Surrounded By Bigfoot Noises
Can you imagine being in the deep, dark, wood and having the sounds of foot steps and limbs snapping all around, as they come closer and closer...
Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from...
If you want to witness a sad spectacle, then look at the previous thread where Iktomi actually started an argument with his own sock puppet to try to draw others into a debate. What's particularly pathetic about it is that he managed to lose the argument to his own sock puppet! Ha ha ha!
ReplyDeleteIkdummy tends to project his near retarded IQ on to people with normal common sense and then Thinks his 5
DeleteRedundant dumcluck cut&paste ARE GAME CHANGERS!!
What a LOOSER!
Every one of Ikdummys argument's has been dismantled & Debunked!
100's of times!
^ Duhh,Tell the patrons of this blog something we didn't know.
DeleteQuestion ? Why isn't this guy game fully employed? Wish I could spend all day out looking for mystical animals and shit!
DeleteI want Mcgregor to lose, he is a white hillbilly upstart that needs to be SUBMISSIVE!
ReplyDeleteEven though im white, I HATE THAT I AM WHITE" !
MMC
"Can you imagine being in the deep, dark, wood and having the sounds of foot steps and limbs snapping all around, as they come closer and closer..."
ReplyDeleteYes I can....just like he does.
Can you imagine having the ability to imagine up imaginary footprints that have the same imaginary foot morphology in American and China?
DeleteWhat an imagination... Or does that require a lot of imagination to imagine that? Did someone say "hoaxing conspiracy theory"?
Simples:
Deletehttp://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/bigfoots-mid-tarsal-break/
Now go back to sock puppeting arguments with yourself.
Actually Stuey, if Mr Crowley had bothered to do a little bit of homework, you'd know his experiment does against everything we know about the footage that has some very revealing data...
Delete"Carl Olinsolet recently posted this intriguing enhancement video on Facebook. The video shows the lower legs and feet of the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin Film, and focuses on the toes of this animal. A feature, which I have noticed, is that the toes lift excessively, possibly due to limitation in dorsiflexion of the ankle joint. Here is Mr. Olinoslet's video, which does a nice job of pointing out this feature in the animal's foot
http://bizarrezoology.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/compelling-evidence-toe-extension-of.html
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary defines dorsiflexion as "the turning of the foot or the toes upward". As physical therapist Kevin Cooney has explained to me, ankle dorsiflexion is one of the actions required to clear the foot during swing phase of gait, as well as setting up heel strike for initial contact with the ground.
This animal appears to exhibit greater toe extension during the swing phase of gait than those of Homo sapiens. Physical therapist Kevin M. Cooney, who specializes in gait at a biomechanics lab, has pointed out to me that humans who have limited ankle dorsiflexion due to calf muscle tightness often compensate for this limitation using increased toe extension to maximize swing foot clearance so they don't trip. When comparing the Patterson-Gimlin film to the actor in the suit (see diagram below), it appears the animal has more of a "foot flat" contact onto the ground with toes hyper-extended, whereas the person in the suit has exaggerated ankle dorsiflexion and a heel strike at contact.If the Patterson Film subject was a person in a suit, then it would have had ankle dorsiflexion rather than the abnormal toe hyper-extension in the film (as demonstrated by the diagram below). It would have been very difficult to replicate this toe hyper-extension in the large "clown shoes" which must have been worn if this was a costume, as the subject's feet were measured between 14 and 15 inches long. If it were a person in a suit, they would have had to exaggerate dorsiflexion at the ankle to raise what would likely have been synthetic material to make the foot this long, as is well demonstrated in the actual man-in-the-suit trial in the diagram. In addition, achieving this degree of toe hyper-extension would be very difficult in Homo sapiens."
Furthermore... We have the Yeren tracks found in China, decades later, that not only show the exact same morphological foot fall from the same type of biped, but also show different types of foot fall in a trackway, proving that they were from an actual biological foot.
DeleteRepeatable scientific evidence, it's an amazing thing, Stuey.
"The toes of the species are longer than that of humans, based on the footprints. This is quite an assumption. You certainly cannot see the phalanges in these footprints. You can see imprints of the toe pad, but not the actual phalanges themselves. As far as I'm concerned, having seen my fair share of feet, the Sasquatch footprints demonstrate toes and general foot structure identical to that of humans. I see no difference. In my opinion, the information some researchers feel they can obtain from the footprints is not justifiable. As an example, some researchers feel they can tell where various joints are, based on the footprints. I feel that is not credible. For example, you can look directly at a human foot and you truly cannot tell where the various joints are. The fat pad is quite thick and does not reveal the location of any of the joints in the foot. The exact same is true when looking at an impression of a foot in the ground. Also, the foot is in motion and changing its contours during the contact phase of gait. The bones and the joints are moving in three dimensional space during that time. Hence, a footprint is essentially a form of a smudge in the ground. When the heel hits the ground, the forces are traveling first in a forward direction, then directly down into the ground and finally the forces are pushing backwards. The same is true when the good foot and finally the forefoot contact the surface. There is so much motion from changes in force and direction, that attempting to identify any anatomical structures in a footprint with any type of accuracy would be sketchy at best, except when analyzing the foot relative to its position just prior to leaving the substrate. You essentially need an x-ray, if you are to examine the bones and joints themselves, to gain any meaningful and truly accurate information. "
Delete"I feel this is not credible..." Unfortunately, not only is he not a professor of eventuality bipedalism, but he's again unfamiliar Witney he actual data...
Delete"Relative Toe Length and Mobility
Variations in toe position are evident between footprints within a single trackway, as well as between individual subjects. In some instances the toes are sharply curled, leaving an undisturbed ridge of soil behind toe tips resembling "peas-in-a-pod." In other instances the toes are fully extended. In either case, the toes appear relatively longer than in humans. Among the casts made by the author in 1996 is one in which the toes were splayed, pressing the first and fifth digits into the sidewalls of the deep imprint, leaving an impression of the profile of these marginal toes. This is the first such case that I am aware of. Expressed as a percent of the combined hindfoot/midfoot, the Sasquatch toes are intermediate in length between those of humans and the reconstructed length of australopithecine toes. Furthermore, the digits frequently display a considerable range of abduction."
http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
*evolutionary
Delete"The Patterson -Gimlin film allows meaningful evaluation of foot motion. The detail is not evident based on the angle of the subject to the camera, as well as, quality of the film. Dr. Jeffery Meldrum seems to see a midtarsal break during ambulation in the film, as he stated in his book. I don't see how that is possible to observe this due to the poor quality of the film; the position of the subject relative to the camera and the amount of time the foot is visible."
DeleteI would simply just refer you to;
DeleteIktomiFriday, August 25, 2017 at 12:36:00 AM PDT
... above. Furthermore, there is so much detail in the footage that we can make comparative observations on the biological tissue of the elderly. The Yeren tracks are basically the slam dunk.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCNm-_Qk2u0/VCOiG9i_XeI/AAAAAAADJVk/_Ybzl3qMta4/s1600/foot2.jpg
DeleteYeah, it shows that fake feet leave the same trace everywhere. That seems a bit more reasonable than reading dozens of miniscule details into a grainy film, now doesn't it? Pretty much a slam dunk. Repeatable scientific evidence is an amazing thing, isn't it?
DeleteAnd did you notice that in his Dingleberry Award acceptance speech -- oh oops, I mean "peer reviewed scientific research paper" -- Meldrum didn't once mention Chillcutt, Crowley or desiccation ridges? He ignored groundbreaking results that caused his entire conclusion to become meaningless. Did the "peer reviewers" not notice that issue?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteUm... No Stuart. There is simply too much morphological detail, outside of merely the mid-tarsal break in the track impressions analysed, that leaves the static fake stompers Crowley uses for example, dead in the water. When biological feet come in contact with the ground, they make a sequential print. The foot has dozens of bones, tendons and ligaments that are segmented & fluid motion that creates compression lines in the inner perimeter of the track, can only be made by a living biological foot. Just take a very quick comparative look at Crowley's experiment, and then those in the paper Meldrum published as; Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 356–374, 2016 0892-3310/16
DeleteYou're not upsetting anyone with your "acceptance speech award" nonsense, Stuart. You did at first look pretty backward for not reading the link properly, but now you just come across slightly unhinged? The point is, the PGF footprints don't rest solely on that footage (even though the data in that footage can be easily ananlysed by plastic surgeons who recognise genuine biological tissue)... It rests on the exact same morphological traits that can't be manufactured simply by stompers, now also found on other continents. Stuart, there's a reason why Meldrum can get his work published in journals. And it's not only down to the testing that people like Crowley have done that have actually helped prove that these feet a biological... But because the sciences applied to studying such feet are extensive and as solid as anything else in anthropology.
"To all these must now be added the fact that our supposed hoaxer is an expert on human anatomy with a very inventive mind. He was able to create from nothing all the details of how a foot might be redesigned to support a body weight several times that of a man. And he has continued to plant these tracks over more than a lifetime, always showing only vague hints of these anatomical peculiarities. These include great width of heel, a double ball, and a straighter row of similarly sized toes."
http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/91-anatomy-of-the-sasquatch-foot
Oh and Stuart? You don't get to publish in journals, writing about the work of other researchers?
(CRINGE)
"[B]ecause the sciences applied to studying such feet are expensive "? Oh well, they're expensive, huh? That proves it!
DeleteAt the time Grover wrote that passage, the phenomenon of desiccation ridges had not yet been discovered and everything that he mentioned has been conclusively shown to be caused by the casting process. That's the reason why the Dingleberry Award winner didn't mention it in his "peer reviewed" acceptance speech and it was the cause of Chilcutt going into the business of selling puzzle boxes to old ladies.
"At the time Grover wrote that passage, the phenomenon of desiccation ridges had not been discovered..." even so, that's why I applied it to foot morphology? The only person bringing up desiccation is you, Stuey.
Delete(Cringe, it's like exchanging with a child).
And nope. Matt Crowley has written an extensive report on something that certainly very much looks like a set of dermal ridges via desiccation artefacts in plaster... But this cannot be applied to all example of dermals, and in his paper that you now doubt read (cough, cough) even compares them to Elk Wallow casts to demonstrate that there is no consistency of said dermals. Jimmy Chilccutt doesn't even use the Elk Wallow casts in his examples of dermals because they have no consistency to the casts Crowley appears to have replicated. It's a dead argument... And one that only you are stupid enough to assert after the millionth time of having it pointing out. And here's that publication again...
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 356–374, 2016 0892-3310/16
As I've explained to you dozens of times, the Elk Wallow cast had human fingerprints on it (which everyone agrees look quite different from desiccation ridges) that Chilcutt noticed. He looked at it again later and discovered the usual "dermal ridges" which everyone now accepts are casting artifacts.
DeleteChilcutt used to have a website where his original conclusions were detailed, but after Crowley did his work, Chilcutt was humiliated and took the website down. He began selling puzzle boxes soon after that.
Grover's entire argument was based on dermals and sweat pores and they have definitively been shown to have mundane causes. There's a reason why even the most hardcore bigfooters (except you) don't argue dermal ridges anymore.
"Q&A with Dr. Meldrum about this article...
DeleteQ: The article mentions a track that Chilcutt determined was fake. What is the origin of that track?
A: The "fake" element was overstated by the reporters. It was one of Freeman's casts from Elk Wallow (if memory serves me, but I will check the location name).
There was evidence of contamination by human fingerprints in the toe region. The question remains whether this was intentional or not.
There seems to be a natural inclination to touch tracks, brush away debris, or even embellish an indistinct spot. One of the toes clearly had a triple strike, in that the core pattern of a fingertip (human appearing ridge texture) was repeated down the length of the toe. This may have been done by Freeman or any of the numerous other individuals who examined the tracks prior to their casting.
What the reporter failed to mention was that along the margins of the foot there were examples of the distinct coarse textured ridges trending parallel to the margins of the foot! So it is not unreasonable to conclude that a legitimate footprint was literally "touched up" in the toe region."
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MELD/houston_chron_article.htm
Neither does Crowley cite these casts as consistent with his casting artefacts, nor does Chilcutt cite these casts as consistent with his biological traits;
"Compare this texture with another cast associated with Paul Freeman, also claimed to exhibit dermal ridges. This is a close-up of the 1982 so-called “Elk Wallow“ cast. Both textures are said to be “Bigfoot’s dermal ridges”, yet they are grossly and obviously dissimilar."
http://orgoneresearch.com/category/bigfoot/
Nowhere in Crowley's work does he apply the casting artefacts he's studied to the Elk Wallow AKA Mill Creek casts. If he did, Crowley would have used them in that paper you've "read" (cough, cough) to assert consistency. It's what people trying to substantiate research do. Grover Krantz's stance on Elk Wallow dermals were unshakable because not only had nobody ever manufactured anything that looks like them (Crowley's work PROVES this), but...
"Thus far, every specialist who has examined these casts [Mill Creek] agrees that their detailed anatomy has all the characteristics and appearance of being derived from an imprint of primate skin. These include thirty police fingerprint workers, ... six physical anthropologists ... four pathologists and two zoologists."
And even though you're desperate for closure, I know plenty of people who stand by the Elk Wallow dermals, because they actually know what they're talking about.
If you had ever bothered to read Crowley, you'd know that "textured ridges trending parallel to the margins of the foot" were exactly the type of desiccation ridges he found repeatedly. He never discovered anything that looked like human fingerprints. Case closed. No amount of whining and complaining can change it.
DeleteThey're used to be a guy on the BFF named Mulder who also tried to make the same kind of tortured and desperate arguments you're making now. He eventually gave up and admitted reality as I suspect you will someday.
"Textured ridges trending parallel to the margins of the foot"... Is essentially what dermals are. It's the reason why so many (misinformed) can draw the link between that and desiccation? The difference is in the data in those alleged desiccation ridges, which is in clear BLACK AND WHITE up top directly from your hero. A "hero", whose work you didn't even care to read, but are trying to sound clever about now. You're an embarrassment to your religion.
DeleteYou can't have it both ways, either Crowley is right about the consistency of his experiment, or he isn't... Which is it?
Who never found anything that looked like human fingerprints?? You're not being specific... Be very careful as to how you answer this question because I'm about to make you look even dumber. Using a contradiction about a lengthy experiment that you didn't even read, doesn't even begin to start substantiating an allegation of "tortured and desperate arguments". You are out of or depth Stuart, and I'll be happy to post all this again next time you think you have a new audience.
: )
Just to put that other matter to bed, the body of the "peer reviewed research article" begins:
Delete"First off, I would like to express my appreciation to Patrick Huyghe and the members of the search committee for this honor and the privilege of addressing the members of the SSE. I accept this Dinsdale Award."
Call me crazy, but I'm going out on a limb and I'll say that that reads a lot like an acceptance speech!
I'll return later to clean up any further messes you've left.
... Pair this with the fact that you didn't read the publication number on Meldrum's paper as well (that you STILL assert doesn't exist even though it TOO is in black and white)... Leaves me wondering why the heck I stoop this low, but I guess I have a bit of a cruel streak.
DeleteYes Stuart, there is a link in that link, that directs you to his paper.
DeleteI know I'm being trolled, nobody could possibly be this dense.
Nope, that's in the "paper" itself. That's what I always claimed -- it's a transcript of an acceptance speech -- I guess Meldrum's peers were in the live audience conducting their "review"?
DeleteOne last time, as I'm well aware I'm being trolled... The link I provided is here;
Deletehttp://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/DINSDALE-AWARD.pdf
... And two thirds of the way down the first page of that link, is this paper;
http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/JSE-303-Meldrum.pdf
... You'll notice that at the very top of the paper, it says "Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 356–374, 2016 0892-3310/16"... Meaning it was published.
#1: Here is the link that you provided which takes one directly to the "peer reviewed research article" (no matter how often you lie, you can't change this fact):
DeleteIktomiTuesday, August 22, 2017 at 1:24:00 PM PDT
Argh great... You're back in "debunking mode", you must mean business. Go get em tiger!!! http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/JSE-303-Meldrum.pdf
https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2017/08/this-is-eclipse-bigfoot-saw-in-idaho.html?m=1#comment-form
#2: Regardless of what page you linked to, the quotation above is taken directly from the "research article" -- it's clearly a speech as Meldrum specifically introduces it as such. Yes, the speech transcript was published, otherwise how would we be discussing it at all?
#3: The lesson you should take from this episode is that it's not good to be too sure of yourself and refuse to admit that you're ever wrong. Perhaps you can use this as an opportunity to reevaluate your other firmly held beliefs. In any event, I feel a bit sorry for you now.
I might add that, as you requested, I've now completely debunked the content of the speech transcript.
DeleteQED
The content of that presentation was published in a journal. Scientists partake in presentations. It's what they do a lot of the time. It's how science and ideas circulate. Go on YouTube and type in archeological presentations, for example. Chris Stringer has presented much of his work which has been subsequently published in journals. Words are now actually beginning to fail me.
DeleteThe paper drawn from his research, presentations, whatever utterly normal process that science manifests as from time to time... Is published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 356–374, 2016 0892-3310/16", as stated on the very top of that paper.
And you've debunked what?
The point I originally made was that it was a transcript of an acceptance speech and I mentioned that you obviously failed to read the first sentence:
Delete"First off, I would like to express my appreciation to Patrick Huyghe and the members of the search committee for this honor and the privilege of addressing the members of the SSE. I accept this Dinsdale Award."
You denied that it was an acceptance speech and then outright lied about the link you posted.
Regarding the published nature of it, the SSE apparently ran out of papers regarding the merits of dowsing and/or demonstrating people's past lives through analysis of birthmarks. With nothing else available, publishing a speech transcript probably seemed like a good idea!
The slapdash nature of the speech made it quite easy for me to comprehensively debunk.
"The Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE) is a 'peer-reviewed' pseudojournal put out by the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE).
Delete"JSE has much less to do with science than it does with whatever pet crank theories its editors are out to promote. It's chock-full of all kinds of woo, including (but not limited to) alternative medicine, astrology, remote viewing, AIDS denial, quantum woo, UFOs, and much, much more! The society also puts out a magazine called EdgeScience, possibly trying to ape other organizations dedicated to actual science.
"The spiritualist crank Stephen E. Braude is the Editor-in-Chief for the journal."
"The Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE) is a 'peer-reviewed' pseudojournal put out by the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE).
Delete"JSE has much less to do with science than it does with whatever pet crank theories its editors are out to promote. It's chock-full of all kinds of woo, including (but not limited to) alternative medicine, astrology, remote viewing, AID (S) denial, quantum woo, UFOs, and much, much more! The society also puts out a magazine called EdgeScience, possibly trying to ape other organizations dedicated to actual science.
"The spiritualist crank Stephen E. Braude is the Editor-in-Chief for the journal."
No, the point you originally made was to deny the paper was ever published in a journal... And you made a total prat of yourself. Thank god for you you're too afraid to have your name to stuff like that. So Meldrum expresses gratitude (basic manners) for winning an Award from that society, before presenting the work that he's being awarded for? Please, explain to me in your world of superior logical thinking, how this somehow undermines the same work being published in the society's journal? Again, here's that publication number; Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 356–374, 2016 0892-3310/16.
Delete"Because most (but not all) of these cases develop among persons who believe in reincarnation, we should expect that the informants for the cases would interpret them as examples according with their belief; and they usually do. It is necessary, however, for scientists to think of alternative explanations. The most obvious explanation of these cases attributes the birthmark or birth defect on the child to chance, and the reports of the child's statements and unusual behavior then become a parental fiction intended to account for the birthmark (or birth dcl'cct) in terms of the culturally accepted belief in rein- carnation."
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/267/2015/11/STE39stevenson-1.pdf
To a racist, the fact that a significant population of the planet's differing ethnicities have religious belief system in reincarnation, might not hold any cultural worth, but for someone who never checks his sources or has an interest in thinking for himself, these alleged occurrences are worthy of being scrutinised by scientific research.
And you've debunked not one thing in this entire thread of comments Stuey.
Oh no! A copy and paste from someone calling out alternative medicine, astrology, remote viewing, quantum physics and UFO's! What will I do! Ha ha ha ha ha!!
DeleteEDITOR IN-CHIEF
Stephen E. Braude, Ph.D. Emeritus Prof. of Philosophy U. of MD Baltimore County
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Carlos S. Alvarado, Ph.D. Parapsychology Foundation, New York, NY. Imants Barušs, Ph.D. University of Western Ontario, Canada Daryl Bem, Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Robert Bobrow, Ph.D. Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY. Courtney Brown, Ph.D. Emory University, Alanta, GA. Etzel Cardeña, Ph.D. University of Lund, Lund, Sweden. Jeremy Drake, Ph.D. Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA
Roger D. Nelson, Ph.D. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ Mark Rodeghier, Ph.D. Center for UFO Studies, Chicago, IL Daniel Sheehan, Ph.D. University of San Diego, San Diego, CA
EDITORIAL BOARD
Richard C. Henry, Ph.D. (Editorial Chair). Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Mikel Aickin, Ph.D. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Steven J. Dick, Ph.D. U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DC. Peter Fenwick, Ph.D.
Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK. Alan Gauld, Ph.D.
University of Nottingham, UK. Robert G. Jahn, Ph.D.
Princeton University, NJ. Wayne B. Jonas, Ph.D. Samueli Institute, Alexandria, VA. Michael Levin, Ph.D. Tufts University, Boston, MA. David C. Pieri, Ph.D. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Juan Roederer, Ph.D. University of Alaska–Fairbanks, AK. Yervant Terzian, Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. N. C. Wickramasinghe, Ph.D Churchill College, Cambridge, UK
Here is my first post on the subject of the speech transcript:
Delete"That's right, an acceptance speech! What's next? A transcript of Halle Berry's Razzy acceptance speech for her role in The Catwoman? What makes this especially funny is that Joerg didn't even know this because he didn't bother to read the first sentence of the article!
"Wait, there's more!
"The organization that publishes the journal in which the speech transcript appeared is called the Society for Scientific Exploration. Get this, in the past the same organization has published:
"[P]apers purporting to demonstrate that dowsing has been verified, that young chicks have psychokinetic powers, and that reincarnation is not only verified, but that past lives are often indicated by the presence of birthmarks."
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/massive_uncritical_publicity
"Meldrum is definitely in good company! You can't make this stuff up folks! Ha ha ha!"
https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2017/08/paranormal-creatures-in-woods.html?m=1#comment-form
You might notice the part where I acknowledged that:
Delete"The organization that publishes the journal in which the speech transcript appeared is called the Society for Scientific Exploration."
So is it really true that "the point I originally made was to deny that the paper was ever published in a journal"?
So you try to cover up one lie with another lie. Take a minute for self reflection.
... And this helps the fact that you didn't read the publication number, how?
Delete(Creased)
Worming dear boy... Nothing but worming. You didn't read the publication number, likely didn't even understand it... And you're just embarrassed.
DeleteIt's ok, just be more careful as to actually read the sources next time. It'll save you the type of worming you're resorted to now.
Yes, actually I'll reflect a minute... Here's what we got so far...
Delete• Meldrum's Orgone Link, rendered futile due to consistent examples across continents and data in the actual footage that attests to a flexing foot.
• Orgone's dermals "debunking" can't be applied to Elk Wallow casts, as stated by the man himself (you didn't read the source).
• Meldrum's Award and presentation is somehow unworthy of publication, and isn't published... Flying in the face of average scientific practice (and you didn't read the source again).
• The Journal of Scientific Exploration is "pseudoscientific", when the journal process has been honoured accurately, and important questions that most scientists aren't preoccupied in asking are simply put to the scientific method.
... Ok, good advice. What's next?
I accept your apology Joerg. You are really one insecure ding dong, aren't you? Ha ha ha. In the future, try not to make your lies so blatant. At least you don't have to worry anymore about copying and pasting about six of the standard arguments that I authoritatively debunked today. So there's that!
DeleteApology? Oh dear... Somebody is still struggling to read properly. Stop embarrassing yourself by deflecting to irrelevances. You asserted that an award speech was not a later publication in a journal. And whilst you STILL assert that, your main arguments need saving... Desperately.
DeleteTick, tock.
How are you ever gonna impress dMaKeR like this, Stue?
DeleteI already accepted your apology Joerg, you don't have to continue! Ha ha ha!
DeleteEven if I WAS apologising, Stuey, the fact you're referencing that as your victory highlight of this thread... Is pretty self-explanatory.
DeleteI was referencing the fact that you came up with another absurd face saving lie. The only possible purpose for you to lie further would be as a form of apology and a total surrender to my merciful nature. Once again, I accept your apology.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Face saving". Apart from picking up old, done & dusted arguments that you've cherry picked from cleverer pseudosceptics around here (passed them off as your own without researching how they end up when countered), you also have a weird habit of picking up the vocabulary of others in the very same thread of comments.
DeleteHopeless.
ikdummy decimated. If you delve into the plaster minutia like ikdummy's destroyer did, it's blatantly obvious ikdummy's whole life is clinging to refutable hoaxes. Personally, I can't get beyond the scores of giant apemen that no one can capture and we continually see blurry indiscernible photos of. However, I am glad someone spends enough time to delve into ikdummy's nonsense to thoroughly spank him.
DeleteAnd 7:03, ikdummy's version of an apology is "Even if I WAS apologising" at 6:55. Make no mistake, anyone reading this, ikdummy apologized.
Argh I see Stuey, it appears it's time to switch to "ikdummy" sockpuppet mode. I didn't see that one coming (sigh). Can someone please just debunk these plaster cards already? Some poor turkey's are gonna get it soon if nobody can!
DeleteNo expedition... No chance in using the readily available evidence to "catch a Bigfoot", Stuey!
*casts
Deleteikdummy: "Argh I see Stuey, it appears it's time to switch to "ikdummy" sockpuppet mode."
DeleteAnother lie from the plaster child for bigfoot.
Don't worry... By the time I exhaust every typical, dated and debunked avenue from this sockpuppet... You've always got "AC Collins" puppet to fall back on. That's usually used as the "flat out abuse" puppet, when you're left with little else?
Delete^ The latest lie from the plaster child for bigfoot.
DeleteHurry up and debunk these plaster casts already!
Delete7:03 already did. Now, is this your cue to say 7:03 was me? Is your life one big lie after another? Circular lies. ikdummy chasing its tail.
DeleteYou're dismissed. Re-examine your lie-fe.
Stuey, you haven't debunked anything... Care to point it out. Nobody in their right minds would point to that sham as a debunking... That's unless you're a sockpuppet that needs reassurance.
Delete^ The latest lie from the plaster child for bigfoot.
ReplyDelete