 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robday
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 789
|
 Posted: December 12th, 2008 01:42 PM |
     |
|
Dorothy Schein-
If this animal is a mangy bear (like the example picture you provided) wouldn't it seem logical to see missing hair? The animal in the picture appears to have relatively healthy hair with no obvious missing patches.
The limb proportions are a touchy subject as well. Limb proportions vary with age. Think of it this way: when shown a photo of a baby human, how do you identify it as such? Part of that identification may come from the obviously disproportionate limb length. Since those that believe this animal to be a Sasquatch also unanimously believe it to be a juvenile, then the proper differences in limb proportions must also be considered when making comparisons to other possible Sasquatch like Patty. The same would hold true using the skinny bear theory. If the bear is young, then it's limb proportions in relation to it's torso should be somewhat different. Just last year I saw a young bear running alongside my truck at night and watched it for over two minutes. It's proportions were very different than a full grown bear. I use this mental image to try and see a bear in this picture as you so adamantly state, but the proportions are very, very wrong. The thing you point out as being a head is far too large for this to be a young bear, and the limbs are of the wrong length and shape as well. And, if it is mangy, there should be patches of hair missing.
As mentioned by LissingMinx, a gorilla simply cannot be used as a comparison. And by the same logic, a young, skinny mangy bear cannot be used either unless you can show (from the picture) evidence of mange. If this is a bear and the cubs from the other pic are hers, they would also have mange (and they don't).
One thing that I have constantly asserted concerning these photos is that we cannot reliably say what the animal IS, only what it IS NOT. So again, it is not a human, a canine, a cougar or a bear. Of this I am completely confident. What it IS is simply unknown at this point, but my opinion is that it is some kind of primate. And every person I have shown it to has the same reaction, "it's a monkey". This is without any coaching or discussion of any kind. When shown all three photos, they become puzzled and ask why there are bear cubs sharing a cage with a chimp. It's only when I tell the background of the pictures that I get some different reactions, some of which also think it's another bear. But even they first thought it must be a chimp, and only change their minds because there are bear cubs in another photo.
You have several people on this thread who are experts in primate phyisiology and others who are very knowledgable about bears and wildlife in general. They are trying to politely tell you that this animal is not a bear using the same information repeatedly. Yet you are trying to refute those statements with an ever growing number of explanations, each more difficult to accept than the rest.
Please open your mind and listen to the people who have experience in these areas. I'm not telling you to change your mind, I'm just saying you should be more open to logic. Your mind may change, or it may not. But at least give the logical explanations a chance and try to address them.
BTW, Valleydude has not altered the pics in any way other than to change the contrast/color of a few (and the obvious and sometimes comical chop-jobs!). I know because when he first posted these changes I meticulously picked through them to be sure the subject material had not been altered. He is doing his best to make a point, and his efforts are mainly for your benefit. So to accuse him of some sort of adulteration is simply wrong.
EDIT: Sorry Bossburg, I was typing this when you posted the warning. I apologize, and you may delete this post if you think it is appropriate to do so.
Again, my apologies.
R.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wickie
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 02:10 PM |
|
|
| Man, after reading some of these post, I didn't realize how conterversial this pic has become. Whether it's a squach or a mangy bear in the "back door boogie" postion, it will never hold up to proof of BF! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 04:41 PM |
|
|
The whole argument is really silly and it’s repeated regularly.
It all started with Bear camp they’ve been thrown out but vowed to keep returning until they put this to bed once and for all, a promise that was kept. Then they usually start with a plea or complain about being embarrassed, they need to cleanse the name of Bigfoot… Like yesterday when they said please stop everyone is so embarrassed. Then they usually go on to a long drawn out bear theory with some obvious mistakes.
They don’t get embarrassed mistaking a Sasquatch for a bear or when they measured a tree root yesterday and told everyone it’s a match, exactly the size of a bear head!
All in all they're really making a good name for us Sasquatch hunters. JK Or is it Troll 101? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DorothyF
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 07:06 PM |
|
|
Am I allowed to rebut?
I'd like to post a chart showing some bone lengths in humans, in bears, in patty and in two different australopithecines.
I stated that the animal photo'd was quadraped because it's on all fours in the two photos. Working with what is shown on the images.
I'd also like to see this "root" pointed out and shown in the other two images of the scene (overlay it into the other images showing the root present in its position)
One of the two main points I wanted to emphasize were the back leg knee joint and below that. This is much different in structure than any primate. The animal in the photos appears to have similar bone structure to a bear in that instance, and the long visible line on the back leg with lack of break in the arch, along with the apparent lack of calf muscle in the bent over photos which should over emphasize such muscles if they were present. The bone structure of the hind legs is wrong for it to be primate, and this is very apparent on the knee area, especially so on the bent over photo.
The other being the head and neck position, and length of which I can show multible examples.
May I present a rebutal showing this with example photos? Also showing comparitive bone lengths in primates, humans and bears?
Thank you. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 07:23 PM |
|
|
| And here we go again! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LissingMinx
Approved
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 476
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 08:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
DorothyF wrote:
Am I allowed to rebut?
I'd like to post a chart showing some bone lengths in humans, in bears, in patty and in two different australopithecines.
I stated that the animal photo'd was quadraped because it's on all fours in the two photos. Working with what is shown on the images.
I'd also like to see this "root" pointed out and shown in the other two images of the scene (overlay it into the other images showing the root present in its position)
One of the two main points I wanted to emphasize were the back leg knee joint and below that. This is much different in structure than any primate. The animal in the photos appears to have similar bone structure to a bear in that instance, and the long visible line on the back leg with lack of break in the arch, along with the apparent lack of calf muscle in the bent over photos which should over emphasize such muscles if they were present. The bone structure of the hind legs is wrong for it to be primate, and this is very apparent on the knee area, especially so on the bent over photo.
The other being the head and neck position, and length of which I can show multible examples.
May I present a rebutal showing this with example photos? Also showing comparitive bone lengths in primates, humans and bears?
Thank you.
|
Please feel free to present your bone length charts. Bear (no pun intended) in mind juveniles do not have adult proportions. The long bones in particular are still growing and they do not all grow at the same rate. Perhaps you should include growth rate charts for the animals listed on your chart for clarity as well
Also bear in mind Australopithecines have different proportions, bone structures and gaits than any known animal, humans and Sasquatch included. In fact, afarensis is different from africanus, and they are different from robustus, etc...etc...When you post these charts, please include which specimens the data has been taken from. While their lower bodies are more human-like than ape-like they are unique to not only the genus but to the species. In fact, it can be argued the proportions are unique to the individual specimen.
You cannot state this animal is a quadraped simply because it is currently seen on all fours. With this logic I could post a photo of a bear standing on two legs and claim it a biped, or a human on all fours and claim it a quadraped. I'd be wrong in both instances.
As far as the calf muscle, speaking as someone that has taught flexibility classes, when you raise up on your toes, the muscle contracts, it bunches making it very visible. When you bend and stretch in a position similar to the one this animal is in the muscle by necessity relaxes and stretches...elongates and any definition often appears to disappear. Particularly in juveniles that have not yet developed the musclulature of an adult.
Please explain how the bone structure is wrong for a bipedal primate.
Before we take this any further, please clarify: Which position do you see the bear in? There is some debate among the bear camp about this point so it is imperative to the debate we know which way yours is facing.
D.
Too many questions, not enough answers. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Squatchgirl
Approved
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
|
We all come here in search of Sasquatch, is it better to work together to prove it’s real instead of against each other to prove that maybe it isn’t? Maybe I’m different but I’ve always found more things can be accomplished when we work together. If you don’t believe this was a Sasquatch it would be best to put your talents into something more constructive in another section. Arguing always brings Trouble and from what I see this has been argued to death. Neither side will ever be satisfied.
Just my thoughts don’t be mad.
Cindy |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thesaint
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 09:43 PM |
|
|
Sorry, folks but I see a bear. Always have. It is looking straight the camera.
my little girl believes in bigfoot... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dksac
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 683
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 09:53 PM |
|
|
| I don't think its a bear looking into a camera. There is a photo of a bear cub looking right into the same camera and there is a lot of reflection from the eyes. Even if the eyes were closed the bear cub photo shows a lot of crystal clear facial features well withing the depth of field for a primitive camera. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Racoon
Approved
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 09:59 PM |
|
|
| Sorry, folks but I see a Sasquatch. Always have. It is looking away from the camera. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thesaint
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 10:06 PM |
|
|
Just goes to show how we all look at things differently. These photos in the end are inconclusive.
my little girl believes in bigfoot... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wickie
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
thesaint wrote:
Just goes to show how we all look at things differently. These photos in the end are inconclusive.
|
I agree, in the rear end that is! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DorothyF
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: December 12th, 2008 11:18 PM |
|
|
Lissing Minx: which Australopithecines would you prefer I use in the example? You may choose, that is fine.
Squatchgirl: I agree with you to a certain extent, but I also feel like there is a lot of unexplained things that we can learn from. I take the approach of trying first to see what is there, what can be discerned from the images (without altering them or enhancements/interpretations) and then trying to exmine very closely those things in which we can make out more clearly from these images, instead of trying to presume what we can't. Certainly all of us taking interest either know sasquatch exists, or want to believe it does. This knowledge or belief doesnt make the animal in these photos either a bear or a sasquatch! Only from close examinations will we get as close as possible. Even still, the images are certainly interesting and worthy of further study. Instead of arguing a "side", I'm just looking for the truth! 
Valleydude: Can you point out the root theory you're mentioning? If you can please overlay it onto the other images (unaltered original images) in the position you propose it to be. Thanks!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LissingMinx
Approved
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 476
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 07:32 AM |
|
|
Dorothy; since we're talking about limb lengths, your options in examples of post-cranial anatomy are quite limited whichever you choose. AL 288-1 and "Littlefoot" being the best examples of afarensis and africanus long bones, respectively. Littlefoot may finally be removed from the breccia matrix by now, I haven't followed up on Clarke's work in two years or more.
Australos aren't going to be a match for Sasquatch, anyway. They are quite different and there is some debate they remained semi-arboreal. Africanus moreso than afarensis, according to most research. This would result in different limb ratios than were they more terrestrial, as is the subject at hand.
If you choose to skip past Australopithecines, you could also try comparing KNM-WT 15000, Nariokatome boy. He died at @ age 12. He was fully bipedal, terrestrial and sub-adult. However, he was also nilotic, living in a hot, dry environment resulting in longer, leaner limbs due to Bergmann's and Allen's rules.
Personally, I believe this a waste of both of our time, but since you're playing in my field now, I'll go along if you wish to continue. Bear in mind, there is a wide range of variation within a species, particularly when it comes to limb lengths due to clinal variation, growth patterns, growth rates, nutrition and sexual dimorphism. Just to name a few. It's fun for me to play with the research, but it is pretty much irrelevant as none of these examples are Sasquatch. They do not match each other and will not match the creature in question any more than a gorilla, chimp, gibbon or orangutan will. They are all apes, the similarities end there.
What makes it clear and obvious to me that the creature depicted here is a habitual biped is the ischiatibial band or tract clearly visible in pic 1. While all mammals have this feature to some extent, it has become a main support for a bipedal walker and is therefore uniquely large, strong and visible in them. The associated musculature is also visible, distinct and characteristic.
If you like we can go into the differences in the shoulder girdle and rib cage of apes compared to other mammals due to their ancestry of suspensory or brachiating locomotion as well. While these pictures aren't as obvious regarding these anatomical features, there are indications there as well.
Or, we can just drop it and you can feel free to continue to see Rorschach the Bear. No difference to me.
D.
(Edited by LissingMinx)
Too many questions, not enough answers. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DorothyF
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 11:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
LissingMinx wrote:
Dorothy; since we're talking about limb lengths, your options in examples of post-cranial anatomy are quite limited whichever you choose. AL 288-1 and "Littlefoot" being the best examples of afarensis and africanus long bones, respectively. Littlefoot may finally be removed from the breccia matrix by now, I haven't followed up on Clarke's work in two years or more.
Australos aren't going to be a match for Sasquatch, anyway.
Personally, I believe this a waste of both of our time, but since you're playing in my field now, I'll go along if you wish to continue.
They do not match each other and will not match the creature in question any more than a gorilla, chimp, gibbon or orangutan will. They are all apes, the similarities end there.
|
You're the one that brought the topic of using australopithecines, not I. Now you're saying its useless and a waste of time to? I'll kindly leave them out of the presentation then. I was only including the example because you mentioned using it for comparison, as you also did patty from the pgf.
Quote:
If you want to compare to something in contrast to a bear, you need to use the only really good "type specimen" we have for Sasquatch, Patty, from the PGF.
The claim that has been made is the animal is a primate. By your "theory" of then using a gorilla by comparison, we could as easily use a gibbon or an orangutan or a spider monkey or a babboon. Personally, I like australopithecines. AL 288-1 is a a good one. |
I'm going to use patty, a human, and a chimp along with a bear to demonstrate the lengths do in fact match a within a bears morphology. (most people on the sasquatch side of the fence say it looks like a chimp or monkey)
One of the important thing I think you have said is this:
Quote:
Bear in mind, there is a wide range of variation within a species, particularly when it comes to limb lengths due to clinal variation, growth patterns, growth rates, nutrition and sexual dimorphism. Just to name a few. It's fun for me to play with the research, but it is pretty much irrelevant as none of these examples are Sasquatch. They do not match each other and will not match the creature in question any more than a gorilla, chimp, gibbon or orangutan will. |
Keep in mind these things you've mentioned when taking a look at the photos as well. Btw, I wasnt the one that brought the gorillas in originally for the comparison, I saw them used first by Valleydude. I will be using some different examples this time of primates showing some of the same lines, and anatomy. The animal photographed does "match" within the range of a bear.
I'm still waiting for this "root" to be pointed out by Valleydude. I'll be posting my chart within the next day or so.
(Edited by DorothyF) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 12:44 PM |
|
|
| Dorothy, Dadave, Shine, whatever I know the BFRO is under attack on the web by some anti-BFRO creeps and I hope this sudden wave of interest isn't related. I have alot of respect for them. I'm just a member here like everyone else my honest interpretaiton of any photo here is just that. It's not the opinion of the BFRO or anyone else. If you don't like the way I do things thats your problem just don't wait on me to assist you. I know what your all about. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robday
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 789
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 01:04 PM |
|
|
All the charts in the world aren't going to change anything. This sounds more like trying to win a lost argument than proving this animal is anything specific.
You could do what I did, which is far less scientific but very telling nonetheless:
Without any setup or coaching of any kind, no background, no "lead-in", show these pictures to everyday people and ask them what they think it is.
I did this with 6 or 7 people at work (at a technical/engineering location in Los Angeles, so there should be no bias). I first showed the two pics of the animal, then the pic with the bear cubs. Not one single person thought this was a bear. The answers I got were "Chimp" and "monkey" each time. One person asked why two bear cubs were "in the same cage as a monkey". I then explained the circumstances of the photos. One guy walked in to the shop while I was explaining it, looked at the photos and said, "I'm sorry, there's no way that's a Bigfoot. It's obviously a chimpanzee or other ape."
And there you go. Even a non-believer doesn't think it's a bear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DorothyF
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 01:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Valleydude wrote:
Dorothy, Dadave, Shine, whatever I know the BFRO is under attack on the web by some anti-BFRO creeps and I hope this sudden wave of interest isn't related. I have alot of respect for them. I'm just a member here like everyone else my honest interpretaiton of any photo here is just that. It's not the opinion of the BFRO or anyone else. If you don't like the way I do things thats your problem just don't wait on me to assist you. I know what your all about.
|
Valleydude: You said I was pointing out a root and claiming it to be the head. I asked you to show me this root. Can you do so? Please overlay it into the other photos showing its position the entire time (unless you feel like the root moved or was placed elsewhere) Explain your root theory please, I don't see any root (not trying to be difficult, i just dont see any root!)
I'd just like to see the root pointed out on the other photos (the originals)
robday you bring up an excellent point. When I first looked at the one image (called 2_creature on the BFRO site) I thought the same thing, chimp. This is why I'm going to include a chimp in the example as well. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LissingMinx
Approved
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 476
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 02:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
LissingMinx wrote:
First, please explain how you know the animal is quadrapedal and not bipedal?
Second, this is not "my theory". No one has claimed the creature photographed is a gorilla. Why, then, does everyone insist on using a gorilla for comparisons? This is an erroneous comparison. Fact, not theory.
The claim that has been made is the animal is a primate. By your "theory" of then using a gorilla by comparison, we could as easily use a gibbon or an orangutan or a spider monkey or a babboon. Personally, I like australopithecines. AL 288-1 is a a good one.
Third, Claiming evidence requires presenting said evidence. I'd like to see your analysis of Patty's proportions. I'm sure we all would. Especially since both animals have been analyzed by Ph.D holding physical anthropologists and anatomists and they do not seem to agree with you.
D.
(Edited by LissingMinx)
(Edited by Bossburg)
|
Dorothy:
If you read what I wrote, I included Australopithecines in the list of primates you could try comparing it to, but also stated these are all erroneous comparisons as they are not the animal in question. Australos are getting a little closer than the others only because they are at least semi-bipedal.
If you choose to use chimps, please use bonobos, Pan paniscus. They have very different proportions than their cousins Pan troglodytes, the common chimp. This is one of several identifying characteristics.
You keep promising anatomical comparisons. I'm not wasting anymore time with "he said-she said". Present the evidence and I'll be back to review it. Otherwise, I'm done here. btw, I'm a stickler for these things in scientific debate so please be prepared to cite your sources.
D.
Too many questions, not enough answers. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DorothyF
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 03:19 PM |
|
|
Lissing Minx: You keep changing your mind as to which comparison I should use for my presentation. The first one you suggested, I feel best applies seeing as you're suggesting this is a juvi sasquatch.
as quoted by you:
Quote:
If you want to compare to something in contrast to a bear, you need to use the only really good "type specimen" we have for Sasquatch, Patty, from the PGF.
|
I can't recall anyone saying this looked like a bonobo, so I'm going to skip that one on the comparison. I have heard people compare this to a chimp many times, which is why its included (as is per your suggestion the best sasquatch example i can find "patty", you can point a better one out if you can find one) If you'd like to use a comparison using a bonobo, then please make one comparing it to show this to be a bonobo. I'm going to present some evidence suggesting this is likely a bear. I'm using a human (adult and juvenile) examples and "patty" from the pgf, and chimp, and black bear.
You're more than welcome to create your own examples using Australopithecines or bonobos if you feel like it would present a closer match or example. I don't feel like their anatomy is going to be closer then the examples I'm already using. You're more than welcome to prove me wrong though! I just don't want to spend a lot of time building something based on "theres no way its going to match" (your words) when you suggested it to begin with. I'd rather look for possible matches.
I'll happily provide sources for the examples that I've used for comparison (that will be easily available to you or anyone posting here to make it easily corroborated) I wouldn't have it any other way.
We still don't know this to be a bipedal animal or quadraped however it's only seen on all fours. A dog can also walk on two legs but we dont call it bipedal. The differences are huge in the anatomy and can be seen on these two photos showing that this animals hind legs are not matching bipedal primates or quadraped primates. The compared lengths of upper and lower leg bones on the front and rear legs will also represent much more bear proportions than any primate. (i will be showing a comparison of this using the joint lengths and hind/front leg comparisons, along with head and neck lengths beyond the plane of the shoulders.
Not only do the lines of this animal represent more of a thin young (likely starving young black bear suffering an infestation) but the anatomy alone will show this can't possibly be a primate, but that it must be something else. The hind leg knee joint and below that area (calf? or lack there of) alone presents a new standard for primate legs if this turns out to be a primate. This bone structure is as of the same structure as a bears hind legs. The comparison will also show that the front legs individual (upper and lower) bones will be different lengths than that of a primate. Even in primates with extremely large arms, the ratio between these two bones are different than that of a bears.
The anatomy alone (which can be discerned through these original images without altering or enhancements, or interpretations) will show that this cannot be primate.
I hope any future comparisons will continue to use the original photographs unaltered. This keeps us comparing the same evidence, which is what was presented to everyone.
I will withold my further rebuttals until Hearing Valleydude explain his "root" theory of where this animals head is.
It sould be fairly easy to draw a circle around the root in the other photos seeing as a root isnt likely to shift or move during the series of photos. I personally see no root, but instead the head of the animal photographed seems very, very likely instead. If you want me to consider taking this root theory seriously then point it out, or overlay it in some fashion way or shape so that you can show it being present in the other photos of the area and of the animal. The root did not simply appear for that one photo and disappear.
Thanks
Dorothy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LissingMinx
Approved
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 476
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 04:49 PM |
|
|
Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. I've never changed my mind. I never said Australopithecines were a good comparison, in fact, I listed them in the paragraph stating any other primate other than the one in question would be an erroneous comparison. I stated you could also try them and that I personally like AL 288-1, known as Lucy. I have her on a coffee mug. I didn't say this wouldn't be any less erroneous than using any of the other apes; great, lesser or human.
I don't care who first chose a gorilla as a comparison, it is an error to do so. Period.
FYI; bonobos are chimps. Pan paniscus, commonly referred to as "dwarf" or "pygmy" chimpanzees not because they are smaller in stature, but because they are more gracile. Common chimps are Pan troglodytes. This doesn't change the fact that they are both commonly called chimps. The animal in this video is a bonobo.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/...that_write.html
Several people on this forum have specified bonobo when saying it looked like a chimp to them. Most outside of primatology do not know there is a difference. Most don't even recognize chimps are not monkeys, they are great apes. Those that know the difference have specified; bonobo. Myself included.
If you insist on ignoring this and using a species known to have different proportions, as an identifying characteristic no less, one can only assume you are attempting to skew the data.
I don't care for disingenuous games and I am done here.
D.
(Edited by LissingMinx)
Too many questions, not enough answers. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DorothyF
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 05:05 PM |
|
|
Fine if that is what you need, to appear in fairness and to appease your wishes I shall include a bonobo (which is even farther away in anatomy than the photographed animal) I'm fine with using a bonobo as a comparison, but it will only further prove my point because it is not as close a match.
Care to address any of the points I've made about the anatomy of the hind leg or the other comparitve lengths?
I'm awaiting Valleydudes rebuttal before posting the comparisons because I'd like to address the "root" issues before we go further.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LissingMinx
Approved
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 476
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 05:16 PM |
|
|
I addressed them and I'm done here. If you missed it go back and read the hundreds of posts made by myself and others.
This is a waste of time.
D.
Too many questions, not enough answers. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NurseVal
Approved
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 68
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 05:46 PM |
|
|
Great video, LissingMinx. Thanks for sharing.
"Who is this that lights the wigwam?
With his great eyes lights the wigwam?"
HWL, The Song of Hiawatha |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1970
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 06:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bossburg wrote:
All of You! This will stop now. If you can't post something productive then don't post at all. Baiting by new comers will not be tolerated...and our regulars must use some restraint to not be drawn into an argument. PBYodeler and I have more to do than break up petty fights.
This is the last warning.
|
DorothyF has been disabled. I'm going to delete a few of the argumentive posts and clean this thread up a bit. In 8 days DorothyF has upset more people - whoever she/he is. We don't need that kind of attitude. There will always be people who's only intent is to disturb the forum. Please try not to get sucked into their web.
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LissingMinx
Approved
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 476
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 07:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
NurseVal wrote:
Great video, LissingMinx. Thanks for sharing.
|
Most welcome! I love Kanzi and Sue does some awesome research. I'll probably cry when Kanzi dies just like I did when I read Michael the Gorilla had died. He had so much to teach us...Yeesh, I'm such a geek! 
And sorry, Boss, I love a good debate but the one I was hoping for here never materialized. 
D.
Too many questions, not enough answers. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valleydude
Unregistered
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: December 13th, 2008 10:20 PM |
|
|
I just wanted to say, can I spot a Troll or what?
Do Trolls and Sasquatch exist? You bet, they just don’t belong together.
These nasty creatures are sure to return, some are here fermenting right now! They’re almost as interesting as Sasquatch only smaller.
Trolling is a game about identity deception. The Troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant. Sharing the groups common interests or concerns.
They post controversial messages to provoke others into an emotional response.
They only come to upset, disrupt or insult a group. Most trolls are sad people, living lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful.
Disrupting a stable group gives the illusion of power, just as for a few, stalking a strong person allows them to think they are strong, too.
Zero tolerance is the only way to stop them. They are costly to organizations, nothing good can come from allowing them to continue. Please don’t let the BFRO turn into the TFRO!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LissingMinx
Approved
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 476
|
| Posted: December 14th, 2008 01:23 PM |
|
|
Check this out
http://picasaweb.google.com/Tia.Bet...590321056662674
Human toddlers adopt this stance commonly enough it is actually named. The "Bear crawl". They use it when they have learned to walk instead of crawling, but they are still unsteady. Sometimes they just do it for fun.
Just make her little arms proportionately longer to account for age and species differences and what do we have?
D.
(Edited by LissingMinx)
Too many questions, not enough answers. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LissingMinx
Approved
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 476
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joshual
Approved
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: December 14th, 2008 05:54 PM |
|
|
That’s interesting although it’s impossible to identify any bones or ligaments without a very clear picture. The ideal way would be a dead one with a scalpel in hand. Hopefully the message was loud and clear, we’ll be able to talk about these things now without someone butting in with the annoying “I see bears” comments.
Josh |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
