Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

Hey Luminous... ....you've SEEN the light!!

Hey Slippery... if the fingers bend, what must we pretend!? Back to your lurking dodge-boy, you couldn't find a point on a porcupine.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Thanks for the encouragement Sweaty! I plan on pulling out of here shortly, but I want to recored a few more of their tactics so I can write a post about these folks.

By the way, I've come to the conclusion that most of these folks aren't true skeptics. They're disingenuous debate lovers. Because of their dishonest tactics and games, you can't even have good debate with them. A true skeptic doesn't engage in the tactics I have been listing.

Yes I am wasting my time trying to show anything here. But I've been studying their tactics and maneuvers so I can expose them for what they really are: "contrarians."

Contrarians are the folks who take the opposite view of everything, just so they can show off their debating skills. If you're for it, they will be against it because they get "high" off of conflict. They live for the thrill of heated arguments. But they care nothing for the truth.

You can have a productive debate with a true skeptic because they're not out to get everyone "riled" up or prove that their right at the expense of the truth. You can have civil discourse with them, and even disagree, but shake hands and walk away having learned something. But this is too boring for a disingenuous debate lover because they like the heat of fervent disagreement and hostility. They're adrenalin junkies.

The truth is, they are too immature to pay much attention to. That's why they have to resort to playing such childish games. They're simple children in grown up bodies. That pretty much sums up my assessment thus far.

I'm hoping a true skeptic will step forward. We can have a mature and civil debate then.

The call goes out...

D

You're welcome, Luminous!

Great post, btw.........it's 100% TRUE.

I'm glad you won't be staying long....you are a wise man...

I can send you some post numbers, in a PM, of some beautiful examples of the garbage, and the game-playing, that the skeptics engage in here...under the guise of "critical thinking" .
There were some real gems in the "Simple Challenge to Bigfoot Supporters" thread.
Did you see their "analysis" of the ULTRA-simple 2 frame animated gif, that shows Patty's fingers actually bending?
You gotta see it....it's the ultimate example of "willful blindness"...and "contrariness".

 

[kitakaze]

I hate to be the one to say this, but you're starting to sound like a nut-job. Your posts are becoming more and more bizarre. I'm thinking about pushing the "ignore" button cause "you ain't all there." I have no idea what the hell your talking about! Cats, Zen, I am one... What the hell?

Fanatics are usually confused by irony. Have you ever considered being a 9/11 Truther? You've got the behaviour down.

Let me say this as clearly as I can- You see a big house cat in the Maine mystery cat photo and piloerection in the funky weirdo bulge on Patty's leg. Who sounds like a nut-job? Your broken record opinions mean nothing to the question of whether or not there are 8ft hairy primates walking around all over the continent. One thing's for sure, if such were the case you'd think you could do better than horsewhip a 40 year old questionable film taken under questionable circumstances by a questionable man of a questionable subject at considerable distance.

But alas, without a single shred of reliable evidence in sight we get the rantings of fanatics such as yourself. What do those rantings consist of? What do you offer in support of your claim? A PGF still and a list of muscles you think are seen on the subject. Well, stop the presses. Debate over. Some fanatic schmoe posted a still and list of muscles they think can be seen. Is he/she an anatomist? Does he/she have any qualifications or expertise to back their opinions? Who cares? He/she was really selling it with feeling!

Luminous, take all the notes you like but in the end you've said nothing of any substance here and come off as a simple, dime-a-dozen, fist-shaking believer with a heavy case of PGF fixation and burden-of-proof confusion. Here's the thing. That film, it may be a sasquatch or it may be a man in a suit. It may be enough to engender your belief but it's certainly no kind of reliable evidence of sasquatch existence. Let us know if you find some. In the meantime, if you are going to put someone on ignore, just do it. If you're going to leave, just do it and spare us another 'I'm leaving' speech.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Good try on the shoulder pad thing. But your evidence is weak. (A hand drawn blue line?) My daughter could have drawn that. As to these other points, make your case. I'm open enough to consider what you have to say, But you'll have to take me point by point through these things because I have no idea what you're talking about. Show me...please.

It's obvious you have no idea what I'm talking about .. The blue line was to bring your attention to the shape of shoulder pads just above the blue line ..

Blue lines and red circles are essential to the PGF debate ...

Before you start making claims about how real muscles look, you should at least take a look at ' Anatomy ' over at Wiki ..

You clearly have nothing to bring to the table but your ill informed opinion ..

Good by Luminous ..

 

[LTC8K6]

I can send you some post numbers, in a PM, of some beautiful examples of the garbage, and the game-playing, that the skeptics engage in here...under the guise of "critical thinking" .
There were some real gems in the "Simple Challenge to Bigfoot Supporters" thread.
Did you see their "analysis" of the ULTRA-simple 2 frame animated gif, that shows Patty's fingers actually bending?
You gotta see it....it's the ultimate example of "willful blindness"...and "contrariness".

Again, more lies from Sweaty Yeti...as has already been explained, Sweaty Yeti asked for those explanations, then made fun of them.

Again, we already spotted Sweaty Yeti the fact that the fingers bend.

As yet, he has not told us what that is supposed to mean.

I don't know how this sort of lying, cheating, and underhandedness is allowed to go on here, frankly.

 

[kitakaze]

Did you see their "analysis" of the ULTRA-simple 2 frame animated gif, that shows Patty's fingers actually bending?
You gotta see it....it's the ultimate example of "willful blindness"...and "contrariness".

Don't forget where you answered 'if the fingers bend, what must we pretend?'.

Oh yes, that's right. You never did. It's a typical example of believer evasion. BTW, Sweaty, still think the MDF is a bigfoot with baby?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Again, more lies from Sweaty Yeti...as has already been explained, Sweaty Yeti asked for those explanations, then made fun of them.

Again, we already spotted Sweaty Yeti the fact that the fingers bend.

As yet, he has not told us what that is supposed to mean.

I don't know how this sort of lying, cheating, and underhandedness is allowed to go on here, frankly.

I'm only responding to LTC's post....and that's because there's a human element involved here...ridicule.
I'm not debating or discussing anything about the evidence itself.
I only made fun of your responses, LTC, because 2 or 3 of them were not plausible explanations, and a couple weren't even possible explanations.
They were...in a word.....ridiculous....so I ridiculed them.

Even though I ridiculed your explanations...I wasn't intending on insulting your intelligence. I don't think you put much time or thought into them, I think you just "coughed up" whatever you could, just to come up something as an alternative to "bending fingers". I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that one or two of them couldn't possibly account for the apparant bending of the fingers.

Sure, I asked for alternate explanations...input from skeptics....but I didn't ask for just "whatever you can imagine".

That's all. I'm not getting into debating the plausibility of your explanations, LTC.

Have a good evening.

 

[drapier]

Thanks for the encouragement Sweaty! I plan on pulling out of here shortly, but I want to recored a few more of their tactics so I can write a post about these folks.

If only such acute observational skills could be applied to the forests of the Pacific Northwest (or Iowa, or New Jersey, or Ohio, or wherever the heck bigfoot is "found") we would have had conclusive proof that the majestic man-beast lives.

 

[drapier]

"Where's the proof .....got a body?"
...
The skeptics on this board are "black-and-white" thinkers....you either have proof of Bigfoot's existence....or you have nothing. The evidence for Bigfoot carries NO weight whatsoever, as far as they're concerned.

Why is a body or some decent film footage such an unreasonable request?

After all it has been 40 years since Patterson's film.

I watched the first installment of the Planet Earth series yesterday and it showed some film of the Amur leopard of Siberia. Supposedly only 40 specimens of the species exist. Even so, the filmmakers were able to capture footage of the creatures.

Is the Pacific Northwest more inaccessible than Siberia or North Korea (the range of the Amur leopard)? Is bigfoot so common that he's witnessed by hundreds of people, yet so scarce that no decent film can be taken of him?

What do proponents of bigfoot make of the fact that no specimen has been collected in the 40 years since the PGF? Does this fact give you the least bit of pause in your belief?

 

[LAL]

There's the old obtuse girl that I know and love!
Now that's blindness!

Am I still off filter?

As a matter of fact, the Wallace family did produce a couple of other pairs of wooden feet, according to Jeff Meldrum, after it was pointed out the first ones didn't match the Crew tracks, but they didn't fit anything either.

Funny, only you and SG/D seem to think I'm obtuse. I received a couple of lengthy PMs from two different posters telling me I'm a genius. Now, whom should I believe?

 

[LAL]

There is NOTHING clear about the P/G film apart from the fact that it lacks detail, colour and unimpeachable sources. It is a grainy, jerky 16mm B&W film that could very easily be a person in a suit. Why do you think these debates go on forever? Because it's so far from clear as to be useless.

?????????????????????????? It's in color. Even British TV shows have it in color. I have copies of a few, thanks to a cyber friend on the Isle of Wight.

These debates go on forever because some people seem to think Stan Winston knows more than a couple of physical anthropologists and some don't seem to think much at all.

It's unfortunate Roger was a rodeo rider instead of a photographer for the National Geographic, but that's just how things worked out.

There were prints showing up frequently in the area, but the only "scientist" willing to take a look was Don Abbott, a cultural anthropologist from the BC Museum.

NG could have sent someone.

 

[LAL]

LAL - "The cibachromes are good. Seen those?"; yes I have....but to make sure we are talking about the same thing, do you have a link that shows what you are talking about?

They need to be seen in print. I've scanned a couple, but they seem to get pixelated when I post them.

 

[LAL]

Why is a body or some decent film footage such an unreasonable request?

After all it has been 40 years since Patterson's film.

I watched the first installment of the Planet Earth series yesterday and it showed some film of the Amur leopard of Siberia. Supposedly only 40 specimens of the species exist. Even so, the filmmakers were able to capture footage of the creatures.

There are about 290 in zoos.

Is the Pacific Northwest more inaccessible than Siberia or North Korea (the range of the Amur leopard)? Is bigfoot so common that he's witnessed by hundreds of people, yet so scarce that no decent film can be taken of him?

They're scarce, wide ranging and largely nocturnal. Peter Byrne hunted in the jungles of Sumatra. He told me the forests of the PNW are far denser; you can't see through them.

I saw a Condor once, in the refuge in California. There were about 25 at the time. I grabbed the bird book; I didn't have time to think about the camera.

What do proponents of bigfoot make of the fact that no specimen has been collected in the 40 years since the PGF? Does this fact give you the least bit of pause in your belief?

It doesn't me. I can't speak for anyone else.

 

[kitakaze]

A pm from Teresa Hall that she has given me permission to repost:

Originally Posted by Teresa.Hall
I just wanted to let you know we finally got a message from Benjamin Radford and he has agreed to be on the Let's Talk Bigfoot show on Talkshoe in September, tentatively September 5th, but if he cannot make that one then September 15th.

Show time is at 9 p.m. Central time and the address to go is http://www.letstalkbigfoot.com. Anyone wishing to call in with a comment or question should call 724-444-7444, Talkcast ID: 30301, and if you don't want to register a pin number yourself you're welcome to use 0315610001.

I hope you listen and you're welcome to call in to the show too. I'd like to hear some of the voices that go with these names.

my best,
Teresa

Looking forward to that. Thanks for your efforts, T.

 

[Locknar]

LAL – Thanks for the effort; my intent was to provide a common baseline. The ones I’ve seen in print; I have to be honest and say that to me, they just show a guy in a costume, with foam and fabric lumps.

WRT to the entire “the muscles in motion” debate, I’d submit this is a weak argument as it is based on a single data source; a ’67 16mm grainy, jittery, at times out of focus one at that.

For a real “muscles in motion” debate/discussion, more data sets would be required to form a baseline; any serious discussion wrt “muscles in motion” from a single data source is speculation at best. While parallels can be drawn from other species of primates, that opens the door to other aspects such as the hairy breasts (which are not found in other primates).

So common they appear in people’s yards, yet no credible physical evidence has ever been found. Given the supposed world wide population of this “primate”, this is a real show stopper for me.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm only responding to LTC's post....

Except for this part:

As yet, he has not told us what that is supposed to mean.

And that is because when he says:

I'm not debating or discussing anything about the evidence itself.

It's an indication that he's going to continue his evasion, from the very beginning of him raising the issue, of answering the simplest question 'if the fingers bend, what must we pretend?'. It's quite telling and quite embarrassing for him in a way that I think he is well aware of. Had Sweaty had anything of substance to back his beliefs and some measure of foresight he would have been prepared for that question but since neither seemed to be sufficient it caught him like a deer in the headlights in his moment of trollish glee.

It is only my opinion, but I think that is why Sweaty has relegated himself to chucking the odd peanut from the cheap seats. He knows everytime he makes a toss someone will offer him the mic and he turtles. He was cornered on his BS for once in a way he couldn't play some semantic games to get out of so he made one of those defeated fanatic 'screw you guys, I'm goin' home' farewells that are never really farewells. Now he just lurks, makes the odd potshot, and avoids any finger bending questions like the plague. Who's the real contrarian?

 

[Luminous]

You're welcome, Luminous!

Great post, btw.........it's 100% TRUE.

I'm glad you won't be staying long....you are a wise man...

I can send you some post numbers, in a PM, of some beautiful examples of the garbage, and the game-playing, that the skeptics engage in here...under the guise of "critical thinking" .
There were some real gems in the "Simple Challenge to Bigfoot Supporters" thread.
Did you see their "analysis" of the ULTRA-simple 2 frame animated gif, that shows Patty's fingers actually bending?
You gotta see it....it's the ultimate example of "willful blindness"...and "contrariness".

Absolutely Sweaty,

PM me everything you have. I'm serious about publishing these tactics for all to see. I would like to do everything I can to discourage serious researchers from wasting their time communicating with such lawless and unprincipled individuals. Truthfully, I'd like to know where the real skeptics are at, because I enjoy talking with them. There was one guy here who seemed to be mature enough to fit the bill. If I could only remember his handle...

Anyway, send me what you got...

Sincerely,

Luminous

 

[kitakaze]

Cryptomundo blog on Chris Noel's BFRO expedition travel commercial 'Come Along With Us'.

In advance I take no responsibility for any unfortunate computer/beverage mishaps.

 

[kitakaze]

So Luminous, I'm guessing you are going to continue avoiding the question I asked concerning whether or not you post on any of the boards I referred you to. Not that it's a big deal, but I find it interesting that you do.

Just in case you still don't remember that post.

 

[kitakaze]

So common they appear in people’s yards, yet no credible physical evidence has ever been found. Given the supposed world wide population of this “primate”, this is a real show stopper for me.

Yes, many proponents have filtration problems with this. UK, Iowa, Sweden, South Africa, Malaysia...