Jump to content
hiflier

A Plan For Presenting Sasquatch To Science

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch
On 7/7/2018 at 0:16 PM, SWWASAS said:

One of the people who claim to be habituators and claim to communicate with them  say that you cannot believe anything they say.   They seem to contradict themselves all the time. Now I find that interesting.    Either the humans involved do not have a good handle on things or the BF cannot be trusted.    Perhaps both are true.  One hears all of these NA stories about BF being cannibals.   That has to have a element of truth in it because the stories are wide spread with various tribes.  That said,  interaction with something that may decide to see how good you taste makes me very wary.  

 

Norseman what I was referring to without saying it is behavior common in zoo chimpanzees who throw stuff at zoo visitors.  Perhaps that was why I dreamed it.   

 

...But, but but but, is a Habituator's claim different from any other bigfoot claim?

 

If you exclude the Habituators' claims then what would be accepted protocol?

 

How is a Habituator's claims any less relevant than a sighting or or skeptic's contrary position?

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I just saw this in our feed today and listened to it! What a coincidence!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
14 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

...But, but but but, is a Habituator's claim different from any other bigfoot claim?

 

If you exclude the Habituators' claims then what would be accepted protocol?

 

How is a Habituator's claims any less relevant than a sighting or or skeptic's contrary position?

 

 

I can make such judgments because I have personal experience with BF.    Some of the claims by habituators are hard to believe, even for proponents.   Those claims include English speaking BF,  BF being impossible to photograph,   winking in and out of existence,   and the ability remotely to disable electronic devices.    All stuff you likely think are bunk.    Well so do I, because I have experienced none of it even though I have a limited history of BF encounters.     Some of these might be possible,   like speaking English,  but the other claims I have not experienced.     Until I do,  I am as skeptical as you are.  As a I often mention, I came into BF research very skeptical about the whole thing.  Only when something rings true based on my own experience,  do I give it much credence.     But I do not dismiss everything out of hand.   That is not science but a dogmatic belief system, which skeptics and proponents both can be guilty of doing.    

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jayjeti

The majority of mainstream science will likely never accept their existence without a type specimen.  I think you at least need a substantial body part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
5 hours ago, jayjeti said:

The majority of mainstream science will likely never accept their existence without a type specimen.  I think you at least need a substantial body part.

 

Agreed. But there are aspects of the PGF that need professional explanation. We have almost of us seen M.K. Davis' stabilized version of the PGF. It still provides an amazing look at fluidity in all of Patty's body parts. I have stared at that stabilized version in time sequences as long as 10 minutes at a whack while looking at every aspect of movement as well as movement as a whole. My pet peeve of course is the ratio of shoulder span to height regardless of how tall Patty really is. In truth what her height actually was is not al that critical to me as much as her body ratios. I have mostly target my viewing at the shoulder area with regard to how her arms swing and the point from where they swing.

 

Her body ratio of width vs, height has shown me that it would not be possible for a Human to be inside and create the biomechanical effect that Patty had when swinging her arms. Her width to height ratio is a little better than 2.3:1 which is not dependent upon any concrete height measurement. The ratio itself is off the Human scale by a mile: As in 11-12 inches wider if even if only she was compared to a Human male who was 6' tall. Need an example: I read that Shaquille O'Neil at 7'4" has a shoulder span of 28". Shrink him down to 6' tall but keep his same shoulder width of 28". Patty was still  2" wider than that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jayjeti

Bill Munns is the one who really put Patty in the "only can be a sasquatch" category and put to rest hoaxing claims.  Others such as Thinker Thunker and MK Davis expounded on that.  Sasquatch joint locations and proportions are such that Munns, a special effects expert, said he could not make a suit to duplicate it, that he couldn't make a suit that changed our joint locations.  Patty is before CGI, there was no technology to fake it, thus making her the standard whereby we judge other alleged sasquatch videos/photos.  

 

But even that fact cannot sway mainstream science into acknowledging the species absent of a type specimen.  Not just DNA, but at a minimum a substantial body part.

Edited by jayjeti
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

It has been almost three weeks to a month since I sent out a couple of emails. I also need to respond to an email regarding the tooth which came in a couple of weeks back. Just got too busy myself to stay with things but This will be the week to do some catch up, reread some things and formulate some good replies. I will also do some more research on who out there might be in a particular field that would be suitable for corresponding with. There are summer courses that some teach but it is also vacation season so I was also trying to take that into consideration as well.

 

Working alone also makes it too easy to put things off and I need to get better about keeping on the path. And too, Summer can be a slow time here on the BigfootForums so I would like to thank everyone who has kept their input coming in to help keep new ideas and comments coming in. Pretty good activity considering the season.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TD-40

I have been doing some personal research in an area where there is a lot of activity with log structures and such. I plan on taking some better pictures and videos and asking state wildlife biologists what is causing them. I also have a Plotwatcher camera set up in this hotspot so hopefully after a few weeks I'll get lucky with some pictures. However I think biggie will see the camera and will push the tree over into the river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
1 hour ago, TD-40 said:

However I think biggie will see the camera and will push the tree over into the river.

 

Either that or wait until you go to harvest the device or its card and throw YOU into the river ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×