Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,759
http://www.forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71572&page=2
I don't get it JC, why are you saying that this is wrong, you were given ample time to correct these measurements previously?
John, you say you had little interest in Bigfoot at the time. How much is ' a little interest'?
Not even close to the proportions. If this is your view of "accurately", my opinions of the rest of your theories just dropped several notches.
I don't get it JC, why are you saying that this is wrong, you were given ample time to correct these measurements previously?
WGBH said:Yes when I say that the shoulders were 5 or 6 ft wide. It is a estimate.
I watched this animal stand there for 5 mins. It did not just run by and I got a quick glance. The parts of the animal I saw the best were the back, arms, hands and SHOULDERS. I am very comfortable with the estimate I gave.
WGBH said:There is no mistaking a bear for what I saw. The area has tons of bears running around, but they are not standing 9 ft tall and walking bipedal.
WGBH said:Actually, the only similarities between Patty and the animal I saw was the shape of the head. The animal I saw appeared much larger and muscular. It also had wide shoulders and a thinner waist. Like a Swimmers build. Patty looked more barrel chested and thick in the torso.
John, you say you had little interest in Bigfoot at the time. How much is ' a little interest'?
WGBH said:I hardly knew what Bigfoot was at that time, and really had no interest in it.