BIGFOOT PHOTO UPDATE!!!!

[kyote]

I am now wondering if the bottle of methane gas I captured right after one finished off a bean burrito that it stole from a hiker .and let out this blood curdiliing faltluance(I think it sounds worse then it growl.)if it is of any good physical evidence.hmmm..we use military thermal imiagers to count the new born wild game in areas to track coyote killing of them..just maybe.we could have them help..

[NONYA]

NOPE they would detect the thermal imagers and retreat to a higher plane where thier super intelligent species is safe from our stone age technology! :wink: If there were bigfot in a swamp/forest/desert/field all you would need is a chopper with a FLIR and it would stand out like a sore thumb.I have seen footage of RABBITS showing up on a flir in thick brush,a BF would stand out like a strobe light,of course you wouldnt want to use a FLIR because it would completly rule out thier presence and we cant have that can we? :roll:

[Fishbone35]

Tracks in the ground in any form do not qualify as physical evidence,you are obviously having a hard time grasping the term,physical evidence is an object,a tiny piece of bone would be consistent with the term,a single hair,a derpresion in the ground that is in one persons opinion a BF track does not qualify.

physical evidence
: tangible evidence (as a weapon, document, or visible injury) that is in some way related to the incident that gave rise to the case called also real evidence —compare DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE and, TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

de·mon·stra·tive evidence
: evidence in the form of objects (as maps, diagrams, or models) that has in itself no probative value but is used to illustrate and clarify the factual matter at issue; broadly :

tangible
: having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses; "a physical manifestation"

Considering the fact that people have been convicted of crimes and sent to jail on nothing more than a footprint, it sure sounds like footprints qualify as physical evidence to me. Perhaps it is your grasp of the term that is in error?

As for me refraining from sharing anything on this forum, I can't help but notice that you are neither an admin nor a moderator; when I see that your status has changed to one or the other I'll give your directive consideration. Until then (or until directed by an admin or moderator of this forum), I guess you'll just have to deal with it. :wink:

[JPSaxMan]

Well said :grin:; I'm getting tired of people constantly being ridiculed for believing in something. Note the believers do not cut down (degrate, insult, whatever euphamism you want to use) the non-believers, so it should not be done to the believers. It is not professional and certainly does not make the "dark side" look good. Let's give it a rest, eh? Unless something constructive (or something funny without cutting down a member) is being said, leave it alone.  

[Graybeard]

Gotta agree Nonya, in a court of law footprints/tracks are considered physical evidence. Yes there have been a lot of cases of faking bigfoot tracks so it is some what suspect evidence but I think still it falls into the category of physical evidence, just not convincing physical evidence in and of itself.

I think I also have to agree that our doubters and non believers are stepping a bit over the line of late. It's fine to question and argue but let's do so in a respectable manner. I'm as non convinced as the rest of you guys at this point even tho willing to be convinced if someone can offer up something to change my mind. But let's not ridicule those who believe even if or because we might think some are kooks which I must admit some of the theories being tossed out make one want to do that. But let's NOT. OK?

[NONYA]

Footprints qualify as evidence when they have somthing to match them up to IE shoe/boot ect,if the print didnt match the suspects shoe it would be any evidence would it?A footprint at a crime seen that didnt link the suspect would never be used in court right?When you have a foot to match them up to maybe they could prove somthing,then it would by PHYSICAL evidence.Nobody has a BF foot to do a comparison to show that the print is actually that of a BF,so the tracks prove absolutly nothing in the BF search all they prove is that somthing left a large track in the ground,i have a friend who wears a size 22 shoe ill bet he could leave all kinds of "physical evidence" in the woods for you. :eek:

[WmRoy]

Footprints qualify as evidence when they have somthing to match them up to IE shoe/boot ect,if the print didnt match the suspects shoe it would be any evidence would it?A footprint at a crime seen that didnt link the suspect would never be used in court right?When you have a foot to match them up to maybe they could prove somthing,then it would by PHYSICAL evidence.Nobody has a BF foot to do a comparison to show that the print is actually that of a BF,so the tracks prove absolutly nothing in the BF search all they prove is that somthing left a large track in the ground,i have a friend who wears a size 22 shoe ill bet he could leave all kinds of "physical evidence" in the woods for you. :eek:

You've got a friend with a size 22......... now there's a claim that ya need to back up with a photo.......... :-D  :-D  time for Nonya to put up or shut up...... :eek:  :-D  :-D  

[countryrebel8174]

maybe the reason we cant find any hair from big foot  is that in all reality(im using that as a very loose word) they are a hairless species.
an 8 foot naked ape. now thats something i dont wanna run into in the woods. :-D

country rebel