Mr. Miller...I'm patiently waiting for your response...

Mr. Miller...I'm patiently waiting for your response...

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 8th, 2009, 1:49 pm #1

I think we can clear up some misunderstandings...this isn't a hate John Green forum...what we all want is the truth...please feel free to use any materials that you have available to enlighten this forum...

Also Mr. Green is welcome here...I'd much rather get the information from the horses mouth...



Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 8th, 2009, 2:26 pm #2

I thought I would add a photo for an explanation...

We all, by film evidence, can clearly see a dog in the Dahinden film...
Patterson and Gimlin, in their reports didn't mention a dog but yet there is a bloody dog print in the Patterson film...plus a few check marks where we think other dog prints were removed...let me explain how we found this bloody dog print in the Patterson film...

MK and I were on the telephone...he sent me a still of a log that clearly shows a hand print...as we were discussing this hand print I noticed this smear at the bottom of the frame and asked MK to take a better look...the purpose of me relating this information is to let people know and understand MK has not added one damn thing to these films...he didn't have to...the editor left this evidence...


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 8th, 2009, 2:36 pm #3

Mr. Miller says that I altered images. I wanted to give you a good example of what the difference is between altering and "enhancing" an image to get information from it. Here is a pattern that contains a number that is hard to see. After enhancement the number is easily seen. According to Mr. Miller's standard, we should not believe the number because the image was altered to see it.


Quote
Like
Share

Crispy Critter
Crispy Critter

October 8th, 2009, 3:06 pm #4

I thought I would add a photo for an explanation...

We all, by film evidence, can clearly see a dog in the Dahinden film...
Patterson and Gimlin, in their reports didn't mention a dog but yet there is a bloody dog print in the Patterson film...plus a few check marks where we think other dog prints were removed...let me explain how we found this bloody dog print in the Patterson film...

MK and I were on the telephone...he sent me a still of a log that clearly shows a hand print...as we were discussing this hand print I noticed this smear at the bottom of the frame and asked MK to take a better look...the purpose of me relating this information is to let people know and understand MK has not added one damn thing to these films...he didn't have to...the editor left this evidence...


I know there is a lot of confusion in the BF world, so here is the definition:

A researcher is somebody who performs research, the search for knowledge or in general any systematic investigation to establish facts.

Copying blogs as gospel, is not doing research. There are 2 that I know of that have popped up so far that have done this "COPY Research".

Peter Byrne is now being thrown under the proverbial bus, by the illustrious "BF Researchers", for writing something non-flattering ( but probably quite accurate) about Titmus. I am sure this artical has been around for longer than this past week, however, the "illustrious researchers" have just discovered it, and are besides themselves. I reckon the BF Twitter accounts are all buzzing this week.

A researcher is somebody who performs research, the search for knowledge or in general any systematic investigation to establish facts.

I realize that 99.8% of the "researchers" rely on the .2% to do all the work.

There are facts, and there are opinions. You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

That is actually a legal argument.

You can "cherry pick" the facts you present, or present them in a specific way, to reinforce your opinion. But eventually all the facts come out. That is why our legal system is set up the way it is.

Now, you can believe someone's opinion, but then you are not a researcher.
You are simply a blind follower.

I find it interesting, not in what Mr Miller posted, but what he omitted. He posts many alleged Email questions, yet he post's none of the replies. That is curious to me. I wonder what was in them?

He makes many assertions. Heck, that is easy to do. That is what blogs are for, getting your opinion out there. But I digress.

Cherry picking and omitting some facts to back up your opinion, does not make your argument correct. It is still an opinion.

And through this statement of opinion, they have decided that Mr Plaudis (SP) next book is going to be about this topic. No facts there either, just their opinion. But now, there is a mounting boycott against this alleged book that hasn't been written on a topic no one knows about, simply because of one man's opinion, which is now being reported as fact on other blogs, by folks who have no idea how to do their own research.

Mr Miller, you don't happen to have a book in the works, or some DVD's for sale, do you?

I personally, am waiting for all the facts to come out.













Quote
Share

DonDon
DonDon

October 8th, 2009, 3:36 pm #5

I thought I would add a photo for an explanation...

We all, by film evidence, can clearly see a dog in the Dahinden film...
Patterson and Gimlin, in their reports didn't mention a dog but yet there is a bloody dog print in the Patterson film...plus a few check marks where we think other dog prints were removed...let me explain how we found this bloody dog print in the Patterson film...

MK and I were on the telephone...he sent me a still of a log that clearly shows a hand print...as we were discussing this hand print I noticed this smear at the bottom of the frame and asked MK to take a better look...the purpose of me relating this information is to let people know and understand MK has not added one damn thing to these films...he didn't have to...the editor left this evidence...


[/IMG]
IN this photo, I saw where someone on another board made mention that they couldn't be at the same time because HE HAD HIS COAT OPEN in one picture and closed in the other. Thought that was interesting so I got to looking at the pictures CLOSE. HUMMMM, Yeh, it is open in one and closed in the other BUTTTTT if you look close there are several similarities. See what I have circled in the pictures. First question would be, how does one get the same ammount of hair to hang down in their face in the same spot from under their Cowboy hat on 2 seperate occasions? MAN he's good if he can do that, guess he has a stylist follow him around to get "THE LOOK". Next really isn't that much but he has on a white T shirt but that's pretty common. My other question is WHAT is that on his right leg thats shiny in the same spot in both pictures? I have no idea but it's there in both pictures. Thought it may have been a chord with a shiny piece on it that some coats have on them to seal the lower coat closer to the body but it'd be in a different location if the coat was open. Then you have the same color Blue Jeans on. Both appear to be the same shade so it could be the same pair of jeans as one is not faded more than the other. Back before I quit wearing jeans I hardly ever had 2 pair that were faded the same ammount because I would buy a 1 pair at the time when one was needed. Being on a tight budget back then I couldn't afford but 1 pair at the time and would pick one up when one ripped on me. Just a couple thooughts on this picture
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 8th, 2009, 5:00 pm #6

Several items that need mentioning...first his coat...IMO the coat is the kind with the loops that go around the buttons and not a button up jacket since there are not any visible button holes...the white spot on his pants looks like plaster IMO...

The point is not if these videos or stills were taken the same day...the question is that by film evidence these stills or video were taken in the same time frame of their stay at Bluff Creek...we have no idea how long these men were there other then Pattersons and Gimlins reports which are nothing more then half truths...

Last edited by tiny on October 8th, 2009, 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 8th, 2009, 5:12 pm #7

I know there is a lot of confusion in the BF world, so here is the definition:

A researcher is somebody who performs research, the search for knowledge or in general any systematic investigation to establish facts.

Copying blogs as gospel, is not doing research. There are 2 that I know of that have popped up so far that have done this "COPY Research".

Peter Byrne is now being thrown under the proverbial bus, by the illustrious "BF Researchers", for writing something non-flattering ( but probably quite accurate) about Titmus. I am sure this artical has been around for longer than this past week, however, the "illustrious researchers" have just discovered it, and are besides themselves. I reckon the BF Twitter accounts are all buzzing this week.

A researcher is somebody who performs research, the search for knowledge or in general any systematic investigation to establish facts.

I realize that 99.8% of the "researchers" rely on the .2% to do all the work.

There are facts, and there are opinions. You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

That is actually a legal argument.

You can "cherry pick" the facts you present, or present them in a specific way, to reinforce your opinion. But eventually all the facts come out. That is why our legal system is set up the way it is.

Now, you can believe someone's opinion, but then you are not a researcher.
You are simply a blind follower.

I find it interesting, not in what Mr Miller posted, but what he omitted. He posts many alleged Email questions, yet he post's none of the replies. That is curious to me. I wonder what was in them?

He makes many assertions. Heck, that is easy to do. That is what blogs are for, getting your opinion out there. But I digress.

Cherry picking and omitting some facts to back up your opinion, does not make your argument correct. It is still an opinion.

And through this statement of opinion, they have decided that Mr Plaudis (SP) next book is going to be about this topic. No facts there either, just their opinion. But now, there is a mounting boycott against this alleged book that hasn't been written on a topic no one knows about, simply because of one man's opinion, which is now being reported as fact on other blogs, by folks who have no idea how to do their own research.

Mr Miller, you don't happen to have a book in the works, or some DVD's for sale, do you?

I personally, am waiting for all the facts to come out.












that college is working for you...excellent post that I hope people will read and understand...Lone Wolf posted a good one as well that explains what people need to know and understand...
Quote
Like
Share

DonDon
DonDon

October 8th, 2009, 6:10 pm #8

I was noticing that to Jim. Actual paragraphs, words spelled correctly, MAKING SENSE. LOL College is doing the boy some good. Don;t sweat it Scott though, I AIN'T gonna change my was, no sir, not me. I'm still a no spelling, jumbled up word typing kinda guy.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 8th, 2009, 6:13 pm #9

I confirm exactly what you mentioned in your last sentence...LOL
Quote
Like
Share

DonDon
DonDon

October 8th, 2009, 6:18 pm #10

but ya love my no spelling goofy but.
Quote
Share