FREE TAPATALK APP

makaya325 · 16th April 2009, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

http://www.taxidermy4cash.com/akeley.html
Some awesome early Africa hunts and trip photos can be found here. Including several gorilla photos.

Nice drew. Again, humans have recognized the gorilla for over 1000 years. The Mountain Gorilla was simply a subspecies discovered in a remote area of Africa, nothing amazing.

xblade · 16th April 2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Perhaps after they have finished stealing salmon, instead of choosing to dine at the nearest bear den, they would choose to consume it in a safer environment. Like in a bigfoot abode.

On Mars perhaps. There are no bear on Mars. Or maybe there are. They might even have pursed lips and steal children.

http://goingbald.files.wordpress.com...gfoot-mars.jpg

Correa Neto · 17th April 2009, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I absolutely love the B&W image of the Bigfoot strung up dead in the bottom right of the collage, Correa. That is exactly the type of image that we should have seen many times if Bigfoot is/was real. We should see images like that along with ceremonial Bigfoot skull helmuts and Bigfoot skin rugs by the fire.

Where did you get it, BTW?

Cryptomundo. I think whoever made it followed the "Civil War pterodactyl" tradition. It provides ab easy way to evade the question "OK, where's the body"?

Look, reliable evidence pieces on bigfoot actually are not openly shown to avoid images of strung dead gentle forest apemen becoming a common sight. Big white hunters would flock to kill our garlic-loving cousins.

And here is the new, improved Patty faces pareidolia festival collage, with Drew's interpretation added.

You know what? Given PGF's poor resolution, mask not completely unlike Drew's ninja bigfoot interpretation pehaps could do the trick...

LAL · 17th April 2009, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

>>>I'm not thinking much of yours right now either. Was my name added to the topic header when I wasn't looking?

No, not you specifically but I have read yours over the years. What you "think" of mine really isnt an issue with me because I'm really not in the business of dealing of those who cannot present a solvent case in the first place and base their statements on anecdotal evidence and when challenged cannot stand on their own.

Yes, I mislaid my bigfoot body (and the freezer it came in), so I've had to wing it. Sorry about that.

Why subject yourself to such torture? You could have just filtered me. It's not too late you know; you can do that now.

Quote:

>>>Weak or worn out? Lackadaisical? Insufficiently illustrated? Not enough links? I haven't even worked up enough enthusiasm this time around to hit Print Screen.

Would not matter either way

>>>I've seen all this many times before - there should be photos, there should be fossils, there should be roadkill, there should be one stuffed in the Smithsonian by now...........I used to size images and suggest people read the references so I wouldn't have to type out whole books. I'm tired of it. My interest peaked in 1969 and I doubt I'll be able to get back to that level of excitement again even if someone brings one in on a slab.

Always a bridesmaid............You came back

Temporarily. It's like rubbernecking at an accident or noting Ground Zero on a trip to New York.

I suppose I should consider inpatient treatment for message board addiction.

LAL · 17th April 2009, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by Yeah_Right

And Lal will always return with,ummm, interesting arguments for the pro side of Bigfoot. I am beginning to worry about her though, thinking that an obvious video of a man relieving himself in the woods might be a Bigfoot foraging. Really Lal, you need to raise your standards when it comes to evidence. I especially cringed when you said it was a ringer for Patty. Now I am no expert on Bigfoot, I haven't read Krantz and all those chaps, but even I can see that it in no way resembles the PGF subject.

Someone who thinks Patty is a man in a suit doesn't see a resemblance to a man in a jacket? That's remarkable.

Do you have a capture showing the urine stream? I didn't notice that on my step-throughs.

The idea of "jeans" was based on an artifact, the fake fur on a misconception by Davis refuted by Williams with her blue gorilla photos and the idea of it being an automatic fake was based on the idea that anything posted on YouTube must be a fake. I wanted to counter all that and got my chance on the MABRC thread.

I did not say "ringer" and the observation wasn't mine originally. I was surprised that the person even made it. My comment on YouTube may have been a little excessive, but I wanted to set a good tone so the people I was contacting would know they'd be welcome to discuss this in a civil way. Maybe we could have found out if there was an effort to determine height and that sort of thing.

One of the mods' jobs on MABRC was to stimulate discussion and we had a hard time keeping them going back then. There was too much agreement.

Drewbot · 17th April 2009, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by makaya325

Nice drew. Again, humans have recognized the gorilla for over 1000 years. The Mountain Gorilla was simply a subspecies discovered in a remote area of Africa, nothing amazing.

I think all that discovery-in-Africa stuff is amazing. And I think the link is totally sweet. Why are you downplaying the awesomeness of my link? Regardless of whether you believe a giant hairy unclassified ape is running around the PNW, that link I provided has some totally sweet photos.

CN- My fave is the far right, middle guy, it totally looks like a Well-Groomed-Kenny-Rogers-Live-on-Christmas-Special Patty.

LONGTABBER PE · 17th April 2009, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

One of the mods' jobs on MABRC was to stimulate discussion and we had a hard time keeping them going back then. There was too much agreement.

Are those people self destructing or what?

kitakaze · 17th April 2009, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by makaya325

Nice drew. Again, humans have recognized the gorilla for over 1000 years. The Mountain Gorilla was simply a subspecies discovered in a remote area of Africa, nothing amazing.

Hey! Little mak is back! You must have missed us after being booted out of the BFF as both "blue bear" and "duke of earl".

What is the 1000 years about? Humans have certainly recognized the gorilla longer than 1000 years. It's not like gorillas just appeared out of nowhere a thousand years ago. You might want to rethink your statement.

kitakaze · 17th April 2009, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I think all that discovery-in-Africa stuff is amazing. And I think the link is totally sweet. Why are you downplaying the awesomeness of my link? Regardless of whether you believe a giant hairy unclassified ape is running around the PNW, that link I provided has some totally sweet photos.

I found the "death masks of 5 gorillas" to be the most striking and macabre.

Quote:

CN- My fave is the far right, middle guy, it totally looks like a Well-Groomed-Kenny-Rogers-Live-on-Christmas-Special Patty.

That was my favourite as well. Who couldn't love that face? Such a serene looking dude.

Correa Neto · 17th April 2009, 12:39 PM

Which, BTW, shows that one would not need a mask completely hiding the guy-in-the-costume's face. Just a "beard" and cap, maybe made of leather, perhaps like an old American footbal player helmet...

Wait! Where have I read something like that?

makaya325 · 17th April 2009, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Hey! Little mak is back! You must have missed us after being booted out of the BFF as both "blue bear" and "duke of earl".

What is the 1000 years about? Humans have certainly recognized the gorilla longer than 1000 years. It's not like gorillas just appeared out of nowhere a thousand years ago. You might want to rethink your statement.

I said humans recognized gorillas for thousands of years. The discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902 is cited as the discovery of the first gorilla species according to some Cryptozoologists, which is completely false, since Man has known about the Lowland Gorilla since 1847.

GT/CS · 17th April 2009, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

I said humans recognized gorillas for thousands of years. The discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902 is cited as the discovery of the first gorilla species according to some Cryptozoologists, which is completely false, since Man has known about the Lowland Gorilla since 1847.

Were the people who lived near the gorillas, and knew about them, for hundreds of years not considered "Man"?

tsig · 17th April 2009, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

Yes, I mislaid my bigfoot body (and the freezer it came in), so I've had to wing it. Sorry about that.

Why subject yourself to such torture? You could have just filtered me. It's not too late you know; you can do that now.

Temporarily. It's like rubbernecking at an accident or noting Ground Zero on a trip to New York.

I suppose I should consider inpatient treatment for message board addiction.

Nope it's got to be removed surgically.

makaya325 · 17th April 2009, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Were the people who lived near the gorillas, and knew about them, for hundreds of years not considered "Man"?

Do you mean the tribes in Africa? They are Homo Sapiens.

GT/CS · 17th April 2009, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

Do you mean the tribes in Africa? They are Homo Sapiens.

Then your previous post makes no sense. You said "Man" has known about the gorilla since 1847.

Who do you consider to be "Man"?

makaya325 · 17th April 2009, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Then your previous post makes no sense. You said "Man" has known about the gorilla since 1847.

Who do you consider to be "Man"?

Humans have known about the Gorilla since 1847.

LAL · 17th April 2009, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Are those people self destructing or what?

Better than a soap opera, isn't it?

GT/CS · 17th April 2009, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

Humans have known about the Gorilla since 1847.

Do you have any evidence that the African natives did not know about the gorilla before 1847?

GT/CS · 18th April 2009, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Do you have any evidence that the African natives did not know about the gorilla before 1847?

Mak, are you going to answser this question?

makaya325 · 18th April 2009, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Mak, are you going to answser this question?

I have no evidence that natives didnt know about gorillas before 1847. That i didnt claim. I claimed that Homo Sapiens recognized the gorillas existence for 1000's of years, and catalogued the First known species of gorilla in 1847.

GT/CS · 18th April 2009, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

I have no evidence that natives didnt know about gorillas before 1847. That i didnt claim. I claimed that Homo Sapiens recognized the gorillas existence for 1000's of years, and catalogued the First known species of gorilla in 1847.

That is true but you also said man has known about the lowland gorilla since 1847.

Quote:

I said humans recognized gorillas for thousands of years. The discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902 is cited as the discovery of the first gorilla species according to some Cryptozoologists, which is completely false, since Man has known about the Lowland Gorilla since 1847.

My question to you is; why do you say that man first learned about the lowland gorilla in 1847? Please keep in mind that the African natives most likely knew about them for hundreds of years prior to that.

makaya325 · 18th April 2009, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

That is true but you also said man has known about the lowland gorilla since 1847.

My question to you is; why do you say that man first learned about the lowland gorilla in 1847? Please keep in mind that the African natives most likely knew about them for hundreds of years prior to that.

We have no idea how long Tribes have recognized it for, but the Western world has recognized the Lowland Gorilla since 1847.

GT/CS · 18th April 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

We have no idea how long Tribes have recognized it for, but the Western world has recognized the Lowland Gorilla since 1847.

So from what you've posted is it safe to say that you consider "man" to be only the western world?

kitakaze · 18th April 2009, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

I said humans recognized gorillas for thousands of years. The discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902 is cited as the discovery of the first gorilla species according to some Cryptozoologists, which is completely false, since Man has known about the Lowland Gorilla since 1847.

Originally Posted by makaya325

I have no evidence that natives didnt know about gorillas before 1847. That i didnt claim. I claimed that Homo Sapiens recognized the gorillas existence for 1000's of years, and catalogued the First known species of gorilla in 1847.

To be perfectly clear, you said:

Originally Posted by makaya325

Nice drew. Again, humans have recognized the gorilla for over 1000 years.

That seemed kind of random to me.

Vortigern99 · 19th April 2009, 09:20 AM

The Carthaginian sailor Hanno the Navigator first described the gorilla in about 480 BCE. A type specimen was not recovered for the benefit of modern Western science until 1847, but the animal was well-known and well-attested for 2000 years prior to its taxonomic classification.

Surprise! Mayaka is and has been correct, more or less, about this all along. Still it would be helpful if Mayaka could be more specific and accurate with his information in the future.

RayG · 19th April 2009, 03:55 PM

Dream on...

RayG

kitakaze · 20th April 2009, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Wait! Where have I read something like that?

Who cares? Read your happy birthday thread, instead.

Did you know they named a physical phenomenom after Correa Neto? Yes, they did. You know when you're having your popcorn and at the bottom is all the junky kernels and bits? Yeah, that's the Brazil nut effect.

atpeace · 26th May 2009, 09:20 AM

I was so glad to have found this thread.
My views on bf have run the gamut over time. From staunch defender to laughing my head off.
I started out on the pro sites gobbling it all up until one day I allowed myself to think and let the questions pour in. The more I read critically the more easily the patterns emerged. Doubt crept in faster than I was comfortable with and I strangely felt guilty at first. I eventually hit the skeptical forums which I had previously not known existed as they weren’t linked on the pro sites. Can’t imagine why? I also met some very nice hand-holders who privately walked me patiently through my dilemma while exposing what I knew to be true. Yet, I found some of the skeptics’ points not well supported and I could still dance around them.

So, then I took on a new view blaming all the problems with the “evidence” and claims (pseudoscience facts) on man, not Bigfoot (he did exist). So it was at this point that I found jref and have been reading and reading and reading extensively. Excellent!!! Should be required reading for all on both sides. I especially appreciate Vortigern’s intelligence, extreme patience and good fight coupled with an open mind! And of course the obvious excellent rebuttal from the regulars that hit home for me. You guys are spot on!

So, finally, I have concluded with complete resolution, the reason I have a problem with man’s claims and “evidence” is not because he’s built a bad case on lousy methods and conclusions but rather that he has no choice, he has nothing to work with, because there is in all likelihood no present-day beast as described! Bfers are building a case on nothing because there is nothing to build on.

So, I do give kudos to the proponents for inciting thousands upon thousands of pages of pure pro information, pure con information and a mix (debate) ALL FROM NOTHING! So, anyway I was pleased to find this highly informative thread. Sealing the deal and finally allowing me some peace!

I’m still wondering why science hasn’t tapped into the obvious X-Men among us with their unbelievable eyesight and night vision capabilities as is so evident in so many sighting reports and televised re-enactments.

On second thought, I guess my peace over the issue is a relative term, as after having read so many pro-threads I find it more than uncomfortably bizarre the number of adult individuals seeing 8-10 foot hairy giants as well as the number of adult individuals sitting in woods talking to singing to and …well you know where I am going.

I am so thankful Cousteau wasn't a chicken in a wetsuit.

Thanks again!
atpeace

Skeptical Greg · 26th May 2009, 09:34 AM

Great first post ... You did a good job of sifting through the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion..
As with any case, we can't prove the negative - " There is no Bigfoot . ", but the lack of good evidence makes this the most likely answer ..

Vortigern99 · 26th May 2009, 10:17 AM

Atpeace, welcome to the JREF forums. I'm glad you've found the discussion up to this point of some use to you, as I know I did when I joined back in March. Prior to my discovery of this and the PGF thread, I held on to my belief that bigfoot was a real undiscovered primate, lurking in the millions of acres of undeveloped forests of NA. The evidence, and/or the lack of it, says otherwise, as I've been fortunate enough to find out.

Again, welcome.

wvbig · 26th May 2009, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

To all those who believe in Bigfoot, please watch the following videos.

The elusive and rare white kermode/spirit bear (in prime BF habitat):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vspuhFs5lZE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjvpO...eature=related

Rare white deer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Tvk...eature=related

Florida panthers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6szikcgOW1E

Rare elusive Javan rhinos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTELuPmncGM

Wolverine images:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmG7mEXqdcA

Ultra-rare venomous mammal, solenodon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWjyLIZr26Y

First ever footage of ultra-rare bulbous-headed snub fin dolphin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zakPeyXCUNk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzF-DvNkt9s&NR=1

Ultra-rare and elusive Pakistan snow leopard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPHxlqjNQhY

Tibetan blue bear in the wild and captivity:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...281db02e9b.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...281f29bc1d.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2821bee6c7.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...28277711eb.jpg

OK, footers. What's the deal? Why are there no unambiguous photos or videos of Bigfoot? Why can't I see an unambiguous video of Bigfoot on youtube. You would have us believe these creatures live all over North America (as well as other continents like Asia and Australia) and that there are over 400+ sightings a year. If you try to argue just for a specific area, show how you were able to dismiss others areas.

What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it. Don't talk to me about eastern cougars. I linked videos of Florida panthers.

Any excuses or apologism will be dismantled. Can you handle this question?

1)Considering all the tricks one can do with film/video/photos these days,(Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan in "Forrest Gump" is a prime example of what can be done with video) can there be a video or photo of an undocumented species that isn't considered unambiguous by skeptics? I think not. Wouldn't Occams Razor dictate that since the creature in the photo or video isn't a documented animal, then it's most likely a fake? That's why, in my opinion, a camera or video camera is only necessary for photographing possible evidence such as tracks, hairs, etc... before it's collected or cast.

xblade · 26th May 2009, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by wvbig

1)Considering all the tricks one can do with film/video/photos these days,(Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan in "Forrest Gump" is a prime example of what can be done with video) can there be a video or photo of an undocumented species that isn't considered unambiguous by skeptics?

Yes. But here's a hint...pictures like the following aren't unambiguous:

http://t.ah0.net/images/photos/wayne...wamp_arrow.jpg

Get a clear picture like those we get of every other non-mythical creature, and we'll go from there. It's not like we have a problem with undocumented creatures being documented. It would be cool as hell if bigfoot were real. Something like the following would be a good start:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Quote:

I think not.

Then you aren't thinking.

Quote:

Wouldn't Occams Razor dictate that since the creature in the photo or video isn't a documented animal, then it's most likely a fake?

No, just the ones that no one can find after 200 plus years, or that look like a man in a suit.

Quote:

That's why, in my opinion, a camera or video camera is only necessary for photographing possible evidence such as tracks, hairs, etc... before it's collected or cast.

Yeah, that makes sense. Skeptics would never be skeptical of those pics/vids, lol. Cuz..you know....those things couldn't be faked with today's video technology.....or a piece of wood, and a hair from the wife's hairbrush.

kitakaze · 26th May 2009, 04:47 PM

Atpeace,

*Linda Richman* I'm getting a little verklempt! Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic - the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. Discuss. *Linda Richman*

That was an awesome first post. A big hearty welcome to the JREF!

Posts like yours are so awesome to read and make all the effort put into the topic feel worth it. Whenever someone decloaks and talks about how they've benefited from reading the information found here I get stoked. There are some very smart people here who are crazy enough to take an interest in Bigfootery who make great contributions. I remember when I finally let go of that part that wanted to hold on to a belief in Bigfoot I had that same kind of feeling as you. I found that I could still enjoy the myth without compromising my objectivity and critical thinking abilities. Please feel free to jump into the mix with us and share your perspectives.

wvbig · 26th May 2009, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by xblade

Yes. But here's a hint...pictures like the following aren't unambiguous:

http://t.ah0.net/images/photos/wayne...wamp_arrow.jpg
http://t.ah0.net/images/photos/wayne...wamp_arrow.jpg

Get a clear picture like those we get of every other non-mythical creature, and we'll go from there. It's not like we have a problem with undocumented creatures being documented. It would be cool as hell if bigfoot were real. Something like the following would be a good start:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Then you aren't thinking.

No, just the ones that no one can find after 200 plus years, or that look like a man in a suit.

Yeah, that makes sense. Skeptics would never be skeptical of those pics/vids, lol. Cuz..you know....those things couldn't be faked with today's video technology.....or a piece of wood, and a hair from the wife's hairbrush.

The photos of potential evidence are only to document exactly where it's found in case it turns out to be something & to document the type of area it's found in etc... I also think videoing the collection process is a good idea so if some DNA is found that indicates a primate, human contamination can be ruled out

kitakaze · 26th May 2009, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by wvbig

1)Considering all the tricks one can do with film/video/photos these days,(Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan in "Forrest Gump" is a prime example of what can be done with video) can there be a video or photo of an undocumented species that isn't considered unambiguous by skeptics? I think not.

Absolutely yes, Steven. Look at anyone of the videos in the OP that you quoted. Look at the video that xblade posted for you. Those creatures are rarer and in many cases more elusive and harder to photograph than Bigfoot is supposed to be and yet we have those unambiguous images.

It's in the interest of you as a person who runs a Bigfoot organization (West Virginia Bigfoot Investigations Group) to create the excuses that any video would be considered a hoax. It gives you the out to not be expected to actually get footage of the animal you think is in the area you are searching.

Quote:

Wouldn't Occams Razor dictate that since the creature in the photo or video isn't a documented animal, then it's most likely a fake?

No. Absolutely not. Let's say you get a video of an unknown type of squid on video from a submersible. You think just because we haven't seen it before scientists will look and say, "Nope. That's fake,"? You're just making excuses, man. There is absolutely no good reason why we don't have unambigous images of a massive relatively slow-moving upright land mammal that is breeding all across the North American continent and by your belief living in West Virginia. People who aren't addled by the desire to believe in boogeymen and manbeasts can figure out by themselves what the reason for that is. Maybe oneday if you ever get tired of playing the adult role-playing game of Woods & Wildmen you might give your head a shake and think about honestly to yourself.

Quote:

That's why, in my opinion, a camera or video camera is only necessary for photographing possible evidence such as tracks, hairs, etc... before it's collected or cast.

ROFL! Yeah, that's better! And thus you've given yourself the excuse necessary to post worthless video and pretend it means something significant and thereby garner more attention for your little Bigfoot playgroup.

makaya325 · 26th May 2009, 05:38 PM

It is ok to consider bigfoot a cool myth, but I suggest that you do not let it take control of your life.

kitakaze · 26th May 2009, 05:44 PM

Steven, I have a clarification I need to make. In the now tossed MABRC thread I noted who you were as head of W.V.B.I.G. but I mistakenly said that you were the MABRC state director for WV. I was wrong. Here's that post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...0&postcount=47

That person is the guy who runs this site that I linked to before:

http://westvirginiabigfoot.blogspot.com/

His name is Rick and he has a message he hopes we get at the JREF on his site:

Originally Posted by Rick@West Virginia Bigfoot

JREF
Have had a few visitors from the JREF forums. Apparently I am not welcome there as I have had my account removed twice now without even making a post.Wonder what they are afraid of. I simply was going to post the following then leave them alone. So I will post it here and maybe one of the members there will see this and pass it on.

There apparently has been some confusion as to who owns this blog. As soon as I am approved to post on JREF I will straighten it out there. But in case some of the members come here I want to make it clear that I am not Steven Tichnell. Mr Tichnell owns the WVBIG group which I am a member hence the banner. Also he is not a member of the MABRC as some have stated. I am the W Va state director for the MABRC and anyone can readily find my posts and first name on the forums. I wish not to get into an argument either about the subject.It would do nothing but hurt my research.Any negative comments here will be deleted.I cant do anything about comments on the JREF except ignore them and move on so go for it. Thank you for visiting and hope you will return although I suspect many wont.

Thank you for the clarification, Rick. I promise you there is nothing any Bigfoot enthusiast has to say that is going to cause the JREF forum administration to be scared. I have heard a number of times about people having a problem registering on this forum. It may be you have computer issues or something wrong with the registration process.

atpeace · 26th May 2009, 07:40 PM

Thank you Kitakaze, Vortigern, and Skep Greg. It’s sure a refreshing pleasure to be here!
Now, what to do with all this garlic…………. Aha! vamp-----never mind
ap

xblade · 26th May 2009, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by wvbig

The photos of potential evidence are only to document exactly where it's found in case it turns out to be something & to document the type of area it's found in etc... I also think videoing the collection process is a good idea so if some DNA is found that indicates a primate, human contamination can be ruled out

I don't have a problem with documenting these things, my issue is that you said/implied video of the creature itself would hold no weight, yet then claimed video of the evidence somehow does. It doesn't make sense. Who cares if you have video of a footprint if you can provide video, or a live specimen of the foot itelf? Find the creature already, and you'll have all the dna, footprints, scat, pig carcases and vocal recordings you can stand.

dropzone · 26th May 2009, 10:08 PM

And as someone trained in Hominid physiology, I'd jump to a claim that some films show a non-human femur/fibula ratio, but I'm left with the clearer, forced to be more hominid, claims that the films are faked, and have to wait for better evidence.

17th April 2009, 04:38 AM	#363
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,234	Originally Posted by kitakaze I absolutely love the B&W image of the Bigfoot strung up dead in the bottom right of the collage, Correa. That is exactly the type of image that we should have seen many times if Bigfoot is/was real. We should see images like that along with ceremonial Bigfoot skull helmuts and Bigfoot skin rugs by the fire. Where did you get it, BTW? Cryptomundo. I think whoever made it followed the "Civil War pterodactyl" tradition. It provides ab easy way to evade the question "OK, where's the body"? Look, reliable evidence pieces on bigfoot actually are not openly shown to avoid images of strung dead gentle forest apemen becoming a common sight. Big white hunters would flock to kill our garlic-loving cousins. And here is the new, improved Patty faces pareidolia festival collage, with Drew's interpretation added. You know what? Given PGF's poor resolution, mask not completely unlike Drew's ninja bigfoot interpretation pehaps could do the trick...
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

17th April 2009, 04:41 AM	#364
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE >>>I'm not thinking much of yours right now either. Was my name added to the topic header when I wasn't looking? No, not you specifically but I have read yours over the years. What you "think" of mine really isnt an issue with me because I'm really not in the business of dealing of those who cannot present a solvent case in the first place and base their statements on anecdotal evidence and when challenged cannot stand on their own. Yes, I mislaid my bigfoot body (and the freezer it came in), so I've had to wing it. Sorry about that. Why subject yourself to such torture? You could have just filtered me. It's not too late you know; you can do that now. Quote: >>>Weak or worn out? Lackadaisical? Insufficiently illustrated? Not enough links? I haven't even worked up enough enthusiasm this time around to hit Print Screen. Would not matter either way >>>I've seen all this many times before - there should be photos, there should be fossils, there should be roadkill, there should be one stuffed in the Smithsonian by now...........I used to size images and suggest people read the references so I wouldn't have to type out whole books. I'm tired of it. My interest peaked in 1969 and I doubt I'll be able to get back to that level of excitement again even if someone brings one in on a slab. Always a bridesmaid............You came back Temporarily. It's like rubbernecking at an accident or noting Ground Zero on a trip to New York. I suppose I should consider inpatient treatment for message board addiction.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

17th April 2009, 05:12 AM	#365
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by Yeah_Right And Lal will always return with,ummm, interesting arguments for the pro side of Bigfoot. I am beginning to worry about her though, thinking that an obvious video of a man relieving himself in the woods might be a Bigfoot foraging. Really Lal, you need to raise your standards when it comes to evidence. I especially cringed when you said it was a ringer for Patty. Now I am no expert on Bigfoot, I haven't read Krantz and all those chaps, but even I can see that it in no way resembles the PGF subject. Someone who thinks Patty is a man in a suit doesn't see a resemblance to a man in a jacket? That's remarkable. Do you have a capture showing the urine stream? I didn't notice that on my step-throughs. The idea of "jeans" was based on an artifact, the fake fur on a misconception by Davis refuted by Williams with her blue gorilla photos and the idea of it being an automatic fake was based on the idea that anything posted on YouTube must be a fake. I wanted to counter all that and got my chance on the MABRC thread. I did not say "ringer" and the observation wasn't mine originally. I was surprised that the person even made it. My comment on YouTube may have been a little excessive, but I wanted to set a good tone so the people I was contacting would know they'd be welcome to discuss this in a civil way. Maybe we could have found out if there was an effort to determine height and that sort of thing. One of the mods' jobs on MABRC was to stimulate discussion and we had a hard time keeping them going back then. There was too much agreement.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

17th April 2009, 05:47 AM	#366
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	Originally Posted by makaya325 Nice drew. Again, humans have recognized the gorilla for over 1000 years. The Mountain Gorilla was simply a subspecies discovered in a remote area of Africa, nothing amazing. I think all that discovery-in-Africa stuff is amazing. And I think the link is totally sweet. Why are you downplaying the awesomeness of my link? Regardless of whether you believe a giant hairy unclassified ape is running around the PNW, that link I provided has some totally sweet photos. CN- My fave is the far right, middle guy, it totally looks like a Well-Groomed-Kenny-Rogers-Live-on-Christmas-Special Patty.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic Last edited by Drewbot; 17th April 2009 at 05:55 AM.

17th April 2009, 11:47 AM	#368
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by makaya325 Nice drew. Again, humans have recognized the gorilla for over 1000 years. The Mountain Gorilla was simply a subspecies discovered in a remote area of Africa, nothing amazing. Hey! Little mak is back! You must have missed us after being booted out of the BFF as both "blue bear" and "duke of earl". What is the 1000 years about? Humans have certainly recognized the gorilla longer than 1000 years. It's not like gorillas just appeared out of nowhere a thousand years ago. You might want to rethink your statement.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

16th April 2009, 03:17 PM	#361
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by Drewbot http://www.taxidermy4cash.com/akeley.html Some awesome early Africa hunts and trip photos can be found here. Including several gorilla photos. Nice drew. Again, humans have recognized the gorilla for over 1000 years. The Mountain Gorilla was simply a subspecies discovered in a remote area of Africa, nothing amazing.

16th April 2009, 09:27 PM	#362
xblade Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 462	Quote: Perhaps after they have finished stealing salmon, instead of choosing to dine at the nearest bear den, they would choose to consume it in a safer environment. Like in a bigfoot abode. On Mars perhaps. There are no bear on Mars. Or maybe there are. They might even have pursed lips and steal children. http://goingbald.files.wordpress.com...gfoot-mars.jpg

17th April 2009, 05:49 AM	#367
LONGTABBER PE Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,865	Originally Posted by LAL One of the mods' jobs on MABRC was to stimulate discussion and we had a hard time keeping them going back then. There was too much agreement. Are those people self destructing or what?

17th April 2009, 11:57 AM	#369
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by Drewbot I think all that discovery-in-Africa stuff is amazing. And I think the link is totally sweet. Why are you downplaying the awesomeness of my link? Regardless of whether you believe a giant hairy unclassified ape is running around the PNW, that link I provided has some totally sweet photos. I found the "death masks of 5 gorillas" to be the most striking and macabre. Quote: CN- My fave is the far right, middle guy, it totally looks like a Well-Groomed-Kenny-Rogers-Live-on-Christmas-Special Patty. That was my favourite as well. Who couldn't love that face? Such a serene looking dude.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

17th April 2009, 12:39 PM	#370
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,234	Which, BTW, shows that one would not need a mask completely hiding the guy-in-the-costume's face. Just a "beard" and cap, maybe made of leather, perhaps like an old American footbal player helmet... Wait! Where have I read something like that?
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

17th April 2009, 02:11 PM	#371
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by kitakaze Hey! Little mak is back! You must have missed us after being booted out of the BFF as both "blue bear" and "duke of earl". What is the 1000 years about? Humans have certainly recognized the gorilla longer than 1000 years. It's not like gorillas just appeared out of nowhere a thousand years ago. You might want to rethink your statement. I said humans recognized gorillas for thousands of years. The discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902 is cited as the discovery of the first gorilla species according to some Cryptozoologists, which is completely false, since Man has known about the Lowland Gorilla since 1847.

17th April 2009, 03:30 PM	#372
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	Originally Posted by makaya325 I said humans recognized gorillas for thousands of years. The discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902 is cited as the discovery of the first gorilla species according to some Cryptozoologists, which is completely false, since Man has known about the Lowland Gorilla since 1847. Were the people who lived near the gorillas, and knew about them, for hundreds of years not considered "Man"?
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

17th April 2009, 03:58 PM	#373
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,243	Originally Posted by LAL Yes, I mislaid my bigfoot body (and the freezer it came in), so I've had to wing it. Sorry about that. Why subject yourself to such torture? You could have just filtered me. It's not too late you know; you can do that now. Temporarily. It's like rubbernecking at an accident or noting Ground Zero on a trip to New York. I suppose I should consider inpatient treatment for message board addiction. Nope it's got to be removed surgically.

17th April 2009, 04:29 PM	#374
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by GT/CS Were the people who lived near the gorillas, and knew about them, for hundreds of years not considered "Man"? Do you mean the tribes in Africa? They are Homo Sapiens.

17th April 2009, 04:51 PM	#375
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	Originally Posted by makaya325 Do you mean the tribes in Africa? They are Homo Sapiens. Then your previous post makes no sense. You said "Man" has known about the gorilla since 1847. Who do you consider to be "Man"?
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

17th April 2009, 05:00 PM	#376
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by GT/CS Then your previous post makes no sense. You said "Man" has known about the gorilla since 1847. Who do you consider to be "Man"? Humans have known about the Gorilla since 1847.

17th April 2009, 05:24 PM	#377
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE Are those people self destructing or what? Better than a soap opera, isn't it?
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

17th April 2009, 05:45 PM	#378
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	Originally Posted by makaya325 Humans have known about the Gorilla since 1847. Do you have any evidence that the African natives did not know about the gorilla before 1847?
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

18th April 2009, 02:39 PM	#379
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	Originally Posted by GT/CS Do you have any evidence that the African natives did not know about the gorilla before 1847? Mak, are you going to answser this question?
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

18th April 2009, 03:27 PM	#380
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by GT/CS Mak, are you going to answser this question? I have no evidence that natives didnt know about gorillas before 1847. That i didnt claim. I claimed that Homo Sapiens recognized the gorillas existence for 1000's of years, and catalogued the First known species of gorilla in 1847.

18th April 2009, 04:03 PM	#381
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	Originally Posted by makaya325 I have no evidence that natives didnt know about gorillas before 1847. That i didnt claim. I claimed that Homo Sapiens recognized the gorillas existence for 1000's of years, and catalogued the First known species of gorilla in 1847. That is true but you also said man has known about the lowland gorilla since 1847. Quote: I said humans recognized gorillas for thousands of years. The discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902 is cited as the discovery of the first gorilla species according to some Cryptozoologists, which is completely false, since Man has known about the Lowland Gorilla since 1847. My question to you is; why do you say that man first learned about the lowland gorilla in 1847? Please keep in mind that the African natives most likely knew about them for hundreds of years prior to that.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

18th April 2009, 04:34 PM	#382
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by GT/CS That is true but you also said man has known about the lowland gorilla since 1847. My question to you is; why do you say that man first learned about the lowland gorilla in 1847? Please keep in mind that the African natives most likely knew about them for hundreds of years prior to that. We have no idea how long Tribes have recognized it for, but the Western world has recognized the Lowland Gorilla since 1847.

18th April 2009, 04:44 PM	#383
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	Originally Posted by makaya325 We have no idea how long Tribes have recognized it for, but the Western world has recognized the Lowland Gorilla since 1847. So from what you've posted is it safe to say that you consider "man" to be only the western world?
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,629	__________________ SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

18th April 2009, 06:04 PM	#384
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by makaya325 I said humans recognized gorillas for thousands of years. The discovery of the Mountain Gorilla in 1902 is cited as the discovery of the first gorilla species according to some Cryptozoologists, which is completely false, since Man has known about the Lowland Gorilla since 1847. Originally Posted by makaya325 I have no evidence that natives didnt know about gorillas before 1847. That i didnt claim. I claimed that Homo Sapiens recognized the gorillas existence for 1000's of years, and catalogued the First known species of gorilla in 1847. To be perfectly clear, you said: Originally Posted by makaya325 Nice drew. Again, humans have recognized the gorilla for over 1000 years. That seemed kind of random to me.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

19th April 2009, 09:20 AM	#385
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,057	The Carthaginian sailor Hanno the Navigator first described the gorilla in about 480 BCE. A type specimen was not recovered for the benefit of modern Western science until 1847, but the animal was well-known and well-attested for 2000 years prior to its taxonomic classification. Surprise! Mayaka is and has been correct, more or less, about this all along. Still it would be helpful if Mayaka could be more specific and accurate with his information in the future.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

19th April 2009, 03:55 PM	#386
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,373	Dream on... RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

20th April 2009, 03:37 AM	#387
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by Correa Neto Wait! Where have I read something like that? Who cares? Read your happy birthday thread, instead. Did you know they named a physical phenomenom after Correa Neto? Yes, they did. You know when you're having your popcorn and at the bottom is all the junky kernels and bits? Yeah, that's the Brazil nut effect.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

26th May 2009, 09:20 AM	#388
atpeace Guest Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 208	I was so glad to have found this thread. My views on bf have run the gamut over time. From staunch defender to laughing my head off. I started out on the pro sites gobbling it all up until one day I allowed myself to think and let the questions pour in. The more I read critically the more easily the patterns emerged. Doubt crept in faster than I was comfortable with and I strangely felt guilty at first. I eventually hit the skeptical forums which I had previously not known existed as they weren’t linked on the pro sites. Can’t imagine why? I also met some very nice hand-holders who privately walked me patiently through my dilemma while exposing what I knew to be true. Yet, I found some of the skeptics’ points not well supported and I could still dance around them. So, then I took on a new view blaming all the problems with the “evidence” and claims (pseudoscience facts) on man, not Bigfoot (he did exist). So it was at this point that I found jref and have been reading and reading and reading extensively. Excellent!!! Should be required reading for all on both sides. I especially appreciate Vortigern’s intelligence, extreme patience and good fight coupled with an open mind! And of course the obvious excellent rebuttal from the regulars that hit home for me. You guys are spot on! So, finally, I have concluded with complete resolution, the reason I have a problem with man’s claims and “evidence” is not because he’s built a bad case on lousy methods and conclusions but rather that he has no choice, he has nothing to work with, because there is in all likelihood no present-day beast as described! Bfers are building a case on nothing because there is nothing to build on. So, I do give kudos to the proponents for inciting thousands upon thousands of pages of pure pro information, pure con information and a mix (debate) ALL FROM NOTHING! So, anyway I was pleased to find this highly informative thread. Sealing the deal and finally allowing me some peace! I’m still wondering why science hasn’t tapped into the obvious X-Men among us with their unbelievable eyesight and night vision capabilities as is so evident in so many sighting reports and televised re-enactments. On second thought, I guess my peace over the issue is a relative term, as after having read so many pro-threads I find it more than uncomfortably bizarre the number of adult individuals seeing 8-10 foot hairy giants as well as the number of adult individuals sitting in woods talking to singing to and …well you know where I am going. I am so thankful Cousteau wasn't a chicken in a wetsuit. Thanks again! atpeace
atpeace Guest Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 208

26th May 2009, 09:34 AM	#389
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,892	Great first post ... You did a good job of sifting through the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion.. As with any case, we can't prove the negative - " There is no Bigfoot . ", but the lack of good evidence makes this the most likely answer ..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

26th May 2009, 10:17 AM	#390
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,057	Atpeace, welcome to the JREF forums. I'm glad you've found the discussion up to this point of some use to you, as I know I did when I joined back in March. Prior to my discovery of this and the PGF thread, I held on to my belief that bigfoot was a real undiscovered primate, lurking in the millions of acres of undeveloped forests of NA. The evidence, and/or the lack of it, says otherwise, as I've been fortunate enough to find out. Again, welcome.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix Last edited by Vortigern99; 26th May 2009 at 10:18 AM.

26th May 2009, 04:03 PM	#391
wvbig Guest Join Date: May 2009 Location: West Virginia Posts: 40	Originally Posted by kitakaze To all those who believe in Bigfoot, please watch the following videos. The elusive and rare white kermode/spirit bear (in prime BF habitat): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vspuhFs5lZE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjvpO...eature=related Rare white deer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Tvk...eature=related Florida panthers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6szikcgOW1E Rare elusive Javan rhinos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTELuPmncGM Wolverine images: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmG7mEXqdcA Ultra-rare venomous mammal, solenodon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWjyLIZr26Y First ever footage of ultra-rare bulbous-headed snub fin dolphin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zakPeyXCUNk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzF-DvNkt9s&NR=1 Ultra-rare and elusive Pakistan snow leopard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPHxlqjNQhY Tibetan blue bear in the wild and captivity: http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...281db02e9b.jpg http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...281f29bc1d.jpg http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2821bee6c7.jpg http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...28277711eb.jpg OK, footers. What's the deal? Why are there no unambiguous photos or videos of Bigfoot? Why can't I see an unambiguous video of Bigfoot on youtube. You would have us believe these creatures live all over North America (as well as other continents like Asia and Australia) and that there are over 400+ sightings a year. If you try to argue just for a specific area, show how you were able to dismiss others areas. What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it. Don't talk to me about eastern cougars. I linked videos of Florida panthers. Any excuses or apologism will be dismantled. Can you handle this question? 1)Considering all the tricks one can do with film/video/photos these days,(Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan in "Forrest Gump" is a prime example of what can be done with video) can there be a video or photo of an undocumented species that isn't considered unambiguous by skeptics? I think not. Wouldn't Occams Razor dictate that since the creature in the photo or video isn't a documented animal, then it's most likely a fake? That's why, in my opinion, a camera or video camera is only necessary for photographing possible evidence such as tracks, hairs, etc... before it's collected or cast.
	Last edited by wvbig; 26th May 2009 at 04:05 PM.

26th May 2009, 04:47 PM	#393
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Atpeace, Linda Richman I'm getting a little verklempt! Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic - the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. Discuss. Linda Richman That was an awesome first post. A big hearty welcome to the JREF! Posts like yours are so awesome to read and make all the effort put into the topic feel worth it. Whenever someone decloaks and talks about how they've benefited from reading the information found here I get stoked. There are some very smart people here who are crazy enough to take an interest in Bigfootery who make great contributions. I remember when I finally let go of that part that wanted to hold on to a belief in Bigfoot I had that same kind of feeling as you. I found that I could still enjoy the myth without compromising my objectivity and critical thinking abilities. Please feel free to jump into the mix with us and share your perspectives.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

26th May 2009, 05:27 PM	#395
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by wvbig 1)Considering all the tricks one can do with film/video/photos these days,(Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan in "Forrest Gump" is a prime example of what can be done with video) can there be a video or photo of an undocumented species that isn't considered unambiguous by skeptics? I think not. Absolutely yes, Steven. Look at anyone of the videos in the OP that you quoted. Look at the video that xblade posted for you. Those creatures are rarer and in many cases more elusive and harder to photograph than Bigfoot is supposed to be and yet we have those unambiguous images. It's in the interest of you as a person who runs a Bigfoot organization (West Virginia Bigfoot Investigations Group) to create the excuses that any video would be considered a hoax. It gives you the out to not be expected to actually get footage of the animal you think is in the area you are searching. Quote: Wouldn't Occams Razor dictate that since the creature in the photo or video isn't a documented animal, then it's most likely a fake? No. Absolutely not. Let's say you get a video of an unknown type of squid on video from a submersible. You think just because we haven't seen it before scientists will look and say, "Nope. That's fake,"? You're just making excuses, man. There is absolutely no good reason why we don't have unambigous images of a massive relatively slow-moving upright land mammal that is breeding all across the North American continent and by your belief living in West Virginia. People who aren't addled by the desire to believe in boogeymen and manbeasts can figure out by themselves what the reason for that is. Maybe oneday if you ever get tired of playing the adult role-playing game of Woods & Wildmen you might give your head a shake and think about honestly to yourself. Quote: That's why, in my opinion, a camera or video camera is only necessary for photographing possible evidence such as tracks, hairs, etc... before it's collected or cast. ROFL! Yeah, that's better! And thus you've given yourself the excuse necessary to post worthless video and pretend it means something significant and thereby garner more attention for your little Bigfoot playgroup.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

26th May 2009, 05:38 PM	#396
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	It is ok to consider bigfoot a cool myth, but I suggest that you do not let it take control of your life.

26th May 2009, 05:44 PM	#397
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Steven, I have a clarification I need to make. In the now tossed MABRC thread I noted who you were as head of W.V.B.I.G. but I mistakenly said that you were the MABRC state director for WV. I was wrong. Here's that post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...0&postcount=47 That person is the guy who runs this site that I linked to before: http://westvirginiabigfoot.blogspot.com/ His name is Rick and he has a message he hopes we get at the JREF on his site: Originally Posted by Rick@West Virginia Bigfoot JREF Have had a few visitors from the JREF forums. Apparently I am not welcome there as I have had my account removed twice now without even making a post.Wonder what they are afraid of. I simply was going to post the following then leave them alone. So I will post it here and maybe one of the members there will see this and pass it on. There apparently has been some confusion as to who owns this blog. As soon as I am approved to post on JREF I will straighten it out there. But in case some of the members come here I want to make it clear that I am not Steven Tichnell. Mr Tichnell owns the WVBIG group which I am a member hence the banner. Also he is not a member of the MABRC as some have stated. I am the W Va state director for the MABRC and anyone can readily find my posts and first name on the forums. I wish not to get into an argument either about the subject.It would do nothing but hurt my research.Any negative comments here will be deleted.I cant do anything about comments on the JREF except ignore them and move on so go for it. Thank you for visiting and hope you will return although I suspect many wont. Thank you for the clarification, Rick. I promise you there is nothing any Bigfoot enthusiast has to say that is going to cause the JREF forum administration to be scared. I have heard a number of times about people having a problem registering on this forum. It may be you have computer issues or something wrong with the registration process.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6