A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[ThePhaige]

^^^ you are correct ...the creature is real, the real question left for me is simply how it does what it does, and where does it fit in to history particularly and accurately, meaning earth history. The reality is a fact...all the other answers while I maintain to know a few of them , many are still opinion, theory and belief.

[Guest DWA]

Although I do agree with you on ^^^that, the narrower question is "what does a real bigfoot print look like?  The answer is "we pretty much know."

[Martin]

^ Yes. 

 

Which one?

[Guest]

Answer has been given.  The question is irrelevant, and only serves as excuse to continue duff-sit.  I could direct you to the definitve answer, enunciated by me, but pronounced by science.  We're done with this.

 

I agree DWA ... Just ignore him. He's doing what he does best, creates arguments and feeds off the chaos he stirs up. 

[Guest DWA]

I agree DWA ... Just ignore him. He's doing what he does best, creates arguments and feeds off the chaos he stirs up. 

Astute.  Correct.

The post in which I made science's definitive answer is up.  Find it, guys.  What *I'm* stirrin up.

[southernyahoo]

If I were going on observable detail and nothing else I would choose this one as real. The one on the left

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

And science SAYS!

 

Close enough.

[Bonehead74]

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeeee. So sorry for being irrelevant. No one had hipped me to that, dude. At least I'm capable of and willing to answer a simple question in a clear and concise fashion, unlike either of you.

By all means, please continue your self-congratulatory postings in which all you seem capable of is declaring your intellectual superiority and demeaning anyone who may disagree with you. There's no discussion to be had with you.

WSA: option 3 for me if that was what you were asking.

ETA:

Thanks, SY. What print is that a cast of, if you please?

Edited June 26, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Guest DWA]

I don't demean anyone.  I demand certain things, like an attention to or willingness to learn what is up here.  The excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me dodge leaves me cold.  If I know more about this, and those clearly knowing less act like they know more, I know whose loss that is.  It ain't mine.

[Guest DWA]

But because I like having fun here and only a very few are capable of providing it, but I am having real discussions with them:

 

"By all means, please continue your self-congratulatory postings"

 

Just elucidating the processes of science and what their proper grasp entails.  If that is all you are getting, there's no discussion to be had with you.

 

"...in which all you seem capable of is declaring your intellectual superiority"

 

...and elucidating the processes of science and what their proper grasp entails.  If that is all you are getting, there's no discussion to be had with you.

 

"...and demeaning anyone who may disagree with you."  If that is all you are getting, there's no discussion to be had with you.

 

Conclusion:  There's no discussion to be had with you.  (I love both cut and paste and stirring stuff up.  Kind of like you.)

 

I'm glad the ones who keep me coming back keep me coming back.
 

[southernyahoo]

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeeee. So sorry for being irrelevant. No one had hipped me to that, dude. At least I'm capable of and willing to answer a simple question in a clear and concise fashion, unlike either of you.

By all means, please continue your self-congratulatory postings in which all you seem capable of is declaring your intellectual superiority and demeaning anyone who may disagree with you. There's no discussion to be had with you.

WSA: option 3 for me if that was what you were asking.

ETA:

Thanks, SY. What print is that a cast of, if you please?

 

The one on the left is known as the Hereford cast from Greys Harbor county, Washington I think.

[ThePhaige]

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeeee. So sorry for being irrelevant. No one had hipped me to that, dude. At least I'm capable of and willing to answer a simple question in a clear and concise fashion, unlike either of you.

By all means, please continue your self-congratulatory postings in which all you seem capable of is declaring your intellectual superiority and demeaning anyone who may disagree with you. There's no discussion to be had with you.

WSA: option 3 for me if that was what you were asking.

ETA:

Thanks, SY. What print is that a cast of, if you please?

 

Im hoping none of that was directed at me.....as I have nothing but respect for you BH

Edited June 26, 2015 by ThePhaige

[Bonehead74]

Excellent. Thank you! What details intrigue you? Is it the detail of the cast itself, the details of the cast's discovery, its location, all of the above?

[southernyahoo]

It all factors in of coarse, but there are some details like the toe stems visible in other tracks from that find. The contours on the toe pads scream "real toes" and there is a natural graduation in size and proportion to the neighboring toes. There is some unusual detail on the outer side of the foot that I wouldn't think a hoaxer would just throw in to make them seem more real.

[WSA]

I was BH...thanks. Yes, I agree that is what the record reflects. If more would just concede that obvious point, we might not still find ourselves here still, 50 years further on.