Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LAL]

Wrong Lu. Gimlin said they tracked her for 3.5 miles. So they tracked her for at least as far as 3.5 miles away from the film site.

Ah, now you believe Gimlin. Might as well believe him about everything else then, too.

I don't know that it was 3.5 miles. How did they determine how far it was? Were they carrying odometers? I said they tracked her at least as far as where she crossed the stream. I don't know how far past that they tracked her.

I doubt it. Maybe it was a deer bed. Maybe it wasn't any real sign at all.

And maybe it was what Titmus said it was.

Titmus was also a Bigfooter. His "experience" and "open mind" might be revealed when he declared that by looking at Patty's tracks, he knew it was the same Bigfoot he encountered years earlier. But he never saw the tracks of that Bigfoot. Was he a Bigfoot psychic?

???????? He had a sightings in Alaska and near Kitimat, BC.

He taught Jerry Crew how to cast tracks in 1958.

A photo taken of two Bluff Creek prints that seem to be a match for hers was taken in about 1960.

Many of Bob's casts were lost when his boat sank, but he brought in more than anyone else (according to Murphy).

Is everyone who takes this seriously a "Bigfooter" in your opinion? Sounds like more Shoot the Messenger to me. That seems to be what you guys do best.

 

[Huntster]

William Parcher wrote:
Lyle Laverty arrived on October 21st (the next day) and took photos, but not casts. It is inexplicable why we see so few photos and none that give an overview (wide angle) of the trackway.

Is it "inexplicable"?

As if Laverty expected to come across this situation and carry all the film, batteries, and appropriate camera equipment to satisfy the Great William Parcher some 40 years in the future?

What an idiot..........

Nicely put, Hunster!!

Well, some folks call it "mean". Others call it "aggressive". Others call it "woo".

Frankly, I say it's obvious.

If there WAS an overview picture of the trackway....you know what William and company would have to say about it?
"It doesn't mean anything...ALL the tracks were faked after the filming."

Or some garbage like that.

Not having enough pictures is "inexplicable" and suspicious...

...yet HAVING THE PICTURES is "meaningless".

That's the skeptic's way of analysing evidence. It's all either "meaningless" or "highly suspicious".

Most of the people here aren't "skeptics".

They're idiots.

 

[RayG]

In fact, you'll never accomplish anything with toddlers in tow except playing with toddlers.

Nah, that's why duct tape was invented.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Most of the people here aren't "skeptics".

They're idiots.

Careful now Huntster, some of us resemble that remark.

Ah, it's such a joy when the debate degenerates into mud-slinging, name-calling, dickhead/moron/idiot banter...

Just so I cover all the bases... everybody that has contributed to this topic so far is a big, fat-rumped, pointy-headed, wing-nutted, smarty-panted, poopy head. Neener, neener, boo boo.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hunster wrote:

Most of the people here aren't "skeptics".

They're idiots.

Sorry about that, Hunster. I'll be more careful in the future...when making reference to the idiots.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Sweaty, I understand your plea for patience to respond to posts which are so embarrassing for you. #1480, comments on reliable evidence,

I'll get around to it, someday soon. It's low on my list of priorities.

and a Joyce pitch to Huntster any time you're ready. (That won't be soon,)

Actually, that will be never.
I have neither the time, nor a reason, to try to convince Hunster that Joyce actually saw a Bigfoot.
So, go ahead and cry.

I presented her sighting report...and my conversation with her about it.
People are free to make their own judgements, and weigh the evidence for themselves.

You weighed the evidence as "meaningless", based on your judgement of all the other evidence for Bigfoot as being "weightless".
That is called "circular reasoning".....and it's pure idiocy.

Other people will analyse and weigh the evidence in her report...based on the actual details of the case itself...and undoubtedly will give it some degree of credibility.
That is called "analysis"....and is an intelligent way of dealing with the evidence.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Most of the people here aren't "skeptics".

They're idiots.

Careful now Huntster, some of us resemble that remark.

Ray, you're a true skeptic.

Not an idiot, and not a "skeptic".

Ah, it's such a joy when the debate degenerates into mud-slinging, name-calling, dickhead/moron/idiot banter...

Sometimes.......

It all depends on who you're wrasslin' in the mud with.........

Just so I cover all the bases... everybody that has contributed to this topic so far is a big, fat-rumped, pointy-headed, wing-nutted, smarty-panted, poopy head. Neener, neener, boo boo.

Absolutely not!

Just me and the usual host of Huntster-attackies.............

Fools, all..........

 

[Huntster]

....I'll be more careful in the future...when making reference to the idiots.

You'd better, or you'll end up like me............

In trouble.........

 

[kitakaze]

So, actually no...meaning no beer? Disappointing.

Actually, I think you are the one being dishonest. At NO time did I say that the separate entries and meanings were from a Tlingit dictionary. What I stated was in post 2073:

Kooshdakhaa and Kushtaka are two separate creatures (or people). They sound similar because both have the word "otter" in them. But in Tlingit, they are separate stories with separate stories. What were discussing yesterday was Kushtaka.

Then I stated in post 2206:

Nope, you are still wrong, but you do seem like a nice person. An easy answer would be to look in a Tlingit language dictionary, which are available, for both words and their definitions.

What I said was that they were separate [characters] with separate stories, and that an easy way for you to prove me wrong was to look in a Tlingit dictionary for both words and see if their definitions were the same.

So, let me restate it again...at no time did I state that I looked in a Tlingit word/language dictionary for the words and their definitions. What I stated is that they each have different stories in Tlingit.

Hairy Man, first I will again post these:

The Kooshdakhaa
No description of the Tlingit would be complete without mentioning the Kooshdakhaa (kû'cta-qa), the dreaded and feared Land Otter People.

These creatures are human from the waist up, and otter-like below. Land otters are excellent fishers. Those who are drowned often marry (and become) land otters, and land otters can assist in drownings. Land otters are sinister and potentially harmful. When properly controlled, however, the land otter can be of great help to humans, such as fishermen whe penetrate the sacred realm beyond social boundaries. Those drowned and married to land otters (and their land otter children) can return to their human relations and assist them, usually by helping them catch abundant supplies of seafood. The land otters can make human children grow tails; they can only eat raw food, for if they eat cooked fish they will die; and as supernatural beings, after being out on the water they must regain land and find shelter before the raven calls or they will die.

[All Tlingit fear drowning. Land otter boogeyman. Helpful kooshda.]

Kushtaka are mythical creatures found in the stories of the Tlingit Indians of Southeastern Alaska. Loosely translated, Kushtaka means, "land otter man".

They are similar to the Nat'ina of the Dan'aina Indians of South Central Alaska, and the Urayuli of the Eskimos in Northern Alaska.

Physically, kushtaka are shape-shifters capable of assuming either human form or the form of an otter. In some accounts, a kushtaka is able to assume the form of any species of otter, in others, only one. Accounts of their behaviour seem to conflict with one another. In some stories, kushtaka are cruel creatures who take delight in tricking poor Tlingit sailors to their deaths. In others, they are friendly and helpful, frequently saving the lost from death by freezing. In many stories, the kushtaka save the lost individual by distracting them with curiously otter-like illusions of their family and friends as they transform their subject into a fellow kushtaka, thus allowing him to survive in the cold. Naturally, this is counted a mixed blessing. However Kushtaka legends are not always pleasant. In some legends it is said the Kushtaka will imitate the cries of a baby or the screams of a woman to lure victims to the river. Once there the Kushtaka either kills the person and tears them to shreds or will turn them into another Kushtaka.

Since the Kushtaka mainly preys on small children, it has been thought by some that it was used by Tlingit mothers to keep their children from wandering close to the ocean by themselves.

And this:

Mixing Traditions in Raincoast Sasquatch.

What I have done is investigated and found that kooshdakhaa/kushtaka/kushtakaa are simply variant renderings of kû'cta-qa and that in all references in this thread we have been speaking of kû'cta-qa and provided support for that claim.

What you have done is to state that kooshdakhaa and kushtaka are separate characters with separate stories without any manner of support and that someone else should decide who was wrong.

I believe that not only have I shown you to be mistaken but to have also dishonestly invented an unsupported claim to account for it. If you can provide evidence here that kooshdakhaa and kushtaka are not variant renderings of kû'cta-qa and the Tlingit regard them as separate characters with separate stories then I will be shown to have been incorrect and will apologize and be accountable for it.

Regarding your heritage you had an opportunity from the beginning to avoid any confusion and clarify that you were part native when I asked you if you consider yourself native by virtue of a relative who is native. Instead you decided to claim offence and persist that you are a Native American. I believe in that case you were being disgenuous.

The reason I consider any of the above of any importance and related to the matter of bigfoot is that I believe I have shown a case of a person who is a professional archaeologist and anthropologist and who has a belief in bigfoot and lectures on the topic influencing others belief to have mishandled and misrepresented facts. This reflects on what you interpret or present as purported evidence of bigfoot. I bear this in mind when you say that you found tracks or may have produced what is characterized as amazing results while call-blasting in the forest. Do you understand how people could see it this way?

 

[LTC8K6]

Meldrum says Titmus cast the trackway 2 weeks later, including the midbroken track.

Wonder if the Patterson and Titmus casts resemble each other?

Did any of Patterson's casts show the break? Oh wait, he only bothered to cast two tracks......

The subject left a long series of deeply impressed footprints. Patterson cast single examples of a right and a left footprint. The next day the site was visited by Robert Laverty, a timber management assistant and his sales crew. He took several photographs including one of a footprint exhibiting a pronounced pressure ridge in the midtarsal region. This same footprint, along with nine others in a series, was cast two weeks later by Bob Titmus, a Canadian taxidermist.

 

[LTC8K6]

It was a good thing we did, because that night when we came back,..

Love to know what Gimlin was about to say.....must have been that it was raining, which would be bad for this story.

Okay, I'll go back a little bit to the casting of the tracks. I rode the big horse. The horse that I was riding was around 1200-1300 pounds. I rode him along side the tracks with this new film in the camera, Roger took pictures of how deep the horse's prints were in the soil compared to the creature's tracks. Then I got up on a stump which was approximately 3 to 4 feet, you know? We didn't measure it, probably should have. Anyway I jumped off with a high heel boot as close to the track as we could. Then we took pictures of that to illustrate the depth that my foot print went into the same dirt with a high heel cowboy boot and at that time I weighed 165 pounds. These were all things that we did prior to leaving the scene. It was a good thing we did, because that night when we came back,.. 'course we were pretty excited about just seeing it and we sat there and talked about it until about 12:30 or one o'clock in the morning.

 

[Huntster]

Love to know what Gimlin was about to say.....must have been that it was raining, which would be bad for this story.

But it was raining.

It rained hard.

 

[kitakaze]

The first paragraph of the mission statement of the Alliance of Independant Bigfoot Researchers:

The Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers is a non-profit organization of individuals dedicated to the research and conservation of the species of animal known to the Native Americans for centuries as "Sasquatch", or more recently by many others, as "Bigfoot."

The etymology of J.W. Burns' neologism 'sasquatch':

The words "Bigfoot" and "Sasquatch" are often used interchangeably, though they have different origins. Formal use of "Sasquatch" can be traced to the 1920s, when the term was coined by J.W. Burns, a school teacher at the Chehalis, British Columbia Indian Reserve, on the Harrison River about 100 kilometres east of Vancouver. Burns collected Native American accounts of large, hairy creatures said to live in the wild. Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark wrote that Burns's "Native American informants called these beasts by various names, including 'sokqueatl' and 'soss-q'tal'" (Coleman and Clark, p. 215). Burns noted the phonetically similar names for the creatures and decided to invent one term for them all.

Over time, Burns's neologism "Sasquatch" came to be used by others, primarily in the Pacific Northwest. In 1929, Maclean's published one of Burns's articles, "Introducing British Columbia's Hairy Giants," which called the large creatures by this term.

The late Smithsonian primatologist John Napier noted that "the term Bigfoot has been in colloquial use since the early 1920's to describe large, unaccountable human-like footprints in the Pacific northwest" (Napier, 74). However, according to Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark, Andrew Genzoli (a columnist and editor at the Humbolt Times) first used "Bigfoot" in print on October 5, 1958 (Coleman and Clark, 39-40).

Hairy Man I'm just wondering if you wrote the mission statement of the non-profit bigfoot organization that you are the Chair of. Also, to date, what reliable evidence of bigfoot has been produced as a result of the efforts of this organization?

 

[kitakaze]

I'll get around to it, someday soon. It's low on my list of priorities.

I can see how making an effort to not be the laughing stock of this thread would be.

Actually, that will be never.
I have neither the time, nor a reason, to try to convince Hunster that Joyce actually saw a Bigfoot.
So, go ahead and cry.

Fallacious statement, you already did. I'm balling, got a tissue? I'm running low.

 

[LAL]

Meldrum says Titmus cast the trackway 2 weeks later, including the midbroken track.

Laverty's crew was actually a surveying crew, not a "sales" crew. Titmus was there nine days later.

Wonder if the Patterson and Titmus casts resemble each other?

I've posted pictures of nine of them.

Did any of Patterson's casts show the break? Oh wait, he only bothered to cast two tracks......

He cast the two "best".

 

[LTC8K6]

But it was raining.

It rained hard.

If it was raining already when they came back that night, that would mean it rained all night on the tracks. Gimlin doesn't cover them until the next morning.

I believe Chris Murphy has the rain beginning at midnight anyway.

If it rained all night on the tracks, then what track did Laverty photograph?

No way it rained for hours on that track before Gimlin covered it. That photo shows what looks like a few light sprinkles to me. It's still crisp.

There is still something very wrong with the story here, imo.

 

[kitakaze]

LAL, the latest question of the Q&A is on what you are basing your surmation that sasquatches possess an intelligence 'about like that of chimps' on.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Fallacious statement, you already did.

Wrong yet again, kitakaze. You're so clueless.

That post of mine was not an attempt at convincing Hunster that Joyce actually saw a Bigfoot.

I was making a point about the skeptic's way of "analysing" Bigfoot evidence.
From my post:

That's the skeptic's way of analysing evidence. It's all either "meaningless" or "highly suspicious".

Another nice example of this type of thinking comes from the "discussion" of Joyce's sighting report.

You're so stoopid.

 

[Mad Hom]

kitakaze wrote:

I'll get around to it, someday soon. It's low on my list of priorities.

Actually, that will be never.
I have neither the time, nor a reason, to try to convince Hunster that Joyce actually saw a Bigfoot.
So, go ahead and cry.

I presented her sighting report...and my conversation with her about it.
People are free to make their own judgements, and weigh the evidence for themselves.

You weighed the evidence as "meaningless", based on your judgement of all the other evidence for Bigfoot as being "weightless".
That is called "circular reasoning".....and it's pure idiocy.

Other people will analyse and weigh the evidence in her report...based on the actual details of the case itself...and undoubtedly will give it some degree of credibility.
That is called "analysis"....and is an intelligent way of dealing with the evidence.

blah blah blah blah blah...everybody is an idiot...blah blah blah...I talked to Joyce on the phone....blah blah blah....I Bleev her.....blah blah Why would she lie.....blah blah blah!!

Ok so I'm just supposed to take her and your word for it?!?! That's just not going to cut it for me there Sweetsy so now tell me again who the idiot is?!?!

Sweetsy you bring so prescious little to this scrum....basically you Bleev someone's 23 year old campfire tale....fine to each his own I guess....but feel free to refrain from calling those not quite as gullible as you...an idiot...it kind of makes you look like that hole found between your butt cheeks.

 

[Mad Hom]

kitakaze wrote:

Wrong yet again, kitakaze. You're so clueless.

That post of mine was not an attempt at convincing Hunster that Joyce actually saw a Bigfoot.

I was making a point about the skeptic's way of "analysing" Bigfoot evidence.
From my post:


You're so stoopid.

Sweets is this all you have???

You're so stoopid

Is that the length and breadth of what it is you can coax out of that useless lump at the end of your neck???

Big Boy List of Reliable Evidence???

Got one yet??