Guest Forbig Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) "...that guy is the master debater. Look up at his picture he just finished off a good one and needs a smoke" Seriously uncool Forbig It's a joke don't you get it? We're buds I don't now how many times I've enjoyed his writings. Not so much what he says but just debating with him and the way he writes. I was just telling some other folks if he leaves I probably will too because it would get pretty boring on here. Edited September 22, 2011 by Forbig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) It's a crude insult... on a public forum that's possibly frequented by young enthusiasts... I think it is YOU that doesn't get it. Edited September 22, 2011 by yakcam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 umm well if he meant that Saskeptic just finished a lively debate with someone, is pooped, and could use a relaxing smoke break... then its ok... i kind of picked up on the "master-debater" part... and wondered too... Remember its a PG forum please ...? Just a kind reminder from staff.... Thanks Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Let's address the subject of bigfoot and trail cam photos,which are basically nonexistent.You mean to tell me that there is animal that is so smart that it knows what a trail cam looks like and completely avoids walking in front of one and having it's photo taken?There is no such animal!No animal is that intelligent. The fact that bigfoot does this shows that it is something beyond an animal.I mean other animal are captured on trail cams all the time;deer,raccoons,bears,bobcats,etc.,but not bigfoot. You already had several threads on this topic specifically, and several more that you yanked off topic. No reason to drag this thread off topic as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 It's a crude insult... on a public forum that's possibly frequented by young enthusiasts... I think it is YOU that doesn't get it. Alright already, would you let it go? If you wouldn't of emphasized on it so much nobody would of noticed. The guy is the best at debating over anyone on here and I have respect for him we just never agree on anything. Doesn't anyone ever notice how good he is with the english language? I always sound like I'm sitting at the end of a bar and typo all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Well by Golly by Gosh... THAT SETTLES IT !!! If Ellen DeGeneres says so, it MUST BE! ( did anyone check with Oprah yet? ) More to the point... I don't care WHAT "high tech video equipment" they used. You can NEVER GET MORE out of a picture than what the original resolution provides. If it ISN'T there in the original picture, what ever the resolution is, it won't be there later. That's not my opinion. That's the laws of physics being a bitch. That wasn’t my point; I know you can’t get any better than the original in the camera if anything it only gets worse the more you play around with it. It’s the hundreds of them that had a real good look at it and none thought it was a bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Alright already, would you let it go? If you wouldn't of emphasized on it so much nobody would of noticed. Ahhhhh, people read forums, not just log on to look at the pretty pictures. If I noticed your remark, then I'd bet that many others did too, I don't have superior powers of observation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Ahhhhh, people read forums, not just log on to look at the pretty pictures. If I noticed your remark, then I'd bet that many others did too, I don't have superior powers of observation Whatever, try watching two and a half men it's rated PG too you'll have a stroke. Now back to the topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 wow.... brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 wow.... brilliant Saskeptic said, "You can call me a skeptic, a scoftic, a denialist or whatever else floats your boat." and if he's was offended admin has my permission to remove it. Otherwise, like I said there's much worse on television and as long as I'm within PG ratings just drop it! What is up with everyone trying to drag this thread off topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 I admit, ol' Ernst Mayr does look like he's up to something in my avatar photo . . . Meantime, the Jacobs creature was a bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Can you prove it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) No matter what it is, the one thing this thread is showing is that once again, no amount of photographic or video evidence is really going to do the trick. It is DNA and/or dead body or bust. If it can't be a bear, it's a blobsquatch or a man in a monkey suit. It's all just going in circles until something profound is uncovered through scientific testing of some sort of physical evidence. I just don't see it any other way. Edited September 23, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Sorry, I don't agree. It's evidently too much to ask for some clear, unambiguous photographic evidence. The Jacobs photos don't fit that description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Scientist must be good observers so look at the picture below. Bears have thick fur and the Jacob's BF doesn't. Someone said it's a bear with mange, and this is very unlikely. The body and legs are far too long to be a bear unless it's a starving bear with mange. This statement still doesn't fit since a bear's legs are not this long when compared to the body's length. Bears don't need to bend their body in this manner to eat and a BF does. It's a juvenile BF just as many observers have reported over the last century. Do BF doubter have a point? Yes, since a better picture would show the face but we can't control what angle the critter was captured in. Do we have any bear biologist that have made judgements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts