Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Does THIS look familiar LT? I mean, you are talking about an extremely large object. probably bigger than a grizzly bear, probably the 4th or 5th largest land mammal on the planet.

Was the width proportional with the height? or could the M113 been parked next to a berm that it was walking on? The M113 Hull tops out at six feet, so if it was 'Chest Shoulders and Head' above it, it must have been 9-10 feet tall. and just huge. Did it look like this

It wasnt waving at us and the 113 was green and rusted LOL

The vehicle was detracked and had sunk some on the roadwheels ( which normally happens over the decades) so it was slightly lower than OEM.

It was dificult to get a "sharp" image due to the gen I stuff and also they were being passed around so nobody got a "continuous" look.

The target area ( around the vehicle) was level for the most part with mounds/depressions all over. ( rolling hillish)

Now when I say chest, I'm talking about the upper chest- not from the abdomen. ( that wouldnt have been large- that would have been gargantuan)

What I cannot judge is the relationship to the vehicle in distance.

When I got my best view- it was at the front and walking away. ( I just heard the comments prior) It didnt shrink in relation to the vehicle.

 

[Drewbot]

The vehicle was detracked and had sunk some on the roadwheels ( which normally happens over the decades) so it was slightly lower than OEM.

So if the top of the hull was say 5'6" after sinking in the mud, then he could have been 6'6 in combat boots and still stood a foot over the top of the hull.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

So if the top of the hull was say 5'6" after sinking in the mud, then he could have been 6'6 in combat boots and still stood a foot over the top of the hull.

That would be on the extreme low side- if I were to estimate, I would say in the mid 7's

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Uhm...

Ltes try to get back on track, shall we?

Remember my question to LT? Remember his answer?

Bottomline - no one has the right to be angered when, during an investigation, the veracity of a report is questioned. Want to do propper research? Then always raise the possibility that the alleged eyewitness is lying. Yes, it may be unconfortable for the alleged eyewitenss, but that's how things are. If the alleged eyewitness can't understand it, well, then this person is not used to investigations...

What about a third party geting upset by this? Well, if the individual has a minimum ammount of information on how investigations must be carried, actually there's no reason for it. Now if the person knows something about bigfootery, then this person is a drama queen and/or has an agenda/vendetta. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not exactly.

There are many reasons a report and its veracity/accuracy are questioned. Lying ( reason matters not) is only 1 of them. Others include error ( which can be where a witness believes they are right but factually incorrect) and another one thats really difficult to deal with that is a person telling it "their" way versus "the" way. ( sometimes that works well, other times it doesnt)

Then some people report thru their "opinions" and "prejudices" and slant a story.

In the perfect world, unless a person is deliberately caught in a case where the physical evidence contradicts a story or the story contradicts itself- put the accusation of "lying" in delicate terms.

Dont avoid it by any means- but manage it

 

[Correa Neto]

Sure, misidentifications, false memories and even real bigfeet -despite how unliklely it would be- must be taken as possibilities.

However, "its a lie" is an option which can not be, at least initially dismissed... Especially when it comes to subjects such as bigfoot (remember its a magnet to crackpots and similar creatures).

Saying -or considering- "this can be a fabrication" is not, I believe, so offensive. OK, sometimes it would be better to keep it private. But honestly, alleged eyewitnesses and footers (not using it in any negative meaning) in general must understand that this option must be taken in to account.

Once again, geting upset because someone at a www forum said a certain alleged bigfoot eyewitness might be lying is an over reaction.

 

[catcuz]

For the record, I abstained as well and having nothing to hide about it, the main reason being, it seems the whole situation is over the Munn's report upon which I have no major opinion. Thus I abstained.

I however did not abstain.

 

[kitakaze]

I however did not abstain.

Of course you didn't. You were itching to have me gone. I challenge you to find a single post of mine from your board that was insulting and incivil to a SFB member other than where I told Lyndon I thought of him as an internet thug when he was explicitly breaking your rule #3.

Go for it. I double dog dare you.

 

[RayG]

Note to self: Never pi$$ off Kit.

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

They were not disrupting the thread like you were. I should have said disrupting and not commenting. Strone only said he will make up his own mind and did not mention hoaxing.

Ah yes, I see how pointing out that Freeman's cast collection would have represented at least 26 individual Bigfoots and the disparity impossible for one species would be considered "disprupting".

And I find it hilarious that you would quote and use Creek Freak to defend yourself, especially since you attack him constantly for being a hoaxer. So I guess that we can say that YOU support a hoaxer too right Kit? Hypocrite. So that leaves Henry and he only mentioned it, he did not disrupt the thread.

Showing that Creek was discussing Freeman hoaxing before I was in no way whatsoever equates support or tolerance for his hoaxed Bigfoot picture. Logic much?

No I mean an administrator from the largest Bigfoot forum noticed you acting like a troll as you normally do.

And acting like a troll, scoftic will get you banned, and it did.

Searchforbigfoot - where informed and civil skeptic = troll and the word "scoftic" is still cool and witty. Say, what type of sweatpants and sneakers does your cult wear?

It is all about opinion and yours is no more relevent then anyones. including mine, silly boy.

Actually, no. When you claim no one in your Bigfooter club tolerates hoaxers and your president argues for the veracity of a hoaxer's cast... doh!... they tolerate hoaxers. Logic isn't as easy as it looks, I guess.

Neither do most of the members there.

Yes, I suspect the only people that were shaking there heads at seeing me get tossed against the protocol of your own rules for expressing skepticism in a civil and on-topic manner were people who care about actual civil debate and critical thinking like HarryH.

Of course all those people who like to use the word "scoftic", think a 23 square mile recreational park in Eastern Ohio covered in Bigfooters and hoaxers is a great place for a Bigfoot expedition, and fawn over the ridiculous collection of an admitted hoaxer showing at least 26 individual Bigfoots are naturally glad to see me thrown out. That's how it goes when you play Woods & Wildmen.

You are confusing ignore for disregard.

...



You know, John, I spend most of my time speaking Japanese and can't count the number of times I've forgotten an English word for something I was trying to say and yet you don't seem to have the same grasp on our mother tongue as I do...

TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To pay no attention or heed to; ignore. disregarder, disregardful, disregarded, disregarding, disregards

Yes, John. You are in fact the one being a hypocrite when you complain about not discussing sightings while ignoring/disregarding essential questions central to your claim of seeing Bigfoot.

Oops for you. You may not realize this but you are in fact now getting owned in debate.

 

[WGBH]

Yeah, I don't know how I can live with myself....


That response was pretty lame even for you, and it took you that long to copy it, write a response and return hours later?

Also, what question am I ignoring? No one has asked me a question in about a week. You mean this statement below you have typed about 5 times already?

Kit asks a question to himself:

Once again I ask, given that repetition and replication of the unique circumstances involved is not necessary to rule out the possibility of sleep-related occurrence or distorted memory for your claim that 27 years ago in a deers tand up a tree along the Pasquotank River, NC in the early morning after being disoriented and feeling very groggy that you saw a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape, why is it impossible that you did not see what you thought you saw?

Kit answers himself:

Vivid sleep-related hallucinations occur as do vivid but distorted memories. This is known, tested, and proven by science. What is not known, tested, and proven by science is that the largest land mammal in North America is a bipedal gargantuan ape that exists in places such as small swathes of woods like where the Pasquotank is completely surrounded by farmland and cities.

This is not a question Kit, This is a scoftic statement. Why should I respond to a statement? You answered your OWN question.


BTW There are more then a few different definitions for words Kit.
Main Entry:
1dis·re·gard Listen to the pronunciation of 1disregard
Pronunciation:
\ˌdis-ri-ˈgärd\
Function:
transitive verb

: to pay no attention to : treat as unworthy of regard or notice

 

[kitakaze]

What I know is that it ended up being a major league catfight for many people myself included and I wasted mucho energy trying to stay out of it last year so thats about my input on it.

That tells me that I'm not the first one to object to ripping off an artist's work without credit. That's good to hear. It also tells me that ABS people knew they were ripping off Robert Bateman since last year and still didn't remove the swipe. That's not good to hear.

Actually Chris is one of four board members for the Group, as am I just to clarify but i appreciate you not dragging Nesra into this subject, it really has nothing to do with them. Matters with Anderholm are considered ancient history also, fwiw.

Thanks for the clarification. I think Chris handled himself very well when he was on Monster Quest. It's not easy to not look a little kooky when you're talking about Bigfoot in New York. Though ex-NESRA Steve Kulls was not able to do that, Chris Bartow was (3:30)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1gby_XRVZA

 

[kitakaze]

Yeah, I don't know how I can live with myself....

By ignoring/disregarding.

*tee hee*

 

[desertgal]

That tells me that I'm not the first one to object to ripping off an artist's work without credit. That's good to hear. It also tells me that ABS people knew they were ripping off Robert Bateman since last year and still didn't remove the swipe. That's not good to hear.

You mean, you got a straight answer on the issue? Wow. I bow down in reverence.

 

[WGBH]

That tells me that I'm not the first one to object to ripping off an artist's work without credit. That's good to hear. It also tells me that ABS people knew they were ripping off Robert Bateman since last year and still didn't remove the swipe. That's not good to hear.

You wanna check the link to that web site again skippy?

 

[kitakaze]

27 years in 1982 and first reported 11 years ago in 1998 at a time when by his own admission he was an alcoholic John claims to have seen a 10 x 6 ft monster wood ape in a small corridor of woods along the Pasquotank River in North Carolina not far from Elizabeth City. He says he had his alleged sighting after being disoriented and very groggy and yet refuses to consider that he experienced a sleep-related hallucination, dream, or distorted memory based on the completely invalid reasoning that the unique experience and circumstances have not repeated themselves. John is heavily involved in Bigfootery and refuses to let go of what is almost certainly a delusion or false memory or seriously consider the known and proven alternatives.

That's too bad but at least John is seeking professional help for sleep problems.

 

[kitakaze]

You wanna check the link to that web site again skippy?

Hey, that's excellent. The site ripping off Robert Bateman's art has been removed.

http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/

Bye bye, art theft. It's too bad it took my making an issue of it on the JREF even after apparently it was the source of conflict since last year. I guess someone in the ABS thought it was acceptable to steal from an artist for the sake of their Bigfooter club.

I am a force for change and better ethics in Bigfootery. I am wallowing in self-satisfaction and a sense of acheivement

*tee hee*

BTW, I give you the respect of referring to you by your name. Please don't use the tired and blase tradition of showing disrespect by referring to me as "Skippy". If you want to stick it to me, just dismantle my arguments (if you can).

 

[WGBH]

27 years in 1982 and first reported 11 years ago in 1998 at a time when by his own admission he was an alcoholic John claims to have seen a 10 x 6 ft monster wood ape in a small corridor of woods along the Pasquotank River in North Carolina not far from Elizabeth City. He says he had his alleged sighting after being disoriented and very groggy and yet refuses to consider that he experienced a sleep-related hallucination, dream, or distorted memory based on the completely invalid reasoning that the unique experience and circumstances have not repeated themselves. John is heavily involved in Bigfootery and refuses to let go of what is almost certainly a delusion or false memory or seriously consider the known and proven alternatives.

That's too bad but at least John is seeking professional help for sleep problems.

That was awesome! Can I use it as the introduction to my Biography?

 

[Vortigern99]

disoriented and very groggy

Don't forget nauseated. John reports having been sick to his stomach only minutes before the sighting.

 

[WGBH]

Hey, that's excellent. The site ripping off Robert Bateman's art has been removed.

http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/

Bye bye, art theft. It's too bad it took my making an issue of it on the JREF even after apparently it was the source of conflict since last year. I guess someone in the ABS thought it was acceptable to steal from an artist for the sake of their Bigfooter club.

I am a force for change and better ethics in Bigfootery. I am wallowing in self-satisfaction and a sense of acheivement

*tee hee*

Well, it actually took you cluelessly going to a wrong, website that is no longer used. Then pointing it out to people who did not know about it to bring about the change. But I will give you props for bringing it to our attention. Yippy for skippy!

BTW, I give you the respect of referring to you by your name. Please don't use the tired and blase tradition of showing disrespect by referring to me as "Skippy". If you want to stick it to me, just dismantle my arguments (if you can).

OK Skippy, but I don't think Kitakaze is your name. It's just your handle when you are a internet troll.

 

[Tricky]

Folks, this thread is a gallimaufry* of strange and off-topic stuff. This thread has drifted like a Nerf ball in a hurricane. I don't have the energy or the enthusiasm to try to clean it up, but in order to keep it from either moderated status or the dreaded "Abandon All Hope", please try to stop bickering, stop personal attacks, stop off topic discussions (like who voted who should be banned) and attempt to find something that is vaguely relevant to the topic that you can discuss pleasantly. We'll allow some leeway as to topic, but not as to bickering.

Thanks, and enjoy your trip.


* - No I'm not telling you. Look it up.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky