Thinker Thunker William Reeve Interview

[salubrious]

 

6 hours ago, Crowlogic said:

^Nothing as gliding as being on wheels.  Also it does not have to be a bicycle.  It can be something like this.  Now since the terrain is rough the rider does what many do gets up on legs to help absorb shock.  Ask yourself what is more likely a bigfoot running down the herd or a human on a device that may or may not be connected with the humans filming the whole thing.  Also do you think a hunched over bigfoot bent knee etc could really run that fast.  We human's can't when all bent up.  Fast bibedal running seems to work best upright not bent up or infirm like.  We're never given the exact location so the film site could have very easily been closer to humans than Thunker (who didn't cross examine the witness) was told.

 

From this response its apparent you did not watch the video. The witness was explicit that no-one was across the river and there were no motorized vehicles over there, no people for several hundred miles, etc. You may regard your comment as debunked.

 

[Guest DWA]

No.  Crowlogic is right because no matter what the evidence says...yeah, in his head, that's it.  Such is The Logic Of the Crow.

[Guest]

What sort of magic shock absorbers do this bikes have that completely stabilize the rider, and where can I get some?  

[jayjeti]

I read the reports a good while back about it being one of the production crew members.   It was stated as fact.  But now we see that was completely made up.  Debunkers can call things a hoax while perpetrating a fraud of their own by how they present their facts.  

 

In order for that four wheeled vehicle Salubrious posted to glide smoothly along it would have to have magic shock absorbers, as Wendijo said, unless its driving down a level road like in the picture.

Edited July 21, 2016 by jayjeti

[Guest Crowlogic]

On 7/20/2016 at 4:30 PM, salubrious said:

 

 

From this response its apparent you did not watch the video. The witness was explicit that no-one was across the river and there were no motorized vehicles over there, no people for several hundred miles, etc. You may regard your comment as debunked.

 

Wrong.  I watched the video (such as it is) and while it is said nobody was on the other side of the river that does not mean nobody was on the other side of the river.  What is more likely a human on the other side of the river or a bigfoot?  You know another classic case of oddball posture and locomotion neither of which make sense for man or beast alone.  But get the boy on the bike/trike and suddenly we be glidin' on air.

On 7/20/2016 at 4:57 PM, DWA said:

No.  Crowlogic is right because no matter what the evidence says...yeah, in his head, that's it.  Such is The Logic Of the Crow.

Yeah the evidence is sure looking like human on a powered wheel device. 

[Incorrigible1]

Report readin' goggles.

[MIB]

I look at it differently.   I think you've got to be smoking bad dope to truly see a person on a wheeled device in that vid.   I can see not buying into it being a bigfoot.   "I'm not convinced" is a good answer.  I'm a proponent but I'm not convinced this time.   I don't see any reason an honest skeptic can't feel the same way.   Taking it too far, making up ridiculous stuff that's just stupid considering the setting ... looks desperate.   Looks like a faux-scoftic trying to convince themselves they don't believe.   Do the denialists really need to go that far down that path?  

 

MIB

[aether-drift]

The creature in this video does not look like a sasquatch. The slender torso, movement, arms, and apparent picking up of something and tossing it over the shoulder all looks like a human being. Also, a slender body in the boreal zone is inconsistent with Bergman's Rule. But since we don't really know anything about sasquatch variation, this is speculation.

 

While this COULD be a sasquatch, since there is no good scientific evidence for sasquatch or type specimen, when faced with ambiguous and highly equivocal iimages like this, the only reasonable conclusion is "We don't know what that is." 

 

In other words, this is not evidence FOR sasquatch and adds nothing to the discussion. 

 

Next.

[salubrious]

22 hours ago, aether-drift said:

The creature in this video does not look like a sasquatch.

 

This presumes that you know what one looks like. Have you seen one?

 

 

[MIB]

Insightful question.    It looks not that different from the last one I saw so far as general shape.   I was a lot closer.   7-1/2 feet tall and gangly in sasquatch terms ... like an over-built NFL tight end in human terms.   My guess ... mid teens male.   What do we know about the behavior of mid teens human males?    Risk takers ... like taking chances getting seen where they shouldn't be doing what they shouldn't do?    That could describe that "guy" I bumped into.   Does that remind anyone at all of what could be depicted in the video?

 

There ARE variations ... gender, age, color, etc.   Comparing ... lets see, my build at 15 to my sister's build at 38-40 ... what I saw, and what I think I see in this video, compared to Patty, tracks pretty nicely.  

 

I don't see anything in this video to take specific issue with.   The arguments so far appear to be denialist rhetoric rather than based in substance.   Doesn't make it real but sure doesn't make it a hoax.   In the end, I doubt anyone will ever truly know.   Any sort of hard stand ... is not based on the video's content, it's based on how the video can be used to support personal pre-existing dogma of one sort or the other. 

 

... I M (not so) H O, of course. 

 

MIB

Edited July 25, 2016 by MIB

[Guest DWA]

It almost doesn't matter what one thinks about the PG film.  Pull ten humans at random off the planet and put them in front of an alien scientist, and he might postulate ten species.  Descriptions give us generalities.  But "what a sasquatch looks like" has almost zero reference other than people's descriptions.  Which again, are general...and themselves hint at a wide range of appearances.

[norseman]

On July 24, 2016 at 10:59 AM, aether-drift said:

The creature in this video does not look like a sasquatch. The slender torso, movement, arms, and apparent picking up of something and tossing it over the shoulder all looks like a human being. Also, a slender body in the boreal zone is inconsistent with Bergman's Rule. But since we don't really know anything about sasquatch variation, this is speculation.

 

While this COULD be a sasquatch, since there is no good scientific evidence for sasquatch or type specimen, when faced with ambiguous and highly equivocal iimages like this, the only reasonable conclusion is "We don't know what that is." 

 

In other words, this is not evidence FOR sasquatch and adds nothing to the discussion. 

 

Next.

 

If the film subject looks like a normal human? why do so many insist on having the normal human ride a motor scooter across the tundra?

[MikeZimmer]

The film maker made it pretty clear, of course, that the idea of someone riding a vehicle in that footage was ludicrous.

[hiflier]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 8:08 PM, Crowlogic said:

........and while it is said nobody was on the other side of the river that does not mean nobody was on the other side of the river.... 

 

Very clever Crowlogic. Very clever indeed how you plant the notion that what was said was some kind of rumor or something. Yep, shady tactic but you've done this sort of thing before. It ISN'T "it is said"- it is the WITNESS said. You'll downplay this in typical fashion but it's still a shady tactic no matter how you defend it.

 

Now the WITNESS (see how I corrected that?) according to your post, said "nobody was on the other side of the river". Well, if that doesn't mean "nobody was on the other side of the river" then what DOES it mean??

 

Now lemme see if I can do that: "I saw someone on the beach today but it doesn't mean I saw someone on the beach today". Yeah, that about sums up your take on the matter.

Edited July 25, 2016 by hiflier