Guest nycBig Posted September 30, 2010 Posted September 30, 2010 bigfoot pancakes- now there is a big money to be made.
Huntster Posted September 30, 2010 Posted September 30, 2010 From the very article you posted in response to my statement:The print ridges... flowed lengthwise along the foot Yes. And the statement of yours that I objected to stated: According to Chilcutt, the dermal ridges run parallel to the outer edge of the foot. Even Bittermonk's statement counters that: The pattern of the artifacts is explained by the process by which they are created. They radiate outward from the point of pour and naturally parallel all geographic features of the print. But this is all part and parcel to the diversion: Any evidence which shows promise will be attacked, so one must be perfect in evidence gathering, chain of custody, categorization, etc. The focus is not on the creature, it is on denying the creature. Thus, and as indiefoot suggests, photograph the footprint first, then cast it. Deny the denialists.
Guest Blackdog Posted September 30, 2010 Posted September 30, 2010 Chilicutt never said anything about casting artifacts. I have no idea what you are talking about. If artifacts move outward from the flow wouldn't they run parallel to the outside of the cast? Is it or is it not possible to create casting artifacts while pouring a cast under certain conditions? Did Tube, Bitter Monk and Wolftrax show that or not? You're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Whether or not evidence shows promise if it's wrong it's wrong. You are the denialist and obstructionist.
Guest Posted September 30, 2010 Posted September 30, 2010 didnt Krantz find that the bossburg tracks had dermal ridges? http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/bigfoot_footprints.html
Guest Blackdog Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 (edited) Not in that article he doesn't. I don't recall he ever said they did, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Edited October 1, 2010 by Blackdog
Guest Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Not in that article he doesn't. I don't recall he ever said they did, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. actually BD , I watched ancient mysteries with lenord nemoy last night on my netflix, that is where i saw Krantz talking about the dermal ridges from bossburg, I couldn't find an article saying the same....... oops, my bad, they threw up the bossburg tracks while describing the freeman prints........ starts at 5:30
Huntster Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 Chilicutt never said anything about casting artifacts. I never said he did. I have no idea what you are talking about. That is painfully obvious. If artifacts move outward from the flow wouldn't they run parallel to the outside of the cast? As well as the inside of the cast, and as BitterMonk wrote, "they radiate outward from the point of pour and naturally parallel all geographic features of the print." Is it or is it not possible to create casting artifacts while pouring a cast under certain conditions? Yes, it is, and that is why it is critical to photograph the print before casting. That, of course, is no guarantee of anything when dealing with denialists. It is easy to cast doubt. Remember this "obvious bear print"?: Did Tube, Bitter Monk and Wolftrax show that or not? I don't know if all of them "showed that". I know that Tube demonstrated it, that the skeptical community delighted in it and took it to the highest levels possible (again, see the story), and that it is regularly used (applicable or not) to attack dermal evidence. You're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Considering the timing of your arrival to this topic, one must wonder about your motive. You certainly aren't here now "for the sake of arguing", are you? Of course not............ Whether or not evidence shows promise if it's wrong it's wrong. You are the denialist and obstructionist. And if dermal evidence was in the print before the casting, it was in the print before the casting.
Guest Blackdog Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 (edited) LMAO, when more than one "evil skeptic" posts more than once in the same thread they get called out for "piling on" when they post just once it's just because they are an A hole. And if dermal evidence was in the print before the casting, it was in the print before the casting. no spit sherlock......... Edited October 1, 2010 by Blackdog
Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 "Skeptic" is one of those words that has been bastardized by Propaganda. There was a time, where 'Skeptic' was used more like the polar opposite of "Naive". A skeptic would be leery of certain situations regarding the accepted status quo, where those who lacked wisdom or experience were considered naive. At some point, the word 'skeptic' has obtained extra baggage that implies that a skeptic may be too pessimistic, all 'doom and gloom' versus the naive wonders and miracles of organized religions. That "questioning authority" became "question all accepted opinions". Either way, the term is a bit 'tarnished', although I don't think it is a 'bad word'. Those who are labeled "Skeptics" often undergo a bigoted scrutiny because they don't accept what they are told at face value. I would also say that the term is thrown about quite a bit as a veiled insult (or not so veiled). So anytime one of the Gatekeepers of the Status Quo label you as a skeptic, shame not, and wear that label as a badge of honor. DocMoreau If everyone can lighten up and maybe word things better as not to offend it should go much smoother and there might even be some progress made ( Maybe )
Huntster Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 LMAO, when more than one "evil skeptic" posts more than once in the same thread they get called out for "piling on" when they post just once it's just because they are an A hole. 1) Nobody is calling anybody an "A hole" 2) You accused me of "arguing for the sake of arguing" in argumentive fashion in your maiden post on this thread. I replied respectfully. 3) I said, implied, or even thought nothing about "piling on". I could carry a dozen of you in my watch pocket through Hades and not notice the weight.
Huntster Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 There was a time, where 'Skeptic' was used more like the polar opposite of "Naive". Skeptic antonyms: believer, devotee, disciple
Guest rockinkt Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 I stand corrected. It's not beneath you. Since you are below me - you should be able to get a fine view.
Guest Posted October 1, 2010 Posted October 1, 2010 (edited) "Skeptic" is one of those words that has been bastardized by Propaganda. There was a time, where 'Skeptic' was used more like the polar opposite of "Naive". A skeptic would be leery of certain situations regarding the accepted status quo, where those who lacked wisdom or experience were considered naive. At some point, the word 'skeptic' has obtained extra baggage that implies that a skeptic may be too pessimistic, all 'doom and gloom' versus the naive wonders and miracles of organized religions. That "questioning authority" became "question all accepted opinions". Either way, the term is a bit 'tarnished', although I don't think it is a 'bad word'. Those who are labeled "Skeptics" often undergo a bigoted scrutiny because they don't accept what they are told at face value. I would also say that the term is thrown about quite a bit as a veiled insult (or not so veiled). So anytime one of the Gatekeepers of the Status Quo label you as a skeptic, shame not, and wear that label as a badge of honor. DocMoreau Good for you. Very well said. Edited October 1, 2010 by WTB1
Recommended Posts