It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: interupt42
Since when do people's shoes fall off when stepping down from something? When was the last time that happened to you. Flip flops don't count.
originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: interupt42
Not trying to sound defensive but...are you saying that's a young kid with his shoes falling off? Oy vey.
originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
If you are so confident the patterson gimlin footage is fake, how do you explain the fact the character featured in the film has breasts and we weren't even able to discern that fact until modern technology advanced to the point where the footage was able to be enhanced enough that they became clearly visible?
Is it just that the perpetrators of the hoax had the foresight and the budget to include breasts in their monkey suit, the likes of which no other hollywood studio was capable of replicating at the time? Why didn't we see similar suits in planet of the apes? Surely if the hoaxers went so far as to include believable breasts with their bigfoot suit, they would have hoaxed the footage so that said breasts would have been readily apparent with the cameras they were shooting with? Surely they would have taken a closer shot or another take or two to get the full effect instead of such a feature not being revealed for another 40 years?
originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: interupt42
I'm not sure how to respond. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but, I really don't know what to say to that. I suppose it could be Ronald Mcdonald up there in 30+ weather going for a stroll after climbing a few hundred feet. Clowns have big shoes too so maybe it's a clown.
You got me bud.
Here's an idea. Why not raise your eyebrow and consider that maybe...just maybe, there's something to this instead of inserting any ole' answer to fill in the blank?
There's really only a few things in this world that cause so much controversy. 1. Ufo's/Aliens 2. Bigoot 3. Ghosts/after life.
originally posted by: tallcool1
But since we can't capture a dark haired, ambulatory North American ape-like creature who does not want to be found - then the debate is over.
originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Sorry but you are incorrect. That was an analogy, not a straw man. It clearly demonstrates the same reason why Bigfoot can not be entertained by the mainstream. No evidence of vast distance traveled nor the possibility.
Moving forward...
Using this logic, it would 'appear' you believe we've found every species of life since the Cambrian period. I guess this is a straw man as well. So be it.
You realize that there have been digital enhancements, right?
Yes, Ill intent. Your intent is to blanket those whom believe in such 'myths' as having mental conditions such as ADHD or as a result of pharmaceuticals. While it wasn't your primary reason with the consideration of other external factors, you said it. I get the gist. If you are genuine about finding the 'truth' as to why people see these mythological creatures, your question has been already answered. It's your choice to ignore that. This is where the animosity comes from.
originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
This is a straw man FYI. The first photograph of a print was in 1951. Prior to that, no anthropologists were in the field researching BF.
No need to feel sorry, you are forgiven, just pay attention to the underlined part in bold.
"The "ufo, interstellar space" quips are veering to irrelevant strawmen."
Letting you know that it is largely irrelevant to the topic and any parallels drawn between this and bigfoot where I am concerned (which would rely on complete assumption on your part), will most definitely be a strawman.
No, it would not appear that I believe we have found every species of life since the Cambrian period. It would appear that I beleive we have found nothing to indicate a bigfoot does, or ever has, lived in NA.
So, asking for a genuine academic source amounts to your version of a strawman fallacy..... Good god almighty.....
originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
What it was, was a loaded question to set up for failure. Of course no one studied BF prior to the 50's because no one was interested until that picture came out. It doesn't really prove anything. That's all I can argue about that. The rest of your post was reasonable.
originally posted by: FlySolo
Yawn again. Same 'ole mantra. Not my problem you've got your fingers in your ears. Myopia is a bitch.
"Professor of psychology" in your well guarded study doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you don't even release the name of the professor. I take back my assumptions you have higher learning. Your what I would call a pseudo intellectual. No disrespect but that's just crap. Name dropping without actually name dropping is pointless.
As for sub clinical depression or what have you...didn't we already talk about this? It can't be contributed to every sighting and it's just an easy way to blow it off as nothing more than stress. Give me a break. That theory can only work if only one person witnessed a BF. Alone. Two or more and that "study" goes right into the toilet.
As for your precious "skyler" study. Laughable at best. 30 samples tested only. That's a three with 0 which pretty much sums up your points.
Excuse my cheekyness. My apologies