Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[RayG]

I'll respond to your definition of "reliable evidence" later, when I have time to.

How about giving us your definition too... you know... if you're not too busy at the playground...

RayG

 

[LAL]

Oh LAL you silly goose...with your silly analogies.

This just in....It is not an extraordinary claim if the waiter says my food isn't poisoned.I have every reason to believe that my food is in fact NOT poisoned...for I have eaten at many many restaraunts and never have I eaten poisoned food not to mention the millions of other people who have eaten at restaurants without suffering the fate of poisoned food so I need no extra proof to justify the waiters claim...well unless I'm in Mexico...than I stick to tortilla chips and tequila you know...just to be on the safe side.

On the other hand I have NO reason to believe in Hairy North American Bipedal Apes of Unusual Size (HNABAUS)....Mmmmmm...whatsoever.

So yes it will take,and should take for others.....much,much more than just a scary 23 year old story related over the phone or unidentifiable hair or ambiguous depressions in the clay or artifacts of the casting process or even a film made by a con man that looks for all the world like a schmendrick in a silly gorilla get up.

Ya know I'm well aware that one should attack the argument and not the arguer...but rationale such as the blather put forth by Rank-N-File Bigfeet Fan causes me to question that every time I set about responding to one of their posts.

Ugh!

Then why do it?

Shouldn't a good critical thinker require "proof" for everything? If you were eating at Taco Bell and you knew there was a good chance you'd die from eating their chimichangas, would you consider reassurance from an employee to be enough or would you want something better than anecdotes about how many people had survived eating at Taco Bell?

If you were dining with me, would you accept the waiter's word for it that I hadn't slipped in to the kitchen with a bottle of cyanide in retalliation for you calling me a silly goose? If you took his word and slid under the table unconscious, I would call you a "Bleever" on your way down.

I don't think North American Bipedal Apes is an extraordinary claim in the first place. There's certainly enough habitat to support them (over two million acres in Oregon alone) and, in addition to the thousands of sightings from people who know what a bear looks like, there are those trackways found by people who didn't know themselves where they were going.

But go ahead and try to explain it all away, piece by piece. Good luck in your endeavors.

I thought you might want to know what critical thinking actually is in case you want to try it sometime.

"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness."

http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml

 

[LAL]

On whether or not Kevin is an adolescent I think I've found the answer as to why he and LAL were evasive on the matter:

You haven't. That's a different person.

I don't have his permission to answer, so forget it.

 

[LAL]

Lu so loathes Matt Moneymaker that she refers to his site often....

It's a good site and most of it was up before he managed to alienate just about everybody in the world. Personally, he's never done anything to me and I have have no reason to loathe him except for what he's done to some of my cyber friends.

You don't really think he put that whole site up himself, do you?

 

[LAL]

Anyone ever see Fox's 'World's Greatest Hoaxes'? (I think I got the title right, but I'm not 100%.)

No, but even Benjamin Radford didn't think much of it.

"World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed - Review
Skeptical Inquirer, May-June, 1999 by Benjamin Radford


Review of Fox Television's 'World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed'

BENJAMIN RADFORD

On Monday, December 28, 1998, the Fox network broadcast "World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed," part of a series of sensationalistic exposes. The Fox network is, of course, infamous for its high-rating but lowbrow specials and series programming hawking every manner of paranormal and pseudoscientific claim.

It is refreshing, then, to see Fox feature a skeptical take on paranormal subjects that the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal have been addressing for decades. The special was narrated by Lance Henrickson, who himself has appeared in many paranormal productions such as the film Omen 2: Damien and as a psychic detective in the television series Millennium.

The usual Fox staples of hyperbole, contradicting assertions, and flat-out incorrect statements were all present. For example, in the first five minutes, the claim was made that the 1938 "War of the Worlds" panic was the result of a hoax. Orson Welles's most famous broadcast was not a hoax at all; it was indeed a panic followed by mass hysteria, but there was no intent to deceive [see "The Martian Panic Sixty Years Later," SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 22(6), November/December 1998].

Advertisement

The special began with footage of alleged Bigfoot sightings. The first was the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film (see also "Bigfoot's Screen Test," this issue), followed by two additional, even more highly suspect videos allegedly of other Bigfoot-type creatures. Later segments featured photos taken at Loch Ness in Scotland; UFO footage filmed by cult leader Billy Meier at his Swiss ranch; and of course the much-hyped "Alien Autopsy" segment (supposedly from the Roswell, New Mexico saucer crash) broadcast in 1995.

It takes brass, and a lot of it, for Fox to loudly tout the "Alien Autopsy" as a hoax when Fox itself was instrumental in feeding the fraud to the American public in the first place. Fox's role in promoting the faked footage on its special "Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction?" on August 28 and September 4, 1995, was conveniently and repeatedly glossed over [see SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 19(6), November/December 1995].

Fox returned to its roots with two faked segments, one depicting a lake monster and the other a scene showing UFOs flying over a city and beach. They were broadcast, the narrator said, to show how convincing faked video footage can be. The point might have been more persuasive, however, had they asked a few teenagers on a limited budget to create the hoaxes. I don't think anyone was surprised that the multi-million dollar Fox network could create (or commission) such "impressive" fakes.

CSICOP was nowhere to be seen, but interviewees did include skeptic Kal Korff, who spoke about the Billy Meier photographs and also commented on the Patterson-Gimlin film. Korff's book, Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier Story, was reviewed in the March/April 1996 issue of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. A special effects consultant for the film Jurassic Park was also on hand to discuss how videotape and film can be faked using computers and various techniques.

The program left its viewers with the impression that much of what was presented was newly discovered and examined by the vanguards of truth, Fox Broadcasting. Yet SKEPTICAL INQUIRER readers got stories on the hoaxes years or even decades earlier. The famous 1934 "surgeon's photograph" of a head and neck in Loch Ness was reported to be a hoax in 1994 [SI, 18(4), Summer 1994]; some of the other "Nessie" photos shown in the Fox special were examined and questioned in this magazine fifteen years ago [SI, 9(2), Winter 1984-1985]. And claims that Billy Meier's UFO photographs were hoaxes also first appeared in SKEPTICAL INQUIRER nearly twenty years ago [see SI, 4(4), Summer 1980]. As skeptical as the Fox special was, the network was a little late to the table.

Despite several flaws, the broadcast was generally well done, and the investigation of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film, though cursory, was the best I'd seen. They also tracked down one of the actors in a forerunner film to the "Alien Autopsy" footage, who detailed how and where the scenes were filmed.

On balance, the Fox special probably helped skeptics much more than it hurt them. Although it was not of the same caliber as a special that appeared several months earlier on scams (narrated by Judd Nelson), it was nonetheless a valuable teaching tool for the public. What a shame that skeptical subjects must be packaged like sensational paranormal fare to gain an audience of millions.

Benjamin Radford is Managing Editor of the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER.

COPYRIGHT 1999 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group"

 

[RayG]

I don't have his permission to answer, so forget it.

Wow, the boastful SweatyYeti, hiding behind LAL's skirt.

RayG

 

[Mad Hom]

Then why do it?

Shouldn't a good critical thinker require "proof" for everything? If you were eating at Taco Bell and you knew there was a good chance you'd die from eating their chimichangas, would you consider reassurance from an employee to be enough or would you want something better than anecdotes about how many people had survived eating at Taco Bell?

If you were dining with me, would you accept the waiter's word for it that I hadn't slipped in to the kitchen with a bottle of cyanide in retalliation for you calling me a silly goose? If you took his word and slid under the table unconscious, I would call you a "Bleever" on your way down.

I don't think North American Bipedal Apes is an extraordinary claim in the first place. There's certainly enough habitat to support them (over two million acres in Oregon alone) and, in addition to the thousands of sightings from people who know what a bear looks like, there are those trackways found by people who didn't know themselves where they were going.

But go ahead and try to explain it all away, piece by piece. Good luck in your endeavors.

I thought you might want to know what critical thinking actually is in case you want to try it sometime.

"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness."

http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml

Blah blah blah...semantics!!

If you actually believe that a Bigfeetsus roaming free across the hinterlands of North America is NOT an extraordinary claim than we'll always be at an impasse on this Wu...err...I mean LU...err...I mean LAL.

You simply cannot equate the fact that we the critical thinkers of earth need to be proved to that something exists with us needing to be proved to that our food isn't poisoned...it's a hamfisted analogy Wu....errr...I mean Lu...and should be beneath even the loopiest of Woos.

It's been 40 some years....and all you have is the fact that you WANT Bigfeetsus to be there so bad that you are willing to take people at their word,23 yrs after the fact...well that's just not good enough for us.

Face it Wu...you are a romantic Hairy Biped fan,a Tru Bleever of the highest order...you are beyond reason,you are beyond thinking critically...and most importantly you are beyond help.

Your Bigfeet Fandom will last till the last tree on earth is felled and there isn't a Hairy Biped behind it...even than you will probably lament that it had gone extinct before it was proven to exist. It's all part of your delicately peiced together worldview...and I guess if you sleep better Bleeving in Bigfeetsus ...well more power to ya I guess.

 

[Mad Hom]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think that nearly everyone would agree that Patty is larger (bulky) than just about any normal person. A believer would say she is larger because Bigfoots are larger. A skeptic would say "she" is larger because the costume is larger than the person wearing it. Whether it is a real Bigfoot or a fake one, the head should be larger than a normal human head. Would you agree?



I'm not confident that the fingers did wiggle (or flex). I bet you saw the same two-frame animated clip (by MK Davis?) that is supposed to show finger movement. I think it may be a simple change in the position/angle of the hand/fingers that gives the impression that the fingers are moving independent of the palm. Whenever I can see the hands/fingers clearly, they always seem to be in a fixed cupped position.

Concerning Bob Heironimus: I guess I'm a woo believer that he was the guy in the suit. He could have done a much better job of explaining his role and other details (this may be partially the fault of Greg Long), but it was a very long time ago. For me, there is one particularly satisfying proclamation by BH. He says that P&G actually filmed him weeks before October 20, 1967. That can explain a major inconsistency with the ability to get the film developed in order to be shown on October 22. If Heirominus is simply telling a lie and wasn't in the Patty suit... then why doesn't he just say they (P&G) made the film on October 20th like they said they did?

I volunteer to be the token Heironimus Woo around here.

I got your back Parch...as I too think that Bob H was the schmendrick in the gorilla suit. I also have always felt that without the Con Man's film or as Bigfeet Fan like's to call it...the PGF...they have nothing. This why it is defended at all costs. Bob H is the AntiFoot as far as they are concerned...which explains the lengths they go to to discredit his story.

They have already got the Hook In Mouth so deep that they won't even consider for a second that it might all be just an elaborate hoax...so Bob H can't be the guy in the suit...because it's real dammnit!!

 

[Mad Hom]

I'll respond to your definition of "reliable evidence" later, when I have time to.

Wow this ought to be enlightening....I'm betting the Ostman yarn may find it's way onto Sweety's list...I mean it was related many many years after it happened (allegedly) and we all know just how much Sweety enjoys a good old spooky campfire story about Bigfeetsuses.

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

I'm not confident that the fingers did wiggle (or flex).

Well it's 100% definite that her fingers did bend.
There is a two-frame animation which shows it as clear as the fingers on your hand.

Would Patty's fingers bending constitute a problem for the "Bob H.-gee-my-arms-are-too-short-but-it's-me-in-the-suit-anyway" theory.....in your opinion?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

Ya know I'm well aware that one should attack the argument and not the arguer...but rationale such as the blather put forth by Rank-N-File Bigfeet Fan causes me to question that every time I set about responding to one of their posts.

Your posts consist of nothing BUT blather, MH. Ranting and raving against "bleevers".

Examples:
ANY post by Mad Hom....take your pick!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

William Parcher wrote:

Well it's 100% definite that her fingers did bend.
There is a two-frame animation which shows it as clear as the fingers on your hand.

Would Patty's fingers bending constitute a problem for the "Bob H.-gee-my-arms-are-too-short-but-it's-me-in-the-suit-anyway" theory.....in your opinion?

Why would that be a problem ?

Are you suggesting rubber fingers can't bend ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
I see a subject (Patty) with a seriously compromised forehead....part of it is missing.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think that nearly everyone would agree that Patty is larger (bulky) than just about any normal person. A believer would say she is larger because Bigfoots are larger. A skeptic would say "she" is larger because the costume is larger than the person wearing it. Whether it is a real Bigfoot or a fake one, the head should be larger than a normal human head. Would you agree?

Yes...it should be a little larger than a human head. The problem with Patty's head, though, is the forehead angles-in very sharply from right above the eyebrow ridge.
From the drawings I've done so far...it looks like a humanly proportioned head fitted into the outline of Patty's head, is simply too small in proportion to Patty's body....thereby proving that it cannot be a man in a suit.

In other words...the extreme angling-in of Patty's forehead...from all sides...means that a human head inside of it would have to be significantly smaller than the head we see in the film.

I'll post some drawings on it as soon as I can....this year...I think.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

Are you suggesting rubber fingers can't bend ?

No.

When Patty's fingers bend, and the "Bob H. theory" suddenly has a major problem.....a good skeptic reaches into the "Big Bag of Possibilities" and pulls out the mechanical-hand, or specially-designed rubber gloves explanation to keep the Bigfooties away.

Answer me this....like William himself said...

Whenever I can see the hands/fingers clearly, they always seem to be in a fixed cupped position.

.....why did the fingers NEVER bend in the steady parts of the film?
If special hands were built into the suit, then BH would have bent his special little rubber fingers during the steady part of the film, when he looks back at Roger.

He didn't...and that does not make any sense. (Except to a skeptic.)

As the late Johnny Cochran (the infamous lawyer) would say.....
"When the fingers bend...
We must pretend."

 

[SweatyYeti]

William...do you think Patty's fingers are actually bending in that little animation?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

you are willing to take people at their word,23 yrs after the fact...

Since "23 years" seems to be a point the skeptics like to use against Joyce's sighting report....I have to say...if someone "one fine day at the Bus Stop" suddenly sees an APE-MAN go walking by in front of them...in broad daylight....and watches it walk away for about 2, maybe 3 minutes....how long do you think that memory would last for?
About a week? Maybe a year?

Personally....I think it would last about a lifetime.

Note: Joyce and her daughter were not at a bus-stop...I'll admit ....but seeing an APE-MAN right beside the road, and watching it for a couple of minutes, isn't really much different.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

Bob H is the AntiFoot as far as they are concerned...which explains the lengths they go to to discredit his story.

Dont' forget...folks....Bob H. went to pretty good lengths to discredit HIS OWN story.
We're just taking the hand-off from Bob and running with it!!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....why did the fingers NEVER bend in the steady parts of the film?

I don't KNOW ...

If special hands were built into the suit, then BH would have bent his special little rubber fingers during the steady part of the film, when he looks back at Roger.

He didn't...and that does not make any sense. (Except to a skeptic.)

As the late Johnny Cochran (the infamous lawyer) would say.....
"When the fingers bend...
We must pretend."

Well, at first glance, your logic is indisputable, but we have learned in the 40 years since Patty was filmed, that real Bigfeet are never in focus when there is a decent camera around, so therefore; in spite of your rock solid " fingers only bend once, so they must be real " theory, Patty must be a hoax..

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

in spite of your rock solid "fingers only bend once, so they must be real" theory, Patty must be a hoax..

As a skeptic ALWAYS does....any reference to Bigfoot evidence is described in terms of "proof", instead of "probabilities".

I never said it PROVES they're real fingers. It's a matter of determining the probability of the fingers being either real, or fake.

That's what weighing evidence is all about.
Which is more likely....fake, remote-controlled fingers, or real fingers?

The "real fingers" explanation makes more sense than "fake fingers", because if Roger had gone through the trouble of building a feature like that into the suit...the fingers would be wiggling away in the steady part of the film.......but they aren't. So they ain't......in all probability.

 

[kitakaze]

Hi Sweety, tic tic tic...

Note: Joyce and her daughter were not at a bus-stop...I'll admit ....but seeing an APE-MAN right beside the road, and watching it for a couple of minutes, isn't really much different.

You verified any of that?