Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos? - Page 14

King of the Americas · 22nd July 2009, 07:33 AM

In a college class, my roommate had his class abruptly interupted by a gunman who came in and shot the teacher, right in the middle of a lecture (not a 'real' gun). The intruder shot, the teacher fell, and the gunman ran out...then the curtains in front of the lecture stage closed, and another instructor entered and informed everyone that what just happened wasn't real but an exercise in memory recollection.

He instructed the class to write down everything they remember about the incident, and turn it in as the day's assignment.

My roommate says 'his' recollection was about 70% accurate (the highest in the class). He got all the shoe colors wrong as well as the teacher's tie color, and the total time length of the encounter. He DID get 'most' of the encounter correct. The class itself achieved a 55% accuracy rating, only slightly above the average.

ALL of the students got this 'fact' correct:

"Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out".

Human perception may be completely flawed, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of perceiving the world around us.

The woman saw a tall hairy something walking upright.

That is about as far as I could go, in the parts that 'I' believe.

Drewbot · 22nd July 2009, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

ALL of the students got this 'fact' correct:

"Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out".

Human perception may be completely flawed, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of perceiving the world around us.

The only reason we know they all got it correct, is because the surveyors knew the guy had dark hair.

If this scenario WAS NOT a set up, and really happened, no one would know that "All of the students got this 'fact' correct". until AFTER they caught the dude or someone video taped it.

King of the Americas · 22nd July 2009, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

The only reason we know they all got it correct, is because the surveyors knew the guy had dark hair.

If this scenario WAS NOT a set up, and really happened, no one would know that "All of the students got this 'fact' correct". until AFTER they caught the dude or someone video taped it.

You just completely ignored the results of the experiment...

The class ALL got those basic details correct, period. And we KNOW this.

If these results are within the normal expectations, then we could theorize that 'most' people CAN garner the 'basic' details of an event, even if the specific details elude them.

Drewbot · 22nd July 2009, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

You just completely ignored the results of the experiment...

The class ALL got those basic details correct, period. And we KNOW this.

If these results are within the normal expectations, then we could theorize that 'most' people CAN garner the 'basic' details of an event, even if the specific details elude them.

My point is- How do we know which details the group is getting right, in regards to a Bigfoot sighting for example?

Sure in a set experiment you can figure out that everyone got the hair color right. But in real life, you have to figure out which of those details are the ones that the witness got right, w/o the benefit of a set-up.

Another variable, would be drawing conclusions: re: skin color, if everyone saw that it was an african american, couldn't it be assumed he had dark hair, even though no one remembered his hair color?

King of the Americas · 22nd July 2009, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

My point is- How do we know which details the group is getting right, in regards to a Bigfoot sighting for example?

Sure in a set experiment you can figure out that everyone got the hair color right. But in real life, you have to figure out which of those details are the ones that the witness got right, w/o the benefit of a set-up.

Another variable, would be drawing conclusions: re: skin color, if everyone saw that it was an african american, couldn't it be assumed he had dark hair, even though no one remembered his hair color?

My roommate explained that it would have been impossible for everyone to identify 'race', in his shooting incident, because the guy never turned toward the students, even 'gender' would have been difficult to identify positively.

The point the the experiment was, I believe, to show that details disappear or become something else. While the basic generalized story remains intact.

The woman saw a tall hairy something. She may not be able to distinguish which BF that she almost hit out of a line-up, but she DID witness a tall hairy 'something', rather than a nothing.

Vortigern99 · 22nd July 2009, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Coorea Neto

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Also, possible carnivore owing to fossil remains of another species found inside a certain specimen.

Can you point a source for the bold part?

I am aware only of jaw fragments and teeth fossil remains with diet having been inferred based on teeth wear patterns.

Correa Neto, extreme caution should be taken with that information. I got it from the G. wiki page, under the entry on G. giganteus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

The relevant sentence -- "Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with a another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores." -- is one of the few on the page with no citation or footnote. It might be a factual error, or a total fabrication.

Logically, if only teeth and jaws of the species are known, the remains of another species could not have been found "inside of it". Inside what? Inside the jawbone?

makaya325 · 22nd July 2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

The relevant sentence -- "Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with a another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores." -- is one of the few on the page with no citation or footnote. It might be a factual error, or a total fabrication.

This statement has no basis in reality. Besides man, there exists no great ape that is predominantly carnivorous. In fact, being carnivorous would be a negative for Gigantopithecus, due to the view that it was a slow moving quadraped, incapable of catching fast prey.

Are we going to believe that Gigantopithecus was a carnivore, based on nothing but wishful thinking and for bigfoot agenda setting?

OR

Should we believe it to be a large, Bamboo consuming herbivore?

JcR · 22nd July 2009, 03:01 PM

I want Bigfoot's Third permanent molar. I think we'll see an Interdimensional devise embedded there.

makaya325 · 22nd July 2009, 03:10 PM

Or ectoplasm

JcR · 22nd July 2009, 03:22 PM

Attempting to tune in the Bigfoot.

Must try Harder... Think of nice soft Bunnies...

HarryHenderson · 22nd July 2009, 04:33 PM

As a general response to KotA, the circumstances of the classroom 'incident' are not the same as the circumstances of the driving incident. While in class, one isn't in the same position of having to maintain essentially 100% of their attention to an endeavor that, done improperly, can KILL you. In class, if you fall asleep somebody might put your finger up your nose in a comedic pose - fall asleep on the road and you DIE. Totally different contexts.

The point is, maintaining 'concentration' on the road, even if it is somewhat second nature when you're an experienced driver, makes for a completely different 'state of awareness' than casually sitting in a mostly consequence-free environment. What you would be able to recall (and describe) seeing in a classroom setting would not be the same as a situation involving a vehicle driving down the road.

I'd bet dollars to donuts an experiment like the classroom thing, but using (replicating) a 'driving down the road' basis would yield completely different, and far more disappointing, results. Short of hitting (literally) a 'hairy monster' with the car, which never seems to actually happen, "traveling/road" sitings just aren't that valuable, thrilling or believable.

makaya325 · 22nd July 2009, 06:49 PM

Dont forget that the Individual is in motion and cant get the best look at the subject.

Correa Neto · 23rd July 2009, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Correa Neto, extreme caution should be taken with that information. I got it from the G. wiki page, under the entry on G. giganteus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

The relevant sentence -- "Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with a another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores." -- is one of the few on the page with no citation or footnote. It might be a factual error, or a total fabrication.

Logically, if only teeth and jaws of the species are known, the remains of another species could not have been found "inside of it". Inside what? Inside the jawbone?

So, guess I'll stick with the info from Ciochon`s site... Nine years would be more than enough to prepare & publish a paper on this if it were real. A giant carnivore primate would be top-quality material.

Drewbot · 23rd July 2009, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

I'd bet dollars to donuts an experiment like the classroom thing, but using (replicating) a 'driving down the road' basis would yield completely different, and far more disappointing, results. Short of hitting (literally) a 'hairy monster' with the car, which never seems to actually happen, "traveling/road" sitings just aren't that valuable, thrilling or believable.

Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations.

Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations.

makaya325 · 23rd July 2009, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations.

Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations.

Are you sure about that?

Fatigue + bad vision + tree stump+ 60mph= class A Bigfoot sighting

What else could you see? Nessie? No. Ropen? No.

Bigfoot? Yes. Why is that? Because tree stumps match up quite well with an imaginary 8ft tall titan

kitakaze · 23rd July 2009, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

What else could you see?

Dogman, Mothman, Reptoids, Shadow People...

I can go on, you know. Say, when you're tommygunning the board and tooting in a thread every minute or so, how much thinking and reading is actually involved?

makaya325 · 23rd July 2009, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Dogman, Mothman, Reptoids, Shadow People...

I can go on, you know. Say, when you're tommygunning the board and tooting in a thread every minute or so, how much thinking and reading is actually involved?

Do you see a consistency in all of the entities? They ALL are human-shaped. Why do people mistake tree stumps for human-like entities instead of dinosaur-like entities?

kitakaze · 23rd July 2009, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

Do you see a consistency in all of the entities? They ALL are human-shaped. Why do people mistake tree stumps for human-like entities instead of dinosaur-like entities?

Do you see a consistency in your argument? I don't (unless you count consistently out of it). Let's review.

Drew said...

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations.

Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations.

That means he's talking about people struggling to stay awake at the wheel and often seeing things that were never there at all, stump or otherwise.

You replied...

Originally Posted by makaya325

Are you sure about that?

Fatigue + bad vision + tree stump+ 60mph= class A Bigfoot sighting

What else could you see? Nessie? No. Ropen? No.

Bigfoot? Yes. Why is that? Because tree stumps match up quite well with an imaginary 8ft tall titan

1) You weren't really giving consideration to what Drew was saying and barely comprehending what you did. He was saying that the Bigfoot would make up a very small part of the tons of cases where somebody saw something that wasn't there when they were trying to stay awake behind the wheel.

2) You asked what else could be seen, making Bigfoot the most likely and predicating the argument on the presence of a physical catalyst for hallucination such as a tree stump.

I pointed out that there are all sorts of other humanoid analogues for a hallucination of some fantastical being...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Dogman, Mothman, Reptoids, Shadow People...

The result is that you're not really paying attention or participating in a coherent way. Let me ask you, what do you think it is that you're arguing in favour of right here and now in this thread?

Aepervius · 24th July 2009, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

In a college class, my roommate had his class abruptly interupted by a gunman who came in and shot the teacher, right in the middle of a lecture (not a 'real' gun). The intruder shot, the teacher fell, and the gunman ran out...then the curtains in front of the lecture stage closed, and another instructor entered and informed everyone that what just happened wasn't real but an exercise in memory recollection.

He instructed the class to write down everything they remember about the incident, and turn it in as the day's assignment.

My roommate says 'his' recollection was about 70% accurate (the highest in the class). He got all the shoe colors wrong as well as the teacher's tie color, and the total time length of the encounter. He DID get 'most' of the encounter correct. The class itself achieved a 55% accuracy rating, only slightly above the average.

ALL of the students got this 'fact' correct:

"Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out".

Human perception may be completely flawed, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of perceiving the world around us.

The woman saw a tall hairy something walking upright.

That is about as far as I could go, in the parts that 'I' believe.

""Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out" is not accurate at all and would not allow any identification, you do not even know the skin color, the gender, size and I pass many other.

With the same amount of detail accuracy as showed by the student, the tall hairy beast walking upright could have been nearly any bear or similar. Or even a porcupine. Or a big cat. or a mangy dog...

King of the Americas · 24th July 2009, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

""Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out" is not accurate at all and would not allow any identification, you do not even know the skin color, the gender, size and I pass many other.

With the same amount of detail accuracy as showed by the student, the tall hairy beast walking upright could have been nearly any bear or similar. Or even a porcupine. Or a big cat. or a mangy dog...

The students correctly relayed 'what' happened. They did not or could not say 'who' did it.

The witness here said she saw a creature running upright, so 'I' hold that's what she saw.

Bears can 'stand' upright, and even take a few steps, but they don't 'run' upright.

The other difference is that the thing DID 'turn toward the witness', unlike the class room experiment.

Could the students have mistaken the shooter as a dwarf or a child? I don't recall my roommate mentioning a mistake that big. Although admittedly, I wasn't privy to any of the details beyond what my roommate said about what 'he' remembered.

kitakaze · 24th July 2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

First, who said they are 'slow moving'?

Think of a fox, rabbit, squirrel, cougar, etc. These are fast moving animals. Size is a crucial factor as well. The issue at hand comes down to that of producing a type specimen. Size and speed being an iimportant factor of an animal being shot and killed. A moose or grizzly bear can move fast when they desire to but usually there great size has them moving more slowly and purposefully. There is no doubt that grizzlies in particular can move stunningly fast when they want to...

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

Bigfoot is said to be usually between 7-10ft tall and to weigh many several hundreds of pounds. Unlike a bear, Bigfoot is traditionally said to be a biped (though many would argue they do go into "4x4 mode"). An animal this size and moving about on two rather than four legs is almost certainly not going to be able to match a grizzly bear for speed. Think about a Bigfoot's legs and feet. Essentially these are big hairy version of our own. A real Bigfoot is going to have to be very careful about twisting an ankle or breaking a leg. They only have two and if they mess one of them up, they are out of business - thereby making all the more potential for us to find a dead one. The result is that you're going to have a creature that when it comes to speed and size, there isn't a better reason we should have trouble shooting them than we do for bears, wolves, cougars, etc.

Quote:

They 'often' come within human inhabited areas and display aggressive behavior toward us?

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/

See for yourself.

Quote:

Honestly, I can't think of a single precedent for such a mammal.

But I don't think those are accurate depictions of BF behavior.

By all means, then, please tell me what you think are accurate depictions of BF behavior and how you were able to dismiss the inaccurate.

Quote:

I can say this, all it would take is for ONE blonde blue eyed little girl to be kidnapped from a camp site by a BF. It would only be a matter of hours before we cornered a herd of them with National Guard helicopters equipped with heat seeking instrumentation.

Extensive searches are conducted in the woods all the time where Bigfoot is reported. Still no Bigfoots. It has nothing to do with what you're trying to find. Look at Bigfoot heaven, Northern California. There is a vast mammal detection array set up across the northern half of the state which has been in place for years now to research populations of fishers and dwindling pine martens. That array was what detected what is almost certainly the only wild wolverine living in that part of the world. The evidence was indisputable and DNA samples were taken, tested, and confirmed. And yet this array has never been able to detect a breeding poulation of massive wood apes. Why is that?

HarryHenderson · 24th July 2009, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

...Bigfoot...7-10ft tall...several hundreds of pounds...Bigfoot is...a biped...moving about on two...legs...not going...to match a grizzly bear for speed...these are big hairy version of our own...have to be very careful about twisting an ankle or breaking a leg...only have two... mess one...up...out of business...

Almost funny how you were compelled by others to further describe Bigfoot as a 'relatively slow moving' animal. Wow.

Only OT a little:
Actually, the "Bigfoot can run 40-50 MPH...I saw him as he sped ahead of our car and got in the other lane..." claims of a couple years ago is where I really began to lose the Bigfoot Religion™. And such claims were actually being thoughtfully considered by otherwise 'unanmed persons' whom at the time I had some degree of respect for. I mean c'mon, A (4 legged) thoroughbred horse at full speed can't hardly reach those speeds, yet an overweight (or simply heavy) bipedal monster, with virtually the exact same physiology and geometry as us can run...40...50...MPH...yeah sure! The fact it was contemplated for more than 2 minutes, and it was, completely baffled my teeny tiny brain.

Aepervius · 24th July 2009, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by King of the Americas

The students correctly relayed 'what' happened. They did not or could not say 'who' did it.

The witness here said she saw a creature running upright, so 'I' hold that's what she saw.

Bears can 'stand' upright, and even take a few steps, but they don't 'run' upright.

The other difference is that the thing DID 'turn toward the witness', unlike the class room experiment.

Could the students have mistaken the shooter as a dwarf or a child? I don't recall my roommate mentioning a mistake that big. Although admittedly, I wasn't privy to any of the details beyond what my roommate said about what 'he' remembered.

Firstly people (intentionaly or not) change their memory to what they THINK they have seen. SO a "running" animal could have actually been running over a few meter. And YES bear *do* sometimes run over a few meter when in position to attack and upright. heck my *CAT* do that too.

There is also the issue of recognizing what was witnessed. There are enough example of people mistaking animals even from a short distance. Heck there are example in this same forum with porcupine and mangy bears. Combine that people could not even reliably witness what they saw in a relatively common settings in your case, with the fact your "witness" saw something uncommon. Recept for total misidentification.

There have been other study on witness reliability, and let me tell you it straight : you have no basis here. Not a single. Unless you just accept ad-hoc what people tell you.

makaya325 · 25th July 2009, 07:21 PM

Quote:

I pointed out that there are all sorts of other humanoid analogues for a hallucination of some fantastical being...

That is correct, however, Bigfoot WOULD account for most of the sightings of imaginary humanoids (Werewolf, mothman, dogman, etc). You don't see sightings of sauropods or Ropens occuring on the roads, do you? No, you only see humanoids.

makaya325 · 25th July 2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Do you see a consistency in your argument? I don't

You did not see that i said that most roadside entities are Human-shaped?

makaya325 · 25th July 2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

With the same amount of detail accuracy as showed by the student, the tall hairy beast walking upright could have been nearly any bear

Correct

Quote:

Or Similiar

What on earth is similiar to a bear?

Quote:

Or even a porcupine. Or a big cat. or a mangy dog...

Now you are being ridicolous

makaya325 · 25th July 2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Extensive searches are conducted in the woods all the time where Bigfoot is reported. Still no Bigfoots. It has nothing to do with what you're trying to find. Look at Bigfoot heaven, Northern California. There is a vast mammal detection array set up across the northern half of the state which has been in place for years now to research populations of fishers and dwindling pine martens.

I hope you do know, Kitz, is that Bigfoot heaven STARTS from Northern California and EXTENDS through Washington and Oregon, into Canada.

kitakaze · 25th July 2009, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

I hope you do know, Kitz, is that Bigfoot heaven STARTS from Northern California and EXTENDS through Washington and Oregon, into Canada.

A-ha. I bet there's a point in there somewhere. Care to share?

kitakaze · 25th July 2009, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

That is correct, however, Bigfoot WOULD account for most of the sightings of imaginary humanoids (Werewolf, mothman, dogman, etc). You don't see sightings of sauropods or Ropens occuring on the roads, do you? No, you only see humanoids.

JUDY CHOP!

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations.

Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations.

Your post there...

Sentences -3 (anything more and clunking sounds and smoke begin to emanate from little mak's head.)

Consistency - 0

makaya325 · 26th July 2009, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

A-ha. I bet there's a point in there somewhere. Care to share?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest

Look on the BFRO sighting database. Kitz, what states are 1-2-3 in terms of reports? Also, what do they all have in common?

Drewbot · 27th July 2009, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by makaya325

That is correct, however, Bigfoot WOULD account for most of the sightings of imaginary humanoids (Werewolf, mothman, dogman, etc). You don't see sightings of sauropods or Ropens occuring on the roads, do you? No, you only see humanoids.

Lil' Mak- I really hate responding to you, but the reason there are no Sauropods or Ropen sightings, is that there is no infrastructure in place to record those sightings. BIGFOOT Inc. has sighting-report infrastructure and it's big comparitively.

Dogman Sightings report infrastructure= Gravel Driveway

Bigfoot Sighting report infrastructure= Interstate Highway System

Where would you go to report a sauropod sighting MAK?

Wow! there are other people who saw a Bigfoot crossing the road? Cool, I think I'll hang out here...

makaya325 · 27th July 2009, 02:06 PM

[quote]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Lil' Mak- I really hate responding to you, but the reason there are no Sauropods or Ropen sightings, is that there is no infrastructure in place to record those sightings. BIGFOOT Inc. has sighting-report infrastructure and it's big comparitively.

Dogman Sightings report infrastructure= Gravel Driveway

Bigfoot Sighting report infrastructure= Interstate Highway System

Excuses, excuses.

Spektator · 27th July 2009, 03:19 PM

OTOH, the lion in our neck of the woods continues to make news. It changes color, size, and shape, but people are seeing it all over. The latest sighting was about 50 miles from the one before that, and this time the lion was black with a long tail (it's always been a tawny yellow before this). Still not a shred of physical evidence, and the only cell-phone photo turned out to be a domestic yellow cat.

desertgal · 27th July 2009, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

Excuses, excuses.

We need to stop feeding this troll.

makaya325 · 27th July 2009, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Spektator

OTOH, the lion in our neck of the woods continues to make news. It changes color, size, and shape, but people are seeing it all over. The latest sighting was about 50 miles from the one before that, and this time the lion was black with a long tail (it's always been a tawny yellow before this). Still not a shred of physical evidence, and the only cell-phone photo turned out to be a domestic yellow cat.

First of all, people are basically TOLD to report anything resembling a Lion. It could have been based on a real lion that escaped, yet no longer exists.

makaya325 · 27th July 2009, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by desertgal

We need to stop feeding this troll.

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/2...running123.jpg

Why is that? Because Drew's explanation for people seeing different cryptids in different kinds of environments is flawed?

desertgal · 27th July 2009, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

Why is that? Because Drew's explanation for people seeing different cryptids in different kinds of environments is flawed?

Nope.

makaya325 · 27th July 2009, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by desertgal

Nope.

Is it because I am bickering on and on?

RayG · 27th July 2009, 07:17 PM

No, it's because you repeatedly jump in to the discussion to present irrelevant or unsubstantiated facts and fallacious arguments, disrupting the flow of the thread.

RayG

makaya325 · 27th July 2009, 07:19 PM

So their is no room for opinion on the JREF at all?

22nd July 2009, 07:33 AM	#521
King of the Americas Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: North Central Texas Posts: 5,071	In a college class, my roommate had his class abruptly interupted by a gunman who came in and shot the teacher, right in the middle of a lecture (not a 'real' gun). The intruder shot, the teacher fell, and the gunman ran out...then the curtains in front of the lecture stage closed, and another instructor entered and informed everyone that what just happened wasn't real but an exercise in memory recollection. He instructed the class to write down everything they remember about the incident, and turn it in as the day's assignment. My roommate says 'his' recollection was about 70% accurate (the highest in the class). He got all the shoe colors wrong as well as the teacher's tie color, and the total time length of the encounter. He DID get 'most' of the encounter correct. The class itself achieved a 55% accuracy rating, only slightly above the average. ALL of the students got this 'fact' correct: "Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out". Human perception may be completely flawed, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of perceiving the world around us. The woman saw a tall hairy something walking upright. That is about as far as I could go, in the parts that 'I' believe.
	Last edited by King of the Americas; 22nd July 2009 at 07:35 AM.

22nd July 2009, 07:42 AM	#522
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	Originally Posted by King of the Americas ALL of the students got this 'fact' correct: "Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out". Human perception may be completely flawed, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of perceiving the world around us. The only reason we know they all got it correct, is because the surveyors knew the guy had dark hair. If this scenario WAS NOT a set up, and really happened, no one would know that "All of the students got this 'fact' correct". until AFTER they caught the dude or someone video taped it.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "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

22nd July 2009, 08:05 AM	#524
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	Originally Posted by King of the Americas You just completely ignored the results of the experiment... The class ALL got those basic details correct, period. And we KNOW this. If these results are within the normal expectations, then we could theorize that 'most' people CAN garner the 'basic' details of an event, even if the specific details elude them. My point is- How do we know which details the group is getting right, in regards to a Bigfoot sighting for example? Sure in a set experiment you can figure out that everyone got the hair color right. But in real life, you have to figure out which of those details are the ones that the witness got right, w/o the benefit of a set-up. Another variable, would be drawing conclusions: re: skin color, if everyone saw that it was an african american, couldn't it be assumed he had dark hair, even though no one remembered his hair color?
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "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; 22nd July 2009 at 08:06 AM.

22nd July 2009, 08:18 AM	#526
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,011	Originally Posted by Coorea Neto Originally Posted by Vortigern99 Also, possible carnivore owing to fossil remains of another species found inside a certain specimen. Can you point a source for the bold part? I am aware only of jaw fragments and teeth fossil remains with diet having been inferred based on teeth wear patterns. Correa Neto, extreme caution should be taken with that information. I got it from the G. wiki page, under the entry on G. giganteus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus The relevant sentence -- "Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with a another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores." -- is one of the few on the page with no citation or footnote. It might be a factual error, or a total fabrication. Logically, if only teeth and jaws of the species are known, the remains of another species could not have been found "inside of it". Inside what? Inside the jawbone?
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "One thing we've learned (and the Internet confirms this) is that humans will screw just about anything." -- Theagenes Last edited by Vortigern99; 22nd July 2009 at 08:20 AM.

23rd July 2009, 06:47 AM	#533
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,170	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 Correa Neto, extreme caution should be taken with that information. I got it from the G. wiki page, under the entry on G. giganteus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus The relevant sentence -- "Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with a another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores." -- is one of the few on the page with no citation or footnote. It might be a factual error, or a total fabrication. Logically, if only teeth and jaws of the species are known, the remains of another species could not have been found "inside of it". Inside what? Inside the jawbone? So, guess I'll stick with the info from Ciochon`s site... Nine years would be more than enough to prepare & publish a paper on this if it were real. A giant carnivore primate would be top-quality material.
	__________________ 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…

22nd July 2009, 07:56 AM	#523
King of the Americas Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: North Central Texas Posts: 5,071	Originally Posted by Drewbot The only reason we know they all got it correct, is because the surveyors knew the guy had dark hair. If this scenario WAS NOT a set up, and really happened, no one would know that "All of the students got this 'fact' correct". until AFTER they caught the dude or someone video taped it. You just completely ignored the results of the experiment... The class ALL got those basic details correct, period. And we KNOW this. If these results are within the normal expectations, then we could theorize that 'most' people CAN garner the 'basic' details of an event, even if the specific details elude them.

22nd July 2009, 08:14 AM	#525
King of the Americas Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: North Central Texas Posts: 5,071	Originally Posted by Drewbot My point is- How do we know which details the group is getting right, in regards to a Bigfoot sighting for example? Sure in a set experiment you can figure out that everyone got the hair color right. But in real life, you have to figure out which of those details are the ones that the witness got right, w/o the benefit of a set-up. Another variable, would be drawing conclusions: re: skin color, if everyone saw that it was an african american, couldn't it be assumed he had dark hair, even though no one remembered his hair color? My roommate explained that it would have been impossible for everyone to identify 'race', in his shooting incident, because the guy never turned toward the students, even 'gender' would have been difficult to identify positively. The point the the experiment was, I believe, to show that details disappear or become something else. While the basic generalized story remains intact. The woman saw a tall hairy something. She may not be able to distinguish which BF that she almost hit out of a line-up, but she DID witness a tall hairy 'something', rather than a nothing.

22nd July 2009, 02:49 PM	#527
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Quote: The relevant sentence -- "Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with a another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores." -- is one of the few on the page with no citation or footnote. It might be a factual error, or a total fabrication. This statement has no basis in reality. Besides man, there exists no great ape that is predominantly carnivorous. In fact, being carnivorous would be a negative for Gigantopithecus, due to the view that it was a slow moving quadraped, incapable of catching fast prey. Are we going to believe that Gigantopithecus was a carnivore, based on nothing but wishful thinking and for bigfoot agenda setting? OR Should we believe it to be a large, Bamboo consuming herbivore?

22nd July 2009, 03:01 PM	#528
JcR Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Still Looking Posts: 1,244	I want Bigfoot's Third permanent molar. I think we'll see an Interdimensional devise embedded there.

22nd July 2009, 03:10 PM	#529
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Or ectoplasm

22nd July 2009, 03:22 PM	#530
JcR Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Still Looking Posts: 1,244	Attempting to tune in the Bigfoot. Must try Harder... Think of nice soft Bunnies...

22nd July 2009, 04:33 PM	#531
HarryHenderson Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business Posts: 706	As a general response to KotA, the circumstances of the classroom 'incident' are not the same as the circumstances of the driving incident. While in class, one isn't in the same position of having to maintain essentially 100% of their attention to an endeavor that, done improperly, can KILL you. In class, if you fall asleep somebody might put your finger up your nose in a comedic pose - fall asleep on the road and you DIE. Totally different contexts. The point is, maintaining 'concentration' on the road, even if it is somewhat second nature when you're an experienced driver, makes for a completely different 'state of awareness' than casually sitting in a mostly consequence-free environment. What you would be able to recall (and describe) seeing in a classroom setting would not be the same as a situation involving a vehicle driving down the road. I'd bet dollars to donuts an experiment like the classroom thing, but using (replicating) a 'driving down the road' basis would yield completely different, and far more disappointing, results. Short of hitting (literally) a 'hairy monster' with the car, which never seems to actually happen, "traveling/road" sitings just aren't that valuable, thrilling or believable.

22nd July 2009, 06:49 PM	#532
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Dont forget that the Individual is in motion and cant get the best look at the subject.

23rd July 2009, 06:54 AM	#534
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson I'd bet dollars to donuts an experiment like the classroom thing, but using (replicating) a 'driving down the road' basis would yield completely different, and far more disappointing, results. Short of hitting (literally) a 'hairy monster' with the car, which never seems to actually happen, "traveling/road" sitings just aren't that valuable, thrilling or believable. Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations. Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "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

23rd July 2009, 09:20 PM	#535
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by Drewbot Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations. Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations. Are you sure about that? Fatigue + bad vision + tree stump+ 60mph= class A Bigfoot sighting What else could you see? Nessie? No. Ropen? No. Bigfoot? Yes. Why is that? Because tree stumps match up quite well with an imaginary 8ft tall titan

23rd July 2009, 09:43 PM	#536
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 What else could you see? Dogman, Mothman, Reptoids, Shadow People... I can go on, you know. Say, when you're tommygunning the board and tooting in a thread every minute or so, how much thinking and reading is actually involved?
	__________________ 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

23rd July 2009, 09:56 PM	#537
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by kitakaze Dogman, Mothman, Reptoids, Shadow People... I can go on, you know. Say, when you're tommygunning the board and tooting in a thread every minute or so, how much thinking and reading is actually involved? Do you see a consistency in all of the entities? They ALL are human-shaped. Why do people mistake tree stumps for human-like entities instead of dinosaur-like entities?

23rd July 2009, 10:57 PM	#538
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 Do you see a consistency in all of the entities? They ALL are human-shaped. Why do people mistake tree stumps for human-like entities instead of dinosaur-like entities? Do you see a consistency in your argument? I don't (unless you count consistently out of it). Let's review. Drew said... Originally Posted by Drewbot Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations. Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations. That means he's talking about people struggling to stay awake at the wheel and often seeing things that were never there at all, stump or otherwise. You replied... Originally Posted by makaya325 Are you sure about that? Fatigue + bad vision + tree stump+ 60mph= class A Bigfoot sighting What else could you see? Nessie? No. Ropen? No. Bigfoot? Yes. Why is that? Because tree stumps match up quite well with an imaginary 8ft tall titan 1) You weren't really giving consideration to what Drew was saying and barely comprehending what you did. He was saying that the Bigfoot would make up a very small part of the tons of cases where somebody saw something that wasn't there when they were trying to stay awake behind the wheel. 2) You asked what else could be seen, making Bigfoot the most likely and predicating the argument on the presence of a physical catalyst for hallucination such as a tree stump. I pointed out that there are all sorts of other humanoid analogues for a hallucination of some fantastical being... Originally Posted by kitakaze Dogman, Mothman, Reptoids, Shadow People... The result is that you're not really paying attention or participating in a coherent way. Let me ask you, what do you think it is that you're arguing in favour of right here and now in this thread?
	__________________ 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

24th July 2009, 01:09 AM	#539
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,735	Originally Posted by King of the Americas In a college class, my roommate had his class abruptly interupted by a gunman who came in and shot the teacher, right in the middle of a lecture (not a 'real' gun). The intruder shot, the teacher fell, and the gunman ran out...then the curtains in front of the lecture stage closed, and another instructor entered and informed everyone that what just happened wasn't real but an exercise in memory recollection. He instructed the class to write down everything they remember about the incident, and turn it in as the day's assignment. My roommate says 'his' recollection was about 70% accurate (the highest in the class). He got all the shoe colors wrong as well as the teacher's tie color, and the total time length of the encounter. He DID get 'most' of the encounter correct. The class itself achieved a 55% accuracy rating, only slightly above the average. ALL of the students got this 'fact' correct: "Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out". Human perception may be completely flawed, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of perceiving the world around us. The woman saw a tall hairy something walking upright. That is about as far as I could go, in the parts that 'I' believe. ""Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out" is not accurate at all and would not allow any identification, you do not even know the skin color, the gender, size and I pass many other. With the same amount of detail accuracy as showed by the student, the tall hairy beast walking upright could have been nearly any bear or similar. Or even a porcupine. Or a big cat. or a mangy dog...
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

24th July 2009, 03:46 PM	#540
King of the Americas Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: North Central Texas Posts: 5,071	Originally Posted by Aepervius ""Someone with short dark hair shot the teacher and ran out" is not accurate at all and would not allow any identification, you do not even know the skin color, the gender, size and I pass many other. With the same amount of detail accuracy as showed by the student, the tall hairy beast walking upright could have been nearly any bear or similar. Or even a porcupine. Or a big cat. or a mangy dog... The students correctly relayed 'what' happened. They did not or could not say 'who' did it. The witness here said she saw a creature running upright, so 'I' hold that's what she saw. Bears can 'stand' upright, and even take a few steps, but they don't 'run' upright. The other difference is that the thing DID 'turn toward the witness', unlike the class room experiment. Could the students have mistaken the shooter as a dwarf or a child? I don't recall my roommate mentioning a mistake that big. Although admittedly, I wasn't privy to any of the details beyond what my roommate said about what 'he' remembered.

24th July 2009, 04:31 PM	#541
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by King of the Americas First, who said they are 'slow moving'? Think of a fox, rabbit, squirrel, cougar, etc. These are fast moving animals. Size is a crucial factor as well. The issue at hand comes down to that of producing a type specimen. Size and speed being an iimportant factor of an animal being shot and killed. A moose or grizzly bear can move fast when they desire to but usually there great size has them moving more slowly and purposefully. There is no doubt that grizzlies in particular can move stunningly fast when they want to... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgPUh...eature=related Bigfoot is said to be usually between 7-10ft tall and to weigh many several hundreds of pounds. Unlike a bear, Bigfoot is traditionally said to be a biped (though many would argue they do go into "4x4 mode"). An animal this size and moving about on two rather than four legs is almost certainly not going to be able to match a grizzly bear for speed. Think about a Bigfoot's legs and feet. Essentially these are big hairy version of our own. A real Bigfoot is going to have to be very careful about twisting an ankle or breaking a leg. They only have two and if they mess one of them up, they are out of business - thereby making all the more potential for us to find a dead one. The result is that you're going to have a creature that when it comes to speed and size, there isn't a better reason we should have trouble shooting them than we do for bears, wolves, cougars, etc. Quote: They 'often' come within human inhabited areas and display aggressive behavior toward us? http://www.bfro.net/gdb/ See for yourself. Quote: Honestly, I can't think of a single precedent for such a mammal. But I don't think those are accurate depictions of BF behavior. By all means, then, please tell me what you think are accurate depictions of BF behavior and how you were able to dismiss the inaccurate. Quote: I can say this, all it would take is for ONE blonde blue eyed little girl to be kidnapped from a camp site by a BF. It would only be a matter of hours before we cornered a herd of them with National Guard helicopters equipped with heat seeking instrumentation. Extensive searches are conducted in the woods all the time where Bigfoot is reported. Still no Bigfoots. It has nothing to do with what you're trying to find. Look at Bigfoot heaven, Northern California. There is a vast mammal detection array set up across the northern half of the state which has been in place for years now to research populations of fishers and dwindling pine martens. That array was what detected what is almost certainly the only wild wolverine living in that part of the world. The evidence was indisputable and DNA samples were taken, tested, and confirmed. And yet this array has never been able to detect a breeding poulation of massive wood apes. Why is that?
	__________________ 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

24th July 2009, 05:24 PM	#542
HarryHenderson Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business Posts: 706	Originally Posted by kitakaze ...Bigfoot...7-10ft tall...several hundreds of pounds...Bigfoot is...a biped...moving about on two...legs...not going...to match a grizzly bear for speed...these are big hairy version of our own...have to be very careful about twisting an ankle or breaking a leg...only have two... mess one...up...out of business... Almost funny how you were compelled by others to further describe Bigfoot as a 'relatively slow moving' animal. Wow. Only OT a little: Actually, the "Bigfoot can run 40-50 MPH...I saw him as he sped ahead of our car and got in the other lane..." claims of a couple years ago is where I really began to lose the Bigfoot Religion™. And such claims were actually being thoughtfully considered by otherwise 'unanmed persons' whom at the time I had some degree of respect for. I mean c'mon, A (4 legged) thoroughbred horse at full speed can't hardly reach those speeds, yet an overweight (or simply heavy) bipedal monster, with virtually the exact same physiology and geometry as us can run...40...50...MPH...yeah sure! The fact it was contemplated for more than 2 minutes, and it was, completely baffled my teeny tiny brain.

24th July 2009, 10:54 PM	#543
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,735	Originally Posted by King of the Americas The students correctly relayed 'what' happened. They did not or could not say 'who' did it. The witness here said she saw a creature running upright, so 'I' hold that's what she saw. Bears can 'stand' upright, and even take a few steps, but they don't 'run' upright. The other difference is that the thing DID 'turn toward the witness', unlike the class room experiment. Could the students have mistaken the shooter as a dwarf or a child? I don't recall my roommate mentioning a mistake that big. Although admittedly, I wasn't privy to any of the details beyond what my roommate said about what 'he' remembered. Firstly people (intentionaly or not) change their memory to what they THINK they have seen. SO a "running" animal could have actually been running over a few meter. And YES bear do sometimes run over a few meter when in position to attack and upright. heck my CAT do that too. There is also the issue of recognizing what was witnessed. There are enough example of people mistaking animals even from a short distance. Heck there are example in this same forum with porcupine and mangy bears. Combine that people could not even reliably witness what they saw in a relatively common settings in your case, with the fact your "witness" saw something uncommon. Recept for total misidentification. There have been other study on witness reliability, and let me tell you it straight : you have no basis here. Not a single. Unless you just accept ad-hoc what people tell you.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life. Last edited by Aepervius; 24th July 2009 at 10:56 PM.

25th July 2009, 07:21 PM	#544
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Quote: I pointed out that there are all sorts of other humanoid analogues for a hallucination of some fantastical being... That is correct, however, Bigfoot WOULD account for most of the sightings of imaginary humanoids (Werewolf, mothman, dogman, etc). You don't see sightings of sauropods or Ropens occuring on the roads, do you? No, you only see humanoids.

25th July 2009, 07:22 PM	#545
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Quote: Do you see a consistency in your argument? I don't You did not see that i said that most roadside entities are Human-shaped?

25th July 2009, 07:24 PM	#546
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Quote: With the same amount of detail accuracy as showed by the student, the tall hairy beast walking upright could have been nearly any bear Correct Quote: Or Similiar What on earth is similiar to a bear? Quote: Or even a porcupine. Or a big cat. or a mangy dog... Now you are being ridicolous

25th July 2009, 07:26 PM	#547
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Quote: Extensive searches are conducted in the woods all the time where Bigfoot is reported. Still no Bigfoots. It has nothing to do with what you're trying to find. Look at Bigfoot heaven, Northern California. There is a vast mammal detection array set up across the northern half of the state which has been in place for years now to research populations of fishers and dwindling pine martens. I hope you do know, Kitz, is that Bigfoot heaven STARTS from Northern California and EXTENDS through Washington and Oregon, into Canada.

25th July 2009, 09:40 PM	#548
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 hope you do know, Kitz, is that Bigfoot heaven STARTS from Northern California and EXTENDS through Washington and Oregon, into Canada. A-ha. I bet there's a point in there somewhere. Care to share?
	__________________ 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

25th July 2009, 09:52 PM	#549
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 That is correct, however, Bigfoot WOULD account for most of the sightings of imaginary humanoids (Werewolf, mothman, dogman, etc). You don't see sightings of sauropods or Ropens occuring on the roads, do you? No, you only see humanoids. JUDY CHOP! Originally Posted by Drewbot Driving down the road, is synonymous with sleep hallucinations. Truck Drivers, people out late, people leaving home early in the morning, are all susceptible to 'seeing things' and filling in the blanks. Often times reporting seeing tires in the road, or other obstacles that made them swerve and end up in a ditch. I would think that Bigfoot sightings would make up a small percentage of driving while sleeping hallucinations. Your post there... Sentences -3 (anything more and clunking sounds and smoke begin to emanate from little mak's head.) Consistency - 0
	__________________ 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 July 2009, 04:55 PM	#550
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by kitakaze A-ha. I bet there's a point in there somewhere. Care to share? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest Look on the BFRO sighting database. Kitz, what states are 1-2-3 in terms of reports? Also, what do they all have in common?

27th July 2009, 11:43 AM	#551
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	Originally Posted by makaya325 That is correct, however, Bigfoot WOULD account for most of the sightings of imaginary humanoids (Werewolf, mothman, dogman, etc). You don't see sightings of sauropods or Ropens occuring on the roads, do you? No, you only see humanoids. Lil' Mak- I really hate responding to you, but the reason there are no Sauropods or Ropen sightings, is that there is no infrastructure in place to record those sightings. BIGFOOT Inc. has sighting-report infrastructure and it's big comparitively. Dogman Sightings report infrastructure= Gravel Driveway Bigfoot Sighting report infrastructure= Interstate Highway System Where would you go to report a sauropod sighting MAK? Wow! there are other people who saw a Bigfoot crossing the road? Cool, I think I'll hang out here...
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,846	__________________ "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

27th July 2009, 02:06 PM	#552
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	[quote] Originally Posted by Drewbot Lil' Mak- I really hate responding to you, but the reason there are no Sauropods or Ropen sightings, is that there is no infrastructure in place to record those sightings. BIGFOOT Inc. has sighting-report infrastructure and it's big comparitively. Dogman Sightings report infrastructure= Gravel Driveway Bigfoot Sighting report infrastructure= Interstate Highway System Excuses, excuses.

27th July 2009, 03:19 PM	#553
Spektator Dog Who Laughs Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,318	OTOH, the lion in our neck of the woods continues to make news. It changes color, size, and shape, but people are seeing it all over. The latest sighting was about 50 miles from the one before that, and this time the lion was black with a long tail (it's always been a tawny yellow before this). Still not a shred of physical evidence, and the only cell-phone photo turned out to be a domestic yellow cat.
	__________________ Anyone who is telling the truth does not type complete sentences all in capital letters.

27th July 2009, 03:29 PM	#554
desertgal Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virginia City Posts: 3,228	Originally Posted by makaya325 Excuses, excuses. We need to stop feeding this troll.
	Last edited by desertgal; 27th July 2009 at 03:37 PM.

27th July 2009, 06:50 PM	#555
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by Spektator OTOH, the lion in our neck of the woods continues to make news. It changes color, size, and shape, but people are seeing it all over. The latest sighting was about 50 miles from the one before that, and this time the lion was black with a long tail (it's always been a tawny yellow before this). Still not a shred of physical evidence, and the only cell-phone photo turned out to be a domestic yellow cat. First of all, people are basically TOLD to report anything resembling a Lion. It could have been based on a real lion that escaped, yet no longer exists.