FREE TAPATALK APP

Cleon · 14th June 2005, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
I wouldn't want the job of classifying it, or even naming it. Should it be Gigantopithecus krantzii, Australopithecus sandersonii, or even Ardepithecus takethatmichaeldennettii?

Again, this is one of those things that makes it hard to take bigfoot seriously.

Even assuming the evidence for Bigfoot's existence is valid and substantial--which I don't concede--there's not a shred of reason to consider that he'd fall into any of the above genii.

In fact, gigantopithecus is probably out completely, as he probably wasn't bipedal. Australopithecines and ardepithecus were much smaller than human beings. Any attempt at classification at this point is purely guesswork and distracts from the need of Bigfootologists to get enough evidence to prove it even exists!

LTC8K6 · 14th June 2005, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
I've given you the names of several well-respected scientists who have reached the conclusion they're a real animal based on the evidence.

The lifespan is a good guess based on the lifespans of other great apes.
Does the Patterson creature look like a juvenile?

What evidence? I haven't seen anything I would call good evidence. Certainly nothing to justify saying Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus Blacki, and claiming GB was bipedal so it could fit the story. I have seen precious little to justify any scientist doing any more than continuing to look on sceptically.

Quote:

Though no skeletal remains had been found, Dr. Krantz proposed that the North American footprints alone could be used to describe this species, and cited other non-skeletal material used to describe fossil species as precedent. He further proposed that the footprints found and cast be referred to as Gigantopithecus blacki, with the caveat that classification could be adjusted as needed should future evidence suggest it.

How would anyone know anything about what a juvenile looked like, or what the lifespan was? I have absolutely no idea if the creature in the P/G film looks like a juvenile.

It looks female.

If you had never seen a Giraffe before, you might well think a juvenile was an adult, until you saw mom & child together.

Some humans are quite big & tall early on. They are not adults, and you might not be able to tell an adult from a juvenile in a film, since the juvenile can be bigger and taller than the adult.

LAL · 14th June 2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
Again, this is one of those things that makes it hard to take bigfoot seriously.

I wasn't being serious.

Quote:

Even assuming the evidence for Bigfoot's existence is valid and substantial--which I don't concede--there's not a shred of reason to consider that he'd fall into any of the above genii.

In fact, gigantopithecus is probably out completely, as he probably wasn't bipedal. Australopithecines and ardepithecus were much smaller than human beings. Any attempt at classification at this point is purely guesswork and distracts from the need of Bigfootologists to get enough evidence to prove it even exists!

George Schaller has a problem with a specialized bamboo-eater making it over the Bering Strait.

Krantz thought Gigantopithecus blacki (there was a smaller species as well) was bipedal based on the width of the jaw (wide to allow the passage of a vertical spinal column). It's now thought they were related to Orangutans, but there's really not enough in the way of fossils to establish the mode of locomotion one way or the other. The size seems to match, and it's possible they're an ancestor or a relative, if Sasquatches are not a remnant population.

Napier thought Sasquatches could have been descended from A. robustus. There are other possible bipedal ancestors that have been discovered since then. We don't even knoe our own lineage for certain. The consensus (according to Chris Stringer) is that bipedalism was first, k-w a later adaptation in the Great Apes. The size could be an adaptation for cold.

As for them evolving from a smaller bipedal ancestor, why not? We did.

I don't know of any serious attempts at classification at this point. I personally hate the term "Bigfoot". It's journalese.
"Sasquatch" is a corruption of a Salish Indian name for them and is the preferred term in Canada. It's much more dignified, IMO.

Since there is no field of "Bigfootology", how are there "Bigfootologists"? I know of no one who's spending full time on this.

LAL · 14th June 2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

How would anyone know anything about what a juvenile looked like, or what the lifespan was? I have absolutely no idea if the creature in the P/G film looks like a juvenile.

It looks female.

The figure in the MD film looks like a juvenile. It's slim and is running in the first part. It has a kind of lithe, teen-aged look to it.

The figure in the Patterson film is solid, heavily muscled, a bit beat up.

Quote:

If you had never seen a Giraffe before, you might well think a juvenile was an adult, until you saw mom & child together.

Some humans are quite big & tall early on. They are not adults, and you might not be able to tell an adult from a juvenile in a film, since the juvenile can be bigger and taller than the adult.

Juvenile animals are, hm.........softer, finer. Kind of hard to describe, but it's easy to spot an immature individual

Cleon · 15th June 2005, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL

Krantz thought Gigantopithecus blacki (there was a smaller species as well) was bipedal based on the width of the jaw (wide to allow the passage of a vertical spinal column). It's now thought they were related to Orangutans, but there's really not enough in the way of fossils to establish the mode of locomotion one way or the other. The size seems to match, and it's possible they're an ancestor or a relative, if Sasquatches are not a remnant population.

It's also possible that Sasquatches came off the mothership. Evidence? Zilch.

Quote:

Napier thought Sasquatches could have been descended from A. robustus. There are other possible bipedal ancestors that have been discovered since then. We don't even knoe our own lineage for certain. The consensus (according to Chris Stringer) is that bipedalism was first, k-w a later adaptation in the Great Apes. The size could be an adaptation for cold.

Which is why theorizing about Bigfoot's lineage is about as logical as theorizing about what makes the Enterprise's warp drive tick.

Quote:

I don't know of any serious attempts at classification at this point. I personally hate the term "Bigfoot". It's journalese.
"Sasquatch" is a corruption of a Salish Indian name for them and is the preferred term in Canada. It's much more dignified, IMO.

Dignified? You're kidding, right?

LAL · 15th June 2005, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
It's also possible that Sasquatches came off the mothership. Evidence? Zilch.

There's less evidence for the mothership.

Quote:

Which is why theorizing about Bigfoot's lineage is about as logical as theorizing about what makes the Enterprise's warp drive tick.

If Krantz was correct, there's good reason to assume a relationship. If nothing else, Giganto proves primates can get that large. Primates come in all sorts of weird shapes and a variety of sizes and lifestyles. The Bili apes are huge, and though they're chimpanzees (according to Sarmiento, et al) they seem to have a Gorilla-like lifestyle. Not many were expecting a new Great Ape species in Africa. Gorillas were thought to be a native myth until they were discovered by whites.

Quote:

Dignified? You're kidding, right?

As I said, it's more dignified than "Bigfoot". That's not to say it's dignified. How about the Cree name for them? It's "mamemgishe", but who can spell it?

Bronze Dog · 15th June 2005, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
If Krantz was correct... <snip>

Is Krantz correct?

Cleon · 15th June 2005, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
There's less evidence for the mothership.

Not by a whole lot.

Quote:

If Krantz was correct, there's good reason to assume a relationship.

That's a mighty big "if."

Quote:

As I said, it's more dignified than "Bigfoot". That's not to say it's dignified. How about the Cree name for them? It's "mamemgishe", but who can spell it?

Who gives a dingle-dong about "dignified?" "Dignified" should not enter into discussions of what are probably mythological beings. Even if he was real, who cares? Call him Bigfoot, call him Sasquatch, or call him what homo erectus probably said when they ran into gigantopithecus. ("Oh, $%^&!"--at least, according to paleoanthropologist Alan Walker.)

(And mangling a Native language might be more dignified for the Big Guy, but not so much for the Salish.)

LTC8K6 · 15th June 2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

The figure in the MD film looks like a juvenile. It's slim and is running in the first part. It has a kind of lithe, teen-aged look to it.

Lithe, teen aged look? Like Lance Armstrong? Gwen Stefani?
Not like Shaquille O'neill, then?

There are all sorts of differently shaped and sized adult and juvenile humans. Tall, short, chunky, skinny, petite, etc.

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 11:59 AM

edit

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
"We are the Galileo, Louis Pasteur,Wright Bros, Columbus of the Bigfoot world."

It's been my experience that anyone who compares himself to Galileo can safely be bet against.

Well my dear, I do have a compliment for you.

(first, though, what IS your experience? You could be 14.)

Compliment --- you stated that maybe photos are sharp, but of
a fuzzy thing... this is RIGHT ON! BF as a shapeshifter,
is shifting alla time,,, and maybe 100,000 times per sec.

So, BRAVA!!!!!!!

EB

NOW GO SEE NEW BF TOPIC ABOVE IN LIST.

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 12:14 PM

[edit

Cleon · 15th June 2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by erikbeckjord

yes, cameras may get good photos of a FUZZY BEING..

as shapeshifters, they may shift at 100,000/sec
and so appear fuzzy
to us

This merits only one reasonable response.

Bronze Dog · 15th June 2005, 12:22 PM

Since I'm BronzeDog, and haven't used that emoticon yet, I think I'll go ahead and follow in Cleon's footsteps:

*Attempts to regain composure*

Prove he exists before you speculate about his alleged shapeshifting abilities.

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Since I'm BronzeDog, and haven't used that emoticon yet, I think I'll go ahead and follow in Cleon's footsteps:

*Attempts to regain composure*

Prove he exists before you speculate about his alleged shapeshifting abilities.

Let's use some sense and some science.

You cannot prove a supernatural being exists
for there are no tests for that.

All you can do is to note
WHAT IT DOES that is supernatural

Like going invisible (happened to me)
Like having trtacks start and stop in snow (to me and five others)
Like telepathy (to me and three others or more)

As for your mien, which are you, Curley or Moe?

(of the three stooges)

(for the prize, tell me the third stooge)

email me.

EB

Bronze Dog · 15th June 2005, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by erikbeckjord
[b]Let's use some sense and some science.

You cannot prove a supernatural being exists
for there are no tests for that.

All you can do is to note
WHAT IT DOES that is supernatural

You're asking me to use science, but you also say I can't test for the existence of Bigfoot?

You can hypothetically prove the existence of a supernatural being: Pass the James Randi Educational Foundation Paranormal Challenge. But you're probably too close-minded to be interested in testing.

As for invisibility: Pink unicorns can do the same. I've seen one in my back yard do it. Same for telepathy.

Ripley Twenty-Nine · 15th June 2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by erikbeckjord
Let's use some sense and some science.

*snip*
Like going invisible (happened to me)
Like having trtacks start and stop in snow (to me and five others)
Like telepathy (to me and three others or more)

Oh my.

Quote:

As for your mien, which are you, Curley or Moe?

(of the three stooges)

(for the prize, tell me the third stooge)

{INSERT JOKE HERE}

Cleon · 15th June 2005, 12:52 PM

Come, Ripley, join the Holy Order of the Laughing Dog...You know you want to.

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavoMan
While searching for this video, I came accross a brilliant example of how people are already reading into stills of the footage & making up woo explanations for what they see:

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/sulphurbf.html

Please do not talk as if you were an expert on this.

You never saw the video, you never visited me, you never
saw the photos from the video nor the digital info on a high value screen.

Also I note you are criticising me without telling of this forum.In essence, talking behind my back.

eb
.

Bronze Dog · 15th June 2005, 01:14 PM

Skimmed some of the websites and I'm underwhelmed by all the photos. Even with stuff circled, I don't see anything that can't be explained by pareidolia. Maybe you should get some higher resolution pictures, so the close-ups will be something other than indistinct blobs.

Ripley Twenty-Nine · 15th June 2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
Come, Ripley, join the Holy Order of the Laughing Dog...You know you want to.

Must.... resist......... Getting...... so weak..... Accessing http://www.beckjord.com....

Oh hell.

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine
Must.... resist......... Getting...... so weak..... Accessing http://www.beckjord.com....

Oh hell.

Your momma says it is time to turn off computer and go beddy-bye.

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Skimmed some of the websites and I'm underwhelmed by all the photos. Even with stuff circled, I don't see anything that can't be explained by pareidolia. Maybe you should get some higher resolution pictures, so the close-ups will be something other than indistinct blobs.

1) fyi, bigfoot does not pose for you.

2) what you see is damn lucky . You can't just go out and
get high defi photos of A SHAPESHIFTER...(as someone noted on this forum....)

and the camera was good qual 35mm. f1.8 lens, 50 mm.
Range 235 feet. On a tripod yet. ASA 200.

It shifts at more than 1/10.000 sec so you cannot get
freeze frame. (exception - Patterson Film).

What did you think these are? A panda ? A chimp? A cow?

3) Pareidolia is a BS term and it is not valid.

Ditto Similaricum (spell).

eb

Bronze Dog · 15th June 2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by erikbeckjord
3) Pareidolia is a BS term and it is not valid.

So, are you saying that the cloud I once saw that looked exactly like Evangelion 02 actually was a message from Studio Gainax, the makers of Neon Genesis Evangelion?

Cleon · 15th June 2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine
Must.... resist......... Getting...... so weak..... Accessing http://www.beckjord.com....

Oh hell.

Chhhh-prrrrr....Welcome to the dark side....Chhhhh-prrrrrr

This thread is going to get really, really funny when LAL gets back.

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BronzeDog
So, are you saying that the cloud I once saw that looked exactly like Evangelion 02 actually was a message from Studio Gainax, the makers of Neon Genesis Evangelion?

No. However it may have been (I was not there)
a temporary image made of water vapour, that changed ten sec later.

I have somewhere on my sites a rainbow taken in Maui

that has two demon-type heads RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE,

and I once got shots of a Christ in the Clouds image

on the day the Gulf War II started.

Ten min later they changed to reg clouds. (Of course)

Bronze Dog · 15th June 2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by erikbeckjord
No. However it may have been (I was not there)
a temporary image made of water vapour, that changed ten sec later.

I have somewhere on my sites a rainbow taken in Maui

that has two demon-type heads RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE,

and I once got shots of a Christ in the Clouds image

on the day the Gulf War II started.

Ten min later they changed to reg clouds. (Of course)

So, you saw stuff in clouds. That's pareidolia. If I had my camera I could have photographed it and preserved its "Eva 02ness" Is it too much of a stretch that shadows, leaves, depressions in the ground, etcetera, could look like fuzzy apes and footprints?

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BronzeDog
So, you saw stuff in clouds. That's pareidolia. If I had my camera I could have photographed it and preserved its "Eva 02ness" Is it too much of a stretch that shadows, leaves, depressions in the ground, etcetera, could look like fuzzy apes and footprints?

No.

Not pareidolia.

That term implies there is no real image of a real thing.

I say it is there., albeit briefly, put there by spiritual entities, FOR YOU TO SEE.

Happened on my grandma's death, and many times as omens to not go to certain places I was headed for.

Each time, it was right and I was right to have turned back.

Clouds, like water and like rocks, or cliffs,

are an easel for spirits to work with.

Now, are you saying that
Bigfoot rracks I followed for three miles in snow are fake images? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Youse guys be nutz.

Bronze Dog · 15th June 2005, 03:16 PM

Those particular "footprints" might be something else mundane. But pareidolia seems to be your thing, judging from the photos on your website.

LAL · 15th June 2005, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Is Krantz correct?

He was an anthropologist. He had as good a chance of being right as anybody.
Giganto is known from a couple of jaws and a thousand teeth. A foramen magnum would be useful, or better yet, a femur. Ape fossils are frustratingly rare.

LAL · 15th June 2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
Chhhh-prrrrr....Welcome to the dark side....Chhhhh-prrrrrr

This thread is going to get really, really funny when LAL gets back.

It is?
So Voldemort is here, in the flesh........er, post.
You guys wanted a "Bigfoot woo"? You got him.

Jeff Corey · 15th June 2005, 08:00 PM

[quote]Originally posted by erikbeckjord
[b]I spotted the spoor of a Bigfoot back in 1970, when I was a student at Miskatonic University, in Arkham, Mass. On a brisk December morn, oh yes, I remember it well. Professor Cristopher Robin pointed out that a suspicious tract had appeared across the virgin field of snow in front of of us. He claimed it to be words from the original Wholey Babble, but I demurred. "It is a spoor of the Sasquatch or Big Foot," I demurred, redundently.
"Besides, it's track, not tract."
"But it's a mere 19 centimeters long!", he apostrophised!
"Must be a baby Bigfoot."

This dedicated to Wayne Tytell, who first told this joke.

LAL · 15th June 2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by erikbeckjord
1) fyi, bigfoot does not pose for you.

2) what you see is damn lucky . You can't just go out and
get high defi photos of A SHAPESHIFTER...(as someone noted on this forum....)

and the camera was good qual 35mm. f1.8 lens, 50 mm.
Range 235 feet. On a tripod yet. ASA 200.

It shifts at more than 1/10.000 sec so you cannot get
freeze frame. (exception - Patterson Film).

What did you think these are? A panda ? A chimp? A cow?

3) Pareidolia is a BS term and it is not valid.

Ditto Similaricum (spell).

eb

I have one thing to say: Most of your links don't work.
And one thing to ask: What are you on?

LTC8K6 · 15th June 2005, 10:26 PM

LAL, you are no longer a bigfoot woo-woo in my book.

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
He was an anthropologist. He had as good a chance of being right as anybody.
Giganto is known from a couple of jaws and a thousand teeth. A foramen magnum would be useful, or better yet, a femur. Ape fossils are frustratingly rare.

I knew Krantz, all too well. You don't.

He was a dishonest scientist who ignored data that he did not "like".

Giganto was never BF since the jaws DO NOT MATCH.

BF has slender jaw ad seen in PG Film, frames 368.369.370.372.372

Anthropologists are not God and Krantz was the devil.

EB

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
I have one thing to say: Most of your links don't work.
And one thing to ask: What are you on?

LAL:

My links work if accessed via http://www.bigfoot.org

and have you learned to tie your shoes yet?

And do you have a name?

EB

erikbeckjord · 15th June 2005, 11:53 PM

Raleigh yoga instructor who gave $2800 to jan Coy

to feed BF.

erikbeckjord · 16th June 2005, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
I have one thing to say: Most of your links don't work.
And one thing to ask: What are you on?

Why are you so trivial? You some kid?
???????eb

erikbeckjord · 16th June 2005, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Those particular "footprints" might be something else mundane. But pareidolia seems to be your thing, judging from the photos on your website.

You judge too quickly, young Jedi.

Take five hrs and read the entire site.

Footprints are passe.

erikbeckjord · 16th June 2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LAL
It is?
So Voldemort is here, in the flesh........er, post.
You guys wanted a "Bigfoot woo"? You got him.

I have a name and a reality,.

You got nuttin.

14th June 2005, 04:23 AM	#361
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,610	Quote: Originally posted by LAL I wouldn't want the job of classifying it, or even naming it. Should it be Gigantopithecus krantzii, Australopithecus sandersonii, or even Ardepithecus takethatmichaeldennettii? Again, this is one of those things that makes it hard to take bigfoot seriously. Even assuming the evidence for Bigfoot's existence is valid and substantial--which I don't concede--there's not a shred of reason to consider that he'd fall into any of the above genii. In fact, gigantopithecus is probably out completely, as he probably wasn't bipedal. Australopithecines and ardepithecus were much smaller than human beings. Any attempt at classification at this point is purely guesswork and distracts from the need of Bigfootologists to get enough evidence to prove it even exists!
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

14th June 2005, 08:19 PM	#363
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Quote: Originally posted by Cleon Again, this is one of those things that makes it hard to take bigfoot seriously. I wasn't being serious. Quote: Even assuming the evidence for Bigfoot's existence is valid and substantial--which I don't concede--there's not a shred of reason to consider that he'd fall into any of the above genii. In fact, gigantopithecus is probably out completely, as he probably wasn't bipedal. Australopithecines and ardepithecus were much smaller than human beings. Any attempt at classification at this point is purely guesswork and distracts from the need of Bigfootologists to get enough evidence to prove it even exists! George Schaller has a problem with a specialized bamboo-eater making it over the Bering Strait. Krantz thought Gigantopithecus blacki (there was a smaller species as well) was bipedal based on the width of the jaw (wide to allow the passage of a vertical spinal column). It's now thought they were related to Orangutans, but there's really not enough in the way of fossils to establish the mode of locomotion one way or the other. The size seems to match, and it's possible they're an ancestor or a relative, if Sasquatches are not a remnant population. Napier thought Sasquatches could have been descended from A. robustus. There are other possible bipedal ancestors that have been discovered since then. We don't even knoe our own lineage for certain. The consensus (according to Chris Stringer) is that bipedalism was first, k-w a later adaptation in the Great Apes. The size could be an adaptation for cold. As for them evolving from a smaller bipedal ancestor, why not? We did. I don't know of any serious attempts at classification at this point. I personally hate the term "Bigfoot". It's journalese. "Sasquatch" is a corruption of a Salish Indian name for them and is the preferred term in Canada. It's much more dignified, IMO. Since there is no field of "Bigfootology", how are there "Bigfootologists"? I know of no one who's spending full time on this.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

14th June 2005, 08:49 PM	#364
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Quote: How would anyone know anything about what a juvenile looked like, or what the lifespan was? I have absolutely no idea if the creature in the P/G film looks like a juvenile. It looks female. The figure in the MD film looks like a juvenile. It's slim and is running in the first part. It has a kind of lithe, teen-aged look to it. The figure in the Patterson film is solid, heavily muscled, a bit beat up. Quote: If you had never seen a Giraffe before, you might well think a juvenile was an adult, until you saw mom & child together. Some humans are quite big & tall early on. They are not adults, and you might not be able to tell an adult from a juvenile in a film, since the juvenile can be bigger and taller than the adult. Juvenile animals are, hm.........softer, finer. Kind of hard to describe, but it's easy to spot an immature individual
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th June 2005, 03:46 AM	#365
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,610	Quote: Originally posted by LAL Krantz thought Gigantopithecus blacki (there was a smaller species as well) was bipedal based on the width of the jaw (wide to allow the passage of a vertical spinal column). It's now thought they were related to Orangutans, but there's really not enough in the way of fossils to establish the mode of locomotion one way or the other. The size seems to match, and it's possible they're an ancestor or a relative, if Sasquatches are not a remnant population. It's also possible that Sasquatches came off the mothership. Evidence? Zilch. Quote: Napier thought Sasquatches could have been descended from A. robustus. There are other possible bipedal ancestors that have been discovered since then. We don't even knoe our own lineage for certain. The consensus (according to Chris Stringer) is that bipedalism was first, k-w a later adaptation in the Great Apes. The size could be an adaptation for cold. Which is why theorizing about Bigfoot's lineage is about as logical as theorizing about what makes the Enterprise's warp drive tick. Quote: I don't know of any serious attempts at classification at this point. I personally hate the term "Bigfoot". It's journalese. "Sasquatch" is a corruption of a Salish Indian name for them and is the preferred term in Canada. It's much more dignified, IMO. Dignified? You're kidding, right?
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

15th June 2005, 04:30 AM	#366
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Quote: Originally posted by Cleon It's also possible that Sasquatches came off the mothership. Evidence? Zilch. There's less evidence for the mothership. Quote: Which is why theorizing about Bigfoot's lineage is about as logical as theorizing about what makes the Enterprise's warp drive tick. If Krantz was correct, there's good reason to assume a relationship. If nothing else, Giganto proves primates can get that large. Primates come in all sorts of weird shapes and a variety of sizes and lifestyles. The Bili apes are huge, and though they're chimpanzees (according to Sarmiento, et al) they seem to have a Gorilla-like lifestyle. Not many were expecting a new Great Ape species in Africa. Gorillas were thought to be a native myth until they were discovered by whites. Quote: Dignified? You're kidding, right? As I said, it's more dignified than "Bigfoot". That's not to say it's dignified. How about the Cree name for them? It's "mamemgishe", but who can spell it?
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

14th June 2005, 08:22 AM	#362
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,755	Quote: Originally posted by LAL I've given you the names of several well-respected scientists who have reached the conclusion they're a real animal based on the evidence. The lifespan is a good guess based on the lifespans of other great apes. Does the Patterson creature look like a juvenile? What evidence? I haven't seen anything I would call good evidence. Certainly nothing to justify saying Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus Blacki, and claiming GB was bipedal so it could fit the story. I have seen precious little to justify any scientist doing any more than continuing to look on sceptically. Quote: Though no skeletal remains had been found, Dr. Krantz proposed that the North American footprints alone could be used to describe this species, and cited other non-skeletal material used to describe fossil species as precedent. He further proposed that the footprints found and cast be referred to as Gigantopithecus blacki, with the caveat that classification could be adjusted as needed should future evidence suggest it. How would anyone know anything about what a juvenile looked like, or what the lifespan was? I have absolutely no idea if the creature in the P/G film looks like a juvenile. It looks female. If you had never seen a Giraffe before, you might well think a juvenile was an adult, until you saw mom & child together. Some humans are quite big & tall early on. They are not adults, and you might not be able to tell an adult from a juvenile in a film, since the juvenile can be bigger and taller than the adult.

15th June 2005, 05:56 AM	#367
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Quote: Originally posted by LAL If Krantz was correct... <snip> Is Krantz correct?
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

15th June 2005, 06:31 AM	#368
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,610	Quote: Originally posted by LAL There's less evidence for the mothership. Not by a whole lot. Quote: If Krantz was correct, there's good reason to assume a relationship. That's a mighty big "if." Quote: As I said, it's more dignified than "Bigfoot". That's not to say it's dignified. How about the Cree name for them? It's "mamemgishe", but who can spell it? Who gives a dingle-dong about "dignified?" "Dignified" should not enter into discussions of what are probably mythological beings. Even if he was real, who cares? Call him Bigfoot, call him Sasquatch, or call him what homo erectus probably said when they ran into gigantopithecus. ("Oh, $%^&!"--at least, according to paleoanthropologist Alan Walker.) (And mangling a Native language might be more dignified for the Big Guy, but not so much for the Salish.)
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

15th June 2005, 10:35 AM	#369
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,755	Quote: The figure in the MD film looks like a juvenile. It's slim and is running in the first part. It has a kind of lithe, teen-aged look to it. Lithe, teen aged look? Like Lance Armstrong? Gwen Stefani? Not like Shaquille O'neill, then? There are all sorts of differently shaped and sized adult and juvenile humans. Tall, short, chunky, skinny, petite, etc.

15th June 2005, 11:59 AM	#370
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325	edit edit
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325

15th June 2005, 12:04 PM	#371
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325	Quote: Originally posted by Beady "We are the Galileo, Louis Pasteur,Wright Bros, Columbus of the Bigfoot world." It's been my experience that anyone who compares himself to Galileo can safely be bet against. Well my dear, I do have a compliment for you. (first, though, what IS your experience? You could be 14.) Compliment --- you stated that maybe photos are sharp, but of a fuzzy thing... this is RIGHT ON! BF as a shapeshifter, is shifting alla time,,, and maybe 100,000 times per sec. So, BRAVA!!!!!!! EB NOW GO SEE NEW BF TOPIC ABOVE IN LIST.
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325

15th June 2005, 12:14 PM	#372
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325	edit [edit
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325

15th June 2005, 12:16 PM	#373
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,610	Re: Reply from he who was attacked Quote: Originally posted by erikbeckjord yes, cameras may get good photos of a FUZZY BEING.. as shapeshifters, they may shift at 100,000/sec and so appear fuzzy to us This merits only one reasonable response.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

15th June 2005, 12:22 PM	#374
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Since I'm BronzeDog, and haven't used that emoticon yet, I think I'll go ahead and follow in Cleon's footsteps: Attempts to regain composure Prove he exists before you speculate about his alleged shapeshifting abilities.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

15th June 2005, 12:33 PM	#375
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325	Quote: Originally posted by BronzeDog Since I'm BronzeDog, and haven't used that emoticon yet, I think I'll go ahead and follow in Cleon's footsteps: Attempts to regain composure Prove he exists before you speculate about his alleged shapeshifting abilities. Let's use some sense and some science. You cannot prove a supernatural being exists for there are no tests for that. All you can do is to note WHAT IT DOES that is supernatural Like going invisible (happened to me) Like having trtacks start and stop in snow (to me and five others) Like telepathy (to me and three others or more) As for your mien, which are you, Curley or Moe? (of the three stooges) (for the prize, tell me the third stooge) email me. EB
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325

15th June 2005, 12:43 PM	#376
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Quote: Originally posted by erikbeckjord [b]Let's use some sense and some science. You cannot prove a supernatural being exists for there are no tests for that. All you can do is to note WHAT IT DOES that is supernatural You're asking me to use science, but you also say I can't test for the existence of Bigfoot? You can hypothetically prove the existence of a supernatural being: Pass the James Randi Educational Foundation Paranormal Challenge. But you're probably too close-minded to be interested in testing. As for invisibility: Pink unicorns can do the same. I've seen one in my back yard do it. Same for telepathy.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

15th June 2005, 12:49 PM	#377
Ripley Twenty-Nine Muse Join Date: May 2005 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 867	Quote: Originally posted by erikbeckjord Let's use some sense and some science. snip Like going invisible (happened to me) Like having trtacks start and stop in snow (to me and five others) Like telepathy (to me and three others or more) Oh my. Quote: As for your mien, which are you, Curley or Moe? (of the three stooges) (for the prize, tell me the third stooge) {INSERT JOKE HERE}
	__________________ Ripley 29 "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?" "Yes I would, Kent."

15th June 2005, 12:52 PM	#378
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,610	Come, Ripley, join the Holy Order of the Laughing Dog...You know you want to.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

15th June 2005, 01:07 PM	#379
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325	Davoman needs glasses. Quote: Originally posted by DavoMan While searching for this video, I came accross a brilliant example of how people are already reading into stills of the footage & making up woo explanations for what they see: http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/sulphurbf.html Please do not talk as if you were an expert on this. You never saw the video, you never visited me, you never saw the photos from the video nor the digital info on a high value screen. Also I note you are criticising me without telling of this forum.In essence, talking behind my back. eb .
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325

15th June 2005, 01:14 PM	#380
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Skimmed some of the websites and I'm underwhelmed by all the photos. Even with stuff circled, I don't see anything that can't be explained by pareidolia. Maybe you should get some higher resolution pictures, so the close-ups will be something other than indistinct blobs.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

15th June 2005, 01:25 PM	#381
Ripley Twenty-Nine Muse Join Date: May 2005 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 867	Quote: Originally posted by Cleon Come, Ripley, join the Holy Order of the Laughing Dog...You know you want to. Must.... resist......... Getting...... so weak..... Accessing http://www.beckjord.com.... Oh hell.
	__________________ Ripley 29 "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?" "Yes I would, Kent."

15th June 2005, 01:28 PM	#382
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325	Quote: Originally posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine Must.... resist......... Getting...... so weak..... Accessing http://www.beckjord.com.... Oh hell. Your momma says it is time to turn off computer and go beddy-bye.
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325

15th June 2005, 01:33 PM	#383
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325	Quote: Originally posted by BronzeDog Skimmed some of the websites and I'm underwhelmed by all the photos. Even with stuff circled, I don't see anything that can't be explained by pareidolia. Maybe you should get some higher resolution pictures, so the close-ups will be something other than indistinct blobs. 1) fyi, bigfoot does not pose for you. 2) what you see is damn lucky . You can't just go out and get high defi photos of A SHAPESHIFTER...(as someone noted on this forum....) and the camera was good qual 35mm. f1.8 lens, 50 mm. Range 235 feet. On a tripod yet. ASA 200. It shifts at more than 1/10.000 sec so you cannot get freeze frame. (exception - Patterson Film). What did you think these are? A panda ? A chimp? A cow? 3) Pareidolia is a BS term and it is not valid. Ditto Similaricum (spell). eb
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325

15th June 2005, 01:37 PM	#384
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Quote: Originally posted by erikbeckjord 3) Pareidolia is a BS term and it is not valid. So, are you saying that the cloud I once saw that looked exactly like Evangelion 02 actually was a message from Studio Gainax, the makers of Neon Genesis Evangelion?
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

15th June 2005, 01:51 PM	#385
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,610	Quote: Originally posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine Must.... resist......... Getting...... so weak..... Accessing http://www.beckjord.com.... Oh hell. Chhhh-prrrrr....Welcome to the dark side....Chhhhh-prrrrrr This thread is going to get really, really funny when LAL gets back.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

15th June 2005, 02:01 PM	#386
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325	Quote: Originally posted by BronzeDog So, are you saying that the cloud I once saw that looked exactly like Evangelion 02 actually was a message from Studio Gainax, the makers of Neon Genesis Evangelion? No. However it may have been (I was not there) a temporary image made of water vapour, that changed ten sec later. I have somewhere on my sites a rainbow taken in Maui that has two demon-type heads RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE, and I once got shots of a Christ in the Clouds image on the day the Gulf War II started. Ten min later they changed to reg clouds. (Of course)
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325

15th June 2005, 02:07 PM	#387
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Quote: Originally posted by erikbeckjord No. However it may have been (I was not there) a temporary image made of water vapour, that changed ten sec later. I have somewhere on my sites a rainbow taken in Maui that has two demon-type heads RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE, and I once got shots of a Christ in the Clouds image on the day the Gulf War II started. Ten min later they changed to reg clouds. (Of course) So, you saw stuff in clouds. That's pareidolia. If I had my camera I could have photographed it and preserved its "Eva 02ness" Is it too much of a stretch that shadows, leaves, depressions in the ground, etcetera, could look like fuzzy apes and footprints?
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

15th June 2005, 03:14 PM	#388
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325	Quote: Originally posted by BronzeDog So, you saw stuff in clouds. That's pareidolia. If I had my camera I could have photographed it and preserved its "Eva 02ness" Is it too much of a stretch that shadows, leaves, depressions in the ground, etcetera, could look like fuzzy apes and footprints? No. Not pareidolia. That term implies there is no real image of a real thing. I say it is there., albeit briefly, put there by spiritual entities, FOR YOU TO SEE. Happened on my grandma's death, and many times as omens to not go to certain places I was headed for. Each time, it was right and I was right to have turned back. Clouds, like water and like rocks, or cliffs, are an easel for spirits to work with. Now, are you saying that Bigfoot rracks I followed for three miles in snow are fake images? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Youse guys be nutz.
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325

15th June 2005, 03:16 PM	#389
Bronze Dog Copper Alloy Canid Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Homebrew D&D Campaign Setting Posts: 5,007	Those particular "footprints" might be something else mundane. But pareidolia seems to be your thing, judging from the photos on your website.
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel

15th June 2005, 07:15 PM	#390
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Quote: Originally posted by BronzeDog Is Krantz correct? He was an anthropologist. He had as good a chance of being right as anybody. Giganto is known from a couple of jaws and a thousand teeth. A foramen magnum would be useful, or better yet, a femur. Ape fossils are frustratingly rare.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th June 2005, 07:29 PM	#391
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Quote: Originally posted by Cleon Chhhh-prrrrr....Welcome to the dark side....Chhhhh-prrrrrr This thread is going to get really, really funny when LAL gets back. It is? So Voldemort is here, in the flesh........er, post. You guys wanted a "Bigfoot woo"? You got him.
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th June 2005, 08:00 PM	#392
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,797	[quote]Originally posted by erikbeckjord [b]I spotted the spoor of a Bigfoot back in 1970, when I was a student at Miskatonic University, in Arkham, Mass. On a brisk December morn, oh yes, I remember it well. Professor Cristopher Robin pointed out that a suspicious tract had appeared across the virgin field of snow in front of of us. He claimed it to be words from the original Wholey Babble, but I demurred. "It is a spoor of the Sasquatch or Big Foot," I demurred, redundently. "Besides, it's track, not tract." "But it's a mere 19 centimeters long!", he apostrophised! "Must be a baby Bigfoot." This dedicated to Wayne Tytell, who first told this joke.

15th June 2005, 08:15 PM	#393
LAL Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Waynesville,NC Posts: 3,257	Quote: Originally posted by erikbeckjord 1) fyi, bigfoot does not pose for you. 2) what you see is damn lucky . You can't just go out and get high defi photos of A SHAPESHIFTER...(as someone noted on this forum....) and the camera was good qual 35mm. f1.8 lens, 50 mm. Range 235 feet. On a tripod yet. ASA 200. It shifts at more than 1/10.000 sec so you cannot get freeze frame. (exception - Patterson Film). What did you think these are? A panda ? A chimp? A cow? 3) Pareidolia is a BS term and it is not valid. Ditto Similaricum (spell). eb I have one thing to say: Most of your links don't work. And one thing to ask: What are you on?
	__________________ Lu https://librarylu.wordpress.com/

15th June 2005, 10:26 PM	#394
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,755	LAL, you are no longer a bigfoot woo-woo in my book.

15th June 2005, 11:49 PM	#395
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325	Quote: Originally posted by LAL He was an anthropologist. He had as good a chance of being right as anybody. Giganto is known from a couple of jaws and a thousand teeth. A foramen magnum would be useful, or better yet, a femur. Ape fossils are frustratingly rare. I knew Krantz, all too well. You don't. He was a dishonest scientist who ignored data that he did not "like". Giganto was never BF since the jaws DO NOT MATCH. BF has slender jaw ad seen in PG Film, frames 368.369.370.372.372 Anthropologists are not God and Krantz was the devil. EB
erikbeckjord Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 325