Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[SweatyYeti]

Can you answer the question, Ray?....

"Support"? For what? Can you explain what you mean?

You said she was looking for support....can you support your own statement?

 

[RayG]

"Support"? For what? Can you explain what you mean?

Support from another believer.

sup port Uphold applies esp. to supporting or backing another, as in a statement, opinion, or belief

Actually, you have it backwards, Ray.

She provided support for me....when she interjected "OH YEAH, THEY'RE REAL!", while I was telling her why I thought Bigfoot most likely exists.

Can I get an amen brother! You support her, she supports you, it's mutual support for the same belief. It's like a UFO Abduction Support Group for bigfooters.

Sweaty, have you brought any actual evidence to the debate? Your semantic antics and foolish fallacies are boring.

Oh, and Sweaty, you still have no cheese.

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

In contrast to the dismissive attitude of most scientists toward Bigfoot and other such "anomalous events and objects," Roush cited primatologist Jane Goodall, who recently told NPR of her confidence in the vast number of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot encounters by Native Americans and others in the Northwest. Goodall also admitted to being "a romantic," and said, "I always have wanted [Bigfoot] to exist."

That, said Roush, is "an extremely mature attitude."

Bigfooters have prostituted Jane Goodall ever since her NPR interview. They routinely take her comments out of context, and also post YouTube clips of her interview but do not include everything that she says about Bigfoot. Her full opinions are not necessarily something that a Bigfooter would want to share. Even Roush (above) left out the part where Goodall says "maybe they don't exist..."

The truth is that Goodall is anything but scientific when she speaks about Bigfoot (she lumps this with Yeti). She has been punked by Bigfootery and Yeti "science". In turn, the Bigfooters punk the world by not properly explaining her purely romantic position. She mentions a "recent news snippet" that a "Yeti hair" has been found to not match any known animal. One begins to understand that Goodall has not been exposed to BF/Yeti skepticism, or maybe doesn't care enough about it. Regardless, it does seem that her romanticism overrides her critical thinking abilities when it comes to this subject.

Even the brand new Texas Bigfoot Research Center website takes her out of context by offering a single quote from her NPR interview...

"I'm sure that they exist." - Dr. Jane Goodall

When they do this kind of thing, Bigfooters are treating this great woman like a cheap whore. It's a sickeningly desperate act meant to bring prominent relevance to Bigfoot. See, even Dr. Goodall is sure that they exist. I guess we're not so misled after all, are we?

For more on this issue, and to hear the full set of comments by Goodall go to this link and look most of the way down the page.

Sweaty, I think I can understand why Roush appeals to you with relation to Bigfoot. She is a philosopher, not a scientist. That is not a criticism of her, but much more could be said about this situation. I think you would be even more intrigued with her position if you read reviews of her book.UC Berkeley profile of Sherrilyn Roush.

 

[RayG]

Here is an excerpt from a new article about Bigfoot evidence...

There ya go with that wishful-thinking again Sweaty. There's nothing in that article that's been shown to come from a bigfoot, so they can spout whatever belief they like.

Wanting bigfoot to exist, like Goodall, does not make bigfoot exist.

"...these may not be a cast of Bigfoot..."

To start with the premise that they are bigfoot tracks is arriving at a conclusion before investigation. Is this the new scientific method you alluded to earlier?

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Can you answer the question, Ray?

Said the guy who can't answer mine and is to frightened to step up to bat with me.

Time for the 'spook the smack out of Sweaty' questionaire:

1) Can you give a detailed explanation why the Hoffman video is easily identifiable, instantly recognizable as a man in a suit?

2) Can you clearly define in detail the 'realism' that you attribute to the PGF subject?

3) Based on the established facts, it is far, far more likely that the PGF depicts a man in a suit than a living bigfoot. Is this not true? If your answer is 'no' and involves the word 'realistic' or 'realism' please refer to question #2 first. If your answer involves a statement regarding the lack of a recreation of the PGF and it's subject that has been satisfying to bigfoot enthusiasts, please provide a list of concerted efforts to reproduce the PGF and its subject.


4) You often like to compare Halloween type gorilla suits to the PGF subject in an attempt to make some point about your perceived 'realism' of Patty. Were any of those suits designed and made with the intention that they were in fact real gorillas and have any of them been used with the purpose of convincing people they were in fact real sasquatches?

5) Can you give even one valid reason why there should be any burden on those who dismiss the PGF as reliable evidence?

6) I have already clearly explained to you why the PGF subject is far, far, more likely to be a man in a suit. Can you identify and clearly demonstrate even one aspect of the subject that is not easily attributable to a man in a suit? Remember that your drawing lines on Patty's forehead does not qualify. If your answer involves the length of limbs, it is required of you to show that they are outside human range. Also, please keep in mind that Bob Heironimus being the man in the suit is not a stipulation for this, simply that it was a human in a suit.

7) Finally, can you offer detailed rebuttals to the arguments presented in the following posts?:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...64#post3464064

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...52#post3466952

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...81#post3472481

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...78#post3476578

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...62#post3476662

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...10#post3479210

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...36#post3479236

I do understand that due to the fact that those posts contain very sound arguments based on logic and reason that it may be very difficult if possible at all for you to do so considering the willful belief and imparted faith that you base your arguments on.

You have a great day.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

" I want ' it ' to exist .. " is an extremely mature attitude ?

I wonder how many 4 - 8 year olds Roush polled to come up with that conclusion ...

I certainly understand how Sweaty relates to that, though ..

 

[William Parcher]

Bigfoot is for Bigfooters,

and

Philosophy is for Philosophers.

Review of Roush's book.

S knows that p if and only if:

S knows p by tracking

or

p is true, S believes p and there are q1, . . ., qn none of which is equivalent to p, such that q1, . . ., qn together imply p, S knows that q1, . . ., qn imply p, and S knows q1, . . ., qn

where S knows that q1, . . ., qn imply p if and only if

(a) it is true that q1, . . .., qn imply p,

(b) S believes that q1, . . ., qn imply p,

(c) P((-b (q1) ∨ . . . ∨ -b(qn)) | -b(p)) > s[2]

(d) P(b(p) | b (q1), . . ., b(qn)) > s

(e) if (b) is fulfilled because of inferences S made from q1, . . ., qn to p, then every step of inference in this chain is one where S knows that the premises imply the conclusion (p. 47).

That should make the Bigfooters happy. Not. Just cut through that academic philosophy quagmire and tell Roush to get her ass out of the Berkeley campus and into the woods. After some rock-throwing and wood knocking, she'll register on BFF where they will show her how to think about Bigfoot. No more of this tofu and green tea stuff.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

" I want ' it ' to exist .. " is an extremely mature attitude ?

I think...using some common sense...that the "mature attitude" remark was refering to Jane Goodall's OPEN mind towards the possible existence of Bigfoot.

Here's the relevant line again....

Roush cited primatologist Jane Goodall, who recently told NPR of her confidence in the vast number of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot encounters by Native Americans and others in the Northwest. Goodall also admitted to being “a romantic,” and said, “I always have wanted [Bigfoot] to exist.”

Clearly, Jane Goodall has an open mind, and gives a good deal of weight (confidence ) to the VAST number of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot.

"See Jane....See Jane's mature attitude towards Bigfoot."
"See Greg...(see my signature line)...see Greg laugh at the idea of Bigfoot...like an immature child".

 

[William Parcher]

Clearly, Jane Goodall has an open mind...

Yeah, open to anything including the non-existence of Bigfoot. From the NPR interview...

Jane: "...I'm sure that they exist."

Jane: "...maybe they don't exist..."

Why does she say that she is sure of their existence? She sounds like a Bigfooter right there. She has no personal experience with Bigfoot.

 

[kitakaze]

"See Jane....See Jane's mature attitude towards Bigfoot."
"See Greg...(see my signature line)...see Greg laugh at the idea of Bigfoot...like an immature child".

See Sweaty dress up belief as reason and logic.

Sweaty, don't bolt. Let's talk about it. I invite you to substantiate this claim here in either this thread or my Native American thread, otherwise I think you shouldn't perpetuate footer fluff:

...vast number of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot encounters by Native Americans and others in the Northwest.

Also, I guess by this reasoning we can consider extraterrestrials on Earth likely to exist.

 

[William Parcher]

I wonder if Roush got her Goodall quotes from a Bigfooter. They most often edit out the part where she says they might not exist.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

4) You often like to compare Halloween type gorilla suits to the PGF subject in an attempt to make some point about your perceived 'realism' of Patty. Were any of those suits designed and made with the intention that they were in fact real gorillas and have any of them been used with the purpose of convincing people they were in fact real sasquatches?

No, those cheap, Halloween type suits weren't made to be convincing, or fool people.

But I like to compare Patty to ALL the gorilla/bigfoot suits that I can.
In that same post, I also posted a picture of a much more "realistic" suit...one that has built-in body contour to it.

Comparisons reveal quite a bit about suits, in general.

There are the cheap, loose-fitting type....and the more complex, tight-fitting padded types.
This one...

....is more realistic, in that it has body/muscle contour, without all the folds and wrinkles, of the cheap type....but does it have the flexibility/apparant muscle movement that Patty's "heavily-padded" hide has?....

I doubt it does.

 

[William Parcher]

Roush takes liberties with Goodall's exact words on NPR...

Goodall: I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them.

 

[kitakaze]

No, those cheap, Halloween type suits weren't made to be convincing, or fool people.

So will you agree to stop posting them in comparison to Patty as it is meaningless and not an intellectually honest debate tactic?

In that same post, I also posted a picture of a much more "realistic" suit...one that has built-in body contour to it.

Oh, I'm miles ahead of you, cat. You seemed to have earlier ignored the question when I asked you about that suit being worn in the PGF. If that suit had been filmed under the same conditions as the PGF, do you think people would have instantly recognized as a suit as most do with Patty?

....is more realistic, in that it has body/muscle contour, without all the folds and wrinkles, of the cheap type...

Tell me, what exactly do you mean when you say 'contour'? Are you being willfully ignorant? You've been shown lots of suits with muscles. You've been shown features in Patty that act as no real muscles do. Patty's got folds and wrinkles. Hello right upper thigh. Hairy missiles in the middle of the torso and diaper butt are not realistic features. Why do you ignore that? It's willful ignorance, right?

but does it have the flexibility/apparant muscle movement that Patty's "heavily-padded" hide has?....

Hi there, my Hoffman video has apparent muscle movement and nice short, glossy hair. My number one question, the one that freaks you out like a little girl in springtime - Can you give a detailed explanation why the Hoffman video is easily identifiable, instantly recognizable as a man in a suit?

Keep on runnin', baby.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Sweaty, don't bolt. Let's talk about it. I invite you to substantiate this claim here in either this thread or my Native American thread, otherwise I think you shouldn't perpetuate footer fluff:

Quote:
...vast number of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot encounters by Native Americans and others in the Northwest.

I've never looked into the Native American stories...so there's nothing I can say about them.

 

[kitakaze]

I have recently said, in a post with a lengthy explanation, why I don't use the words "belief" and "believe" anymore, in refering to my thoughts about Bigfoot.

The word "believe" carries a connotation of "faith"..(as you just demonstrated in your post...I quote..."and that belief is based upon wishful-thinking and faith, )...and that connotation is misleading.
In that post, from a few months ago (I believe it was ) I said that people shouldn't use the word "believe" in describing what they think about the possibility, or likelihood, of Bigfoot's existence.
It's natural to use the word...most people do....but it's not the best way to state your thoughts.

I promise you Sweaty, that your attempt to represent your ideas about bigfoot as anything other than belief and faith is completely transparent. I will show that the post you were referring to was nothing but some very flawed critical thinking. Let's have a look:

"Approximately 100 Million acres are designated as wilderness in the United States. This accounts for (only) 4.71% of the total land of the country..."

This part of the 'remote' fallacy. That figure does not necessarily entail that all of that area is either appropriate to conceal a population of 8ft giant bipedal primates from classification by humans or support the dietary needs of such a hypothetical beast. On top of that we must keep in mind people such as bf2006 and Joyce's and their accounts telling us of bigfoots that will brazenly come into human populations.

"24 New species found in Suriname...."



http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/06/04/newspecies_ani.html?category=animals

Were any of those animals 8ft giants with dietary needs comparable to what a bigfoot would need and covering the same vast area as is attributed to bigfoot by their sighting claims? If not then you're talking bunk.

Given the combination of the large amount of evidence for the creature....and the extremely large amount of wilderness for it to exist in.......it's not really so ridiculous to think it may exist.

Bigfoot as variously described by footers in all its forms, the one that will stroll into Valatie is completely ludicrous. It stretches the bounds of credibility to breaking.

As for me...I don't blindly "believe" Bigfoot exists.
Instead, I think the weight of the evidence indicates a high degree of probability that Bigfoot exists.

Yes, you do. You're just in denial. Your lengthy explanation just turned out to be two bunk examples of really bad critical thinking and willful ignorance.

Nice try, better luck next time, believer.

 

[kitakaze]

I've never looked into the Native American stories...so there's nothing I can say about them.

Well first, as William pointed out, we need to make sure we're getting Goodall's words right for your bunk appeal to authority tactic.

Jane said:

I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them.

And:

...maybe they don't exist

Not what Roush attributes to her here:

Roush cited primatologist Jane Goodall, who recently told NPR of her confidence in the vast number of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot encounters by Native Americans and others in the Northwest.

So Goodall makes a point of singling out Native Americans, including only two who claim to have seen anything, and clearly demonstrates her romantic inclinations while fully admitting them. She demonstrates that she wasn't availing herself to skepticism and neither does she detail the circumstances of her discussions so we can only speculate if they will stand up to scrutiny. Nevertheless, much scrutiny isn't very necessary when the lady is being forthright about her desire to believe.

What's really the issue here is that your still ignoring my challenge to your 'so many sightings' fallacy. Again, lots of people claim sightings of extraterrestrials, that doesn't mean we're being visited by aliens. Maybe I'm having trouble getting you to engage the issue because I'm talking to a guy with a Martian architecture image collection.

 

[William Parcher]

Goodall has never qualified Bigfoot (or Yeti) in any specific scientific way. In spite of her status as a famous chimpanzee researcher, her belief in Bigfoot is really no different than the 'average Bigfooter'.

From The Guardian...

A lifetime of facing down controversy, however, means Goodall has no fear of thinking outside accepted scientific parameters: a recent comment to a radio interviewer that she was prepared to accept the possible existence of Bigfoot and other unknown great apes prompted a flood of correspondence, to her great delight. "It seems unlikely, doesn't it, but, I don't know, there's something there."

It's the same thing we always hear. How could so many witnesses all be wrong? Where there is smoke, there must be fire.

 

[Crowlogic]

So is Jane Goodall an idiot after all? If so who should be relied upon to tell her so? I mean we can't let the lady wallow in the mire can we?

 

[William Parcher]

You just posted three idiotic questions.