That's funny that you seem to chastize me for asking a few questions when in reality most of my remarks were asking why people like you seem to say one thing and then say something to contridict yourself in another posting.
I would assume you really don't want me asking questions and are trying to bluff or bully me into submission.
Won't work. Sorry.
CB
ps: I believe this forum has some kind of "ignore" function. Feel free to use it with me if my remarks are so irritating.
Are you referring to your post regarding "preponderance of evidence" and how you tried to pretend that that meant there was good evidence because I used that word?
I was just going to ignore that but it is apparent that you think you may have brought forward some sort of valid argument and you need to be disabused of that notion very quickly.
There is evidence on the "non-hoax" side; however, it is extremely poor and easily discredited by any thinking person.
There is the direct evidence of the two main hoaxers: Patterson & Gimlin. Their direct testimony is full of huge inconsistencies and they contradict each other and their own testimony numerous times.
The film itself could not have been developed in the timeline given.
Any reasonable person reviewing the testimony these charlatans made over the years would immediately brand them as liars. Their evidence is totally discredited.
The original film is not available for analysis. Since the original is not available - any analysis of the copies is moot as there is no way to show that it has not been altered from the original. Therefore, anything seen on the copies should be considered discredited evidence and useless for any factual discussion.
Not only that, there is nothing in the film that can be shown to be impossible for a human in a suit to replicate and the vast majority of FX people whose opinions are public state that it is obviously a human in a suit.
The tracks associated with the film could be considered circumstantial evidence except there is no way to directly link the tracks shown or cast with the actual thing that was filmed. Circumstantial evidence must deal with a fact from which a conjecture can made. Since there is no "fact" that ties the tracks to the supposed creature - it fails the test of circumstantial evidence and therefore is not evidence at all.
One need not go into all the various other things that point to a hoax as there is no need.
The evidence in favor of the film being legitimate is basically non-existent.
The evidence pointing to the film being a hoax is substantial.
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence is for the film being a hoax.
