A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[SWWASAS]

This is beginning to get moronic.  I used to believe in bigfoot.  I believed in bigfoot from 1967 until 2013.  I read everything available from 1967 until the publishing of Legend Meets Science.  I watched every documetary I was aware of from 1967 through Legend meets Science.  I also spent time in the field (remote regions where bigfoot activity gets reported ) as a trained observer doing real scientific work and you have the gall to say I haven't investigated the issue.  Friend I was aware of bigfoot when you were still in diapers.  But I woke up and reason won the day.  Personally I could care less what you invest your energies in.  Now that said you're still whining about your profile photo, well excuse  me if the fake Dr Squatch posted looked a bit like your wooden bigfoot face.  What the %$#@ are you so paranoid about?  Oh you're a bigfoot researcher that explains it.

In the case of bigfoot the method always ends in nothing.  Sure retest that hog hair 10,000 times it'll still be hog hair.

 

 

I am really sorry that this is so distressing to you.   You spent your field time as an environmental engineer taking water samples studying lake acidification.     That is hardly BF focused field work.     Let me guess that was in New York State?   Any lake in New York state likely is ringed by lake shore houses.     Right?   Not exactly where I would expect to find BF.    By your own statement you do not believe any BF could be within 1500 miles of you.   You could be right but there are sighting reports in New York. 

 

   How old are you anyway?   Pretty old to know about BF when I was in diapers,  since I am 69.    I am paranoid?   I was addressing the photograph Roguefooter posted which has nothing to do with you or my avatar photo.   So who is paranoid?       

Edited July 7, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[WSA]

The point made is not much is "good enough" for a lot of folks who might could know better. This is not the fault of the film.  The footage is completely adequate for a myriad of purposes tending to validate what is shown there. That some around here would not know that, or choose to wave it off as something inconsequential without...you know...offering a plausible alternative scenario (i.e., "Let me show you how it was done...") is the very definition of "defies belief" in my book. Yup.  

[Guest DWA]

This is beginning to get moronic.  

I agree.  Whenever a person who seems to be able to read and write English reasonably well seems not to be seeing or at least comprehending - for dozens and dozens of pages - anything that anyone says that disagrees with him, I try to be kind.  But the m-word does occur.

With whom are you conversing?  Can we talk to him too?  You seem neither to be conversing with us, nor dealing with the evidence.  Maybe the person we cannot see has all the answers, and we just are not seeing them.

Bring him on board too.  We don't bite.  Maybe we'll finally understand what you're up to.

[Martin]

The point made is not much is "good enough" for a lot of folks who might could know better. This is not the fault of the film.  The footage is completely adequate for a myriad of purposes tending to validate what is shown there. That some around here would not know that, or choose to wave it off as something inconsequential without...you know...offering a plausible alternative scenario (i.e., "Let me show you how it was done...") is the very definition of "defies belief" in my book. Yup.  

 

"The footage is completely adequate for a myriad of purposes tending to validate what is shown there."

 

I agree generally speaking it could be a bigfoot. That's it but it is not good enough.

 

50 years in still no in focus high resolution picture..... not one.

[SWWASAS]

DWA  perhaps Crowlogic is indeed older than myself so perhaps we should cut him some slack about remembering things.    I have been looking for some explanation and at least advancing age makes sense.    Older people often get caught up in arguing with their neighbor or something similar so perhaps this forum is that sort of outlet. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

DWA  perhaps Crowlogic is indeed older than myself so perhaps we should cut him some slack about remembering things.    I have been looking for some explanation and at least advancing age makes sense.    Older people often get caught up in arguing with their neighbor or something similar so perhaps this forum is that sort of outlet. 

Gentlemen I'm not the one working up a sweat looking for a cryptoid that  virtually every half decent mind on the planet reasons does not exist.  

 

I agree.  Whenever a person who seems to be able to read and write English reasonably well seems not to be seeing or at least comprehending - for dozens and dozens of pages - anything that anyone says that disagrees with him, I try to be kind.  But the m-word does occur.

With whom are you conversing?  Can we talk to him too?  You seem neither to be conversing with us, nor dealing with the evidence.  Maybe the person we cannot see has all the answers, and we just are not seeing them.

Bring him on board too.  We don't bite.  Maybe we'll finally understand what you're up to.

Don't you understand that you've got the same bunch of nothing that everyone else that's come before you had?  If you had anything more it would be a done deal.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Martin]

Gentlemen I'm not the one working up a sweat looking for a cryptoid................

 

No one is working up the sweat looking for bigfoot.

 

Finding Bigfoot has proven that there is still plenty of $$ in bigfoot. 

 

How much money was made off of the PGF film? $200k $300k $400k $1mil ????

 

How much would a body on a slab be worth? $1 mil $2 mil $10 mil???? 

 

Go shoot one and get rich.

 

Get a high def in focus movie and get rich. 

 

If watching the PGF and reading Munns' book is proof positive then why aren't thousand of people cashing in their 401k and going on this 21st century gold rush?

 

Maybe its because in the past 50 years there has been no real evidence and the PGF just isn't good enough.

[roguefooter]

My problem was one of your making.   Your post 292 did give any credits for origin of the photos as you did later.    In post 292 you posted the series of pictures showing manipulation which I presumed you wanted to prove that you could hoax a BF photo.    You gave no credit to the source of the photographs.  That in itself is a common tactic of hoaxers.     When I pointed that out, you responded with the youtube videos which belatedly gave others the credit for what you had previously posted.     If you had given proper credit in post 292 for the origin of the pictures, I would not have even commented.       I did not report you so made no attempt to influence the moderators.   As they have repeatedly said,   only reporting will cause them to look at someone's comments.   

 

Sorry but this was not of my making. If you had followed the thread you would know where those pictures came from.

 

Beerhunter posted the original photo post 139, followed by several posts questioning said photo. Then Bonehead78 posted the Youtube link to where that photo came from and all the other videos pertaining to it:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51455-show-your-best-evidence-if-you-please/page-14#entry911495

 

He posted those links on page 14- you made the accusation on page 15. This is simple research- the links were already posted for you on the previous page.  Instead you made an accusation of hoaxing, and now want to blame me for it rather than take the responsibility for your mistake. Are you kidding me?

 

If this is how you do research or follow up then you should just stop now. This is pathetic man.

Edited July 8, 2015 by roguefooter

[Bonehead74]

...Bonehead78 posted the Youtube link to where that photo came from...

78,74...

It's all good!

[Guest DWA]

The point made is not much is "good enough" for a lot of folks who might could know better. This is not the fault of the film.  The footage is completely adequate for a myriad of purposes tending to validate what is shown there. That some around here would not know that, or choose to wave it off as something inconsequential without...you know...offering a plausible alternative scenario (i.e., "Let me show you how it was done...") is the very definition of "defies belief" in my book. Yup.  

Pretty much.

 

If you are a scientist, the evidence is more than enough for you to either provisionally accept the animal or full-court press for proof ...or you are ignorant of the evidence.  No Option 3.

Edited July 8, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

No one is working up the sweat looking for bigfoot.

 

Finding Bigfoot has proven that there is still plenty of $$ in bigfoot. 

 

How much money was made off of the PGF film? $200k $300k $400k $1mil ????

 

How much would a body on a slab be worth? $1 mil $2 mil $10 mil???? 

 

Go shoot one and get rich.

 

Get a high def in focus movie and get rich. 

 

If watching the PGF and reading Munns' book is proof positive then why aren't thousand of people cashing in their 401k and going on this 21st century gold rush?

 

Maybe its because in the past 50 years there has been no real evidence and the PGF just isn't good enough.

I've been banging my head against bigfootism brick wall saying the same thing.  But hey you can't fix  S#&@%D

[Guest DWA]

What has kept this field in the dark is that scientists who are not, when it comes to some stuff, and would prefer to sleep on this are being ably aided and abetted by a public insufficiently educated or interested to pursue the evidence.  Thus we have all these folk saying - who, as WSA puts it, might could know better - that oh all this is just clouds in coffee and we just can't get our pretty heads around *what the heck it could BE.*

 

Wrong.  Scientists can; they have; and they have shown their work.  Excuse time was up, decades ago.

[Guest DWA]

I've been banging my head against bigfootism brick wall saying the same thing.  But hey you can't fix  S#&@%D

If you knew what you should, with the time you are ...um...spending on this, no head banging would be required at all.

 

Nowhere have I seen a place so easy for anyone interested to be...where so few demonstrably want to be.

In science, the most fun position to work from is the position backed by the most evidence.  It is never otherwise...and never more consistently forgotten.

[Guest]

Gentlemen I'm not the one working up a sweat looking for a cryptoid that  virtually every half decent mind on the planet reasons does not exist.  

Don't you understand that you've got the same bunch of nothing that everyone else that's come before you had?  If you had anything more it would be a done deal.

 

For something that doesn’t exist some local governments have taken extraordinary steps to propagate the idea, “There’s nothing there, but no peeking,†and ninety-five percent will believe that cool-aid is good enough to drink because they need to be told what to think.  

 

In 1969, Skamania County Washington passed an ordinance prohibiting the killing of Bigfoot.

 

In 1992, Whatcom County, Washington officials approved a resolution declaring the County a "sasquatch protection and refuge area.†This was a "county resolution," not a new law.

 

In 2007, Mike Lake, a Canadian member of parliament from Edmonton, Alberta, introduced a petition calling Bigfoot to be protected under the Canadian version of the endangered species act.

 

In 2012,  “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department says that in theory, it would be legal to hunt Bigfoot in their state," a DFG facebook post stated on May 11. " -  Wed May 16, 2012

 

In 2012, "The lack of confirmation of this alleged animal’s existence brings into question whether or not it occurs naturally in California," according to the DFG. "If Bigfoot occurs naturally in the state, then it would be defined as a non-game mammal pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 415. In order to take a non-game mammal legally in California, it must be listed in the California Code of Regulations, which Bigfoot is not.

 

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/16/1092163/-Bigfoot-hunting-legal-in-Texas-but-not-in-California#

 

Apparently local authorities have shown no tolerance in waiting for mainstream scientist to declare proof, either they are crazy as some members here or they must know something the greater public and skeptics don’t so, which is it?  - Just Asking ...

[SWWASAS]

Sorry but this was not of my making. If you had followed the thread you would know where those pictures came from.

 

Beerhunter posted the original photo post 139, followed by several posts questioning said photo. Then Bonehead78 posted the Youtube link to where that photo came from and all the other videos pertaining to it:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51455-show-your-best-evidence-if-you-please/page-14#entry911495

 

He posted those links on page 14- you made the accusation on page 15. This is simple research- the links were already posted for you on the previous page.  Instead you made an accusation of hoaxing, and now want to blame me for it rather than take the responsibility for your mistake. Are you kidding me?

 

If this is how you do research or follow up then you should just stop now. This is pathetic man.

 

 

One should not have to read an entire thread to understand that material that is posted on any post is not the intellectual property of the person that posted it.   You neither quoted previous posts or gave anyone credit for the picture sequence you posted in 292.     If you wrote a college paper or book using your rules you would have immediate copyright issues.    My reference to hoax was not particularly that you were trying to fool us but that you submitted  what you said was a fabrication and because that fabrication was to demonstrate hoaxed pictures are possible,  it is somehow OK.   If a proponent had done the same thing, or not given credit for the source of a photo,   he would have immediately been called out for doing it as we have seen dozens of times on this forum.     You must consider this forum, research.   It could certainly be but only for a psychiatrist who is interested in all the characters who hang out here both proponent (myself among them)  and skeptic.  

Edited July 8, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT