• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Northern Lights said:
Do you have any evidence of this? I would love to read it. Thanks
Click to expand...

Sure he was making a Bigfoot movie...can't do that without a costume.

Consider this...if one was making a Bigfoot movie and in that process, actually captured a "real" Bigfoot. Wouldn't it make sense to present your costume along with the "real" Bigfoot footage?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
A good quality copy of frame 350

McaCqNz.png
Click to expand...

And?

It's like you're showing us the highlight films from the 2014 Buccaneers or Jets, but are ignoring the dismal season they both had.

Ignoring the diaper-butt, the gnarly left leg, the wristbands, the illogical muscle attachment on the right side of the lower leg, the mitten-like hands...

RayG
 
Don't forget these babies!

Yes indeedy "the lift that never lets you down" endorsed by Patty "a lifetime in the wilderness and still perky"!
 
Last edited:
Northern Lights said:
Do you have any evidence of this? I would love to read it. Thanks
Click to expand...

You would already have read Greg Long's book The Making of Bigfoot if you were telling the truth here. This form of lying is called sarcasm.


The psychology of sarcasm fits perfectly into our model of antisocial gaming. This tactic of attack is constructed by saying something everyone knows is not true (you would LOVE to read it) in order to belittle the target.

The covert aggressor favors attacking while smiling, with words of love and thanks - while the intention is putting the target down. He is so accustomed to saying the opposite of what he is doing that this form of interaction is a natural for him.

Like saying "Have a nice day" to the person he would like to see choking to death. :)

It is so fascinating watching this kind of gaming. Laying in wait with selective attention, choosing what appears to be the best opportunity for a put-down on the targets... then the zinger. It's like being a sniper. The sniper paints happy faces and hearts on his bullets, and there is a special joy in the intentions being so opposite to the cover.

The sniper fires one off, then conceals himself again whilst the opposition fires rounds in retaliation. He isn't going to stay and engage for any length of time. That would be foolish. Instead, he'll pop up out of the brush again somewhere else with another snipe.

The Patterson-Gimlin film is just the terrain for the game, having no significance in and of itself, in the same way a paintball game takes place on a piece of terrain. It is scoring the hits that is important, and the terrain is merely the platform the gamer is operating from.
 
Last edited:
Greg Long's entire book is based on a logical fallacy. He attempts to discredit the film by discrediting Patterson himself instead of the actual film.

It seems like "skeptics" have nothing but fallacies to support their position. I did a quick search on why people use logical fallacies and found this.

A: The debater lacks intelligence at least in the realm of legitimate debate.

B: The debater doesn't have much background knowledge on the topic of discussion

C: The debater is not interested in persuasion or the exhanging of ideas but in demeaning the listener and/or individual(s) who are a part of the topic of debate
Click to expand...
 
:(
OntarioSquatch said:
Greg Long's entire book is based on a logical fallacy. He attempts to discredit the film by discrediting Patterson himself instead of the actual film.

It seems like "skeptics" have nothing but fallacies to support their position. I did a quick search on why people use logical fallacies and found this.
Click to expand...

It would appear you still have no clue what a fallacy is ... still :eye-poppi
 
Club Zanzibar is on Yonge street in Toronto. If we stay faithful to Roger Patterson's research model, I think we can beef up skeptic attendance.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Greg Long's entire book is based on a logical fallacy. He attempts to discredit the film by discrediting Patterson himself instead of the actual film.
Click to expand...

This would be a problem if discrediting Roger was used as a argument against the existence of Bigfoot. Discrediting Roger is done to show that he was a get rich quick con man who hoaxed a Bigfoot movie.

Do you see the difference?
 
Nakani said:
This would be a problem if discrediting Roger was used as a argument against the existence of Bigfoot. Discrediting Roger is done to show that he was a get rich quick con man who hoaxed a Bigfoot movie.

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...


It's not different from a logical point of view, but even if we assume that it is, it still doesn't hold true and that's because Roger had a genuine belief in Bigfoot. He was even hoaxed himself at least one time and that was the result of people taking advantage of his belief. He spent much of his time searching for the real thing and that was actually why he went all the way down to the Six Rivers National Forest even though the location was inconvenient for both him and Gimlin.

Some of the copies of the PGF are clear enough to be able to tell whether film the subject is real or not. It took me a while, but there's no longer any doubt in my mind that the film shows a real Bigfoot. There's also a few others that I think are likely real as well, but the PGF is the clearest one that's publicly available, which is why it's so popular.
 
Last edited:
^It is different, it would be a logical fallacy to say "Roger was a con man therefore Bigfoot is not real". If you say "Roger was a con man, the PGF is fake", its an assumption.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's not different from a logical point of view, but even if we assume that it is, it still doesn't hold true and that's because Roger had a genuine belief in Bigfoot. He was even hoaxed himself at least one time and that was the result of people taking advantage of his belief. He spent much of his time searching for the real thing and that was actually why he went all the way down to the Six Rivers National Forest even though the location was inconvenient for both him and Gimlin.

Some of the copies of the PGF are clear enough to be able to tell whether film the subject is real or not. It took me a while, but there's no longer any doubt in my mind that the film shows a real Bigfoot. There's also a few others that I think are likely real as well, but the PGF is the clearest one that's publicly available, which is why it's so popular.
Click to expand...

Links or it didn't happen.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's not different from a logical point of view, but even if we assume that it is, it still doesn't hold true and that's because Roger had a genuine belief in Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

And that would stop him from hoaxing a film to make some money, how?


He was even hoaxed himself at least one time and that was the result of people taking advantage of his belief
Click to expand...
.

So that's where he go the idea.

He spent much of his time searching for the real thing
Click to expand...

Most people who are interested in the subject have, at one point or another.

and that was actually why he went all the way down to the Six Rivers National Forest even though the location was inconvenient for both him and Gimlin.
Click to expand...

Every con man knows you don't pull a job where you live.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom