Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[carcharodon]

You've hit the nail squarely on the head, no matter what side of the fence you're hammering from.
RayG

Nope. There is MORE than just anecdotal evidence for the P/G 'footage'. There is the footage itself of course. There are the tracks. Patterson did more than just say "I filmed a bigfoot". He showed us what he filmed. His claim about filming something was clearly not anecdotal because we can all see the footage.

All Bob H has done is say "I was in the suit". He has shown us NOTHING to back up his story. No suit, no photos of him in the suit, no blueprints of the suit. Nothing.

 

[carcharodon]

Thanks for posting the links, carch. I'm awaiting instructions for embedding the images for those who can't seem to click on links.

People can't click on the links? Ah is that the reason why nobody has commented on the fact that Bob H DOESN'T walk 'just like Patty' or the fact that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Bob H to have been in the suit without padding etc etc etc???? And I thought it was because they had no argument to present. All I've seen is pictures of friggin' dinosaurs and one of Gollum. Not much else.

It would be great if you can embed the images here so this whole Bob H crap can bite the dust for good.

"One of the things that Morris is quoted as saying is that the way to make the arms in the suit look longer than human arms is to extend the gloves of the suit on sticks.

Morris said a lot. His suits were/are crap. That's the bottom line.

 

[LAL]

I don't know yet if embeds can be done, but someone's checking on it.

I think there've been a few link-click challenged people here since some articles and threads never seem to get read, no matter how often they're posted.

Bob does have his glass eye. Does that count?

 

[kitakaze]

Here you go, Teresa....from March 17th...this thread...enjoy...






"Intelligent discussion".......here??! No.

Well, who can argue with that? You've made a compelling case for people getting tired of you. Where's the Ray episode? You've obviously been a paragon of moral latitude among us brain-dead skeptics on this sewer. So, do you have some reliable evidence of sasquatch yet or just Joyce?

 

[RayG]

Nope. There is MORE than just anecdotal evidence for the P/G 'footage'. There is the footage itself of course.

Footage showing a film subject that's never been clearly identified.

There are the tracks.

I'm not aware of any footage showing the film subject actually leaving those tracks.

Patterson did more than just say "I filmed a bigfoot".

Patterson could have been lying.

He showed us what he filmed.

No, he showed us a film. Had Gimlin pulled the trigger he would have been able to show us what he filmed.

His claim about filming something was clearly not anecdotal because we can all see the footage.

Of couse we can see the footage, but any claims made about the footage have not and cannot be proven. Patterson is dead, Gimlin ain't talking, and BH has no suit.

All Bob H has done is say "I was in the suit". He has shown us NOTHING to back up his story. No suit, no photos of him in the suit, no blueprints of the suit. Nothing.

I agree, nothing. And what did P&G provide us? A film with an unidentified subject, a questionable timeline, stories that don't match, tracks that may have been staged, and no bigfoot. Unless someone either produces an exact replica of 'the suit' or an actual bigfoot, debating the P&G film is about as productive as repeatedly counting a jar full of jelly beans.

RayG

 

[Melissa]

LAL, as I said - if you have an issue with how you feel you were treated on the SFB, email me and we will discuss it. I will not discuss this type of thing here any longer. The SFB has nothing to do with this website.

As for what Rick said, he said to his knowledge there were no Roosevelt Elk in this area. I need to check out the links Ray posted, but the only reference I could find to Roosevelt Elk through a google search was in the Olympic Peninsula.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Well that was interesting, but if you don't think there is intelligent discussion to be had here, then the question is... why post here? I don't guess I understand that. Can you enlighten me?

Well, after being booted off of the BFF...I joined this board...though reluctantly. From what Lu had been telling me about this board, in emails...I knew it was really only a good place to "bang your head against the wall". I had been trying to convince her to give-up posting here, long before I ever joined.

As for me posting here....I'm not anymore. The only reason I posted here yesterday was to give Lu some support....and today, just to answer your question.
As for debating anything here.....it ain't happenin'.

For a GREAT example of the type of "intelligent discussion" that one can have here.....check out the discussion I had with a few skeptics concerning the 2-frame finger-bending animation of Patty.
It's in this thread.
It took MANY posts, and I don't know how many days to get Greg to admit what was OBVIOUS...that Patty's fingers actually bend.....something that I could see after watching the animated clip for only 3 seconds.

And LTC8K6 is still trying to decide whether or not the fingers actually bend. See his "interview" for the "Skeptical Scientist" magazine.
It's good for a laugh, or two.

 

[Correa Neto]

Your very welcome Correa Neto. I was very happy to ask the questions you wanted answered, they were well thought out and we all felt very appropriate to the conversation. Im only sorry there wasnt time to ask more.. I hope to have Rick Noll back, I look forward to you adding to the question pool

I really did feel bad about the name thing.. Can I ask a question - what does your name mean? I am assuming there is a meaning.

...snip...

Its my real last name.

In (archaic) Portuguese, "Corrêa" means strap (usually made of leather, given the time period). Modern portuguese form would be "Correia".

"Neto" means grandson in Portuguese. Here in Brazil (as well as in Portugal), its used to separate granfather from grandson when both share the same name.

Thus, if it had some meaning, it would be "Leather Strap, Grandson". Can't get much sillier than this, can it?

 

[Teresa.Hall]

I realize you dislike this forum and it's occupants but they are probably a good representation of what the mainstream public is like outside the BF world. If the people here cannot be convinced of the existence of an undocumented primate it's a good bet the every day public isn't convinced either. The onus is on us, as researchers, to obtain the the kind of evidence that will convince them. In my humble opinion, I don't think anything short of a body or portions of a body will suffice and I've said all along it's going to take more than one body.

Research isn't at a stage where we can be comfortable or complacent about what we have so far if our goal is to convince people outside our own circles. What we have isn't enough, even to people like me, who entertain the possibility. There's a lot of misplaced emotion (I think) and believers tend to blame the skeptics for not believing based on what we have when the truth is, what we have isn't enough. Research is at a point where what has been obtained is convincing to people like yourself but isn't going to do it for the mainstream and until they've been convinced the research cannot rest on its laurels content to beat everyone else over the head because they they aren't buying what we're offering.

On the other hand I can see why you're angry, you've come here with what you consider good evidence and were booed off the stage. With what's available to call evidence you're preaching to the wrong choir.

 

[Belz...]

Gosh, can't we just have ONE bigfoot roadkill ? Just one. This thread is long.

 

[Melissa]

Its my real last name.

In (archaic) Portuguese, "Corrêa" means strap (usually made of leather, given the time period). Modern portuguese form would be "Correia".

"Neto" means grandson in Portuguese. Here in Brazil (as well as in Portugal), its used to separate granfather from grandson when both share the same name.

Thus, if it had some meaning, it would be "Leather Strap, Grandson". Can't get much sillier than this, can it?

Thank you A name is never silly, it carries as much history as the person who has it.

 

[Correa Neto]

I realize you dislike this forum and it's occupants but they are probably a good representation of what the mainstream public is like outside the BF world. If the people here cannot be convinced of the existence of an undocumented primate it's a good bet the every day public isn't convinced either. The onus is on us, as researchers, to obtain the the kind of evidence that will convince them.
This was not directed at me, but I would like you to allow me to make a few comments.

I disagree that we are a "good representation of what the mainstream public is like outside the BF world". The posters here (at last the major participants of the bigfoot threads) are quite well informed on bigfoot lore. Much better informed that the "Average Joe". I dare say some here are better informed than the "Average Joe Footer".

We studied the evidence and the reasonings. Our interpretation of the evidence is the difference between skeptics and proponents, not how versed on bigfoot lore we are. The Average Joe was just exposed to some of the evidence and reasoning, usually just by chance.

Note that perhaps most of TV bigfoot programs (as well as websites) avaliable for the Average Joe are not skeptical. So, if Average Joe is skeptical of bigfoot, then proponents have a problem in their hands, and the problem is bigger than they think it is.

Your words quoted below

...snip... we tend to blame the skeptics for not believing when the truth is the evidence is lacking.

sum it pretty well.

In my humble opinion, I don't think anything short of a body or portions of a body will suffice and I've said all along it's going to take more than one body.

Well, I disagree. Many of us who conclude bigfoot is most likely a myth would happily jump in to the search for bigfoot iniciative if presented with any of the following (and I dare say this includes a sizeable chunk of "mainstream scientists"):
-Razor (ok, regular quality could do) sharp pictures or footage from people whose reputation would be ruined if somehow found involved on a hoax.
-Pictures or footage from the same creature (or from the same area) obtained by unrelated parties- this implies in reproductibility. Example: footage or stills of a Patty-like animal made in say, 1984, could make many of us rethink our positions regarding PGF, for example. But we are in 2007, and no such thing happened...
-Fossil remains of a big primate, bipedal or not, found in North America. Preferentially of an age that indicated a possible cohexistence with humans. But even remains that predated the first arrival of humans to the Americas could potentially help changing positions.
-DNA sample with the following result: Order- Primates; Family- Hominidae;
Subfamily: Homininae or Ponginae (indicating a link with gorillas/australopithecines/homo or Gigantopithecus); Genus- Unknown.

Any of the above would be considered reliable evidence. And do much more for the cause of those who defend bigfeet are real creatures than terabytes of discussions about PGF, MDF, footprint casts, mid tarsal breaks, sighting reports, rants against skeptics, etc.

But since the discussions seem to be focused on the above...

 

[William Parcher]

The May issue of Bigfoot Times, containing the infamous "Skookum Hokum" article, has now been posted with Perez' permission on Bigfoot Forums: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=24927

Interestingly, Mr. Bob Gimlin has little or no recollection of ever being at an airport to ship the movie film or ever using the camera to film Roger, but did concede, “I must have used that camera.” Mind you, almost 40 years have slipped by and many people can’t remember details after 4 years much less 40 years!

Oh boy. Does that mean that Heironimus gets a free pass for faulty recollection too?

Lyle Laverty, was on the Patterson-Gimlin filmsite on Monday, October 23, 1967 to view footprints left behind by the subject from the P-G movie. He took color slides of the tracks seen in the ground.

Why are we always told he was there the following day (October 21), and why do we only see black & white photos taken by Laverty?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

For a GREAT example of the type of "intelligent discussion" that one can have here.....check out the discussion I had with a few skeptics concerning the 2-frame finger-bending animation of Patty.
It's in this thread.
It took MANY posts, and I don't know how many days to get Greg to admit what was OBVIOUS...that Patty's fingers actually bend.....something that I could see after watching the animated clip for only 3 seconds.

It turns out I was wrong .. Or most likely I was .. We can see the same effect with rigid fingers shot from two different angles.

But let's go with your belief that they do bend ..

So what ?

Are you saying rubber doesn't bend ?

P.S.

Saying it took days and posts for me to admit they bend, is another excellent example of your grade-school glee when you think you have trumped the big kids..

No one here ever denied that they appear to bend ...

It's pretty sad, that you have to search through a thousand frames of film, in order to find two frames to ( possibly ) show the sophisticated articulation that Disney couldn't match ...

 

[LTC8K6]

And LTC8K6 is still trying to decide whether or not the fingers actually bend.

No, LTC8K6 isn't. And if I ever do an interview on the subject, I still won't be.

Lying is not helping your case any.

 

[Marcus]

I think Sweaty is just mad because he had his butt kicked so badly here. I am sure he will be happier on a Believers board where his logic will be accepted unquestioned.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

I disagree that we are a "good representation of what the mainstream public is like outside the BF world". The posters here (at last the major participants of the bigfoot threads) are quite well informed on bigfoot lore. Much better informed that the "Average Joe". I dare say some here are better informed than the "Average Joe Footer".

You're right and I stand...errr... sit corrected. You're much better informed than the general public.

Well, I disagree. Many of us who conclude bigfoot is most likely a myth would happily jump in to the search for bigfoot iniciative if presented with any of the following (and I dare say this includes a sizeable chunk of "mainstream scientists"):
-Razor (ok, regular quality could do) sharp pictures or footage from people whose reputation would be ruined if somehow found involved on a hoax.

There will always be people who think it was photoshopped or hoaxed.

-Pictures or footage from the same creature (or from the same area) obtained by unrelated parties- this implies in reproductibility. Example: footage or stills of a Patty-like animal made in say, 1984, could make many of us rethink our positions regarding PGF, for example. But we are in 2007, and no such thing happened...

Same reason as above... there will always be people who think any photographs are faked.

-Fossil remains of a big primate, bipedal or not, found in North America. Preferentially of an age that indicated a possible cohexistence with humans. But even remains that predated the first arrival of humans to the Americas could potentially help changing positions.
-DNA sample with the following result: Order- Primates; Family- Hominidae;
Subfamily: Homininae or Ponginae (indicating a link with gorillas/australopithecines/homo or Gigantopithecus); Genus- Unknown.

In the absence of a body, this would be the evidence that speaks the loudest.

 

[William Parcher]

I disagree that we are a "good representation of what the mainstream public is like outside the BF world". The posters here (at last the major participants of the bigfoot threads) are quite well informed on bigfoot lore. Much better informed that the "Average Joe". I dare say some here are better informed than the "Average Joe Footer".

We studied the evidence and the reasonings. Our interpretation of the evidence is the difference between skeptics and proponents, not how versed on bigfoot lore we are. The Average Joe was just exposed to some of the evidence and reasoning, usually just by chance.

Note that perhaps most of TV bigfoot programs (as well as websites) avaliable for the Average Joe are not skeptical. So, if Average Joe is skeptical of bigfoot, then proponents have a problem in their hands, and the problem is bigger than they think it is.

Average Joe is almost certainly a person who has not spent countless hours reading the proponents' positions in books, Internet forums, etc. Nor have they seen the back-and-forth debates with skeptics. Even though AJ is probably skeptical of Bigfoot, AJ doesn't see the kind of tactics that Bigfooters continually use to support their belief. But that doesn't mean that AJ will have a strengthening of skepticism if they begin to look closer. AJs seem to register to BFF almost daily and often say things like "There's no way that thousands of eyewitnesses can all be wrong or lying. Something is out there."

To me, there seems to be some basic personality differences between strong believers and strong skeptics. Those differences seem to hold even when it involves advanced degrees and general productivity in science.

 

[LAL]

I think Sweaty is just mad because he had his butt kicked so badly here. I am sure he will be happier on a Believers board where his logic will be accepted unquestioned.

FYI, butt-kicking goes on on so-called believers boards, too. He's not mad; he's just tired of it.

He has found a place where his work is appreciated. He discovered something on a step-through that may be new. I certainly haven't seen it pointed out before.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

FYI, butt-kicking goes on on so-called believers boards, too. He's not mad; he's just tired of it.

He has found a place where his work is appreciated. He discovered something on a step-through that may be new. I certainly haven't seen it pointed out before.

In case you haven't noticed ' appreciation ' is not what this is about ..

Unless you are talking about good evidence, then yes, it is appreciated..

So far we haven't seen any ...

Sweaty is welcome to present anything he has ' discovered ' ..

If it has merit, he has nothing to fear ..


If he just wants to be appreciated, I agree; this is not the place...