Guest Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 i'm not trying to be elusive, i'm here just busy working. i'm actually not entirely sure what pictures your talking about. I posted pictures (or i think derek did) of what i believe are the only semi clear pictures of a bigfoot track that has happened in this area (to me personally anyways, thats forsure) some might seem its a bear track, imo that is ridiculous. that looks nothing like a bear track. look at a couple thousand and you may agree with me. the trackers with me at the time were split 50/50 on why they thought it was what they thought it was.) i've seen a lot of bear tracks, this just wasnt one of them. General, Are your two trackers the same trackers that Derek referenced, or are they different individuals? What did they think manifested this impression? Willinyc, I don't mean to sound short about the track. I didn't post it here because we wanted to talk about it, I posted it because one of the forum members here asked me to. I know there's no good scale to measure by but according to the General, who actually found the tracks, it's much larger than a bear track. The heel is to elongated IMO to be a bear hind. Also the toe pattern in wrong IMO. The toes in the track extend down the side. Bear tracks are more uniform and on top, or front of the foot. Also, the claws are missing. Again I'm sorry for sounding short, but I never know what to expect here. Peace. The big Phil pic does not belong to us. We didn't get it. I haven't asked Wally for permission to put on our web site yet because I'm not convinced it's a Sasquatch. DR Derek, Thanks for the response. I'd still be interested in hearing what your two trackers felt manifested this impression. I can respect the fact that you don't see this as a bear track, but I'm very certain that is what we are looking at. I don't have the time this evening (nor the software on my home system) to illustrate and explain why everything about this impression is indicative of a bear to me. When I have some time this week and access to my laptop, I'll provide a detailed explanation with illustrations on why this IMO has to be the impressions manifested by a bear. I don't feel that throwing out quick, ill-explained critical refutations accomplishes much of anything except raise tempers. The claims being made about this impression do raise some massive red flags for me. I'll provide a detailed explanation when time permits this week. Hopefully both you and the General can provide some clarification if you both think I'm calling this one wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I am curious to know if General has seen the Jacobs photos from PA? Considering his claim to an up-close view of a juvenile bigfoot(s), I can't help wondering if these pictures resemble what he witnessed. Jacobs Photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 17, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 17, 2011 So the vicinity of the shooting definitely produced a tissue/dna sample in this case? How close to blood on the ground was the tissue sample when finally found? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 This shooting seems to boil down to few different points. 1. Was it intentional or not. 2. Exactly when was the ID of the shot subjects made by the shooter. 3. Can the physical evidence be definitively tied to the shot subject(s). 4. What exactly was shot, if anything. 1. Intentions are hard to prove, the premise of bear hunting can be proven. 2. Something not proven to exist by science is arguably not identifiable by any means other than witness perception. People still argue about what bigfoot is, and these are people that claim to have seen it and interacted with it. 3. I'd say that if the sample matches other collected samples that defy explanation then the odds are astronomically in favor that it can be tied to this story. 4. The sample is said to be submitted for testing and the results published. This is all I need to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 4. The sample is said to be submitted for testing and the results published. This is all I need to see. Huh? Am I reading that right? Where exactly are the results published? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 17, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 17, 2011 3. I'd say that if the sample matches other collected samples that defy explanation then the odds are astronomically in favor that it can be tied to this story. And hopefully there will be an explanation, therein lies the rub. And it will be parsimonious with the topical name of this forum. 4. The sample is said to be submitted for testing and the results published. It would sort of help to see this publication....you are saying at least something has been published by somebody on the shooting area recovered sample and it is no longer out for peer review by the statement made. Where can we find it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nysro Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Huh? Am I reading that right? Where exactly are the results published? I think he meant the sample was submitted and will be published when the tests are done. Some of you guys read way too much into all this, and are ready to jump on any little thing to try and sway the story one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I think he meant the sample was submitted and will be published when the tests are done. Some of you guys read way too much into all this, and are ready to jump on any little thing to try and sway the story one way or another. For asking a clarifying question from someone in the know before it gets swayed? Also, have you read my posts? Calm down there, chief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 17, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 17, 2011 Some of you guys read way too much into all this, and are ready to jump on any little thing to try and sway the story one way or another. A rather rash statement since two well-informed forum members interpreted his statement the same way. Maybe you are the minority opinion on who reads what into things and who is jumping when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Some of you guys read way too much into all this, and are ready to jump on any little thing to try and sway the story one way or another. I've actually been impressed with how constructive and rational the statements and questions have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I think he meant the sample was submitted and will be published when the tests are done. While I happen to agree, the statement as written could be confusing (that there was already a published paper)..... Some of you guys read way too much into all this, and are ready to jump on any little thing to try and sway the story one way or another. NYSRO.. Ill be sending you a PM regarding this, and since several people have already responded to it, im not going to delete/edit your original post... No one is "jumping on" anything.. as stated two members asked a question to clarify the correct answer. No one is attempting to "sway" anything either.... not even sure how you came up with that...! ??? Ok guys, it's a mis-understanding at best (the rest i will handle)- Why dont we just move along and keep things flowing - the last two or so pages have been great reading....! ART Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) Yes had ears on sides of head (like humans) not on top like some animals Did you happen to notice anything strange about the size or shape of the ears? I hate to ask this...(no poking fun) were they at all pointed? I am only asking because I have read some reports that they seemed so. No, I am not jumping on Para's bandwagon before anyone asks. Reason for edit: The ear pun above was not intended. LOL. Edited August 17, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I hate to ask this...(no poking fun) were they at all pointed? I am only asking because I have read some reports that they seemed so. Geez... some people and they're "pointed" questions...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Geez... some people and they're "pointed" questions...! Couldn't resist, could you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 n o p e !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts