Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
For those tired of the escaped red panda story...

Here's another good example of how numerous witness accounts can mean/be based on nothing. Well, nothing of substance anyway...
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Sorry, Astro...but 'analysing evidence' is a science...not an artform.
As much as you'd like it to be...it's not a subjective matter.
Click to expand...
Again, comprehension failure.

He told you all the evidence presented for bigfoot, including the PGF, is subjective. He was not making a general statement and you are trying to twist his meaning. He said "The evidence is all subjective.
Even the PGF....is subjective in how you interpret the film." He didn't say "All evidence is subjective."

If two people look at the same piece of evidence, and analyse it completely differently...someone is RIGHT, and someone is WRONG.

It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. You did take time to read and comprehend Correa's post addressing yor faulty argument, didn't you?
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
Page 115 of Dore Schary's Case History of a Movie has a brief note on the process.
Click to expand...

Great stuff AMM. Especially the above, as it makes mention of something similar to the 'fake horses' application & something considerably larger that a stop-motion puppet:

In this same shop, George Lofgren has developed a way to transfer any real animal fur surface from it’s original stiff hide to stretchable rubber film, very useful for the mechanical animals we must use in process screen close-ups. George goes down to Mexico shortly to get the hide of a fighting bull which he will mechanize for some of the close shots in Quo Vadis.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze wrote:
He said "The evidence is all subjective.
Even the PGF....is subjective in how you interpret the film." He didn't say "All evidence is subjective."
Click to expand...


Oh, I see.....analysing and weighing evidence, in general, is NOT a subjective matter....but with 'Bigfoot evidence', it is a subjective matter...%100.

Well that's a new one on me! I guess skeptics have found a loophole in the laws of science, which will forever protect them in their "hiding place". ;)

Btw...please let Bill Munns know that there's no more reason for him to continue his analysis....since it's all "in the eye of the beholder".
 
Pareidolia time!

And now, for something completely different from empty rethorical arguments...


Behold, the biggest bigfoot footprint ever found!
colossalfoot.jpg

It took me a bit more than a week at bigfoot country to find it. As a poster here said, winter should be an exceptional time to seek bigfoot tracks. Score one for us! Look at the details- toe impressions, hourglass shape! The animal must have been with its mid-tarsal break locked when walking.
How can anyone still be a denialist skeptic after this amazing piece of evidence?
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
You're contradicting yourself, Astro.
The contradiction is....if you agree that sighting reports (one example of "evidence") can carry weight, without being proven to be real.....then why are you now asking how a sighting report can be proven, in order for it to carry weight???
Make-up your mind, Astro.....does a sighting report NEED to be proven to be legit, in order for it to 'carry weight'...or doesn't it?
Click to expand...

This is not a contradiction at all. You seem to have problems with understanding or I misunderstood your questioning. Here is the bottom line. To prove something you need evidence. Singular evidence does not need to prove a fact by itself but the evidence needs to have some sort of quality to be shown to be accurate so it can help prove something. Eyewitness testimony in such issues carry no weight whatsoever because of the problems with eyewitness testimony. How can you prove the witness is honest? How can you prove he was not mistaken? As the quote I gave you from Sagan, such evidence is too suspect and can not be considered valuable in determining if something exotic is happening. As a result, the "quality" of the evidence can not be quantified and it's weight is 0.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Oh, I see.....analysing and weighing evidence, in general, is NOT a subjective matter....but with 'Bigfoot evidence', it is a subjective matter...%100.
Click to expand...

Yes, Sweaty. All bigfoot evidence is unreliable. None of it has any significant weight whatsoever. All of it collectively and individually can be easily attributed to a mundane cause not involving the existence of a race of 8ft giant bipedal hairy primates eluding classification all over the North American continent. You believe in bigfoot among other irrational beliefs. You are a woo. Your critical thinking is broke.

Well that's a new one on me! I guess skeptics have found a loophole in the laws of science, which will forever protect them in their "hiding place". ;)
Click to expand...

Your understanding of the scientific process is perverse. Try logically explaining how anything I said represents a loophole in the laws of science. The only one hiding is you. Reality and you are not friends.

Btw...please let Bill Munns know that there's no more reason for him to continue his analysis....since it's all "in the eye of the beholder".
Click to expand...
I don't need to tell Munns that. He's already stated himself that all the conclusions he came to can be attributed to a man in a suit.

You, Sweaty, of anyone here should not be bringing up Munns. That ploy will fall on you like a wall. Try telling your "if the fingers bend.." nonsense to him. Try telling him a human head can't fit and show him your scribbles. Try any of the goop you've let loose here about Patty. I'm sure Munns would love to see your math.
 
I wonder if Bob Gimlin said he was 'sick' the day of the University screening because Roger insisted he wear the indian wig, or something like that.

Note to Sweaty, you might want to show him the Link to your 'Buildings on Mars thread' as well.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
You're making the same false argument, or comparison, that others have made before, when I used a different analogy....a person arrested for a crime based on some piece of evidence pointing towards him, though not proving that he committed the crime.
Click to expand...

A person does not have to be proven to commit a crime to be arrested. He becomes a suspect based on the evidence. He is convicted of the crime when the evidence is presented and proven in a trial. The same thing is happening here. The astronomers have found evidence that indicates something is happening. They then present their evidence to prove that their conclusion is correct. Other astronomers weigh the data, check the data, and evaluate it to determine if this is the most likely scenario. Nothing really is proven until we get warp drive and can investigate but it is the closest thing to proving the case

SweatyYeti said:
When I used the "crime analogy" before, skeptics switched the subject of the evidence from "he may have committed the crime" (the consequence of the data) to "he is KNOWN to be a real person" (the data itself).

It's exactly the same twisted argument...only with different specifics....and a different skeptic behind the wheel. ;)
Click to expand...

And your reasoning is the same flawed reasoning concerning evidence and how it is used to establish facts. You talk about probabilities and then admit that the evidence you have evaluated concerning bigfoot has led you to conclude that you don't know if bigfoot exists. Seems to me that means the evidence is not convincing at all and you don't even have enough evidence to make an arrest.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Sorry, Astro...but 'analysing evidence' is a science...not an artform.
As much as you'd like it to be...it's not a subjective matter.
Click to expand...

And you are an expert in "analyzing evidence"? If two experts examine the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions, it means the evidence is not clear cut. It is the evidence, which is the problem. Even scientists make mistakes in analyzing data and drawing conclusions. Why is this? In many cases the evidence presented is inconclusive or incomplete.

SweatyYeti said:
If two people look at the same piece of evidence, and analyse it completely differently...someone is RIGHT, and someone is WRONG.

It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Or the evidence can be flawed such that a conclusion can not be drawn. However, since you want to look at evidence as black and white, lets talk about the topic here, the PGF. In this case the evidence shows a man in a suit or not a man in a suit (with the implication that it must be bigfoot). Unfortunately, both sides offer reasonable arguments to support their conclusion when they analyze the evidence presented. This leaves the "triers of fact" to judge which argument is has a higher probability of being correct. Since even you admit you don't know if bigfoot exists, then this leaves us with the most probable answer that it is a man in a suit (things that are known to exist).
Does that mean you are wrong when you say it is bigfoot? Not exactly. It means you have not proven your case that bigfoot exists in order to make it more likely that your interpretation of the film is correct. Yes, someone is eventually right or wrong but this evidence will not determine that.
 
SweatyYeti said:
If two people look at the same piece of evidence, and analyse it completely differently...someone is RIGHT, and someone is WRONG.

It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
As simple as that. Yes, I'm sure now that Sweaty understands how deeply flawed that statement of his was, he wishes it would disappear.

I wonder if he'll do the intellectually honest thing and admit his error.

Having fun yet, Sweaty?;)
 
Drewbot said:
I wonder if Bob Gimlin said he was 'sick' the day of the University screening because Roger insisted he wear the indian wig, or something like that.
Click to expand...

Gimlin was at the University of British Columbia screenings. Don't know if he wore the wig for the attending scientists.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Oh, I see.....analysing and weighing evidence, in general, is NOT a subjective matter....but with 'Bigfoot evidence', it is a subjective matter...%100.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if it is ignorance or arrogance that leads you to this conclusion.
The bottom line is the evidence so far isn't compelling and can be interpreted iin different ways. Who is right and who is wrong will never be determined. as a result, the more likely scenario, that bigfoot does not exist as a real creature is going to be the answer you will get from science. Go out and get better evidence.
 
kitakaze said:
Looks to me like trees, snow, and lakes as photographed from an airplane.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's what some would qualify as evidence that Mars is bigfoot country. Well, of course I've never been to Mars... But hey, its pareidolia time, folks!

Aniway, some of the (frozen) lakes were created by the footprints of the massive beast, the father of all bigfoots. There's a lake created by its pee and the impact crater of a dropped poop. Whenever I find the time, I'll present my detailed scientific analysis of this stunning finding.

The (ir)relevance of this?
Simple, demonstrate how pareidolia can affect our interpretations and that one can always find "evidence" to back interpretations despite on how wild they can be. For further examples, please use the search fuction for 9/11, squibs and rebars.
 
Last edited:
Can someone recap the info about the actor that Gimlin's Indian Tracker guide was supposedly modeled after? i.e. the name of the Movie, and the actor's name? I can't remember the name or I'd search for it.
 
Astro wrote:
You talk about probabilities and then admit that the evidence you have evaluated concerning bigfoot has led you to conclude that you don't know that Bigfoot exists.

Seems to me that means the evidence is not convincing at all and you don't even have enough evidence to make an arrest.
Click to expand...


Sure, Astro...I readily admit that I don't know that Bigfoot exists...because we don't have proof that Bigfoot exists.

Isn't that logical? :)


It seems to me that when we have proof of it's existence, we'll all be convinced beyond all doubt it does exist.

As for "having enough evidence to make an arrest" goes...all one needs is evidence which indicates a fairly high "degree of probability" of guilt, not evidence which means he definitely committed the crime. Innocent people are arrested for crimes every day, around the country, based on evidence which indicated guilt.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom