kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Welcome to the JREF. Poetry we got. Reliable evidence of bigfoot, not so much.
Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters
- Thread starter desertyeti
- Start date
- Status
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Since not all the posts are indexed and doing a search on this board is a nightmare, I have neither time nor inclination to do the search. It may have been on the Bigfoot:Serious Not Follies thread. I'm not sure.
Since he posted the article, he should know which one it was. On BFF Rick Noll mentioned Grover was in a lot of pain (he was dying of pancreatic cancer) and some sceptics took advantage of this when he really didn't want to talk about anything. This of course, got dismissed as an appeal to pity. Now who would have said a rotten thing like that?
I'm tired of looking up what people have said. They know what they said. Let them supply the links.
RayG
Master Poster
I don't recall quoting anything Dr. Krantz said in direct relation to the Skookum Cast, let alone repeatedly, so I'll have to assert that LAL is mistaken.
It may prove difficult if I don't recall (or if I didn't actually post what you claim I did). If you are unable or unwilling to provide any links, maybe you should withdraw the claim.
Please provide your evidence that skeptics took advantage of Grover being in a lot of pain/dying.
If you present an appeal to pity, it's not rotten to point it out.
And I'm tired of people making claims without providing links to support those claims.
RayG
carcharodon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 375
Lu is only expressing the truth. You took it upon yourself to stalk me in every thread I posted in, after I was initially very cordial to you, pulling me up on any point you deemed unsavoury, yet totally ignored similar activity by your scoftic chums. Can I say two faced kitakaze?
What crap did I let fly? You initiated it by stalking me. You were the one who resorted to reporting me to the mods for unsavoury language ("go choke!", "shove it up your arse" etc etc) then you shortly after called me a spaz and other such wondrous and highly intelligant things. What exactly did I have to 'endure'? Did I give a flying fig about your follow on activity? Nope, I merely chuckled at it and farted in your general direction, which is all you deserve.
No, you don't put people on ignore. You just snitch and report them.........and then YOUR YOURSELF resort to the very same thing that you have reported the person in question for. Only difference is that the person you reported is above doing likewise and resorting to snitching and calling teacher and he just let you get on with being a hypocrite and dig your own grave. Like an obsessed troll, you continue on with your one man vendetta even to this day as your recent posts prove.
Behave like what? Because I told you to "go choke" when you were being a complete pain in the arse stalking me from thread to thread looking and waiting to highlight certain things that you took it upon yourself to cry about when nobody else gave a damn or bitched about it?? LOL. Better to tell someone to "go and choke" than be like some others here who accuse posters of things they have not said and not done and then refuse to correct themselves later and to acknowledge their mistakes and be man enough to say they got it wrong. But of course, that is not important in your eyes. Telling people to "go choke" is a far bigger crime in the twisted world of Kitakaze, the self appointed God and regulator of the Bigfoot threads here.
What a completely pathetic, sad, petty individual you are Kitakaze. A wannabe moderator who in reality is a nevergonnabe no mark. Life is full of miserable nerks like you. Fortunately, I usually manage to avoid them for the most part in my everyday existance.
Last edited:
carcharodon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 375
I'll ask the question again. What proof is there that the above mentioned tracks were made in the manner that DY will claim they are? We will only have his word for it. Unless we have footage of each track actually being made how can it be proven said tracks were made in said manner???
carcharodon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 375
BH's whole story is inconsistent, full of holes and with little or nothing to substantiate it. The inconsistencies are major and highly damaging to his claim.
P&G's story (conversely) is consistent and persuasive and has a great deal to substantiate it. The inconsistencies are minor and non damaging to their claim.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
The foot! I want the foot!
I think what's going on here is what I thought was going on last time, but this time it really is obvious. I'm following Huntster's wise advice for now, however.
Welcome back, good buddy. I do have the link to the flame war if anyone wants it. Are the guidelines suspended there? Some of what was said to you looked pretty far beyond them to me.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
"I wonder if anybody here knew that Grover Krantz was originally called into the investigation of the Kenniwick man but was later dropped because of his affiliation and writings on Bigfoot. The government knew that the topic would be very contoversial and that they didn't want any complications especially with First Nations tribal members being able to call into question his prior work.
Reconstruction of living beings from bone fragments was one of his jobs. I think he was pretty good at it, at least no one is making claims of errors on his part in that area of his work.
I talked with him extensively on the Giganto reconstruction and both he and Daris Swindler agree the most likely canidate is Giganto. There apparently was enough time between the age of the Giganto bones found and contemporary reports of Bigfoot to allow for evolution, so bipedalism did not have to be evident right at that moment. Daris had nothing but good things to say about Grover.
Daegling is qouted in his own book on Bigfoot as saying that the advocates have something of a coup (sic) with getting Daris's comments concerning the Skookum cast. Daegling and others approached Grover towards the end of his illness and questioned him on the Skookum cast but Grover was in so much pain that he didn't want to talk about anything. They took that to mean that he did not endorse the cast or find, but I have it on tape and in his own writings that he believed otherwise.
What a shame to try an promote their ideas and concerns onto a very sick man. A correction for this will be forthcomming though." -DDA
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=8217&view=findpost&p=163814
Reconstruction of living beings from bone fragments was one of his jobs. I think he was pretty good at it, at least no one is making claims of errors on his part in that area of his work.
I talked with him extensively on the Giganto reconstruction and both he and Daris Swindler agree the most likely canidate is Giganto. There apparently was enough time between the age of the Giganto bones found and contemporary reports of Bigfoot to allow for evolution, so bipedalism did not have to be evident right at that moment. Daris had nothing but good things to say about Grover.
Daegling is qouted in his own book on Bigfoot as saying that the advocates have something of a coup (sic) with getting Daris's comments concerning the Skookum cast. Daegling and others approached Grover towards the end of his illness and questioned him on the Skookum cast but Grover was in so much pain that he didn't want to talk about anything. They took that to mean that he did not endorse the cast or find, but I have it on tape and in his own writings that he believed otherwise.
What a shame to try an promote their ideas and concerns onto a very sick man. A correction for this will be forthcomming though." -DDA
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=8217&view=findpost&p=163814
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Hey Rimmer, welcome back. How's the drum lessons coming? Sorry, nobody's kept the big pussy monster thread warm for you. Come on, admit it. You missed us, didn't you? You saucey cat.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
They disagreed about the length of the arms, Roger said the horse fell on him, Gimlin said it didn't. Big deal. They disagreed with each other. Heironimus disagreed with himself.
Found this video with Bob Titmus, and, for those who still think it's myth, there's an interview with Marjorie Halpin about that:
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-69-1462-9718/life_society/myths_and_legends/
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
The nickname. It's clear from the flame war what that refers to. I'd edit it out, if I were you.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
"What Gimlin did is not analogous to what BH has done:
First, because Gimlin has freely and deliberately / knowingly contradicted his supposed partner in crime. If he really was a partner in crime, he wouldn't have done so. In a roundabout way, this actually authenticates the PGF. You have to have (and ought to acquire if you lack) a corkscrew mind to engage in such roundabout thinking. (Gimlin was also contradicting RP from day one about various details of the event, to his face, in simultaneous interviews, deliberately. It wasn't as though he's been "caught out" the way BH has been by me and others.)
Second, Gimlin's error about the horse not falling is the sort of error that witnesses tend to make in the classic staged classroom-intruder event--a fast-moving, unexpected, action-packed, stressful, brief occurrence. Errors are to be expected in such scenarios. And Gimlin's error was only one of degree--a horse can half-fall, with its lower legs buckled so that the rider slides off backwards and sideways, allowing his foot to get squashed by the horse's lower rib cage unseen by the other witness. What BH has committed are errors of a different sort--errors about lengthier and non-stressful and yes/no events (i.e., not matters of degree), like a right turn vs. a left turn, or whether there were one or two suit try-ons, or whether or not his employer was on strike, or whether there were two or three horses present, or whether the suit's body was split at the waist or up the back.
Third, BH's errors are more numerous.
Fourth, BH's errors are more crucial. The business about the horse falling / not falling is peripheral to whether P&G saw a real BF. At worst it impugns their credibility--actually only RP's--if he was "dramatizing" the event. But he was so shifty by nature, he might have done so on principle, even if the event had been real. But BH's getting the turns and towns and distances so badly wrong is crucial to whether he was ever there at all. (And some of his mistakes are ones only a phony claimant would have made, like thinking the turnoff from Route 99 (now I-5) to 96 was at Yreka, because it looked that way on an erroneous map from the Chamber of Commerce (or on a large-scale map of the general area).)
Fifth, BH's instances of poor memory are self-serving, such as his failure to remember his suit show-offs to his buddies (370-71 & 405). And his behavior when he changes his story displays shiftiness, which is suspicious. (E.g., his rewording of his confidentiality pledge to Patterson from "don't tell anyone" to "don't tell the media" (on the Skeptical Sunday interview).)
Sixth, as I keep repeating, I'm not (IN THIS THREAD) claiming that P&G didn't hoax the film, only that if they did, BH wasn't part of it. So it doesn't matter how many holes there may be in P&G's story; that's irrelevant to the point at issue HERE!!!
Seventh, it's true that to some extent I go easier on P&G than BH. That's mostly because I think the film is such strong evidence on its own, based on objective (measurable) considerations, or potentially measurable matters, like body proportions and gait and calf-bulging. BH's case OTOH rests crucially on his believability as a witness. There was only one of him, and he has no supporting evidence. He has no photo of his suit, no postal receipt for the film, no payroll stub showing short wages for the first week of Oct. (Funny he didn't keep it--or that he didn't ask the motel for a Xerox of its logbook page as possible evidence, a few years after the event.) It's not as crucial to P&G's case that their memory be reliable, so their mistakes aren't as harp-worthy.
============
BTW, BH's one piece of evidence, the his supposed Bigfoot-suit-possession, actually counts against him, because I've located witnesses (Garry Record, Les Lenington, and Don Trammel) who saw it (or heard tell of it--Jerry Kilpatrick) outside the allowable one-day time-frame, and the four witnesses whom Long claims did see it on that day actually count against BH:
one of them (John Miller) is on record as providing NO details of it (despite putting on its head and (no doubt) pawing over it); and is unwilling to be interviewed by me or Nat. Geo. ("very bashful");
a second (B. Hammermeister) told me he'd seen it at least a year after RP had retrieved it (before he realized the implication of what he'd said 10 days later and changed the date--which is even more suspicious, to me);
a third (M. Warehime) has recanted to me that he saw it, after I kept pressing him for witnesses who'd also seen it;
a fourth (Opal H.) displayed the suit to Trammel long after RP had supposedly retrieved it."-RogerKni
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=4395&view=findpost&p=364226
Here's this little gem from Greg at the top of the page:
"As I've said before , the BH case appears weak evidentially..
Long would have done well not to have included it in the book.."
First, because Gimlin has freely and deliberately / knowingly contradicted his supposed partner in crime. If he really was a partner in crime, he wouldn't have done so. In a roundabout way, this actually authenticates the PGF. You have to have (and ought to acquire if you lack) a corkscrew mind to engage in such roundabout thinking. (Gimlin was also contradicting RP from day one about various details of the event, to his face, in simultaneous interviews, deliberately. It wasn't as though he's been "caught out" the way BH has been by me and others.)
Second, Gimlin's error about the horse not falling is the sort of error that witnesses tend to make in the classic staged classroom-intruder event--a fast-moving, unexpected, action-packed, stressful, brief occurrence. Errors are to be expected in such scenarios. And Gimlin's error was only one of degree--a horse can half-fall, with its lower legs buckled so that the rider slides off backwards and sideways, allowing his foot to get squashed by the horse's lower rib cage unseen by the other witness. What BH has committed are errors of a different sort--errors about lengthier and non-stressful and yes/no events (i.e., not matters of degree), like a right turn vs. a left turn, or whether there were one or two suit try-ons, or whether or not his employer was on strike, or whether there were two or three horses present, or whether the suit's body was split at the waist or up the back.
Third, BH's errors are more numerous.
Fourth, BH's errors are more crucial. The business about the horse falling / not falling is peripheral to whether P&G saw a real BF. At worst it impugns their credibility--actually only RP's--if he was "dramatizing" the event. But he was so shifty by nature, he might have done so on principle, even if the event had been real. But BH's getting the turns and towns and distances so badly wrong is crucial to whether he was ever there at all. (And some of his mistakes are ones only a phony claimant would have made, like thinking the turnoff from Route 99 (now I-5) to 96 was at Yreka, because it looked that way on an erroneous map from the Chamber of Commerce (or on a large-scale map of the general area).)
Fifth, BH's instances of poor memory are self-serving, such as his failure to remember his suit show-offs to his buddies (370-71 & 405). And his behavior when he changes his story displays shiftiness, which is suspicious. (E.g., his rewording of his confidentiality pledge to Patterson from "don't tell anyone" to "don't tell the media" (on the Skeptical Sunday interview).)
Sixth, as I keep repeating, I'm not (IN THIS THREAD) claiming that P&G didn't hoax the film, only that if they did, BH wasn't part of it. So it doesn't matter how many holes there may be in P&G's story; that's irrelevant to the point at issue HERE!!!
Seventh, it's true that to some extent I go easier on P&G than BH. That's mostly because I think the film is such strong evidence on its own, based on objective (measurable) considerations, or potentially measurable matters, like body proportions and gait and calf-bulging. BH's case OTOH rests crucially on his believability as a witness. There was only one of him, and he has no supporting evidence. He has no photo of his suit, no postal receipt for the film, no payroll stub showing short wages for the first week of Oct. (Funny he didn't keep it--or that he didn't ask the motel for a Xerox of its logbook page as possible evidence, a few years after the event.) It's not as crucial to P&G's case that their memory be reliable, so their mistakes aren't as harp-worthy.
============
BTW, BH's one piece of evidence, the his supposed Bigfoot-suit-possession, actually counts against him, because I've located witnesses (Garry Record, Les Lenington, and Don Trammel) who saw it (or heard tell of it--Jerry Kilpatrick) outside the allowable one-day time-frame, and the four witnesses whom Long claims did see it on that day actually count against BH:
one of them (John Miller) is on record as providing NO details of it (despite putting on its head and (no doubt) pawing over it); and is unwilling to be interviewed by me or Nat. Geo. ("very bashful");
a second (B. Hammermeister) told me he'd seen it at least a year after RP had retrieved it (before he realized the implication of what he'd said 10 days later and changed the date--which is even more suspicious, to me);
a third (M. Warehime) has recanted to me that he saw it, after I kept pressing him for witnesses who'd also seen it;
a fourth (Opal H.) displayed the suit to Trammel long after RP had supposedly retrieved it."-RogerKni
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=4395&view=findpost&p=364226
Here's this little gem from Greg at the top of the page:
"As I've said before , the BH case appears weak evidentially..
Long would have done well not to have included it in the book.."
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Well, I'm not you and I think I'll let it stay seeing as how it's originally a reference to this fellow...
...a very apt comparison, I'd say. Of course you would have had to read the flame war to know that in the first place. There's a reason why it's accessible by members only, you know. You're welcome to report it if you find it so offensive but I would say there was a reason why I suggested carcharodon and I remove our back and forth there in the first place. As I recall you were pretty eager to see that exchange and more than ready to call attention to it now. You certainly seem to have an interest in such things.
...a very apt comparison, I'd say. Of course you would have had to read the flame war to know that in the first place. There's a reason why it's accessible by members only, you know. You're welcome to report it if you find it so offensive but I would say there was a reason why I suggested carcharodon and I remove our back and forth there in the first place. As I recall you were pretty eager to see that exchange and more than ready to call attention to it now. You certainly seem to have an interest in such things.
Hi Kitakaze. I am really looking forward to your response to my questions. I think they go directly to the heart of my work.
Hope to hear from you soon
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Ha! Shows what you know. Haven't you heard? Sasquatches are traipsing sea to sea. UK to OZ depending on how you have your filters set.
An interesting conversation at the BFF. I'm curious given carcharodon/Lyndon's comments there and where his filters are set what he makes of Sweaty's Joyce and her New York bigfoot anecdote.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I have no problem with you believing that. It's at odds with what I know, but so what?
Daegling claims that Krantz did not endorse the Skookum cast in the Bigfoot Exposed book, I believe. That may be what Lu is getting at.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Oops. Almost missed you there. You're refering to #1281? Are you looking for general answers or mine specifically?Hi Kitakaze. I am really looking forward to your response to my questions. I think they go directly to the heart of my work.
Hope to hear from you soon
- Status