wvbig Posted September 11, 2008 Author Share Posted September 11, 2008 Who's bluffing? They are NO different than the bigfoot ones. Sorry to that the truth is hard to accept for you, but it's still the truth. The key words to my calling your bluff are "beyond eye witness reports" The second video only shows the area of the tree where some people claim to have seen it. Everybody? I can't. It's flat. I'm not the only one who can't, either:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NoTZ_OUd5w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXQSmD2HWFE It's not only about being flat, or about having no toes, it's about the WAY IT IS BUILT. Look at the videos above, they make very good points. Another point you should consider is that no matter how rare this animal supposedly is, there is no chance in hell that every time someone spots it, a scientist particularly, it results only with far, blurry, unclear images or videos. That makes no sense, unless it's either a hoax. Also, a scientist that proves bigfoot exists; or, for that matter, that will find and catalog an entirely new species, will win such high prestige and recognition (and prizes, and money) that there's no logic in thinking scientists are just 'not interested'. If there were actual proofs to convince anyone that there's even a POINT to start hunting down bigfoot, the entirescientific community that even REMOTELY touches biology and speciation would go. And stop ignoring what you don't want to answer. There has been questions that were raised for your consideration, and instead of answering, you again posted video. So fine, we'll comment on the videos (you know, a simple google search about the SCIENCE behind this would solve your video needs but.. fine..) but YOU stop trolling and nitpicking what you would LIKE to answer, and start dealing with *all* of our questions. That's not evidence, it's interpretative explanation. Evidence would be a skeleton, or a bone structure, or a part of a heel bone. See our problem here? btw, one last thing here -- the fact you chose to relate to "Science" as a thing (?) and seemingly to remove yourself from it ("they.." "by their own people"... ""they choose"... "their pre-conceived notions", etc) raises a serious question: Are you in the right place? You are in a science forums. We are open minded, but we go by the scientific method and demand rigorous proof before we accept theories, be it bigfoot, the pink unicorn or the LHC blowing up the world. If you think that bigfoot is out of the realm of science, or if you dislike "science" so much, and our quest for EVIDENCE (ahem) so much, then I must ask you to consider if you're in the right forum. We will not just accept what you say on the basis of blurry films (that CAN easily be faked) and fantastic assumptions. If you're willing to stand up for your theory with some proof, I will be more than happy to debate this. The ball is in your hands. I never claimed to be a scientist & there is no place on the registration form that asks applicants if they are scientists or not. Just because you say something isn't evidence, doesn't mean it isn't. And as for the youtube videos claiming to prove the Patterson/Gimlin film is fake. The difference at the back of the foot appearing to be much more drastic in the first video than in the second indicates it's partly because of the angle difference between the first & second videos. The lighting in the closeups on the first video is also really bad in black & white. It looks to me like part of the leg is washed out. And I am a formally trained photographer. But in the interest of fairness & open-mindedness, I will send these links to Dr. Meldrum for his opinion on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now