Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeG said:
"Hoist with his own petard" is the expression. There is a bit of a difference between a carnard (=duck) and a petard (= bomb).

Of course, you don't hoist your own, whether it is a duck or a bomb. You are hoisted by it when it explodes early.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. It is a perfectly logical and well known expression in Canada.
As Woolrab posted the definition of "Canard" in the context I was using it - I won't bother to re-post it.
Also - I was not going for any metaphor as "hoist" was being used in its definition of "raise".
 
MikeG said:
You'll carry on endlessly with this nonsense, won't you? I explicitly said I was a sceptic on the subject on the previous page, and many times previously. I'll repeat it now: there is no such thing as bigfoot. Do you think you might eventually be able to grasp this simple concept without me having to say it in every single post?

And do you want a little help with the idea of waiting for an explanation from the poster before you pillory him? Suggesting this obviously makes me an apologist in your eyes, but I suspect that "fair-minded" is also a concept that will need careful explaining to you one day.

Mike
Click to expand...

I understood from your previous post that you do not consider yourself a "bleever".
Therefore, I did NOT direct the term at you specifically this time. I was using it in the general sense to state a fact about what bleevers do to defend the indefensible.
Surely you remember the bleevers using that tactic on the BFF to defend any completely ridiculous story. After all, you supported that tactic often when you were a mod. :D
 
If you weren't talking to or about me, why on earth did you quote me?

Mods don't support tactics. Mods enforce rules. Use whatever tactics you like and stay within the rules, and the mods will ignore you....well, of course I am only talking about when I was there, and I haven't visited in nearly a year, so I have no idea whether things are still the same.

Mike
 
rockinkt said:
I understood from your previous post that you do not consider yourself a "bleever".
Therefore, I did NOT direct the term at you specifically this time. I was using it in the general sense to state a fact about what bleevers do to defend the indefensible.
Surely you remember the bleevers using that tactic on the BFF to defend any completely ridiculous story. After all, you supported that tactic often when you were a mod. :D
Click to expand...

No, what we supported was a right to an opinion. A very difficult and draining task when you know the person is a complete lunatic but really can't come right out and say it. My disillusionment was complete when some of those same lunatics became mods themselves on the BFF.
 
MikeG said:
Hey! Kit's back!!!

Good to see you Kit. Hope Japan is treating you well.....

Mike
Click to expand...

Hello, Mike. Great to see you around here. Japan is wonderful, as always. I'm visiting Canada and will be here until September which has given me time to pop in here and catch up somewhat.
 
Jodie said:
They don't know that for sure, based on garments found, they were crude at best, and usually found at the height of the ice age. Other times, they found no clothes, although it would be a climate too cold for you or me to be without clothes.

Neandertal had half a million years to adapt to the cold environment, so saying he definitively wasn't shaggy is incorrect. There are some genetic signatures you could look for but I haven't read anything published regarding Neandertal hair, the genetics for hair tends to be complicated in modern humans. I doubt that is any different for Neandertal and probably not a high priority for medical research.
Click to expand...

Human ancestors lost hair long before neanderthals came on the scene. We've been relatively hairless as long as we've been long distance runners and high speed walkers, at least since Homo ergaster 1.2 mya...

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/15/science-seat-you-could-have-been-a-furry-beast/
 
rockinkt said:
Seriously? Bleevers are not even close to some sort of consensus as to what supposed squatch feet look like!

Take your pick:
Three, four, or five toes?
Thin, wide, or hourglass shaped?
Round heel or square heel?
Rounded toes, splayed toes, or squared off toes.
High arch, flat foot, or mid-tarsel break?

Surely you must have seen the photo of Patterson with his many plaster casts - and that is just one example of how the most incredibly stupid and far-out caricatures of feet are taken as being real by the bleevers.
After all - Saint Roger and Salt o' the Earth Gimlin would never lie. :D
Click to expand...

The variation of foot types that you see posited as real by Bigfoot proponents is really quite stunning...







That all of the above is endorsed by Prof. Meldrum, a specialist in primate anatomy and locomotion, is equally stunning to me.
 
kitakaze said:
Human ancestors lost hair long before neanderthals came on the scene. We've been relatively hairless as long as we've been long distance runners and high speed walkers, at least since Homo ergaster 1.2 mya...

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/15/science-seat-you-could-have-been-a-furry-beast/
Click to expand...

It's only a hypothesis, Kit, not a definitive.

There have been a lot of hypotheses made about why we lost most of our body hair. And I definitely, and many colleagues of mine definitely are of the opinion – based on the environmental, anatomical and genetic evidence at hand – that we lost most of our body hair because of the needs of heat regulation.

Neandertals were primarily living in cold environments. If they lost the hair before they left out of Africa, maybe, but I'm not convinced. I haven't seen anything specific about Neandertal genetics for hair, I don't think it has been addressed yet.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/mailbag/neandertal-hirsuteness-2011.html
 
kitakaze said:
The variation of foot types that you see posited as real by Bigfoot proponents is really quite stunning...

[qimg]http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigfreeman.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/bigmeld.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigwallace31.jpg[/qimg]

That all of the above is endorsed by Prof. Meldrum, a specialist in primate anatomy and locomotion, is equally stunning to me.
Click to expand...

Meldrum endorsed that Ray Wallace split ball track?
 
If that's one of the Onion Mountain tracks, I know Green was duped but that's understandable. He's a brilliant man I'm sure but he's not a tracker.

Meldrum on the other hand should not have been duped by the split ball prints of Ray Wallace flavor. I'd find that hard to believe.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
If that's one of the Onion Mountain tracks, I know Green was duped but that's understandable. He's a brilliant man I'm sure but he's not a tracker.

Meldrum on the other hand should not have been duped by the split ball prints of Ray Wallace flavor. I'd find that hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Meldrum was duped by the dollar.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Meldrum endorsed that Ray Wallace split ball track?
Click to expand...

ChrisBFRPKY said:
If that's one of the Onion Mountain tracks, I know Green was duped but that's understandable. He's a brilliant man I'm sure but he's not a tracker.

Meldrum on the other hand should not have been duped by the split ball prints of Ray Wallace flavor. I'd find that hard to believe.
Click to expand...

I know, right? Meldrum not only endorses the Wallace tracks as real, he argues they are from Patty.

Meldrum not only argues that Patty made them, but that the following is the result of Wallace trying to copy the tracks...



Not only that, he tries to aargue that the smoking gun heel line is in different parts of the heel by using photos taken at totally different angles...







Watch from the 00:16 mark...



Regardless of your position on Bigfoot, the fact that the subject's leading PhD endorses such obvious fraud is a major blow to its credibility.
 
kitakaze said:
Regardless of your position on Bigfoot, the fact that the subject's leading PhD endorses such obvious fraud is a major blow to its credibility.
Click to expand...

Aaaaand Meldrum bases his entire argument for his ichnotaxon Anthropoidipes ameriborealis on Patty's prints from Bluff Creek. So he's either . . .

ridiculously naive and gullible

or

willingly committing fraud by passing off these prints as the real deal.

Which shall we put you down for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom