Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[makaya325]

Scoftic- accepts claims of the hoaxer, even though the scoftic says eyewitnesses are unreliable, so if bob g is unreliable, so is bob h. Fair is fair

 

[LTC8K6]

accepts claims of the hoaxer, even though the scoftic says eyewitnesses are unreliable

The hoaxer is far more than just an eyewitness, makaya. You must know that...

If I hoaxed the PGF, I am far more than an eyewitness and my testimony is far more valuable than someone who merely saw my hoax from a distance.

 

[xblade]

Scoftic- accepts claims of the hoaxer, even though the scoftic says eyewitnesses are unreliable, so if bob g is unreliable, so is bob h. Fair is fair

I guess you still haven't figured out that it's not about being fair. If one guy says he saw a fire breathing dragon and the other says it was a crocodile, we don't have to be fair and accept both versions equally.

 

[kitakaze]

I guess you still haven't figured out that it's not about being fair. If one guy says he saw a fire breathing dragon and the other says it was a crocodile, we don't have to be fair and accept both versions equally.

Exactly. Say we are one a riverboat cruise of the Nile. Someone bursts into the common area breathlessly claiming they have just seen a dragon. One of the crew glances over and casually says "crocodile." Yet there are some alarmed passengers who are worried about the possibility of dragon attack and they question the alleged dragon witness about the creature seen. He says it was massive! "40 ft long and at least 220 stone!" He says it was a great brown/green monster with scales, a gaping maw, jagged teeth, claws, and a great tail. Crew member rolls his eyes and again says "crocodile."

One of the passengers in a panic about impending dragon doom says "Well, how do you know it was a crocodile!? Are crocodiles 40 ft and 220 stone??" Crew member says, "Good sir must have been mistaken. We are on a riverboat in the Nile. The Nile is full of crocodiles. If ma'am should like, I'd glady show her a crocodile now."

The point being that if you produce a film that for all the world looks like a man in a bad hair suit and claim you have hard evidence of Bigfoot, then it is your claim to prove. The burden is on you. I can say it is a man in a suit and that explanation will suffice. There is no reason not to think it is a man in a suit. We know people wear suits and make hoaxes. Would sir/ma'am like to see a hoaxed Bigfoot? I'll glady show you one.

What you certainly may not do is say that it is incumbent upon me to produce the actual suit from the film or other proof that the film is a hoax when you have not at all provided proof to support your claim that the film is a real Bigfoot.

If you can't or won't understand this, put on a helmet and prepare to be bombed.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

What you certainly may not do is say that it is incumbent upon me to produce the actual suit from the film...

It's not incumbent upon anybody to prove anything....one way or the other....(such as: 'Bigfoot does exist' or 'Bigfoot doesn't exist'....'The PG Film is legit', or 'The PG Film is a hoax').

The reason why this is so, is because nobody knows, with 100% certainty, that either of those extremes are true.
Neither case, in parentheses above, has been proven to be true, as of yet.
(I understand that some skeptics on this board "know" that Bigfoot doesn't exist.....but, remember...they ONLY 'know' it....they can't SHOW it to be true. This 'knowing' can only exist within their head...it's non-transferrable. The same principle applies to someone who says they've seen a Bigfoot, and 'knows' it exists.)


The ONLY time it becomes 'incumbent' on someone to support what they're saying, is when they expect what they're saying to carry some actual weight.
An unsupported opinion simply doesn't carry any weight.

Skeptics' unsupported opinions are worthless...and proponents' unsupported opinions are worthless.

Skeptics are free to think, and say, whatever they want....and proponents are free to think, and say, whatever they want.


Skeptics shouldn't be here to 'turn proponents into skeptics'...and proponents shouldn't be here to 'turn skeptics into proponents'.


We should be here simply to try to find the truth......not to try to win a meaningless "belief war" which has no proven truth behind it, on either side.

We are, in actual fact, all on 'equal FOOT-ing".

 

[kitakaze]

(snip)

We are, in actual fact, all on 'equal FOOT-ing".

Nope. Sorry. This is your ineffectual and flawed logic. The available evidence suggests with a high degree of probability that Bigfoot as commonly described by Bigfoot enthusiasts does not exist. I can not say with 100% certainty that Bigfoot doesn't exist in the same way that I can not say that extra-terrestrials are visiting Earth or creating structures on Mars (which you support). I can only look at the evidence submitted for them and in finding the evidence extremely poor, relegate the claim to one of extremely low probability.

A constant theme in SweatyYeti's arguments is the intellectually dishonest attempt to present the issue as being one of at least 50/50 uncertainty. I say this is intellectually dishonest because he knows full well the flaws of every piece of crap evidence he's put forward and knows that a lot of weak coffee will not suffice.

Skeptic's opinions about the low probability of Bigfoot existence are based on the facts available and thus not worthless. Bigfoot enthusiasts' opinions are based on flimsy evidence that does not bear scrutiny (ie film that can easily be a man in a suit). Sweaty personally has demonstrated himself as a source on factual information regarding Bigfoot evidence to be very, very bad. Basic fact-checking apparently does not have much interest for him. Nor the responsibility to Bigfoot as a potentially endangered species as he speaks about.

This is on top of his chronic dodging and fear of addressing straight questions and sincere debate. This is not to be personal but when it comes to the quality of Sweaty's arguments are right at the bottom of the barrel with little mak's. The only thing that makes them better is that at least Sweaty will put some time in with colours, capitals, crayons, etc to be at least visually dynamic when saying a whole lot of nothing.

Sweaty's beliefs on Bigfoot are based mostly on the PGF, MDF, Freeman footage, and eyewitness reports such as that of Joyce in New York. He knows the fatal flaws of all those things but is too embittered to admit them. For the rest of us we can only look at those things with amusement and shock and look back to Sweaty and say "Really? I mean, really, man? Wow. You are too far gone." For us Sweaty is a write-off. The value is in reasoning with people here who have real interest in sincere debate and actually have open minds.

 

[Hitch]

Kit,

The thing I'm struck with time and time again, is people don't find bigfoot any more unlikely than the fact that there are actually people who believe like Sweaty does. No one, they feel, could honestly look at the evidence for bigfoot and think it amounts to anything.

SweatyYeti is as mythical as bigfoot to most people. That's why they wonder why we need so many threads about bigfoot. It really does seem like a completely silly subject.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Sweaty personally has demonstrated himself as a source on factual information regarding Bigfoot evidence to be a vary bad source.

This is on top of his chronic dodging and fear of addressing straight questions and sincere debate. This is not to be personal but when it comes to the quality of Sweaty's arguments are right at the bottom of the barrel with little mak's. The only thing that makes them better is that at least Sweaty will put some time in with colours, capitals, crayons, etc to be at least visually dynamic when saying a whole lot of nothing.

Sweaty's beliefs on Bigfoot are based mostly on the PGF, MDF, Freeman footage, and eyewitness reports such as that of Joyce in New York. He knows the fatal flaws of all those things but is too embittered to admit them. For the rest of us we can only look at those things with amusement and shock and look back to Sweaty and say "Really? I mean, really, man? Wow. You are too far gone." For us Sweaty is a write-off.

Kitty.....your pills are on the bottom shelf of your medicine cabinet. Take them as soon as you can, please.

The value is in reasoning with people here who have real interest in sincere debate and actually have open minds.

Open up your mind....and let the SUN SHINE IN.......

Diogenes wrote...

"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

 

[kitakaze]

Kitty.....your pills are on the bottom shelf of your medicine cabinet. Take them as soon as you can, please.

Thanks, I do every day. Anytime you want another dose of reality, you just let me know.

BTW, your unanswered questions you assured me you would have no trouble with are still in post #711 anytime you muster up the courage, Sweaty. Then there's the reaaaaally scary ones in the Heironimus thread. I hope a desire for the truth wins out and gives you the courage to deal with those too but I don't have much hope.

Man, if somebody was bringing me hard questions like that where I would look like a culty believer for not dealing with, I'd be all over it, lickity-split. That's just me though.

ETA: I'll make it super easy foor you to find the scary questions as I always do, Sweaty. Post #817 in the BH thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4486824&postcount=817

 

[kitakaze]

Open up your mind....and let the SUN SHINE IN.......

Diogenes wrote...

"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

How enlightened of you. Maybe since I'm pointing out fatal flaws of your Bigfoot evidence, you can point to say, some information which proves that Patty is far more likely to be a Bigfoot than a human. You have that, right?

Don't forget, Sweaty. Even if we didn't have the extremely glaring factual information indicating a hoax with the PGF, we'd still be stuck with just the film of a sad sack-looking thing with an anatomyall wrong. Nothing about that film makes a human less likely than a Bigfoot and you know it.

But you keep running. It's your specialty.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Man, if somebody was bringing me hard questions like that where I would look like a culty believer for not dealing with, I'd be all over it, lickity-split. That's just me though.

Kitty......I don't care what you think, about me, or about the possibility of Bigfoot's existence.

Like I said in my earlier post.....I post on Bigfoot forums, and threads, to try to find the truth behind the evidence....not to win a 'belief war', or to impress you, or to get you to say 'uncle', or 'I believe'.

 

[kitakaze]

It's not incumbent upon anybody to prove anything....one way or the other....(such as: 'Bigfoot does exist' or 'Bigfoot doesn't exist'....'The PG Film is legit', or 'The PG Film is a hoax').

The reason why this is so, is because nobody knows, with 100% certainty, that either of those extremes are true.
Neither case, in parentheses above, has been proven to be true, as of yet.

Before I forget, while you're here for this installment of "kitakaze owns Sweaty" I had to say about the above critical thinking in critical condition...



It shouldn't be placed on supporters of the PGF to prove that it's really a Bigfoot because nobody knows 100% that it isn't and nobody's proved that?

Good one, genius.

(I understand that some skeptics on this board "know" that Bigfoot doesn't exist.....but, remember...they ONLY 'know' it....they can't SHOW it to be true. This 'knowing' can only exist within their head...it's non-transferrable. The same principle applies to someone who says they've seen a Bigfoot, and 'knows' it exists.)

Yes, can you point out those skeptics that know Bigfoot doesn't exist? Greg's quote there doesn't qualify so who?

Come back real soon now, ya hear?

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:



Kitty......I don't care what you think, about me, or about the possibility of Bigfoot's existence.

Like I said in my earlier post.....I post on Bigfoot forums, and threads, to try to find the truth behind the evidence....not to win a 'belief war', or to impress you, or to get you to say 'uncle', or 'I believe'.

Very good, then. You shouldn't have any trouble answering the questions regarding evidence I asked.

Or should I say further trouble?

 

[JcR]

Patty is waiting for someone to show up and play Goalie.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

It shouldn't be placed on supporters of the PGF to prove that it's really a Bigfoot because nobody knows 100% that it (is)... isn't and nobody's proved that?

That's correct......it's not anyone's obligation to prove Patty is a real Bigfoot, when nobody has 'proof' that Patty is a real Bigfoot.

Since when is anyone obligated to provide something that they don't have??

 

[kitakaze]

That's correct......it's not anyone's obligation to prove Patty is a real Bigfoot, when nobody has 'proof' that Patty is a real Bigfoot.

But you could very well have proof that Patty is real. All you'd need is a Bigfoot that matches Patty. Got none? I knew that. You don't have to prove Patty's real or provide reliable evidence that she's far more likely to be real than a hoax. You just have to shut-up about the odds being in her favour or thats it's impossible that she's human. By you, I mean Patty fans in general.

Since when is anyone obligated to provide something that they don't have??

All the time. How do you think your country got into its financial mess?

ETA: You failed to provide an answer to the question regarding your strawman:

"Yes, can you point out those skeptics that know Bigfoot doesn't exist? Greg's quote there doesn't qualify so who?"

 

[kitakaze]

Skeptics shouldn't be here to 'turn proponents into skeptics'...and proponents shouldn't be here to 'turn skeptics into proponents'.

Critical thinkers should help those who want to become better critical thinkers while all the time striving to be better critical thnikers themselves. That's a basic mentality of this forum. People who show poor critical thinking can expect to hear about it here.

Here's the prize in your crackerjacks. Maybe you don't think proponents should be here to convert skeptics but guess what? A lot of us want you to. We are ready and willing to be converted. You know what that takes, right?

Right?

 

[kitakaze]

Patty is waiting for someone to show up and play Goalie.

I love your kinetic sense. What we need is an image of Patty headlong bouncing of the doors of science like an SCTV dummy.

 

[xblade]

Open up your mind....and let the SUN SHINE IN.......

Diogenes wrote...

"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

That's the problem: Footer's minds are so wide open, their brains have fallen out.

By the way, Diogenes quote is accurate.

(I understand that some skeptics on this board "know" that Bigfoot doesn't exist.....but, remember...they ONLY 'know' it....they can't SHOW it to be true. This 'knowing' can only exist within their head...it's non-transferrable. The same principle applies to someone who says they've seen a Bigfoot, and 'knows' it exists.)

No, it's not the same principle. Besides, since no one can find a bigfoot anywhere, I think it's pretty obvious which one is existing only in people's heads. Nice try though, maybe Mak will buy it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I have never understood why Sweaty thinks that quote is a dig ..

I'm going to miss it, if he ever figures it out...