A Plan For Presenting Sasquatch To Science

[norseman]

35 minutes ago, dmaker said:

LOL. I knew at the time I wrote that, that you were going to post that exact pic in response, Norse. 

 

It's clear, sure, but it looks like a person in make up to me, so my interest wanes. 

 

Exactly.... You asked for a clear picture of Bigfoot. I posted it. Now its a clear picture of a person in make up and fur.

 

You have proved my point.  It will always be a person in a fur suit for you.

 

But for what its worth? I completely concur with your assessment. Not because I can tell its a man in a fur suit. But because Todd Standing introduced that video of a head with a eye blink. After he first introduced the muppet heads. Of course we both could be wrong and its possible that after hoaxing muppet heads? Standing posted a picture of a real Bigfoot head..... not likely.

 

Anyhow either way I do not believe a photo or a video will ever convince anyone especially science......nor should it. 

52 minutes ago, hiflier said:

IDK, Norseman, this could be a case where clarity might not be in the best interest of the photo's author. HOWEVER, put that 'thing" out walking under a bright noonday sun and give it 33" wide shoulders and then maybe, MAYBE, I could be persuaded to take a second look. Why? Because the "thing" just looks too much like Todd Standing, that's why.

 

I am a proponent sure, but whatever convinces me has to be something that breaks the mold in a fashion that is way beyond normal. And that image just isn't it. Clear? Yes. NatGeo? Yes. Smoking gun? Not even close.

 

 

 

 

 

FWIW, I do not believe Todd Standing has any legit photos.....but I cannot prove that.

 

But here again, how do you know the subject has 33 inch shoulders? Unless your there with a measuring tape? It will be subjective.

[hiflier]

Extremely well said, Norseman, and spot on.

 

29 minutes ago, norseman said:

FWIW, I do not believe Todd Standing has any legit photos....

 

Neither do I.

 

And 33" shoulders, and I say this respectfully, Is not subjective when it comes to Patty. Everyone down through the years has worked on Patty's height measurement including me. The largest consensus seems to come out that Patty's walking height is 6'5" but one can speak to that something that is reasonably subjective. But when talking ratios her height doesn't matter in the least whether it is 5', 6', 7', or whatever fraction in between. The ratio of height to width WILL NOT CHANGE. So based on a 6'5" walking height, which a measurement that comes up the most often, the ratio moves her shoulder span to 33" give or take a fraction. In other words, no tape measure needed. An inch scale or a millimeter scale will return the same ratio. If Patty was only three feet tall it would do nothing to the ratio. THIS is more of a smoking gun than anything so far in my research.

 

I am in total agreement with Dr. Krantz, Dr. Bindernagel, and Dr. Henner Fahrenbach on that point. They worked on heights yes, and they worked on shoulder spans yes, but I am firmly convinced that had they hammered on the height/shoulder width as a ratio a few more of their peers might have taken notice?

 

I apologize to everyone for constantly returning to this viewpoint but to me it the most important and glaring piece of evidence on the PGF. 

Edited June 17, 2018 by hiflier

[hiflier]

I would just like to say one more thing about this shoulder span ratio business. We had THREE fully credentialed PhD's comment and actually put numbers on Patty's shoulder width. THREE credentialed PhD's. And yet no one in the Bigfoot biz talks about it. Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum doesn't talk about it and neither does anyone else. Its not brought up in books covering reports except anecdotally when a witness say the shoulders were wide, or they were four feet across; a description that will not fly with a scientist. There is something wrong with this picture folks.

 

Three PhD's, who have now all passed away, addressed shoulder width with actual numbers. They counted pixels, looked at references in the field, and their knowledge as PhD's came up with figures that are off the scale. Because the figures ARE off the scale. And yet the researchers and so-called experts in the field ignore and maybe even shun the research done by three learned men that are no longer with us. In my mind, not bring up a height to width ratio just makes it easier for science to dismiss this Sasquatch subject. And I have been asking myself why and do not like the only answer that keeps coming up.

 

If anyone wants anyone to take this subject seriously then by process of elimination pick out the things that people will NOT take seriously. Which is 99.9% of anything related to Bigfoot. And that is the truth of it. The PhD's are disappearing. We have one left by my count. And it is not looking good. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by hiflier

[dmaker]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

You asked for a clear picture of Bigfoot. I posted it.

No, you did not. You posted something alleged to be a clear picture of bigfoot. That it is both clear and alleged to be of a bigfoot does not make the point you think it makes. 

 

There is no chance that picture is not Todd Standing in makeup.  You would be better served  trying to make your point with photos of costumes or makeup effects of known animals. At least you could try to use that method to demonstrate someones inability to separate real from fake. For example, is this a gorilla or a costume. That sort of thing. 

 

You would still be lacking any bigfoot photos to test with, however. Showing me a photo of Todd Standing in makeup proves no point whatsoever. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by dmaker

[Squatchy McSquatch]

13 minutes ago, dmaker said:

No, you did not. You posted something alleged to be a clear picture of bigfoot. That it is both clear and alleged to be of a bigfoot does not make the point you think it makes. 

 

pssst... I can get you a clear photo of Bigfoot you gotta go out behind the old Bayview Tavern, come alone and don’t ask too many questions lol

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch

[dmaker]

Heck no. That's a sketchy place. 

 

(Though I saw The Harbour Diner on You Gotta Eat Here. It looks really good.)

[hiflier]

Just don't hang around the dumpster out back. You might end up on a trail cam  

[Squatchy McSquatch]

44 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Heck no. That's a sketchy place. 

 

(Though I saw The Harbour Diner on You Gotta Eat Here. It looks really good.)

 

Lol it was torn down long ago. It’s a Ladies’ shelter now. 

 

I was at harbour diner today.

 

cheers

[norseman]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

No, you did not. You posted something alleged to be a clear picture of bigfoot. That it is both clear and alleged to be of a bigfoot does not make the point you think it makes. 

 

There is no chance that picture is not Todd Standing in makeup.  You would be better served  trying to make your point with photos of costumes or makeup effects of known animals. At least you could try to use that method to demonstrate someones inability to separate real from fake. For example, is this a gorilla or a costume. That sort of thing. 

 

You would still be lacking any bigfoot photos to test with, however. Showing me a photo of Todd Standing in makeup proves no point whatsoever. 

 

My point is that they are ALL alleged photos of Bigfoot! And I did post a video of a fake Gorilla that pranked people from 5 feet away!

 

Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that is Todd Standing in make up!? You cannot. That is my point. And you CANNOT with ANY photo or video of Bigfoot! That is also my point! 

 

And I again will argue the point that if I snapped my fingers and brought to life Paranthropus Robustus and snapped a couple of photos or short video of it and showed them to you?

 

You would also claim it was a dude in a suit. 

 

Humans take for granted that we are the lone bipedal ape on the planet. Thats our niche! We make fun of other Apes that knuckle walk or walk upright ackwardly. It would be a shock to see something that looked like an Ape but walked and ran as proficiently as we do. It would be a window into the past. Our past. And it would be creepy and wrong. So the most logical conclusion for us? Is a dude in a suit.....

 

As a member of the pro kill camp I have given this more thought than I care to.....because my worst fear is a dude in a suit.

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

Extremely well said, Norseman, and spot on.

 

 

Neither do I.

 

And 33" shoulders, and I say this respectfully, Is not subjective when it comes to Patty. Everyone down through the years has worked on Patty's height measurement including me. The largest consensus seems to come out that Patty's walking height is 6'5" but one can speak to that something that is reasonably subjective. But when talking ratios her height doesn't matter in the least whether it is 5', 6', 7', or whatever fraction in between. The ratio of height to width WILL NOT CHANGE. So based on a 6'5" walking height, which a measurement that comes up the most often, the ratio moves her shoulder span to 33" give or take a fraction. In other words, no tape measure needed. An inch scale or a millimeter scale will return the same ratio. If Patty was only three feet tall it would do nothing to the ratio. THIS is more of a smoking gun than anything so far in my research.

 

I am in total agreement with Dr. Krantz, Dr. Bindernagel, and Dr. Henner Fahrenbach on that point. They worked on heights yes, and they worked on shoulder spans yes, but I am firmly convinced that had they hammered on the height/shoulder width as a ratio a few more of their peers might have taken notice?

 

I apologize to everyone for constantly returning to this viewpoint but to me it the most important and glaring piece of evidence on the PGF. 

 

With all due respect? If the film is not subjective? Then why hasnt science gotten involved? If the film is conclusive evidence through mathematical equations that the film subject is outside the scope of a human being? Why the silence? 

 

I have given up on that film....not because its grainy or unimpressive. But because after 50 years its still impotent in proving a new species to science.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

^^^Got monkey???

[hiflier]

52 minutes ago, norseman said:

.....because my worst fear is a dude in a suit.

 

Ya got that right and one can only hope that everyone out there packing for Bigfoot has had deep thoughts about what would constitute a right time to pull a trigger if there ever really is such a thing. But then when the cannonball sized rocks are flying it would be a pretty safe bet that it is not Sam (or Sue for that matter!) in a suit.

 

I have also noticed since last Fall that no one has really commented too much on the shoulder width stuff, especially recently. Know why? Because it is a danged good argument- three PhD's, aka Team KBF, say so. At first I thought it was me but nope, they thought of it way before I did. 

 

But I am taking the ball on that now, and I will continue to do so in memory of Team KFB! As a result I laid that very issue out to two scientists at two different institutions six days ago.

 

Have not heard back from either one. Still waiting on a return email regarding the tooth as well to finalize that issue.  

Edited June 18, 2018 by hiflier

[Faenor]

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

I would just like to say one more thing about this shoulder span ratio business. We had THREE fully credentialed PhD's comment and actually put numbers on Patty's shoulder width. THREE credentialed PhD's. And yet no one in the Bigfoot biz talks about it. Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum doesn't talk about it and neither does anyone else. Its not brought up in books covering reports except anecdotally when a witness say the shoulders were wide, or they were four feet across; a description that will not fly with a scientist. There is something wrong with this picture folks.

 

Three PhD's, who have now all passed away, addressed shoulder width with actual numbers. They counted pixels, looked at references in the field, and their knowledge as PhD's came up with figures that are off the scale. Because the figures ARE off the scale. And yet the researchers and so-called experts in the field ignore and maybe even shun the research done by three learned men that are no longer with us. In my mind, not bring up a height to width ratio just makes it easier for science to dismiss this Sasquatch subject. And I have been asking myself why and do not like the only answer that keeps coming up.

 

If anyone wants anyone to take this subject seriously then by process of elimination pick out the things that people will NOT take seriously. Which is 99.9% of anything related to Bigfoot. And that is the truth of it. The PhD's are disappearing. We have one left by my count. And it is not looking good. 

Neither scientists or anyone with crtical thinking skilks will care about these supposed otherworldy ratios because.... It cant be proven its not a costume.  Ratios are meaningless if its a costume.  

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

^^^Got monkey???

 

Yah....lots of them!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan

 

With the last species DNA present in certain populations of living humans!

 

All discoveries within the last decade or so! Makes you wanna find Hiflier’s tooth doesnt it!?

 

Great time to be alive in Anthropology.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

8 hours ago, Faenor said:

these supposed otherworldy ratios

 

Thank you. 'Bout time we got a math expert in on this. What took you so long? Math is the language of science and they speak it every day from the stars to single celled organisms. AND WORLDLY math also applies to body ratios so nothing otherworldly about it. If it wasn't for establish norms for Human height and width there would be no way to determine what is outside those norms. I will take three PhD's conclusions (scientists with critical thinking) over yours any day, Faenor. But thank you for playing. Fun, eh?

 

7 hours ago, norseman said:

Great time to be alive in Anthropology.....

 

So true.

Edited June 18, 2018 by hiflier

[PBeaton]

hiflier,

 

I mentioned this before, how John had brought up the shoulder width years ago in his book On the Track of the SASQUATCH, 4th edition printed 1971... 

 

"A particular problem with the "fur suit" explanation is the fact that the shoulders joints are about a foot father apart than those of any man who could be found to wear the suit, yet the thing is able to swing its arms widely without any padding being obvious." 

 

Pat...