The Fortean/paranormal/conspiracy thread

[Famous Mortimer]

This is an exact example of what I tried to talk about a while back. Science marches on. New theories are put forward and tested, and either found to be true or found to be false. It may not be perfect, but it

[DJ Stevie C]

The mouth and eyes don't look 'real' in any kind of way.Also the fur, animal fur usually has some kind of 'shape' to it, that fur is all over the place. Very much doubt it's real.Edit: Fox Facts "Bigfoot are rarely claimed to be agressive" I'm generally a bit of a skeptical bastard so I doubt things like this, if it is real I'll eat my toenail clippings.

I guess my toenail clippings are safe.Sorry you've not had what you wanted Woyz.

[Astro Hollywood]

This is an exact example of what I tried to talk about a while back. Science marches on. New theories are put forward and tested, and either found to be true or found to be false. It may not be perfect, but it

[Astro Hollywood]

Woyzeck, what's your take on the Patterson-Gimlin film?

It's almost as interesting as a psychological look into human nature as it is a piece of cryptozoological evidence. For something that runs less than ten seconds, it's been analysed, "enhanced" and interpreted hundreds of times, with dozens of different theories coming off of it. Most notably, a recent well-publicised theory of insanity where the latest guy to blow up the print saw what he took to be a gunshot wound in the thigh and bloody footprints on the ground and cooked up the idea that the guys who shot the film had been to the creek earlier in the week, been attacked by a group of sasquatches and massacred them with hunting rifles before burying the bodies with a forklift. Later that week they returned to find the creature in the film trying to dig up the graves, and that's where they shot her and shot the film as she ran away. He was even talking about having charges filed for murder. Yeah. It's a rorschach test on whoever looks at it, and as a piece of evidence, you're never going to be able to 100% prove it one way or the other.What is interesting about it is the sheer amount of times it's been "proven" to be a hoax, the word proven in the biggest quotation marks in the world. There's more people have claimed to have been inside that costume or made the costume than claim to have seen anything, and there are so many books and dreadful episodes of TV shows that have said they've conclusively proved it, each with different takes on the "truth". It's a great example of the way people will say they've hoaxed something thinking they get the "I fooled the world!" credit and not really needing any evidence to back their claims up because most people will just take it at face value.I will say that for something shot in 1967, it still looks a billion times more convincing than any of the other films that have cropped up, and none of the various confessions (none of which were from the people directly involved, just those who likely want to get their name into the mix of an infamous event) held any water with me. The guy who shot it still swore on his deathbed that he was telling the truth. There have been dozens of attempts to recreate it by believers, sceptics and various sneering TV shows, and every single attempt has been the most obvious man in a suit you've ever seen, from the walk to the costume.Oh and regarding this latest business, I'm glad it was a hoax. If it had been true, it would have been the most important and biggest discovery of the last century, and it would have been found by a noted conman and a couple of fucknuts. Imagine Robbie Williams finding the Holy Grail. Edited August 19, 2008 by Woyzeck

[Astro Hollywood]

UPDATE: The body has been discovered to be a rubber costume that contained cinder blocks and bricks to add weight. As well, Kulls states that there is definitely decomposing animal matter under the costume because of the odor. The freezer and body had been relocated to a location in Delaware County, Indiana for examination. Tom Biscardi was not present for the examination and was notified by phone of the discovery. Whitton and Dyer signed a contract with Tom Biscardi for an undisclosed amount of money before the body was turned over. Tom Biscardi has requested the return of the money but it has become apparent that Whitton and Dyer have fled. Though Kulls is declaring the Tom Biscardi was not involved with this hoax, that is a matter that needs to be examined because of his notorious background and the comments he made publicly at the press conference. More to come...

I hope that second part is true. The conman gets conned~!

[Tequila_Boy]

I find it ironic that Loki is posting about Hoaxes

Loki, God of Mischief etc

[Bluetonic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7571483.stm

[Pinc]

For the "9/11 INSIDE JOB THE EVIDENCE IS OBVIOUS" stuff I believe I saw a poll which was at about 45%. Absolutely insane. I absolutely detest 9/11 "TRUTHERS" because they are so full of shit that it makes a great argument for the various government and secret agencies being clean. There are troubling aspects of the 9/11 incidents but these get totally glossed over with nonsense like "buildings dont fall like that" and "the owner said PULL IT!!!!!".

I remain agnostic about whether anything fishy went on at 9/11, but have the "buildings don't fall like that" arguments been proven to be nonsense? After hearing the often-cited-by-truthers statistic that the World Trade Centers were the first steel buildings in history to collapse due to fire I did some (very) amateur research of my own into it. The most relevant thing I found was something called 'A Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire' by a company called Hughes Associates, Inc, 'a global company leading the fire protection engineering field with highly trained consultants, engineers, and fire investigators specializing in fire testing, fire modeling, and fire protection design.' The survey includes the World Trade Centers. It seemed to show, assuming it is as definitive as it claims to be (and the company seems very reputable) that while other steel buildings have partially collapsed in the past due to fire, the World Trade Centers were indeed the first to completely collapse.The collapses also look very much like controlled demolitions to me, though I'm sure that's more due to the fact that I am not a demolitions expert than anything else.If in fact it is nonsensical to suspect that there was something peculiar about the way the buildings fell then please illuminate the issue for me.

[Astro Hollywood]

I think the main issue with that is people saying that buildings don't usually fall that way, and haven't in previous structural testing, and that steel supports don't usually bend like that. While that might be true, most previously collapsing buildings weren't hit by two enormous jetliners containing thousands upon thousands of gallons of jet fuel which was ignited at

ridiculously hot temperatures. The thing that looked like controlled explosions was probably the snapping of the supports, which were holding up the huge weight of the building while being subject to these temperatures (and the initial impacts), and went down domino style, like you'd expect after it began to collapse, with each collapsing floor hammering down onto the ones below.

 

I'm far from an expert in this though, I honestly pay barely any attention to what I consider a pretty tiresome conspiracy, so there's probably someone who can add a lot more.

[SpursRiot2012]

I am Steve Kulls Executive Director of Squatchdetective.com and Host of Squatchdetective Radio. I am here with Bob Schmalzbach, Vice President of Searching for Bigfoot, Inc.

Sorry, that bit made me chuckle.

[DJ Stevie C]

Something else.The controlled explosions would have to have been 'planned' for the exact points that the planes would hit, which were two different areas on two different buildings, they'd also have to perfectly plan so the second building hit was the first building they detonated when the 'natural' way to have done it would be to have the first building fall.... Most demolitions take place at ground level. Plus if there were controlled explosions there would've been dust and flames blown outwards from where the explosions took place rather than dust simply falling and flames being sucked inwards by the collapsing buildings. Not to mention the charges would have to be set in an incredibly busy building without being noticed and if you work in a building every day like most of the people there you'd kinda notice or remember even if it was a year later...What people heard was floor after floor collapsing in on itself. Not a series of explosions.I'm no expert either. But two huge commercial jetliners crashed into two buildings, those buildings fell down.Why or how that happened you can discuss as much as you like.There were no missiles fired from the planes.There were no demolition charges set at the scene.

[Astro Hollywood]

I'm going to be a bell-end and post an old comic I did that's relevant to the topic.

 

Edited August 20, 2008 by Woyzeck

[neil]

The collapses also look very much like controlled demolitions to me, though I'm sure that's more due to the fact that I am not a demolitions expert than anything else.

That's exactly what all these Loose Change type programs do though. They simply show you something that as an average person you could believe. Its the exact same thing as when they claim the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane because it didn't leave an outline of a plane. Sounds plausible until you really look into it and discover that, surprise surprise, its highly unlikely that it would leave an outline.The other thing that ALL 9/11 conspiracy theorists have on their side is revision. Loose Change, for one example, has had numerous parts removed because they've been flat out debunked, yet they make no mention of such a thing and instead focus on the latest theory. What angers me so much, and to be honest I think most of the people who get angry at them, is that they aren't looking for the truth. They are looking for it to be put on Bush and the lizard gang.

[Famous Mortimer]

What angers me so much, and to be honest I think most of the people who get angry at them, is that they aren't looking for the truth. They are looking for it to be put on Bush and the lizard gang.

Agreed. I mean, I hate Bush and his lot as much as anyone, but they've never needed an excuse on that scale to go to war before and didn't need to fly planes into buildings to do it. Everything the Loose Change people say has been debunked so many times that I grow weary, like Woyceck, of having to mention the same old crap again.

[Chest Rockwell]

I'm going to be a bell-end and post an old comic I did that's relevant to the topic.

It has been longer than two weeks... Draw some new ones you jerk!