Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos? - Page 9

LAL · 14th April 2009, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Note that the report you mentioned contained a description of glowing red eyes. Following Krantz's criteria...

Again, I was paraphrasing Herriott since the story (with them "running") seemed to have suffered in the shortening. Scott said that he remembered such reports and said that was when he thought they might be looking at a sasquatch, referring to the reclining something he saw.

That is probably the last time I spend hours watching interviews on DVDs just to try to straighten something out on a message board.

I could have just left that part out.

EHocking · 14th April 2009, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

...I meant higher primates, EHocking. I should have said so. There was a discussion on Bush Babies and the like on BFF a few years ago.

In that case see Kitakaze's comment regarding evolution of Hominoidea eyesight.

I can't find any scientific discussion that indicates that there is any evidence for evolution of nocturnal or even crepuscular higher primate adaptation of the eye.

EHocking · 14th April 2009, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

..If such a color did occur possibly the light was such the color of the blood vessels was visible as the pupils dilated.

Anyone for how he could see dilating pupils from 35-40' away?..

Why follow that line of thought when it could be red eye shine?

... oh, Google notes that this has been discussed by footers, who obviously have ruled out real animals such as opossum, cottontails, bullfrogs and some owls that have red eye shine for an unknown animal....

LAL · 14th April 2009, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

In that case see Kitakaze's comment regarding evolution of Hominoidea eyesight.

I can't find any scientific discussion that indicates that there is any evidence for evolution of nocturnal or even crepuscular higher primate adaptation of the eye.

Krantz didn't think such adaptation would be necessary because the sheer size of the eye would allow for admission of a lot of light even at night.

I remember being astounded in Seattle in summer that I could still see quite well at 10:00 PM.

Elk are quite active at night, which I didn't realize until recently. I always thought they were crepuscular.

The pupil is like a horse's pupil.

sanguine · 14th April 2009, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=265

I found it.

Sanguine offered to front the cost of the DNA test.

Sorry; I was away for a while or I would have answered your post where you asked about this. I was actually offering to /do/ the test, by the way. Since I'm a biologist and all. I just think the primers and material would be pocket change.

That said, I'd realistically want anyone who was involved to pick just a handful of "best" samples, so that I wouldn't be deluged with every random hair that someone didn't bother to identify themselves. That seems tedious. "Ooh, another cow hair. And a bear. And raccoon..."

I imagine my skepticism could give an out, though ("You made it fail on purpose!"). Perhaps a sounder method would be to hand any samples off to a professional pathology lab to do the evaluation. PCR is really cheap -- cheaper than all the camera equipment these folks truck around, certainly.

LAL · 14th April 2009, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Uhhhh... does it matter? I've already mentioned you post on youtube as "librarylu". I simply wrote "LAL" as a reference that the quote is you.

It matters because someone might want to check out my anti-creationist gobbledy-gook on YouTube and it will be easier to find with the correct handle.

The Easterville vid does resemble Patty, moreso on my desktop than my laptop. On the laptop it looks more like a person in a long, black coat, but either way, there are no jeans visible. I try to look a little deeper than first glance impressions. Hopefully someone can get my captures. I couldn't find them this morning in the desktop or the external harddrive. I haven't checked the laptop yet. I really don't want to do them again. I'd have to reinstall software or use PrintKey. They were rather hard to catch the first time and I don't want to have to do it again.

Yowie's trail cam pictures resemble Patty too, at least until Virtual Magnifying Glass reveals she's shadow and leaves.

Easterville is at least an object of some kind. Despite my best efforts to keep the thread on MABRC going there were only 5 authors and 11 posts. (I can get that much information on a Google search although I can't login and I don't do sock puppets.) There've been several times I've taken a position I have no strong opinion about just to keep a debate going. I still wish cooldude had joined in. We'd have been easy on him.

Is there even Adsense on cooldude's channel? Posting a video on YouTube is a strange way to try to make money with it.

Internet photoanalysis has convinced me that pictures aren't going to work. One picture can produce five different interpretations from five different posters - and just as many fights.

Quote:

You know, you still haven't addressed the crazy logic of this guy recording and talking loudly to the oh-so-elusive Bigfoot that just stands there.

That was explained. The wind was blowing; it (or he) didn't hear them. He wasn't talking to it, he was talking to one of the other people there.

Quote:

Yes, can we see some of that?

You can Google as well as I can.

Quote:

That would be artifacts. As in at least three when the phones dip a bit.

I think I did captures on two. It's too bad Morgoth's pictures are gone. He was very thorough in pointing out the numerous artifacts elsewhere in the video.

Quote:

I can't believe you thought this was a ringer for Patty.

I didn't say ringer. There's a resemblance, especially in the buttocks when whatever-it-is leans forward. I have a faux fur coat that resembles her neck and shoulders with the hood up.

Quote:

The jacket is glaringly obvious at the end of he video. You simply may not have very good eyesight.

I wear contacts and have HD screens on both computers.

Quote:

Here's a selection from the comments (I'll avoid the majority which declare guy in jacket):

I said I read them at the time. I'm sure if they didn't know how mean YouTubers can get they learned quickly.

Quote:

Why did coolguy311 copypasta uncledeucedeuce? I think anyone who seriously is considering the glaringly obvious video of a guy in a jacket most likely taking a leak as being a Bigfoot and a ringer for Patty as serious confirmation bias issues.

If it's a jacket why aren't the pants visible when the figure leans forward? Hooded long bear coat makes more sense than that, IMO.

I don't have time to try to reconstruct the other post now, but I don't have statistics on what the majority of people (including the ones in Somalia) think and I didn't appeal to any majority. You do understand sarcasm, don't you?

LONGTABBER PE · 14th April 2009, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

Thanks a lot. Sorry I don't have a PhD.

Doesn't he count as a skeptic?

>>>Thanks a lot. Sorry I don't have a PhD.

Thats not a requirement to be a qualified investigator

>>>Doesn't he count as a skeptic

That really needs to be taken up with him as to his views and stance but I fail to see what that has to do with this string of conversations

LAL · 14th April 2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

>>>Thanks a lot. Sorry I don't have a PhD.

Thats not a requirement to be a qualified investigator

I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise.

Quote:

>>>Doesn't he count as a skeptic

That really needs to be taken up with him as to his views and stance but I fail to see what that has to do with this string of conversations

I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book.

If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book.

If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me.

Skeptical Greg · 14th April 2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Internet photoanalysis has convinced me that pictures aren't going to work. One picture can produce five different interpretations from five different posters - and just as many fights.

Thus the title of the thread ...

"....Why no unambiguous photos/videos? "

I'm sure you understand what " unambiguous " means..
Why the continued diatribes about ' interpretation ?

An unambiguous photo or video would not need any interpretation ...

kitakaze · 14th April 2009, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

Internet photoanalysis has convinced me that pictures aren't going to work. One picture can produce five different interpretations from five different posters - and just as many fights.

I'll address the rest of your post very quickly but as you're here right now, I once again have to take issue with this. Please, please, please go look at the videos in the OP. There are no varying interpretations to what the images show. Each video has no debate as to what the images show. They aren't a big collection of staged shoots. Your pessimism is pointless and creates the false impression that science has thus far been unreasonable towards Bigfoot evidence. Garbage in, garbage out. There is no reason why Bigfoot shouldn't appear in videos like the one in the OP. What is the precedent for a massive land mammal across two major industrialized nations eluding modern science?

kitakaze · 14th April 2009, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

Krantz didn't think such adaptation would be necessary because the sheer size of the eye would allow for admission of a lot of light even at night.

Why doesn't Patty have great, big eyes?

Quote:

I remember being astounded in Seattle in summer that I could still see quite well at 10:00 PM.

You didn't understand daylight savings? We don't do that in Japan. That was one of the first things I had a hard time with being from Victoria, BC.

Quote:

Elk are quite active at night, which I didn't realize until recently. I always thought they were crepuscular.

http://i1.treknature.com/photos/9364/img_5832rev.jpg

The pupil is like a horse's pupil.

So depending on the season and temperature, elks might poke around in the dark a bit:

http://www.trmichels.com/ElkActivityGraphs.htm

Elk eyes:

Quote:

Elk Eyes: I Spy Danger Nearby

What do we know about how elk see? Most vision studies on ungulates have been carried out on white-tailed deer and domestic animals. But biologists believe that what they know for deer is probably true for elk, too.

Elk and deer vision is adapted first and foremost to detect predators. Studies and field experience suggest they rely on vision most of all to pick up movement and “out of place” shapes. Ungulates have a large number of nerve connections in their eyes that help them detect the slightest motion. Both carnivores and ungulates also have many rod cells to help them see in low light and can pick up contrasts between light and dark. Being able to see in color seems to be less important.

Ungulates’ eyes are spaced wide apart on either side of their heads, and this gives them a huge field of view—the area you can see from side to side. Elk can see 310 degrees around them—basically everything except a small cone almost directly behind them—the better to catch a wolf or human hunter sneaking up on them. This eye placement has one disadvantage, though. To the sides, elk see with only one eye. That is, they have monocular vision. It’s hard to judge distance with just one eye. Animals need two eyes looking at the same thing to figure out how far away something is: binocular vision. Elk have good depth perception only when they look straight ahead, where the vision of both eyes overlaps. So when an elk first spots something interesting to the side, it may turn toward it to get a better fix on how far away it is.

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/Pub...nts/Habits.htm

Are you suggesting elk eyes are like Bigfoot eyes? Notice an attempt to make something fit that does not fit?

LONGTABBER PE · 14th April 2009, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise.

I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book.

If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book.

If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me.

>>>I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise.

That much is obvious- You really have little to no demonstrated abilities in any kind of science.

>>>I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book.

If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book.

I see little to do that for- you, on the other hand, are another story. I find most of your arguments intellectually insulting.

>>>If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me

Thats as good an exit strategy as any. Deflect all comments about you to others in an attempt to divide and conquer. I know your arguments are that weak and I see you know it as well. Thats not a bad thing.

manofthesea · 14th April 2009, 10:40 PM

Here's a completely unambiguous photo of a possible bigfoot.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...ry-888276.html

And here's an unambiguous view of a possible bigfoot clique.
http://www.livescience.com/php/multi...Caltech&title=

LTC8K6 · 14th April 2009, 11:01 PM

Read Krantz.

kitakaze · 14th April 2009, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by manofthesea

Here's a completely unambiguous photo of a possible bigfoot.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...ry-888276.html

And here's an unambiguous view of a possible bigfoot clique.
http://www.livescience.com/php/multi...Caltech&title=

Wait, I thought Kennewick Man was Bigfoot for you. Now Homo neanderthalensis is Bigfoot? And what about the djinn?

manofthesea · 15th April 2009, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Wait, I thought

Don't hurt yourself.
I brought Kennewick Man to the table because of the amibiguity as to its species. Per the discovering scientist. It's unavailable for further study.

I've repeatedly reefered to this site concerning neanderthal studies http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/

Concerning the djinn, I merely stated the facts. Being that the djinn and bigfoot share common physical characteristics, notable their pursed lips, tendency to howl/scream. And steal children and salmon (probably).

manofthesea · 15th April 2009, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by manofthesea

possible bigfoot clique.
http://www.livescience.com/php/multi...Caltech&title=

Doesn't this look like a prototypical picture of a "God-loving family", like the kind the bible thumpers pass out.

kitakaze · 15th April 2009, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by manofthesea

Don't hurt yourself.
I brought Kennewick Man to the table because of the amibiguity as to its species. Per the discovering scientist. It's unavailable for further study.

You have forgotten much.

Quote:

I've repeatedly reefered to this site concerning neanderthal studies http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/

Yeah? And? What does that have to do with Bigfoot?

Quote:

Concerning the djinn, I merely stated the facts. Being that the djinn and bigfoot share common physical characteristics, notable their pursed lips, tendency to howl/scream. And steal children and salmon (probably).

Face meet palm.

I guess by that logic these are Bigfoots also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&h...eature=related

Rawr...

manofthesea · 15th April 2009, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

You have forgotten much.

No grasshopper, it is you who has forgotten.

Quote:

Yeah? And? What does that have to do with Bigfoot?

Possibly everything. Unless you're proposing that the possible species for bigfoot is limited to gigantopithicus or other Patty-like species. Unlike giganto, neanderthals are proven to coexist with sapiens. Their vocal capabilities are only theoretically known, lacking a mental protuberance and other physical characteristics limiting their vocabulary to probable howls and other yells/grunts. Their lack of or overabundance of body hair is also not known. It's also theorized that neanderthals were possibly cannibalistic, fitting a common prehistoric description of bigfoots.
As to bigfoot's tendency to steal salmon, being neanderthal would conveniently explain this. Limited with the fishing technique of yelling at and beating the water, stealing someone's drying fish strips would prove efficient.

kitakaze · 15th April 2009, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by manofthesea

No grasshopper, it is you who has forgotten.

Ugh... Is it that time again? Are we going to kick Kennewick around again? Dude, the species was not ambiguous. Homo sapiens. Done. *BZZT* FAIL. Next.

Quote:

Possibly everything. Unless you're proposing that the possible species for bigfoot is limited to gigantopithicus or other Patty-like species. Unlike giganto, neanderthals are proven to coexist with sapiens. Their vocal capabilities are only theoretically known, lacking a mental protuberance and other physical characteristics limiting their vocabulary to probable howls and other yells/grunts. Their lack of or overabundance of body hair is also not known.

I could get into a stupid discussion with you about how suggesting Homo neanderthalensis as Bigfoot is just fall-down stupid. I could give you all manner of links showing you that neanderthals were not hirsute as well as what we now know concerning their vocal abilities. I can honestly say I just don't care. What's the point? I have little worry that anyone else is too far gone to think this anywhere near here and I know the information is just wasted on you. Factual information that goes against what you'd like to think is spraying bullets at the Hulk. They only irritate him and he shrugs them off.

I have about as much desire to try and relieve you of wishful thinking as eating a sandpaper sandwich.

EHocking · 15th April 2009, 03:46 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

Krantz didn't think such adaptation would be necessary because the sheer size of the eye would allow for admission of a lot of light even at night.

Size is not as important as structure, but as the paper in my previous link indicates, the larger the animal, the smaller (in relation to body size) the eye. For instance, if we had similar eyes to those of loruses etc, they would be the size of grapefruits.

As we and our immediate cousins in the animal kingdom (and all of their/our ancesters) do NOT have eyes of this size, I don't think his conjecture is valid. It doesn't seem to be based on any scientific or evolutionary/fossil evidence to date.

Quote:

I remember being astounded in Seattle in summer that I could still see quite well at 10:00 PM.

Elk are ...

Irrelevant to the discussion - as you made a point of correcting me on, YOU are talking about higher Primates, not ungulates.

Correa Neto · 15th April 2009, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Why doesn't Patty have great, big eyes?

Uh, sorry for the nitpick, but given PGF's resolution we can only make "educated guesses" about Patty's eyes. Sure, they are not huge, but from the data itself, Patty could be using sunglasses, have vertical slanted pupils, large round eyes, etc. My educated guess? The eyes of a human, with the skin around the eyes, not covered by the mask, painted black.

ETA- I was about to ask if this means I'm taking you to the mat but this could be terribly misinterpreted, LOL!

LAL · 15th April 2009, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

>>>I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise.

That much is obvious- You really have little to no demonstrated abilities in any kind of science.

Of course not. I took high school biology when Mendel's peas were still green. I'd have had a class in Physical Anthropology under my belt by now if the class had filled. I was accepted in jewelry sooner than expected and with classes limited to seven students per year I couldn't pass that up.

The average Australopithecine IM index will have to wait.

Quote:

>>>I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book.

If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book.

I see little to do that for- you, on the other hand, are another story. I find most of your arguments intellectually insulting.

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

Quote:

>>>If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me

Thats as good an exit strategy as any. Deflect all comments about you to others in an attempt to divide and conquer. I know your arguments are that weak and I see you know it as well. Thats not a bad thing.

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.

You asked for skeptics and I gave you four. It would seem you prefer me. Sorry, I don't do wrestling,war or game strategy.

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.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to look for a missing USB cable and hit the road.

LAL · 15th April 2009, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Why doesn't Patty have great, big eyes?

With all of her great big the eyes would be too.

Quote:

You didn't understand daylight savings? We don't do that in Japan. That was one of the first things I had a hard time with being from Victoria, BC.

I moved up from Southern California which had daylight savings time too. I wasn't aware there was that much difference in day length that much further north.

Quote:

Are you suggesting elk eyes are like Bigfoot eyes? Notice an attempt to make something fit that does not fit?

Nope. I'm just saying I didn't know elk were that active at night. That could explain what was was touching the top of the tent in the all-woman Skookum "expedition".

Skeptical Greg · 15th April 2009, 09:04 AM

What would have explained it, would have been to take a look ...

Belz... · 15th April 2009, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans

MY guess is that they don't exist. It's easier that way and everything else suddenly makes sense.

EHocking · 15th April 2009, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by LAL

With all of her great big the eyes would be too..

That's yet another example of Footer Fact(TM) that I have been introduced to in these threads.

On what scientific evidence do you base this assertion?

Compare the ratio of an elephant's eye to it's body size to that of a primate.
Compare the relative size of a Lorus' eye to that of the higher primates (remember? Size of a grapefruit in a human...)

Oh, hell - why not try some research instead of speculating in ignorance on the biology, merely because your baseless assertions appear to prop up your belief?

The following is an excerpt found on GoogleBooks, The Primate Visual System (Bowers, Kremers, House). (bolding and mistakes are mine)

"Although the size of the eye generally increases progressively with body size, the former does not keep pace with the latter. This generalisation, labelled 'Haller's Law', applies not only to primates and other animals...but also to other terrestrial vertebrates... As a result, the ratio of eye size to skull size progressively declines as the body size increases. One outcome of this is that the eye does not completely fill the orbit in large-bodied mammals, even in relatively large-eyed promates. Particular caution must therefore be exercised in inferring the size of the eye from the size of the orbit in large-bodied mammals."

Correa Neto · 15th April 2009, 12:38 PM

Here's your answer Kitakaze:

Haven't you seen Cloverfield? Proof of how hard -if not impossible- and extremely dangerous its is to get sharp imagery of monsters.

Pwned!

Next question, please.

xblade · 15th April 2009, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by manofthesea

Concerning the djinn, I merely stated the facts. Being that the djinn and bigfoot share common physical characteristics, notable their pursed lips, tendency to howl/scream. And steal children and salmon (probably).

Since no one can find one, and since no unambiguous photos are available, how do we know bigfoot has pursed lips? Since no one has seen bigfoot howl/scream, how do we know bigfoot howls and screams? Any reports of bigfoot stealing children? When bigfoot eats salmon, do they ever have confrontations with bears, and if they do, who wins?

xblade · 15th April 2009, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by manofthesea

Here's a completely unambiguous photo of a possible bigfoot.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...ry-888276.html

And here's an unambiguous view of a possible bigfoot clique.
http://www.livescience.com/php/multi...Caltech&title=

And here's an unambiguous picture of a fire breathing dragon. Hide the children.

http://www.dragonspace.co.uk/

kitakaze · 15th April 2009, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Uh, sorry for the nitpick, but given PGF's resolution we can only make "educated guesses" about Patty's eyes. Sure, they are not huge, but from the data itself, Patty could be using sunglasses, have vertical slanted pupils, large round eyes, etc. My educated guess? The eyes of a human, with the skin around the eyes, not covered by the mask, painted black.

ETA- I was about to ask if this means I'm taking you to the mat but this could be terribly misinterpreted, LOL!

Thanks for tripping my snare, dude. I was waiting for someone who had argued about other small details to take issue with the resolution and you had to go and mess it up for me. I'll try and be less subtle next time.

Correa Neto · 15th April 2009, 01:38 PM

whooops...

What? You expected certain proponents would admit that detail such as eyes, nostrils, ears, mouth, etc. can't be seen at PGF?

You expect too much...

ETA1- as a consolation prize I was about to post a revamped version of my pattypareidolia collage. However, I lost Drew's Patty rendering. Can you repost it, Drew?

ETA2- In the meanwhile, have fun with this revamped collage of the ~~garbage~~ images which compose bigfootery photographic evidence. The best one can say about them is "inconclusive".

LONGTABBER PE · 15th April 2009, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by LAL

Of course not. I took high school biology when Mendel's peas were still green. I'd have had a class in Physical Anthropology under my belt by now if the class had filled. I was accepted in jewelry sooner than expected and with classes limited to seven students per year I couldn't pass that up.

The average Australopithecine IM index will have to wait.

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

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.

You asked for skeptics and I gave you four. It would seem you prefer me. Sorry, I don't do wrestling,war or game strategy.

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.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to look for a missing USB cable and hit the road.

>>>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.

>>>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

Yeah_Right · 15th April 2009, 08:46 PM

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.

manofthesea · 16th April 2009, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by xblade

Since no one can find one, and since no unambiguous photos are available, how do we know bigfoot has pursed lips?

That is a traditional attribute attributed to bigfoot. See the "Native American thread".

Quote:

Since no one has seen bigfoot howl/scream, how do we know bigfoot howls and screams?

See above.

Quote:

Any reports of bigfoot stealing children?

See top.

Quote:

When bigfoot eats salmon, do they ever have confrontations with bears, and if they do, who wins?

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. See BFF thread that I started many moons ago.

kitakaze · 16th April 2009, 01:03 PM

MOTS, you are talking about dsonoqua, not Bigfoot. How many reports feature Bigfoot stealing children or having pursed lips? Also, how many reports feauture Bigfoot hitting a salmon run?

desertyeti · 16th April 2009, 01:05 PM

How may reports of a pursed-lip bigfoot hitting a child with a salmon?

Or hitting a salmon with a child?

Drewbot · 16th April 2009, 01:21 PM

MOTS-
Which modern day creature is represented by Otter-man?

CN-

kitakaze · 16th April 2009, 01:38 PM

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?

Drewbot · 16th April 2009, 01:56 PM

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

14th April 2009, 07:40 AM	#321
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by Correa Neto Note that the report you mentioned contained a description of glowing red eyes. Following Krantz's criteria... Again, I was paraphrasing Herriott since the story (with them "running") seemed to have suffered in the shortening. Scott said that he remembered such reports and said that was when he thought they might be looking at a sasquatch, referring to the reclining something he saw. That is probably the last time I spend hours watching interviews on DVDs just to try to straighten something out on a message board. I could have just left that part out.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

14th April 2009, 08:00 AM	#322
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by LAL ...I meant higher primates, EHocking. I should have said so. There was a discussion on Bush Babies and the like on BFF a few years ago. In that case see Kitakaze's comment regarding evolution of Hominoidea eyesight. I can't find any scientific discussion that indicates that there is any evidence for evolution of nocturnal or even crepuscular higher primate adaptation of the eye.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

14th April 2009, 08:20 AM	#323
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by LAL ..If such a color did occur possibly the light was such the color of the blood vessels was visible as the pupils dilated. Anyone for how he could see dilating pupils from 35-40' away?.. Why follow that line of thought when it could be red eye shine? ... oh, Google notes that this has been discussed by footers, who obviously have ruled out real animals such as opossum, cottontails, bullfrogs and some owls that have red eye shine for an unknown animal....
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

14th April 2009, 09:57 AM	#324
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by EHocking In that case see Kitakaze's comment regarding evolution of Hominoidea eyesight. I can't find any scientific discussion that indicates that there is any evidence for evolution of nocturnal or even crepuscular higher primate adaptation of the eye. Krantz didn't think such adaptation would be necessary because the sheer size of the eye would allow for admission of a lot of light even at night. I remember being astounded in Seattle in summer that I could still see quite well at 10:00 PM. Elk are quite active at night, which I didn't realize until recently. I always thought they were crepuscular. The pupil is like a horse's pupil.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

14th April 2009, 10:52 AM	#325
sanguine Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 206	Originally Posted by Drewbot http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=265 I found it. Sanguine offered to front the cost of the DNA test. Sorry; I was away for a while or I would have answered your post where you asked about this. I was actually offering to /do/ the test, by the way. Since I'm a biologist and all. I just think the primers and material would be pocket change. That said, I'd realistically want anyone who was involved to pick just a handful of "best" samples, so that I wouldn't be deluged with every random hair that someone didn't bother to identify themselves. That seems tedious. "Ooh, another cow hair. And a bear. And raccoon..." I imagine my skepticism could give an out, though ("You made it fail on purpose!"). Perhaps a sounder method would be to hand any samples off to a professional pathology lab to do the evaluation. PCR is really cheap -- cheaper than all the camera equipment these folks truck around, certainly.
sanguine Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 206

14th April 2009, 10:54 AM	#326
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by kitakaze Uhhhh... does it matter? I've already mentioned you post on youtube as "librarylu". I simply wrote "LAL" as a reference that the quote is you. It matters because someone might want to check out my anti-creationist gobbledy-gook on YouTube and it will be easier to find with the correct handle. The Easterville vid does resemble Patty, moreso on my desktop than my laptop. On the laptop it looks more like a person in a long, black coat, but either way, there are no jeans visible. I try to look a little deeper than first glance impressions. Hopefully someone can get my captures. I couldn't find them this morning in the desktop or the external harddrive. I haven't checked the laptop yet. I really don't want to do them again. I'd have to reinstall software or use PrintKey. They were rather hard to catch the first time and I don't want to have to do it again. Yowie's trail cam pictures resemble Patty too, at least until Virtual Magnifying Glass reveals she's shadow and leaves. Easterville is at least an object of some kind. Despite my best efforts to keep the thread on MABRC going there were only 5 authors and 11 posts. (I can get that much information on a Google search although I can't login and I don't do sock puppets.) There've been several times I've taken a position I have no strong opinion about just to keep a debate going. I still wish cooldude had joined in. We'd have been easy on him. Is there even Adsense on cooldude's channel? Posting a video on YouTube is a strange way to try to make money with it. Internet photoanalysis has convinced me that pictures aren't going to work. One picture can produce five different interpretations from five different posters - and just as many fights. Quote: You know, you still haven't addressed the crazy logic of this guy recording and talking loudly to the oh-so-elusive Bigfoot that just stands there. That was explained. The wind was blowing; it (or he) didn't hear them. He wasn't talking to it, he was talking to one of the other people there. Quote: Yes, can we see some of that? You can Google as well as I can. Quote: That would be artifacts. As in at least three when the phones dip a bit. I think I did captures on two. It's too bad Morgoth's pictures are gone. He was very thorough in pointing out the numerous artifacts elsewhere in the video. Quote: I can't believe you thought this was a ringer for Patty. I didn't say ringer. There's a resemblance, especially in the buttocks when whatever-it-is leans forward. I have a faux fur coat that resembles her neck and shoulders with the hood up. Quote: The jacket is glaringly obvious at the end of he video. You simply may not have very good eyesight. I wear contacts and have HD screens on both computers. Quote: Here's a selection from the comments (I'll avoid the majority which declare guy in jacket): I said I read them at the time. I'm sure if they didn't know how mean YouTubers can get they learned quickly. Quote: Why did coolguy311 copypasta uncledeucedeuce? I think anyone who seriously is considering the glaringly obvious video of a guy in a jacket most likely taking a leak as being a Bigfoot and a ringer for Patty as serious confirmation bias issues. If it's a jacket why aren't the pants visible when the figure leans forward? Hooded long bear coat makes more sense than that, IMO. I don't have time to try to reconstruct the other post now, but I don't have statistics on what the majority of people (including the ones in Somalia) think and I didn't appeal to any majority. You do understand sarcasm, don't you?
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/ Last edited by LAL; 14th April 2009 at 12:41 PM.

14th April 2009, 11:48 AM	#327
LONGTABBER PE Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,865	Originally Posted by LAL Thanks a lot. Sorry I don't have a PhD. Doesn't he count as a skeptic? >>>Thanks a lot. Sorry I don't have a PhD. Thats not a requirement to be a qualified investigator >>>Doesn't he count as a skeptic That really needs to be taken up with him as to his views and stance but I fail to see what that has to do with this string of conversations

14th April 2009, 12:37 PM	#328
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE >>>Thanks a lot. Sorry I don't have a PhD. Thats not a requirement to be a qualified investigator I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise. Quote: >>>Doesn't he count as a skeptic That really needs to be taken up with him as to his views and stance but I fail to see what that has to do with this string of conversations I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book. If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book. If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/ Last edited by LAL; 14th April 2009 at 12:39 PM.

14th April 2009, 12:59 PM	#329
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Quote: Internet photoanalysis has convinced me that pictures aren't going to work. One picture can produce five different interpretations from five different posters - and just as many fights. Thus the title of the thread ... "....Why no unambiguous photos/videos? " I'm sure you understand what " unambiguous " means.. Why the continued diatribes about ' interpretation ? An unambiguous photo or video would not need any interpretation ...
	__________________ " 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

14th April 2009, 05:37 PM	#330
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by LAL Internet photoanalysis has convinced me that pictures aren't going to work. One picture can produce five different interpretations from five different posters - and just as many fights. I'll address the rest of your post very quickly but as you're here right now, I once again have to take issue with this. Please, please, please go look at the videos in the OP. There are no varying interpretations to what the images show. Each video has no debate as to what the images show. They aren't a big collection of staged shoots. Your pessimism is pointless and creates the false impression that science has thus far been unreasonable towards Bigfoot evidence. Garbage in, garbage out. There is no reason why Bigfoot shouldn't appear in videos like the one in the OP. What is the precedent for a massive land mammal across two major industrialized nations eluding modern science?
	__________________ 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

14th April 2009, 05:57 PM	#331
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by LAL Krantz didn't think such adaptation would be necessary because the sheer size of the eye would allow for admission of a lot of light even at night. Why doesn't Patty have great, big eyes? Quote: I remember being astounded in Seattle in summer that I could still see quite well at 10:00 PM. You didn't understand daylight savings? We don't do that in Japan. That was one of the first things I had a hard time with being from Victoria, BC. Quote: Elk are quite active at night, which I didn't realize until recently. I always thought they were crepuscular. http://i1.treknature.com/photos/9364/img_5832rev.jpg The pupil is like a horse's pupil. So depending on the season and temperature, elks might poke around in the dark a bit: http://www.trmichels.com/ElkActivityGraphs.htm Elk eyes: Quote: Elk Eyes: I Spy Danger Nearby What do we know about how elk see? Most vision studies on ungulates have been carried out on white-tailed deer and domestic animals. But biologists believe that what they know for deer is probably true for elk, too. Elk and deer vision is adapted first and foremost to detect predators. Studies and field experience suggest they rely on vision most of all to pick up movement and “out of place” shapes. Ungulates have a large number of nerve connections in their eyes that help them detect the slightest motion. Both carnivores and ungulates also have many rod cells to help them see in low light and can pick up contrasts between light and dark. Being able to see in color seems to be less important. Ungulates’ eyes are spaced wide apart on either side of their heads, and this gives them a huge field of view—the area you can see from side to side. Elk can see 310 degrees around them—basically everything except a small cone almost directly behind them—the better to catch a wolf or human hunter sneaking up on them. This eye placement has one disadvantage, though. To the sides, elk see with only one eye. That is, they have monocular vision. It’s hard to judge distance with just one eye. Animals need two eyes looking at the same thing to figure out how far away something is: binocular vision. Elk have good depth perception only when they look straight ahead, where the vision of both eyes overlaps. So when an elk first spots something interesting to the side, it may turn toward it to get a better fix on how far away it is. http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/Pub...nts/Habits.htm Are you suggesting elk eyes are like Bigfoot eyes? Notice an attempt to make something fit that does not fit?
	__________________ 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

14th April 2009, 06:30 PM	#332
LONGTABBER PE Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,865	Originally Posted by LAL I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise. I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book. If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book. If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me. >>>I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise. That much is obvious- You really have little to no demonstrated abilities in any kind of science. >>>I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book. If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book. I see little to do that for- you, on the other hand, are another story. I find most of your arguments intellectually insulting. >>>If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me Thats as good an exit strategy as any. Deflect all comments about you to others in an attempt to divide and conquer. I know your arguments are that weak and I see you know it as well. Thats not a bad thing.

14th April 2009, 10:40 PM	#333
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354	Here's a completely unambiguous photo of a possible bigfoot. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...ry-888276.html And here's an unambiguous view of a possible bigfoot clique. http://www.livescience.com/php/multi...Caltech&title=
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354

14th April 2009, 11:01 PM	#334
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,695	Read Krantz.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

14th April 2009, 11:07 PM	#335
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by manofthesea Here's a completely unambiguous photo of a possible bigfoot. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...ry-888276.html And here's an unambiguous view of a possible bigfoot clique. http://www.livescience.com/php/multi...Caltech&title= Wait, I thought Kennewick Man was Bigfoot for you. Now Homo neanderthalensis is Bigfoot? And what about the djinn?
	__________________ 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

15th April 2009, 12:15 AM	#336
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354	Originally Posted by kitakaze Wait, I thought Don't hurt yourself. I brought Kennewick Man to the table because of the amibiguity as to its species. Per the discovering scientist. It's unavailable for further study. I've repeatedly reefered to this site concerning neanderthal studies http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ Concerning the djinn, I merely stated the facts. Being that the djinn and bigfoot share common physical characteristics, notable their pursed lips, tendency to howl/scream. And steal children and salmon (probably).
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354

15th April 2009, 12:40 AM	#337
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354	Originally Posted by manofthesea possible bigfoot clique. http://www.livescience.com/php/multi...Caltech&title= Doesn't this look like a prototypical picture of a "God-loving family", like the kind the bible thumpers pass out.
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354

15th April 2009, 01:10 AM	#338
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by manofthesea Don't hurt yourself. I brought Kennewick Man to the table because of the amibiguity as to its species. Per the discovering scientist. It's unavailable for further study. You have forgotten much. Quote: I've repeatedly reefered to this site concerning neanderthal studies http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ Yeah? And? What does that have to do with Bigfoot? Quote: Concerning the djinn, I merely stated the facts. Being that the djinn and bigfoot share common physical characteristics, notable their pursed lips, tendency to howl/scream. And steal children and salmon (probably). Face meet palm. I guess by that logic these are Bigfoots also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&h...eature=related Rawr...
	__________________ 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

15th April 2009, 01:27 AM	#339
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354	Originally Posted by kitakaze You have forgotten much. No grasshopper, it is you who has forgotten. Quote: Yeah? And? What does that have to do with Bigfoot? Possibly everything. Unless you're proposing that the possible species for bigfoot is limited to gigantopithicus or other Patty-like species. Unlike giganto, neanderthals are proven to coexist with sapiens. Their vocal capabilities are only theoretically known, lacking a mental protuberance and other physical characteristics limiting their vocabulary to probable howls and other yells/grunts. Their lack of or overabundance of body hair is also not known. It's also theorized that neanderthals were possibly cannibalistic, fitting a common prehistoric description of bigfoots. As to bigfoot's tendency to steal salmon, being neanderthal would conveniently explain this. Limited with the fishing technique of yelling at and beating the water, stealing someone's drying fish strips would prove efficient.
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354	Last edited by manofthesea; 15th April 2009 at 01:34 AM.

15th April 2009, 01:42 AM	#340
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by manofthesea No grasshopper, it is you who has forgotten. Ugh... Is it that time again? Are we going to kick Kennewick around again? Dude, the species was not ambiguous. Homo sapiens. Done. BZZT FAIL. Next. Quote: Possibly everything. Unless you're proposing that the possible species for bigfoot is limited to gigantopithicus or other Patty-like species. Unlike giganto, neanderthals are proven to coexist with sapiens. Their vocal capabilities are only theoretically known, lacking a mental protuberance and other physical characteristics limiting their vocabulary to probable howls and other yells/grunts. Their lack of or overabundance of body hair is also not known. I could get into a stupid discussion with you about how suggesting Homo neanderthalensis as Bigfoot is just fall-down stupid. I could give you all manner of links showing you that neanderthals were not hirsute as well as what we now know concerning their vocal abilities. I can honestly say I just don't care. What's the point? I have little worry that anyone else is too far gone to think this anywhere near here and I know the information is just wasted on you. Factual information that goes against what you'd like to think is spraying bullets at the Hulk. They only irritate him and he shrugs them off. I have about as much desire to try and relieve you of wishful thinking as eating a sandpaper sandwich.
	__________________ 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

15th April 2009, 03:46 AM	#341
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by LAL Krantz didn't think such adaptation would be necessary because the sheer size of the eye would allow for admission of a lot of light even at night. Size is not as important as structure, but as the paper in my previous link indicates, the larger the animal, the smaller (in relation to body size) the eye. For instance, if we had similar eyes to those of loruses etc, they would be the size of grapefruits. As we and our immediate cousins in the animal kingdom (and all of their/our ancesters) do NOT have eyes of this size, I don't think his conjecture is valid. It doesn't seem to be based on any scientific or evolutionary/fossil evidence to date. Quote: I remember being astounded in Seattle in summer that I could still see quite well at 10:00 PM. Elk are ... Irrelevant to the discussion - as you made a point of correcting me on, YOU are talking about higher Primates, not ungulates.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

15th April 2009, 04:39 AM	#342
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,189	Originally Posted by kitakaze Why doesn't Patty have great, big eyes? Uh, sorry for the nitpick, but given PGF's resolution we can only make "educated guesses" about Patty's eyes. Sure, they are not huge, but from the data itself, Patty could be using sunglasses, have vertical slanted pupils, large round eyes, etc. My educated guess? The eyes of a human, with the skin around the eyes, not covered by the mask, painted black. ETA- I was about to ask if this means I'm taking you to the mat but this could be terribly misinterpreted, LOL!
	__________________ 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… Last edited by Correa Neto; 15th April 2009 at 04:41 AM.

15th April 2009, 07:07 AM	#343
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE >>>I'm not an investigator, qualified or otherwise. That much is obvious- You really have little to no demonstrated abilities in any kind of science. Of course not. I took high school biology when Mendel's peas were still green. I'd have had a class in Physical Anthropology under my belt by now if the class had filled. I was accepted in jewelry sooner than expected and with classes limited to seven students per year I couldn't pass that up. The average Australopithecine IM index will have to wait. Quote: >>>I thought you might want to take him to the mat. You didn't stipulate it has to be a well-known skeptic who's written articles or a book. If you'd like to wrestle Kitakaze, I'd like to stop at Radio Shack and then lie down and finish a book. I see little to do that for- you, on the other hand, are another story. I find most of your arguments intellectually insulting. I'm not thinking much of yours right now either. Was my name added to the topic header when I wasn't looking? Quote: >>>If not, try Benjamin Radford, David Daegling, Michael Dennett or even Kal Korff. It's all the same to me Thats as good an exit strategy as any. Deflect all comments about you to others in an attempt to divide and conquer. I know your arguments are that weak and I see you know it as well. Thats not a bad thing. 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. You asked for skeptics and I gave you four. It would seem you prefer me. Sorry, I don't do wrestling,war or game strategy. 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. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to look for a missing USB cable and hit the road.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/ Last edited by LAL; 15th April 2009 at 07:17 AM.

15th April 2009, 07:33 AM	#344
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Originally Posted by kitakaze Why doesn't Patty have great, big eyes? With all of her great big the eyes would be too. Quote: You didn't understand daylight savings? We don't do that in Japan. That was one of the first things I had a hard time with being from Victoria, BC. I moved up from Southern California which had daylight savings time too. I wasn't aware there was that much difference in day length that much further north. Quote: Are you suggesting elk eyes are like Bigfoot eyes? Notice an attempt to make something fit that does not fit? Nope. I'm just saying I didn't know elk were that active at night. That could explain what was was touching the top of the tent in the all-woman Skookum "expedition".
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th April 2009, 09:04 AM	#345
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	What would have explained it, would have been to take a look ...
	__________________ " 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

15th April 2009, 09:18 AM	#346
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,532	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans MY guess is that they don't exist. It's easier that way and everything else suddenly makes sense.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

15th April 2009, 09:43 AM	#347
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by LAL With all of her great big the eyes would be too.. That's yet another example of Footer Fact(TM) that I have been introduced to in these threads. On what scientific evidence do you base this assertion? Compare the ratio of an elephant's eye to it's body size to that of a primate. Compare the relative size of a Lorus' eye to that of the higher primates (remember? Size of a grapefruit in a human...) Oh, hell - why not try some research instead of speculating in ignorance on the biology, merely because your baseless assertions appear to prop up your belief? The following is an excerpt found on GoogleBooks, The Primate Visual System (Bowers, Kremers, House). (bolding and mistakes are mine) "Although the size of the eye generally increases progressively with body size, the former does not keep pace with the latter. This generalisation, labelled 'Haller's Law', applies not only to primates and other animals...but also to other terrestrial vertebrates... As a result, the ratio of eye size to skull size progressively declines as the body size increases. One outcome of this is that the eye does not completely fill the orbit in large-bodied mammals, even in relatively large-eyed promates. Particular caution must therefore be exercised in inferring the size of the eye from the size of the orbit in large-bodied mammals."
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage Last edited by EHocking; 15th April 2009 at 09:45 AM.

15th April 2009, 12:38 PM	#348
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,189	Here's your answer Kitakaze: Haven't you seen Cloverfield? Proof of how hard -if not impossible- and extremely dangerous its is to get sharp imagery of monsters. Pwned! Next question, please.
	__________________ 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…

15th April 2009, 01:10 PM	#349
xblade Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 462	Originally Posted by manofthesea Concerning the djinn, I merely stated the facts. Being that the djinn and bigfoot share common physical characteristics, notable their pursed lips, tendency to howl/scream. And steal children and salmon (probably). Since no one can find one, and since no unambiguous photos are available, how do we know bigfoot has pursed lips? Since no one has seen bigfoot howl/scream, how do we know bigfoot howls and screams? Any reports of bigfoot stealing children? When bigfoot eats salmon, do they ever have confrontations with bears, and if they do, who wins?

15th April 2009, 01:17 PM	#350
xblade Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 462	Originally Posted by manofthesea Here's a completely unambiguous photo of a possible bigfoot. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...ry-888276.html And here's an unambiguous view of a possible bigfoot clique. http://www.livescience.com/php/multi...Caltech&title= And here's an unambiguous picture of a fire breathing dragon. Hide the children. http://www.dragonspace.co.uk/

15th April 2009, 01:19 PM	#351
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 Uh, sorry for the nitpick, but given PGF's resolution we can only make "educated guesses" about Patty's eyes. Sure, they are not huge, but from the data itself, Patty could be using sunglasses, have vertical slanted pupils, large round eyes, etc. My educated guess? The eyes of a human, with the skin around the eyes, not covered by the mask, painted black. ETA- I was about to ask if this means I'm taking you to the mat but this could be terribly misinterpreted, LOL! Thanks for tripping my snare, dude. I was waiting for someone who had argued about other small details to take issue with the resolution and you had to go and mess it up for me. I'll try and be less subtle next time.
	__________________ 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

15th April 2009, 01:38 PM	#352
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,189	whooops... What? You expected certain proponents would admit that detail such as eyes, nostrils, ears, mouth, etc. can't be seen at PGF? You expect too much... ETA1- as a consolation prize I was about to post a revamped version of my pattypareidolia collage. However, I lost Drew's Patty rendering. Can you repost it, Drew? ETA2- In the meanwhile, have fun with this revamped collage of the ~~garbage~~ images which compose bigfootery photographic evidence. The best one can say about them is "inconclusive".
	__________________ 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… Last edited by Correa Neto; 15th April 2009 at 02:14 PM.

15th April 2009, 04:26 PM	#353
LONGTABBER PE Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,865	Originally Posted by LAL Of course not. I took high school biology when Mendel's peas were still green. I'd have had a class in Physical Anthropology under my belt by now if the class had filled. I was accepted in jewelry sooner than expected and with classes limited to seven students per year I couldn't pass that up. The average Australopithecine IM index will have to wait. I'm not thinking much of yours right now either. Was my name added to the topic header when I wasn't looking? 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. You asked for skeptics and I gave you four. It would seem you prefer me. Sorry, I don't do wrestling,war or game strategy. 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. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to look for a missing USB cable and hit the road. >>>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. >>>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

15th April 2009, 08:46 PM	#354
Yeah_Right Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 640	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.
Yeah_Right Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 640	__________________ I didn't believe in reincarnation in a past life either. CEO_ESQ:"Something about pyramids seems to cause a shutdown of critical faculties in certain people." Last edited by Yeah_Right; 15th April 2009 at 08:49 PM.

16th April 2009, 01:25 AM	#355
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354	Originally Posted by xblade Since no one can find one, and since no unambiguous photos are available, how do we know bigfoot has pursed lips? That is a traditional attribute attributed to bigfoot. See the "Native American thread". Quote: Since no one has seen bigfoot howl/scream, how do we know bigfoot howls and screams? See above. Quote: Any reports of bigfoot stealing children? See top. Quote: When bigfoot eats salmon, do they ever have confrontations with bears, and if they do, who wins? 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. See BFF thread that I started many moons ago.
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354