Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 No, just saying he knows, and you don't. Can't help if that's problematical for you. There is no eyewitness whose experience I won't take, in a second, over somebody who doesn't read, doesn't think about it, and snipes from an armchair. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) I'm actually smiling too at this point. Wasn't it a Jim Carrie movie that had the spray that made poop disappear? Something invisible that magically makes evidence disappear? Something essential for every skeptic toolbox. Edited September 16, 2015 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Ya know? Can't help but think a major motivation of bigfoot skepticism is: envy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 JDL, I wanted a link to these studies that found the unknown scat. Instead of just binging bigfoot feces for us could you be a bit more specific? So now you're complaining that I gave you access to an entire thread that discusses the existence of and pros and cons of fecal samples? You've given him *work* and *thinking* to do. He doesn't want that. See, this is why scientists don't care what the hell we think. They'll publish the results when they're ready and 'til then...do your own thinking. He said there were studies, he should provide them for us. I'm calling his bluff, I want to see the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 You think it might have to do with the relative, ahem, "size" of a bigfoot? Where's Wag when you need him? JDL,I wanted a link to these studies that found the unknown scat. Instead of just binging bigfoot feces for us could you be a bit more specific? So now you're complaining that I gave you access to an entire thread that discusses the existence of and pros and cons of fecal samples? You've given him *work* and *thinking* to do. He doesn't want that. See, this is why scientists don't care what the hell we think. They'll publish the results when they're ready and 'til then...do your own thinking. He said there were studies, he should provide them for us. I'm calling his bluff, I want to see the cards. Hey, I pointed you in the right direction. You need someone to hold your hand? And I said there were analyses, not studies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 ^ Is it that hard just to provide a link to this analysis? It looks as though you can't link to something you heard from a friend. I believe the dismissive "cool story bro", is in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 ...so, um, bigfoot isn't real? Help me with that. It's all this grabbing one single thing and worrying it like a rawhide chew toy that's wrong with the "skepticism." One needs to take the 50,000-foot view to see that the evidence behaves very much unlike anything humans have ever done. And just like an animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 No, just saying he knows, and you don't. Can't help if that's problematical for you. There is no eyewitness whose experience I won't take, in a second, over somebody who doesn't read, doesn't think about it, and snipes from an armchair. Just sayin'. Oh, I think about it. I just don't think about it the same way that you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 ...so, um, bigfoot isn't real? Help me with that. It's all this grabbing one single thing and worrying it like a rawhide chew toy that's wrong with the "skepticism." One needs to take the 50,000-foot view to see that the evidence behaves very much unlike anything humans have ever done. And just like an animal. So don't look at any one piece of evidence because you will see all the holes. Stand way back, look at everything (and squint a little I'm guessing) and Bigfoot will appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 In order to understand DWA's mindset as well as others on this forum that argue that we have enough evidence to call it a "defacto discovery", you need to read this book. http://www.beachcomberbooks.com/discovery/about.html My only issue is this, if we were talking about a new species of shrew or monkey or bird? Then Bindernagel speaking as a biologist is right, we could send a picture in of the discovery to CNN and invite science to come out and take a look, the type specimen being collected would be a mere formality. But of course we are not dealing with an animal like that. Extant Apes other than Humans only live in tropical areas, and none in the Americas. And its reportedly to be a giant, so how did science miss something so large? Add to these problems the hoaxing that has went on with the subject? Its going to take a body, sorry, but it is. This is what I have resolved myself to. I do not get out as much as I'd like to but there are those of us that do. As far as the evidence? Its a gray area, more compelling to some than to others. Only time will tell. They are intertwined. If people claim aliens are coming down in ships and abducting them, and we evidence of UFOs flying around our airspace? Do you see the problem? We have none of this with Bigfoot. It's much more clear cut. People also claim UFO's with Bigfoot, and have for many years. Maybe you should go listen to the Les Stroud interview posted in the paranormal section. It's not as clear cut as you think. It's just one of the many aspects of Bigfoot that people like to conveniently filter out based on their personal view. Or knowledge..... The really cool thing about Bindernagel and Meldrum is that everything I'd seen dovetailed perfectly with what they were saying ...and for the most part we were not even referencing the same reports! It didn't matter. That in fact is one of the best indicators you can get that you and they are all onto something. My most frequent reaction to the proponent scientists, by far, isn't "wow! Really? That's cool! I believe you 'coz you're a scientist!" but... YES. YES. YES!!!!!!!!! PRECISELY, MAN! THIS IS JUST WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING, ALL ALONG! Bindernagel gives a number of examples of things that were discovered by scientists...then the knowledge just disappeared to be re-discovered by someone else later. I won't go further into the book other than to say that if one wants to understand not just sasquatch, but science itself, better...one needs to have this book and understand what it is saying. And that said: it seems pretty clear to me that unless that critical mass builds much quicker than it appears to be doing...they'll get the body before they're halfway on board with this. Which is, sadly, why we probably need the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) Sigh: I hope this puts to rest the myth that no potential sasquatch scat exists. There's plenty of scat out there that is found in association with sightings and tracks that does not conform to known animals, as I said earlier. http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/more_evidence_that_bigfoot_exi.html short version of Ivan Sanderson description of analysis, 1968. Other Photos. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htm comparative photos http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=22358 Someone with a similar experience to mine, though he didn't see or interact with it. https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=168451576528987 A comparative video, 5 plus minutes. https://bigfoothistory.wordpress.com/tag/bigfoot-scat/ second account on the page is about a published and tenured anthropologist with a collection of bigfoot scat, just to establish here that there are actual scientists collecting this stuff. https://bigfoothistory.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/1998-marble-mountain-wilderness-california-man-collects-bigfoot-scat/ weird scat-related account. I consider the credibility of this marginal. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=8259 An account from a PhD. Physiologist also witnessed by a veterinarian. The Physiologist gives his credentials for your verification. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy.htm a longer version of Sanderson's analysis. http://www.alamas.ru/eng/publicat/DNA_of_Bigfoot_e.htm A rollup of various DNA finding predating the Ketchum analysis. Note that the conclusion here is that bigfoot DNA is part human. Edited September 16, 2015 by JDL 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 ↑↑ Thank you for sharing some very interesting links. I was most impressed with the first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Interesting that it is from 1968 and addresses the analysis of evidence that some claim does not and has never existed. Sanderson did his homework and he used established, top notch experts back in the 60's to accomplish this. I find the description of the beds interesting. Some may recall that I have hypothesized bigfoot use composted middens to generate heat to stay warm in their shelters, and that this contributes to their stench. The beds, as described, composed of layers of rotting vegetation, excrement, and urine, overlaid with fresh vegetable matter as described would generate heat in the same manner as a compost pile and seems to support the hypothesis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 There's plenty of evidence out there, and when assembled it doesn't add up to a body, but it sure enough adds up to a silhouette of an extant hominid where one is indicated to be. The main problem with the footprints/castings is that they're not consistent. All the tracks found by Freeman have traits that are exclusive to only tracks found by Freeman, same with tracks found in areas connected to Ray Wallace and Rant Mullins. Dana Holyfield has the market on 3 toed webfoot Squatches. Nobody has found tracks that look anything like the Bossburg casts, or the Grays Harbor tracks. The main ones that like to be carted around and shown as evidence seem to be exclusive to the person that found them. What should we assemble to create said hominid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 What traits do you speak of? I'm looking at some of the tracks you mention here: http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html They all look very similar to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts