A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest]

Indeed but the newborn human foot has it's shape and form as you can see.  Scale that pink pudgy little foot up to adult size and it will give a very credible accounting of itself as a human foot.

 

 

Are you seriously claiming that adult human feet are the same as this just scaled up???

 

[Guest Crowlogic]

Are you seriously claiming that adult human feet are the same as this just scaled up???

 

Did you notice the predisposition of an arch in the foot of the photo I posted?  Did you notice the predisposition of an arch in the foot of the photo you posted? Did you comprehend that I said gives a "credible" accounting of a human foot?  Did you comprehend I did not say anything about the baby's foot being an exact scaled up replica of the adult foot?  Do you comprehend that the photo that the good Dr Bindernagle is posed with as being a juvenile bigfoot cast is ridiculously different from any bigfoot cast, big or small?  Do you comprehend that the toes of the bindernagle cast bear no resemblance to any bigfoot cast?  Can yo show me any human or primate with a foot that morphs with maturing as much as the cast Bindernagle is tauting?

 

 

 

The help you out here is a human baby foot next to a mature human foot.  They cannot be mistaken for anything other than being a human foot.  Now can you honestly believe that human/primate feet go through a morphing of the extant that Binbdernagle claims?  By all means enlighten us and show some backing up what the good Dr. claims.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

^^^Showing significant lack of understanding of and experience with footprints

^^^Thinking we're gonna take him over a biologist who not only knows more but has consulted with people having specific expertise

^^^Can't tell us what that is, or why someone would make one like that as a hoax; will toss out Some Explanation for which he has no evidence

[WSA]

Silly is dang sure right DWA.

 

In order to get off "go" on the track issue one has to have the intellectual courage and honesty to say if one considers them all made my an unclassified animal, all hoaxed/ misidentified, or some made by this animal, but some not. (Hint: It's #3. No, that is just what the record shows. It is not trigonometry. Think not? Tell me why. "Bigfoot doesn't exist" is not an explanation)

 

If you don't have the stones to put a marker down on one of those choices,  back it up with science and experience, and be willing to defend your opinion when challenged, you are wasting all of our time, but you are wasting yours especially. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^So that.

Wasting yours *especially* and you don't have the foggiest what a violent waste of your one go-round here it is.  Unless you are being *paid*, a *lot*, to do what you're doing, and no you don't have to answer because you will just be violently wasting *more* of your time.  Stop doing that.  For you.

[Guest]

If Crow Logic can't see that human baby feet are considerably different to human adult feet then there is no point in me wasting my time further on this.

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

[takes off shoes]  [whips off socks]  [bydangy HE'S RIGHT]

[Guest diana swampbooger]

lol, Crow is looking around for the next thing he can vomit &/or twist....

wait for it........wait for it.........

[WSA]

Crow's illogic is a lot like the un-dead. Hope we put a stake into the heart of this one for now.

Edited June 25, 2015 by WSA

[Guest Crowlogic]

If Crow Logic can't see that human baby feet are considerably different to human adult feet then there is no point in me wasting my time further on this.

 

Did you see the human feet photos I posted?  Guess not.  Are you able to reconcile the drastic morph Bindernagle claims for bigfoot?  Can you back him up?  Can out show us a hominid/human/primate that goes through a Bindernagle morph?  Come on back up your boy  Dr B.  Get some bigfoot/primate foot morphs to validate him.  Remember folks this is about bigfoot not humans.  

Edited June 25, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

Man, with some of the people that post here (and for all Their Perception, can't even spell Bindernagel's name right), I'm just glad I can think for myself.

[WSA]

Let's review class.

 

It is either:

 

1. All tracks are from an unclassified animal

2. All tracks are faked or misidentified

3. Some are from the animal, and some are not

4. I don't have the abilities to participate in this discussion on any intelligent level that will let anyone take me seriously 

 

Waiting.... 

[Guest DWA]

5.  Oh right, I have evidence that can back up what I'm saying

 

Let's not forget that one.

[Guest]

True enough, but which one is the fake? We have no holotype and the "experts" seem to disagree amongst each other. It is do-able but it isn't easy by any stretch. There needs to be some basic agreement among enough of the thought leaders to allow for some agreed upon basics of probable anatomy before we can even start to clear away the fakes do we not?

I believe Meldrum feels that he can provide information about the weight and walking ability of the animal by analysing the anatomy of casts. He's invested years of his life to examing them after all. I agree though that much more needs to be done when trackways are discovered though. My point regarding the thought experiment was more to provide an example of why removing fakes from such a database would be important.

 

The discussion was about discerning fake cast prints from authentic specimens and why you don’t throw everything out for something found faked or defective.  So in reading, I interpreted two quick exchanges between Southern Yahoo and Bodhi, keeping in mind holotype means single physical type specimen.

 

SY comment says:  A keen eye for signs of hoaxes is self-cleaning.  You know what should or shouldn’t be present.

 

Bodhi says: True but which one is fake?

 

Bodhi says: There is no specimen and experts seem to disagree.

 

The message was self- evident very clear and straight forward to me but I would give it one logical extension with some alliterative quality for rhetorical effect but I won’t.

A lot of this blame if there is any rests at the feet of science who are largely unwilling to invest some skin in the game and they leave every day lay people to do the heavy lifting, if Bigfoot researchers are one day successful people of science will trample one another out the door to get their name and face out there first as the one true expert.  In the meantime we will be mired in exhausting debate and confusion over the lack of uniform standards in the field which is very unfortunate.

 

Now For my part I will add some alliterative quality for rhetorical effect as an example why one bad apple doesn’t justify throwing out the entire bag. If I buy a bag of apples and find one spoiled apple among the 5 pound bag, I simply discard it and enjoy the rest. I may be Gumshoeye and a bit Bohemian in my ways but I don't believe I'm unique in thinking that way. This is not the poisonous tree doctrine nor is it empirical science, remember science wants us to the heavy lifting. The notion that somehow one faked print automatically speaks value for the hundred others is not sound thinking and will be opposed ever time.        

Edited June 25, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest Crowlogic]

5.  Oh right, I have evidence that can back up what I'm saying

 

Let's not forget that one.

Put up or clam up how's that?