The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mangler, like me, you are cherry picking daegling, who is pathetic and an insult to skeptics. Why doesnt someone that is respected, like crowley, publish a book. I will then gladly look to read it, it would be on my wish list:)
 
makaya325 said:
Our laboratory has thus far examined a number of suspected Sasquatch hairs. However, we were not the first to search for suspected Sasquatch hair specimens. John Green reported that in 1968 Wayne Twitchell found six hairs on a bush near Riggins, Idaho, near a reported sighting of two Sasquatch l5. The hair specimens were sent for analysis to Ray Pinker, an instructor of police science at California State College in Los Angeles. His study revealed that the hairs did not match specimens from any known animal species and that they had some characteristics common to both humans and non-humans. In his final report, Pinker stated that he could not identify the hairs until he had had an opportunity to examine some authentic Sasquatch hair specimens.
Click to expand...

Does anyone find it interesting that we can find these tiny hairs in the most remote of locations, but those same locations are too dense and uninhabited to locate what would be the largest land animal in NA, lol?

Pinker tested those hairs in the 70's. It's plausible that the hairs were unidentified at that time. Think we have cataloged a few more creatures since then that might match up to those hairs, if the story is even true to begin with? Think we may have learned a little more about what is and isn't possible in regards to human hair since then? And since when did police science instructors become experts on animal hair anyway? Why not send the hairs to someone who is actually qualified to analyze them properly? Are there no biologists, zoologists, etc at California State College? And where is California State College? Google doesn't seem to know about this college. Finally, did Pinker say they matched no known creature, or did he say the hairs don't match any of the samples he has access to?

This reminds me of one bigfoot episode, LMS I think, where the guy analyzes an audio tape of a so-called bigfoot howl, and concludes that it doesn't match any known North American creature(which is debatable). First of all, he was no expert on animal sounds, but two, even though it was a recording taken by someone else, he never considered that it might be a recording of a non-North American creature. For all we know, that recording was made in the jungles of Africa, in which case it would make sense that the sounds didn't match any known NA creature. Having said that, despite him saying it didn't match any known NA creature, he also concluded that he couldn't rule out a human source. In bigfoot world, possible human vocalizations is evidence of bigfoot. And in that episode, the lead bigfoot scientist, Dr. Meldrum, agreed.

And that is bigfoot science in a nutshell.
 
Robert benson is an expert in bio-acoustics, xblade. So meldrum is a woo bc he suggested humans are a possibly, but unlikely source, of the source?
 
xblade said:
Does anyone find it interesting that we can find these tiny hairs in the most remote of locations, but those same locations are too dense and uninhabited to locate what would be the largest land animal in NA, lol?

Pinker tested those hairs in the 70's. It's plausible that the hairs were unidentified at that time. Think we have cataloged a few more creatures since then that might match up to those hairs, if the story is even true to begin with? Think we may have learned a little more about what is and isn't possible in regards to human hair since then? And since when did police science instructors become experts on animal hair anyway? Why not send the hairs to someone who is actually qualified to analyze them properly? Are there no biologists, zoologists, etc at California State College? And where is California State College? Google doesn't seem to know about this college. Finally, did Pinker say they matched no known creature, or did he say the hairs don't match any of the samples he has access to?

This reminds me of one bigfoot episode, LMS I think, where the guy analyzes an audio tape of a so-called bigfoot howl, and concludes that it doesn't match any known North American creature(which is debatable). First of all, he was no expert on animal sounds, but two, even though it was a recording taken by someone else, he never considered that it might be a recording of a non-North American creature. For all we know, that recording was made in the jungles of Africa, in which case it would make sense that the sounds didn't match any known NA creature. Having said that, despite him saying it didn't match any known NA creature, he also concluded that he couldn't rule out a human source. In bigfoot world, possible human vocalizations is evidence of bigfoot. And in that episode, the lead bigfoot scientist, Dr. Meldrum, agreed.

And that is bigfoot science in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

grizzly, 1500 lbs, would be roughlt twice the 800 lbs of the squatch
 
Xblade, 1st of all, please dont you dare insult some ones group of beliefs. You are hypocritical, regardless of whether you are right or not
 
makaya325 said:
Kitz, i know that, but do you ignore the fact thay many outdoorsman have never seen a bear body in their life, and in no way in hell are they lazy, they scan every damn inch of ground
Click to expand...

Many Outdoorsmen and Hunters have found Bear bodies and a 300 Winchester
mag with a 180 grain bullet can find them to.
 
Jc, but do you IGNORE the fact that MANY hunters and outsdoorsman rarely find a carcass of any animal?
 
Tube, what say you?

Mak doesn't seem to like Daegling, he also apparently has a problem with Anton (thou I'm reasonably certain he has no idea who he is), but, he really likes you.

Tube, is there a book in the future?



m
 
makaya325 said:
Jc, but do you IGNORE the fact that MANY hunters and outsdoorsman rarely find a carcass of any animal?
Click to expand...

No I do not Ignore this. I have rarely found them on certain occasions. But have found them. Depends on the environment I happen to be in.
Skilled Hunters know where to go, and hang in a tree stand for hours on end.
I had quite a collection of bones at one time.
 
makaya325 said:
Robert benson is an expert in bio-acoustics, xblade. So meldrum is a woo bc he suggested humans are a possibly, but unlikely source, of the source?
Click to expand...

Meldrum is woo because the "expert" said it's possible it was human, so Meldrum concludes it is likely bigfoot. It's the same with the Memorial Day bigfoot footage. Scientific analysis confirmed the subject was well within human range in every way, yet Meldrum concludes it is likely bigfoot anyway.

Is Benson an expert on sounds the way the guy who said the skookum cast was from a bigfoot is an expert on primates?
 
makaya325 said:
Xblade, 1st of all, please dont you dare insult some ones group of beliefs. You are hypocritical, regardless of whether you are right or not
Click to expand...

Not agreeing with your beliefs is not an insult, nor does it make me a hypocrite.

grizzly, 1500 lbs, would be roughlt twice the 800 lbs of the squatch
Click to expand...

And you know bigfoot is limited to 800lbs how? I'll let you have it though. Let's say second largest. Heck, let's say 10th largest. It does not make my point any less valid. They are allegedly finding tiny bigfoot hairs in remote locations, but they can never find the 8-10ft tall, 800lb creature that left them in these same locations because the area is too remote and isolated.
 
makaya325 said:
Jc, but do you IGNORE the fact that MANY hunters and outsdoorsman rarely find a carcass of any animal?
Click to expand...

He's not ignoring it, it's a pointless observation. Besides, what do you mean by many? I'd be willing to bet that most hunters and outdoorsmen do find animal remains. I've found them, and I'm not a hunter or an outdoorsman. But even if 99% of them do, that 1% that don't would still equal many.

Here's a fact for you: No one can find bigfoot.
 
makaya325 said:
Kitz, i know that, but do you ignore the fact thay many outdoorsman have never seen a bear body in their life, and in no way in hell are they lazy, they scan every damn inch of ground
Click to expand...

Again you alter your flawed point. You just went from mammal carcass to specifically bear carcass. Why can't you hold onto a point. I'm still wondering about attention span issues. Coming across mammal remains in general is not a big deal. Yes, most hunters don't often come across dead bears. There is a type that do see dead bears. That would be the bear poachers. They'd have no problem shooting a Bigfoot.

Mayaka, what's the deal with you and your posts. Do you have some phobia of the quote function and wrestling a finger all the way over the the shift key to use capital letters where necessary? You do know they can occur beyond the first letter of a sentence and are used for more than shouting, yes?
 
kitakaze wrote:
I don't think I said Patty has actual hip waders on, Sweaty.
Click to expand...


kitakaze wrote:
What I do know is no natural muscle has a big hipwader line like Patty does.
Click to expand...


kitakaze wrote:
I don't think I said Patty has actual hip waders on, Sweaty.
Click to expand...


kitakaze wrote:
What I do know is no natural muscle has a big hipwader line like Patty does.
Click to expand...


kitakaze wrote:
I don't think I said Patty has actual hip waders on, Sweaty.
Click to expand...



What I do know is no natural muscle has a big hipwader line like Patty does
Click to expand...



I don't think I said Patty has actual hip waders on, Sweaty.
Click to expand...



What I do know is no natural muscle has a big hipwader line like Patty does
Click to expand...




Having fun with kitty. :)
 
Here's the animated-gif, enlarged 2x...


stiffpadding3.gif
 
mangler said:
Mak,

Tell us about your laboratory and microscope (please, don’t leave anything out). We have all read Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science so there really is no need to quote the book, most here are all well aware of how bigfoot science works.

m
Click to expand...

makaya325 said:
Mangler, please respond to my statement. Dont side step and insult the book, instead, reply back to the statement. What do you say to my response
Click to expand...

makaya325 said:
Mangler, like me, you are cherry picking daegling, who is pathetic and an insult to skeptics. Why doesnt someone that is respected, like crowley, publish a book. I will then gladly look to read it, it would be on my wish list:)
Click to expand...

Makaya, please tell us the flaws with these reviews of Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.

Radford:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sas-lms-review1/

Dennett:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sas-lms-review2/

Crowley:

www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sas-lms-review3

Daegling:

www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sas-lms-review4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom