Finding Bigfoot - Page 6

686Owner · 11-20-2012, 05:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by dac1204

Not saying that I do or do not believe in big foot. All I am saying is that the time and date stamp on that camera must be wrong because it would not be dark at 5:55pm in September unless this was not in the US.

Could be Alaska. Bigfoot is still fake though.

686Owner · 11-20-2012, 05:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudiGregg

Those bigfeets know you have a camera, just like they know what guns are.

I will hide it, just like he hid the guns.

Hyksos · 11-20-2012, 07:12

Well I exif'ed Kozal's photo but as I suspected he didn't take it with a smartphone. Thus, there is no GPS tagging embedded in the photo. So there goes that.

Or it lost the geotag through being uploaded to GT. Either way, no dice.

Kilrain · 11-20-2012, 08:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyksos

Well I exif'ed Kozal's photo but as I suspected he didn't take it with a smartphone. Thus, there is no GPS tagging embedded in the photo. So there goes that.

Or it lost the geotag through being uploaded to GT. Either way, no dice.

Perhaps bigfoot removed the metadata to prevent his apparent location from being discerned?

Tango 1Zero · 11-20-2012, 08:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilrain

Perhaps bigfoot removed the metadata to prevent his apparent location from being discerned?

Typical Squatch behavior!

vart · 11-20-2012, 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLIPPER 348

Do y'all believe in Santa also??

Of course not. I also don't believe in Chupacabra, Jersey Devil, or a bunch of other mythical creatures.

The physical and scientific evidence for bigfoot exists. The infamous Patterson film has never been debunked and the technology to create a "monkey suit" that convincing did not exist in the late 60's.

There are foot print casts that anthropoligists have confirmed are genuine and contain details such as dermal ridges and lack of instep that are consistent with a large primate.

There are thousands of eye witness accounts from credible folks such as policemen, game wardens, etc.

There are photos like the one previously shown in the thread that are unexplainable.

The bigfoot believers can offer all of this to support the likelihood of such a creature, and all the non-believers can offer is childish insults and jokes.

I met the infamous Grover Krantz when I was a teenager as he lived a few miles from me.

He was one of the few academics who was not swayed by the stigma of researching the existance of such a creature...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Krantz

Quote:

After seeing footage stills of the Patterson-Gimlin film which appeared on the February 1968 cover of Argosy, Krantz was skeptical, believing the film to be an elaborate hoax, saying "it looked to me like someone wearing a gorilla suit"[7] and "I gave Sasquatch only a 10 percent chance of being real."[8] After years of skepticism, Krantz finally became convinced of Bigfoot's existence after analyzing the "Cripplefoot" plaster casts gathered at Bossburg, Washington in December 1969. Krantz later studied the Patterson-Gimlin film in full, and after taking notice of the creature's peculiar gait and purported anatomical features, such as flexing leg muscles, he changed his mind and became an advocate of its authenticity.[7]

vart · 11-20-2012, 09:56

Photo of bigfoot cast showing detail:

nmk · 11-20-2012, 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by vart

Photo of bigfoot cast showing detail:

Your description of the photo is inaccurate and it shows your bias.

oldgraywolf · 11-20-2012, 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by nmk

Your description of the photo is inaccurate and it shows your bias.

That's the new scientific method--make a conclusion, then look for data to fit it.

Panglоss · 11-20-2012, 12:01

In this case it is valid to say that "absence of evidence proves evidence of absence".

Sorry, but eye witnesses and alleged video tapes of "something" are not hard evidence. Evidence would be a decomposing body, some pieces of bone, or something in the fossil record. If bigfoot exists, surely someone would have found this by now.

I mean it doesn't take long, spending time in the woods, to find hard physical evidence of moose, bear, and any other animal out there. Because eventually they die, and at least parts of their bodies will typically remain to be found.

But maybe bigfoot is an immortal, extra-dimensional time traveler and exists outside of this realm's known laws of physics and biology.

vart · 11-20-2012, 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by nmk

Your description of the photo is inaccurate and it shows your bias.

What are you talking about? My description was that it was a photo of a bigfoot cast showing detail.

It is indeed a purported cast of a bigfoot print that is showing dermal ridges and other details nearly impossible to fake.

http://voices.yahoo.com/texas-bigfoo...75.html?cat=58

How was my description inaccurate?

vart · 11-20-2012, 12:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panglоss

In this case it is valid to say that "absence of evidence proves evidence of absence".

Sorry, but eye witnesses and alleged video tapes of "something" are not hard evidence.

How about hair samples and DNA evidence? It exists. Thousands of people have seen these things and recorded it's existence for centuries.

I understand the desire for the discovery of a body to be completely convinced of it's existence, or at least skeletal remains.

I don't besmirch anyone for not believing until they see a body, I'm just saying there is an abundance of other evidence out there that scientists and other non-weirdo researchers have found...

G26S239 · 11-20-2012, 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kozel

In case if you cannot read I will repeat to you what I said before. I DO NOT want those monkeys to be "protected". To me the only good BF is a DEAD ONE! Is that clear enough or do I need my cat to spell it out for you?

.

So I take it you are not BFFs with BF?

Panglоss · 11-20-2012, 12:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by vart

How about hair samples and DNA evidence? It exists. Thousands of people have seen these things and recorded it's existence for centuries.

Just explain to me how something this big can exist, as you say, for centuries, leading up to and including the present time, in areas that are not even very remote (but inhabited by lots of people), and yet not one single body, skull, leg bone, etc. has ever been found by anybody?

We're not talking about some variety of dragonfly or moth that has gone for years undetected, but a mammal that is supposedly 7'+ tall and would weigh several hundred pounds and would have a giant, unique hominid skeleton that could not be mistaken for anything else.