Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

Can you post some evidence of Bigfoot or are you talking about the many debunked photos?

Midfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps: New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism.

JEFFREY MELDRUM
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Idaho State University
The chimpanzee foot is flexible near its middle, it can bend aboutthe axis of the transverse tarsal joint, whereas the human foot is a comparativelyrigid arched platform. Flexion at the transverse tarsal joint—the ‘‘midtarsalbreak’’—uncouples the functions of a grasping, or prehensile, forefoot and apropulsive hindfoot during grasp-climbing on vertical or inclined supports. Atsome point after the transition to habitual bipedalism, these grasp-climbingadaptations were compromised by the evolution of the longitudinal arch, whichpermits increased mechanical advantage of the flexors of the ankle and improved endurance for long-distance walking and running.Ape, human, and Plio-Pleistocene hominid footprints were examined forthe effects of a midtarsal break. The human footprint reflects arched-footarchitecture, combined with a stiff-legged striding gait. Pressure releases occurat particular locations behind the ball and the great toe, or hallux. Early (ca.3.5 million years ago) hominid footprints from the Laetoli excavation confirmmidfoot flexibility, including repeated suggestion of an associated pressureridge. The Terra Amata footprint (ca. 400,000 years ago), yet to be fully published, exhibits evidence of midfoot flexibility.Several footprints attributed to an alleged North American ape, commonlyknown as sasquatch, exhibit a distinctive midtarsal pressure ridge and otherindications of midfoot flexibility. In the Patterson-Gimlin film, the feet of thefilm subject correlate with the kinematics inferred from the footprints, in thata midtarsal break is present. Additional independent examples corroborate theconsistent presence of this feature, including examples of half-tracks that recordcontact beneath the foot only anterior to the midtarsus. These data providea fresh perspective from which to consider the pattern and timing of the emergence of the distinctive features of modern human bipedalism and bear on thecredibility of the possible existence of sasquatch. The observed and inferred sasquatch locomotor anatomy parallels the stable adaptations that marked the greaterspan of early hominid bipedalism.

 
yes we disagree (respectfully) on the origin of the beast in question. my own experience mixed with all of the accounts taken in rule out physical being.

I think there are far too many paranormal, religious and UFO accounts mixed up with the bigfoot thing for me to classify it as an animal that really exists physically. bfro was caught doctoring tons of accounts and taking the paranormal dimensions out of them too.

I think we are dealing with a juingian mythology co-created by us and an unknown force.

would be glad to be wrong on that though....

Fair enough.

Your viewpoint reminds me of the manner in which Terrence McKenna thought, and saw things. I always found his perspectives interesting.

He believed that the UFO phenomena could be a manifestation of our planet's consciousness, interacting with our own.

 
Where did I say I believe the Earth is flat? I've been on enough planes to know it's not.

I said NASA releases fake shit. Which they do. They literally admit they Photoshop their photos.


"NASA Photoshops Images for Good Reason" is some Orweillian ass shit but have fun with that.
You said anything is on the table on the first page, so I thought you were one of.. them..

Anyway my comment still applies... to... them...
 
slander the source rather than deal with the position?

this is what I mean man.... some topics have an a priori assumption on the part of established thinking and because of that they are not considered with an open mind. its a massive block to moving forward for humanity and infects LOTS of areas.

do you think jeff Meldrum is young too?
How the fuck do you not realize you criticized me for not taking your info about supposed bigfoot sightings sdriosly while admitting you don't think they exist? So why should I take the topic seriously? It's fucking dumb and so's your reasoning.
 
Last edited:
How the fuck do you not realize you criticized me for not taking your info about supposed bigfoot sightings while admitting you don't think they exist? So why should I take the topic seriously? It's fucking dumb and so's your reasoning.

You should do it to be scientific.

<Y2JSmirk>
 
How the fuck do you not realize you criticized me for not taking your info about supposed bigfoot sightings sdriosly while admitting you don't think they exist? So why should I take the topic seriously? It's fucking dumb and so's your reasoning.
I didn't say they don't exist. I said they don't exist as physical beings with a genetic lineage. But also that's just my preferred hypothesis I could be totally wrong about that.

The reason you have a hard time coming to understand my reasoning is because you're not trying. You've displayed plenty of intelligence in every other thread I've seen you in, but it seems like in this and related areas you're just kind of a brick wall.

This is the kind of a priory judgment that I talk about that damages human progress.

I think if you came at conversation with me with curiosity, you would genuinely learn some things you don't already know, even if ultimately you disagreed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't say they don't exist. I said they don't exist as physical beings with a genetic lineage. But also that's just my preferred hypothesis I could be totally wrong about that.

The reason you have a hard time coming to understand my reasoning is because you're not trying. You've displayed plenty of intelligence in every other thread I've seen you in, but it seems like in this and related areas you're just kind of a brick wall.

This is the kind of a priory judgment that I talk about that damages human progress.

I think if you came at conversation with me with the curiosity, you would genuinely learn some things you don't already know, even if ultimately you disagreed.
*a priori

The question of Bigfoot got "its day in court", as it were, and it's made up. I'm not rehashing all that again with you only to have you dismiss everything as being because they're non-corporeal or some other fantastical crap. Been there, done that, likely before you were born. Your self-righteousness cracks me up though, so you do you but don't presume what I know* and what I don't know.
 

Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax


M5WU6wU.gif
Really..?
 
Anyone ever look up at a full moon at night? It's very bright. Now look at the moon through a telescope. Really really bright, maybe even blinding.

What happens when you move closer to any source of light? It gets brighter. Much brighter.

I'm surprised the actual moon that we supposedly landed on didnt have any brightness to it. It was just a big dark chunk of land.
 
Strange that a man who has literally flown around the world could think it’s flat
LOL!!!

Hilariously accurate point. He traveled internationally, extensively.

maybe he thinks planes are a hoax too? He was teleported?
 
You don't even realize that it wasn't science that got you injected, however, and that's the funny/ironic thing, you lab rat.

Your last paragraph is just nonsense, unsurprisingly. I've never made a post saying Trump would be installed as president or that the election would be overturned. But I understand you have to make shit up when you don't have anything.

That said, I'm sure you love him for operation warp speed though, right?
Im curious and I apologize if I missed it-

Are you in agreeance with Rampages assessments about the planet and space?
 
Im curious and I apologize if I missed it-

Are you in agreeance with Rampages assessments about the planet and space?

Any explanation as to why the moon wasn't bright when the astronauts landed there? Did they have a light switch to turn it off before arriving? What about the stars? Should've been easier and clearer to see them being that much closer no? I noticed that stars were not visible from the moon footage.
 
Any explanation as to why the moon wasn't bright when the astronauts landed there? Did they have a light switch to turn it off before arriving? What about the stars? Should've been easier and clearer to see them being that much closer no? I noticed that stars were not visible from the moon footage.
Why are you asking me?

I presume you agree with Rampage and defending his position?
 
Back
Top