Guest Batski Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 Bigfoot would have to share the woods with other animals so I'd say being a half an hour apart is a safe distance. One thing these photos do have going for them is they brought back public awarness. Everybody looks at them and says "that don't really look like a bear" so maybe they think those Bigfoot chasing cracpots were right.
Guest themanta Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 You're right theres been to much playing around, so many attempts have been made to turn it into a bear by messing with light and color and poor quality copies that they all have canceled each other out. Bears ears have been placed all around the head and all have ended up being background shapes when laid over other photos without the creature. Take this hanging ear shape that was easily found in another photo without the creature. Check out this ear shape at 3:24 and again another failed ear attempt at 1:12 I could show you failed attempts at a bears head on the ground, on the rear, on the side... One minute it's a head the next minute it's a bear cub. It's endless the bear camp is so desperate they can't even make up their own minds. If I owned these pictures I would slap a lawsuit on everyone that messed with them. sport, tehre is a time honored rule in footery that once you have to resort to the use of red lines and circles, you've already lost.
Guest themanta Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 Then this was a Sasquatch because according to what I’ve heard the bears have fled and never returned. Using the rumor mill as proof is a weak dodge. As for the feet not having toes I’m not sure you could see anybody’s toes standing in a soft forest bed but I would expect to see some claws sticking up if it were a bear with mange. As much as delusion wants to spring eternal, logic simply points to a bear, first you prove BF exists, then you maybe start to put it behind every single tree stump. A hint would be, bias intended, just because the BFRO says its so (profit motive dully noted), doesnt make it so.
Guest themanta Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 So it definitely isn't a bear but to you it DEFINITELY is sasquatch? You are labeling them something you just don't know what they are. Why so? blind faith, delusion or agenda, pick one
Guest themanta Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) The subject's head is not in full view; its feet are. and the feet have no digits, its not a monkey, hence not a bigfoot, pointer returns to bear. deal with it. Edited July 21, 2011 by themanta
Guest themanta Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 Nothing has changed both sides have good points but neither side has proof and we'll never be certain for all anyone knows both might be wrong. peronderance of evidence and logic make it a bear, wrong.
Guest themanta Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 IMO a mother bear would not allow another animal that close to the cubs without a confrontation, if it were a BF it is a young small one which I still think the bears would be territorial of another animal in the area. If mama BF was around then she would be the same, doesn't make sense cubs and a young BF that close to each other. Just my opinion. True, same is true of Coyotes, Wolves and Foxes, predators don't like competition for the same food sources, especially when there are limited sources of food. All this "it still could be" crap is just sad.
Guest Batski Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 sport, tehre is a time honored rule in footery that once you have to resort to the use of red lines and circles, you've already lost. Both sides are guilty of it so everybody has lost is that the same as a tie?
Guest Batski Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 This in no way helps or furthers Bigfoot research. It harms it. It lets people who happen upon this forum or others laugh, shake their heads or stare wild-eyed as they read the desperation that some believers will go to to keep their belief system safe. Please already. When you feel the need to sensor evidence or even fight it because its not perfect that only indicates that your trying to hide a lie.
Guest themanta Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 Both sides are guilty of it so everybody has lost is that the same as a tie? You miss the point, if the photo is that blurry the red pointers make the point get driven home, the photo evidence isnt conclusive and yes it works against skeptics to. This board is turning into a cultee/skeptic battleground in some ways, killing conversation for everyone else.
Guest Batski Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) So you two guys are worried because you're afraid somebody might see this evidence that "might not be real" and then it might cause other evidence that "might not be real" to look bad? Do you know how crazy that sounds? If a weird blurry picture that doesn't look anything like a bear ruins Bigfoot Research everywhere it never had a leg to stand on to begin with. If you can't learn to laugh with everyone be prepared to be laughed at and don't use the word Bigfoot in any sentence when you're trying to pick up girls. Edited July 21, 2011 by Batski
Guest themanta Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 So you two guys are worried because you're afraid somebody might see this evidence that "might not be real" and then it might cause other evidence that "might not be real" to look bad? Do you know how crazy that sounds? If a weird blurry picture that doesn't look anything like a bear ruins Bigfoot Research everywhere it never had a leg to stand on to begin with. If you can't learn to laugh with everyone be prepared to be laughed at and don't use the word Bigfoot in any sentence when you're trying to pick up girls. You must be with the cult, or you just don't get it. This is an attempt to educate as to the nature of bad evidenceand it's evil mistress critical thinking. All logic makes this a bad angled shot of a bear and nothing else. The lengths you seem to want to go to to see bigfoot doesnt help the caes for the existence of bigfoot.
Guest Batski Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 You must be with the cult, or you just don't get it. This is an attempt to educate as to the nature of bad evidenceand it's evil mistress critical thinking. All logic makes this a bad angled shot of a bear and nothing else. The lengths you seem to want to go to to see bigfoot doesnt help the caes for the existence of bigfoot. Cult? evil mistress? Bad angles? I never said what it was and it doesn't look like a bear. For all any of us know it could be a trick like most of the other evidence I've seen. Maybe they wanted the dim witt Bigfoot chasing researchers to think it was a bear.
Guest themanta Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 Cult? evil mistress? Bad angles? I never said what it was and it doesn't look like a bear. For all any of us know it could be a trick like most of the other evidence I've seen. Maybe they wanted the dim witt Bigfoot chasing researchers to think it was a bear. conspiracy theory makes for a weak argument sport....
Guest Batski Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 conspiracy theory makes for a weak argument sport.... You're the one with a weak argument here worrying about the case for the existence of Bigfoot. Maybe you shouldn't contradict yourself trying to be judgemental with bad evidence versus worse evidence. If you're so much better than the next guy why don't you have anything that's real?
Recommended Posts