Ditto. My spelling gets terrible when my brain gets ahead of my fingers.Sorry Lu, but I think this is classic LAL 101.
Okay, drop the attitude, please. I'm not Lyndon and I'm not in the mood.
You might as well have said, "I saw a BF video one time that was really compelling." If you're not going to state the reason he put an end to your scoffing then why even bring it up.
I think I've mentioned it before. I'm not overly inclined to subject my friend's experience to the usual ridicule that goes on on this board.
It's just rattling the tackle box for anyone listening to you.There's no reason to bemoan your weariness to me as it's non sequitur.
It doesn't have to do with weariness, it has to to with the ground cover springing back and not showing tracks. I haven't caught up with this thread yet, but I did see there was something about Marmot studies.
I was asking you why ongoing field research of one of the world's rarest mammals and Canada's most endangered animal species, the Vancouver Island Marmot, has not produced reliable evidence of sasquatch.
I haven't read the posts so I really don't know what's going on with the Marmot studies.
Evidently the search for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker hasn't either.
You replied asking if they study at night which prompted my above response.
There's a far greater chance of a sighting at night. If they're not specifically looking for sas sign they might miss it.
"Oh, look at all the twisted branches."
"Yeah. I wonder what caused that?"
"That depression kind of looks like a footprint doesn't it?"
"Yeah. Weird."
"Okay, let's move on."
Your complaint has nothing to do with the subject.
Picky, picky.
Wait, I don't get it.Which tracker is that and to what tracks do you refer?
It was a tracker called in on the Umatilla events in 1982, probably Joel Hardin.
Fair enough. Do they have any reliable evidence of sasquatch?
I think so.
It's not a big deal, it just seemed to be the case.Rattling the tackle box. You'd think all those sasquatches in Iowa would have come to the attention of wildlife officials by now.
I know nothing about evidence from Iowa. There've been some reports from there. Iowa has wilderness. That's all I know.
Why? Because Chilcutt said so?
Do you have any idea how good this guy is?
Ever considered joining an expedition in that general area?
I was half of one last summer. The researchers here are few and far between and with conflicting work schedules, money troubles, last minute cancellations and illnesses we haven't even been able to get together for dinner this year. A weekend in the woods isn't going to cut it anyway.
My aforementioned friend wanted us to join MM's trip to Hot Springs just to see how they do things and there was actually space, but if I'd gone on a BFRO expedition, do you think my former BFRO friends would ever let me hear the end of it? This year's is sold out already.
Is that to say you doubt that bigfoot exists in Iowa?
It's not my area of expertise. I think there may be individuals passing through areas that seem unlikely. There always seems to be a river nearby, with plenty of vegetation along the banks.
Anyway, I've only checked the SFB forum lately to see if General Discussion will be available to the public again.
Is it?
What was the discussion and and how were you taken to task? I'm not interested in it because you were taken to task but in how it might relate to my point.
If you join the board you can read it. You don't have to post.
Basically he said if I'm going to advance I'd have to let go of the PNW, so how does that relate to your point.
Those things are good enough after an animal has been identified to science through standard methods.
And just how does an animal get identified to science without sightings happening first? Just what standard methods are you referring to? Once the animal has been identified why bother with those good enough things after the fact?
What standard animal keeps getting thrown in with UFO's and the Loch Ness Monster?
They are not acceptable for yowies, yetis, or bigfoot. In any event, yowie belief is based on the same type of evidence as is for bigfoot.I think it's fascinating that you're here and now arguing against yetis being giganto related.
I've never thought Yeti and Sasquatches are the same thing. Giganto might have had all sorts of relatives. Where did I say Yeti couldn't be related to Giganto?
Tell me, have you ever suggested the opposite? I'm not trying to bait you, I'm just thinking you have.
No.
They may have been strong swimmers but then again we don't for sure anything about how they moved. Let's say they are strong swimmers, as Correa pointed out so are elephants and tigers.You seem to be missing the point. Correa made it quite clear here but I can't remember if you have him on ignore so here's the post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2445262#post2445262
He's on Ignore and I can't read it.
Yes, and the only bipedal primates to have been shown to make it to Australia on their own were humans.
Krantz thought Yowies might be a remnant
Homo erectuspopulation.
H. erectus may have mastered transportation by water 800,000 years ago.
Australian Aborigines are towheaded when young. Coincidently, Murphy mentioned this in his current newsletter and speculated Yowies might be towheaded when young and turn black later.
As I've said before, I'm not into Yowies, and I don't understand how this has anything to do with the North American unidentified hominid primate. What are you getting at?
That would be from the fossil record in Australia, of course. The place where no giganto/yowie fossils/remains have turned up. No shortage of people claiming to see yowies, though.
Not everything gets fossilized. If we had all the fossils, creationists would have no argument.
Giant squids were a myth for 200 years before one was washed up on a beach.
Have you ever considered low budget horror film work?
