Trelane Posted February 16, 2019 #101 Share Posted February 16, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, papageorge1 said: Apparently the second line in my quote went unread: 'I also consider debunking sources.' . The concept of 'considering' both sides and then leaning one way or the other as more likely apparently was missed in your reading. No I did read it. You might consider them as you state. Your posts illustrate that you largely, if not entirely, ignore the debunking sources as they have proven the outlier BF proponents wrong. Edited February 16, 2019 by Trelane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted February 16, 2019 #102 Share Posted February 16, 2019 20 minutes ago, Trelane said: No I did read it. You might consider them as you state. Your posts illustrate that you largely, if not entirely, ignore the debunking sources as they have proven the outlier BF proponents wrong. ‘Proven’ you say?? I will also ‘consider’ that there might be a bias skew in what you have to tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooksey Posted February 16, 2019 #103 Share Posted February 16, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaden Posted February 16, 2019 #104 Share Posted February 16, 2019 And if I suggested that there might be a bias skew in yours and Meldrums opinion, what then? You act as if we do not want to find any evidence of Bigfoot, which is wrong. Which invalidates your bias claim. Most of us form our opinions on the availability of evidence where as yours is based on want. We find no evidence to support it, so we deem it not to exist. You want it to exist, therefore you ignore all evidence contrary to that opinion. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane Posted February 16, 2019 #105 Share Posted February 16, 2019 1 hour ago, papageorge1 said: ‘Proven’ you say?? I will also ‘consider’ that there might be a bias skew in what you have to tell me. Sounds good, but clearly you haven't read what I've posted previously. I have no bias, I only have my personal experience and opinion. Those items aided with current and available scientific data. I've stated several times that I wish there were something to all this, but unfortunately there isn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted February 16, 2019 #106 Share Posted February 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Trelane said: I only have my personal experience and opinion. Then perhaps restrain from such words as ‘proven the proponents wrong’ was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane Posted February 16, 2019 #107 Share Posted February 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Then perhaps restrain from such words as ‘proven the proponents wrong’ was my point. When I used those words, it was speaking about "anatomical experts" as you like to say, not myself. You are very good at cherry picking and extracting specific items out of context for argument's sake I will give you that. Nice attempt at a redirect though. Back on topic, so are there any other "good" pictures that anyone can provide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted February 16, 2019 #108 Share Posted February 16, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Trelane said: When I used those words, it was speaking about "anatomical experts" as you like to say, not myself. You are very good at cherry picking and extracting specific items out of context for argument's sake I will give you that. Nice attempt at a redirect though. Errrr......I think we have heard enough of each other for this thread. 15 minutes ago, Trelane said: Back on topic, so are there any other "good" pictures that anyone can provide. If you get to be our official judge of ‘good’, then ‘no’. Edited February 16, 2019 by papageorge1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted February 16, 2019 #109 Share Posted February 16, 2019 On 2/15/2019 at 1:25 AM, papageorge1 said: I don't know how you could possibly determine that it's a man in a crap suit. I am more influenced by professionals I have heard that evaluated the film. They said man in a crap suit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted February 16, 2019 #110 Share Posted February 16, 2019 21 hours ago, papageorge1 said: As I said, I am more impressed by the anatomical experts that have commented on this. LOL....that is definitely not my specialized area of expertise. I couldn't even get to second base on Valentine's day. I haven't followed that controversy but years of experience makes me more skeptical of skeptics than serious proponents actually. Can yoou name any of these experts you suggest exist or is this another vague unsubstantiated whimsical claim of yours? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted February 16, 2019 #111 Share Posted February 16, 2019 19 hours ago, papageorge1 said: I consider the opinions of anatomical experts. I consider that more than 'nuttin'. I also consider debunking sources. Please name you experts you suggest exist. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane Posted February 16, 2019 #112 Share Posted February 16, 2019 I am amazed that there hasn't been a clear photo or video from a drone in recent years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted February 16, 2019 #113 Share Posted February 16, 2019 4 hours ago, papageorge1 said: You might not be familiar with how the term 'consider' is being used. I listen to all sides and arguments then form my best judgment. I think the PG film is more likely to be real than fake. And when listening to sources I also consider if they have an apparent emotional like or dislike of a position as I know that may skew what I am going to hear. Unicorns ….No. Faeries and elves are vague terms but may have legitimacy in etheric beings. Etheric beings are in a plane of reality closest to our home physical plane. Such beings can temporarily materialize to the level of being seen. That is my best considered opinion on your 'serious' question. No doubt its a real film. That does not make the subject anything more than a man in a crappy suit. The film is clearly a hoax and it worked. It made some cash and it garnered fame. It fooled a lot of people that pretend to consider all of the sides. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted February 16, 2019 #114 Share Posted February 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Trelane said: I am amazed that there hasn't been a clear photo or video from a drone in recent years. Turns out BF is transparent when viewed from overhead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razumov Posted February 16, 2019 #115 Share Posted February 16, 2019 . . . . . . . . . Actually a fake, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted February 16, 2019 #116 Share Posted February 16, 2019 1 hour ago, stereologist said: They said man in a crap suit. 'They'??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted February 16, 2019 #117 Share Posted February 16, 2019 1 hour ago, stereologist said: Can yoou name any of these experts you suggest exist or is this another vague unsubstantiated whimsical claim of yours? Jeff Meldrum 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razumov Posted February 16, 2019 #118 Share Posted February 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said: Jeff Meldrum No one in Bigfootology gets to claim to be an expert until they FIND SOMETHING. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted February 16, 2019 #119 Share Posted February 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Razumov said: No one in Bigfootology gets to claim to be an expert until they FIND SOMETHING. He was asking for a biologist that supports the Patterson-Gimlin film. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the13bats Posted February 17, 2019 Author #120 Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) The idea of "bigfoot" expert pops up and several of us have given a very good reason there are by definition no bigfoot experts, There were the 4 horsemen of saquatchery but i believe byrne is the last and hes was 90 in 2015, so not wishing ill will on byrne its safe to say 3 went to their graves without proving anything. John green had no credentinals as far as making him an expert at anything he was a newpaper editor, he had passion but was mistaken about many things. Since i have brought up jeff meldrum and now his name was dropped as a person a true beliver labled an "expert" its only fair i clairfy my personal opinion or take on him, he does have degrees in Anatomy and Anthropology of humans, My first hurdle with him is he seems to have a deep passive aggression against anyone who not only doesnt agree with his theories but doesnt hail him, he loves personal attention, and has been the "go to" guy for many years for almost every documentary, i have no idea if true but i read he has such an ego problem he now will not do a show if he doesnt get to say what is or isnt included and stated and he wont do shows with others who do not agree with him, I read producers of that bbc dna trilogy doc didnt want meldrum on board because and i paraphrase they wanted. Unbiased, fresh open minds. He helped perpetuate the misconception that bigfoot is or is a desendant of gigantopithecus blacki which wasnt close to descriptions of bigfoot but rather more an orangutan type, ( please go look that up for yourself ) While i have seen it also listed that he is an expert in "feet" and primate locomotion so it seems odd to me jimmy chilcutt takes credit for clueing in meldrum on dermal ridges, seems meldrum should have known all about them. His epic fail, the snow walker video, he jumped right in saying something to the effect that yep, snow walker is a real creature akin to the pgf creature and his expert calculations placed snow walker at 9ft, so when the studio admitted it was a hoax for a promotion and about 6ft, this was very telling about this so called expert. back to this in a few, I notice meldrum makes everything fit what he already believes, examples include when they camped out on monsterquest they claim something threw rocks on the cabin roof. First how do they know it was rocks being thrown? Meldrum doesnt look at myriad prosaic possibilities, or suggests it could have been bigfoof, no, he jumps to it had to be bigfoot, period nothing else. He uses blown up copies of the copy of the pgf to claim he sees this or that detail or muscle movement that wasnt there in the film to start with, to say it is isnt good honest science. enhancment of the film is just that its embelishment, adding data was never there not hidden but never there, you can only enlarge a film so much, however meldrum will use it in is favor on things he thinks sells it as a real creature dismissing things it shows proving its a man in a suit, like those flat bright feet, yet someone says meldrum in a foot and primate gait expert, really? So when i hear him say in his expertise the snow walker film is a real creature, its as good of proof as the pgf even comparing the creatures and he was 100% wrong about the snow walker video then it is only common sense to apply this to his expert assessments of the pgf and come to the conclusion hes wrong about it the same way he was wrong about snow walker video. These are my views and opinions, if you differ please post your rebuttle... Edited February 17, 2019 by the13bats countless typos 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
openozy Posted February 17, 2019 #121 Share Posted February 17, 2019 1 minute ago, the13bats said: saquatchery LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
openozy Posted February 17, 2019 #122 Share Posted February 17, 2019 4 hours ago, Razumov said: . . . . . . . . . Actually a fake, sorry.No,its my ex indigenous girlfriend at an Australia Day rally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted February 17, 2019 #123 Share Posted February 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, the13bats said: He helped perpetuate the misconception that bigfoot is or is a desendant of gigantopithecus blacki which wasnt close to descriptions of bigfoot but rather more an orangutan type, ( please go look that up for yourself ) Krantz was actually the one who heavily promoted the "Bigfoot-is-Gigantopithecus" hypothesis in the first place. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the13bats Posted February 17, 2019 Author #124 Share Posted February 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, Carnoferox said: Krantz was actually the one who heavily promoted the "Bigfoot-is-Gigantopithecus" hypothesis in the first place. Sure but krantz passed in 2002 and hadnt been all that active his last few years before that, krantz believed it for his reasons at the time, meldrum just made it fit and ran with it, i didnt include my take on krantz in my run down because he is passed, and i kind of liked the old bird, didnt agree with him, to cut it short if anyone, i dont care what their credentials are base their belief of bigfoot only on the pgf i view them as a lost cause, the film proves zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the13bats Posted February 17, 2019 Author #125 Share Posted February 17, 2019 23 minutes ago, openozy said: LOL Not my word...they called themselves that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now