SWWASAS Posted June 22, 2018 BFF Patron Posted June 22, 2018 14 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said: There are 6 members in this thread who claim to have seen Bigfoot. At least 2 of them had tree branches fall (possibly on three separate occasions) too close to their comfort. Oh yeah and BF doesn’t like it when you urinate. Do the math... I know three former members of this forum who have seen BF that quit because they got tired of dealing with troll skeptics into character assassination. . At least some of them had stuff thrown at them. I know three former skeptic trolls that have been permanently banned for repeated rules violations. Ridiculing statements about falling branches and urination are intentionally inflammatory. . Do the math and be respectful. 3
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: I know three former members of this forum who have seen BF that quit because they got tired of dealing with troll skeptics into character assassination. . At least some of them had stuff thrown at them. I know three former skeptic trolls that have been permanently banned for repeated rules violations. Ridiculing statements about falling branches and urination are intentionally inflammatory. . Do the math and be respectful. I’ve not been disrespectful, engaged in character assassination or made any ridiculing statements. In short I’ve not engaged in any forum violations.Not in this thread anyway Do you have a plan for presenting Sasquatch to science? Edited June 22, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch
SWWASAS Posted June 22, 2018 BFF Patron Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) What purpose did your comment about about urination and tree branches serve to further the topic of this thread? What was the purpose of saying it? That is in this thread. As for me and presenting BF to science, I do field work with two objectives. The first being getting an HD still or video image of a bigfoot to promote scientific interest. The second being to find a physical object, bone, tooth, or body, that can be scientifically examined. Edited June 22, 2018 by SWWASAS
dmaker Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 2 hours ago, SWWASAS said: I do field work with two objectives. The first being getting an HD still or video image of a bigfoot to promote scientific interest. The second being to find a physical object, bone, tooth, or body, that can be scientifically examined. How long have you been at it?
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 2 hours ago, SWWASAS said: What purpose did your comment about about urination and tree branches serve to further the topic of this thread? What was the purpose of saying it? That is in this thread. As for me and presenting BF to science, I do field work with two objectives. The first being getting an HD still or video image of a bigfoot to promote scientific interest. The second being to find a physical object, bone, tooth, or body, that can be scientifically examined. Serve to further the topic of this thread? What purpose did it serve? Lol sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a comment is just a comment. As far as your field work: good luck with that.
PBeaton Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 SWWASAS, He's just bein' his typical self..."I've not been disrespectful...or made any ridiculing statements." On 2018-06-20 at 4:21 PM, SWWASAS said: (I have a mental image of skeptics thinking this is hilarious) "Close. I would use the term preposterous." PERPOSTEROUS: contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous. haha ! Not disrespectful nor ridiculing...the definition of "preposterous" is ridiculous ! Typical. Pat... 1
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 11 hours ago, SWWASAS said: What purpose did your comment about about urination and tree branches serve to further the topic of this thread? What was the purpose of saying it? That is in this thread. As for me and presenting BF to science, I do field work with two objectives. The first being getting an HD still or video image of a bigfoot to promote scientific interest. The second being to find a physical object, bone, tooth, or body, that can be scientifically examined. I commend you for your effort. The HD still or video will not work. The second part bone,tooth or body will certainly go along way with Science.
PBeaton Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 I think decent footage could peak scientific interest. A image that shows its size beside a object, a human could later stand beside for comparison could be quite compellin'...I think at least. Same for video. Proof...no, but decent footage could still go a long way.
SWWASAS Posted June 23, 2018 BFF Patron Posted June 23, 2018 (edited) 20 hours ago, dmaker said: How long have you been at it? I started field work when I retired from work about 12 years ago. 10 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: I commend you for your effort. The HD still or video will not work. The second part bone,tooth or body will certainly go along way with Science. A picture or video will not prove anything. With that I just hope to interest some younger biologists who might start looking into it. Most biologists have dismissed it without investigation, We are loosing the older ones who have been persuaded to old age. Besides I am tired of the 50 year old argument about the P/G film. At least something newer would give people something better to argue about. 1 hour ago, PBeaton said: I think decent footage could peak scientific interest. A image that shows its size beside a object, a human could later stand beside for comparison could be quite compellin'...I think at least. Same for video. Proof...no, but decent footage could still go a long way. All the things not done at the time with the P/G film could be addressed with a new version. We certainly know what the questions were about the P/G film that are not answerable because of lack of documentation. Having the exact camera, at the exact location, would answer a lot of size and stride questions. Matter of fact, I should be carrying a maker stake or something to mark my exact location in the field should I ever get to film something. Edited June 23, 2018 by SWWASAS
PBeaton Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 SWWASAS, I think quite a few cameras these days have GPS, my 7D Mll does, think they have it in the point an shoots as well. Pat...
SWWASAS Posted June 23, 2018 BFF Patron Posted June 23, 2018 7 hours ago, PBeaton said: I think decent footage could peak scientific interest. A image that shows its size beside a object, a human could later stand beside for comparison could be quite compellin'...I think at least. Same for video. Proof...no, but decent footage could still go a long way. I think quite a few cameras these days have GPS, my 7D Mll does, think they have it in the point an shoots as well.S GPS, at least the stuff in cameras is not accurate enough to be of much use in determining exact camera location. It is probably only good to about 30 meters or the normal non military accuracy. Of course with the P/G film GPS information tagged to the digital image data would eliminate the skeptic contention that it was really filmed in WA state. The GPS system is far more accurate for the military or where there is a WAAS augmentation installation like civilian aviation uses. Surveyors have equipment that is very accurate but it is probably sold under license and not available to the general public. Pound a stake into the ground and there is no doubt where the camera was located. Height could be measured from the camera holder and then tree branch forks, bushes, etc behind a subject can be used to determine heights, arm and leg measurements, and stride. . That only has any accuracy if the exact position of the camera relative to the ground and the camera height is known. A surveyer could do a bang up job if he could travel to the exact location of the video or picture. We see that all the time in calculations of the subject in the Patterson Gimlin film. Raw determinations by angular size with a given lens is difficult enough but you still have to know the camera location and height and/or the distance to subject from the camera. And no one is even positive which of the lenses the camera was using to film Patty. Nothing is known for sure and much is guessed. The other thing that really intrigues me is how similar is another BF going to look to Patty. Do females look at lot different than males? With many species that certainly is the case. Is the face of each BF different enough for a human to recognize the differences? Are there significant differences in BF regionally. From witness data that seems to be the case. At times it seems there must be more than one species because of differences in descriptions regionally. . Barring DNA, good quality pictures can at least start answering those questions.
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 SWWAS , That is an excellent plan to bring interest to the younger scientists. A HD video with size comparisons . At least it might provoke them to think about the subject. Of course there is those who will wont even view the film.
dmaker Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 22 hours ago, SWWASAS said: I started field work when I retired from work about 12 years ago. 12 years. And there are no shortage of amateurs like yourself out there doing the same thing for far longer. All with the same specific purpose. Zero results. How anyone can look at that and not conclude bigfoot does not exist truly, truly puzzles me. You simply cannot have droves of amateurs out combing the woods for evidence of giant monkey men in North America and have nothing to show for it. The only way that happens is if the quarry does not exist. 1
hiflier Posted June 24, 2018 Author Posted June 24, 2018 (edited) Oh good, lets bring the existence/non-existence debate here. As if it doesn't happen on nearly every other thread already. The debate even had/has it its own thread but that is STILL not good enough. And yet the non-existence comments, while having no impact, continue nonetheless. dmaker,, instead of harping on the same thing all the time, how about coming up with some suggestions for what this thread is REALLY about instead of doing nothing but pumping everyone else for information. Saying they don't exist doesn't really excuse not bring a more positive dialogue to this topic. Opening doors to scientists is what this is about. You say they do not exist? Then I suggest start your own thread about that. Thanks Edited June 24, 2018 by hiflier 2
Recommended Posts