many questions all sides of the question need to ask. Don't recall seeing anything in the paper about bigfoot, Crow. How did you jump to the bigfoot conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 and what does "many steps away from being certified" mean? Most scientific research is. As a matter of fact, one heck of a lot more than most scientists will let on. http://www.newyorker...truth-wears-off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 How could you miss the references to an unidentified humanoid that isn't HSS? A rose by any other name....... Anyway, I think Crow has a point. Take it to other's in the field and let them review your work, compare it to other bone piles, etc.....they've only identified three piles where the predator doesn't match any known species. The work has just begun, it's too early to be including the bigfoot references, just simply ask the question, " What is this? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts