• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
DUYB, nothing I have ever posted on this topic should be considered 100% anything without my provision of the same things we ask for Bigfoot. I say I have found the suit. I say no one else has ever looked as I have.

In the end if I don't produce the proof, I am just another Woods & Wildmen player. I have taken myself away from this forum largely because in the last two years, I could not on my own show the suit and satisfy people of its authenticity. In this way I feel I no longer belong as a skeptic and should not be here trying to assert any dominance over the PGF claim of Bigfoot existing.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
DUYB, nothing I have ever posted on this topic should be considered 100% anything without my provision of the same things we ask for Bigfoot. I say I have found the suit. I say no one else has ever looked as I have.

In the end if I don't produce the proof, I am just another Woods & Wildmen player. I have taken myself away from this forum largely because in the last two years, I could not on my own show the suit and satisfy people of its authenticity. In this way I feel I no longer belong as a skeptic and should not be here trying to assert any dominance over the PGF claim of Bigfoot existing.
Click to expand...

so if anyone in the know can see its THE suit on inspection. so what % are you certain it is THE suit..do you think you may be wrong???
 
" It's not a suit, it's the suit. Please, by all means, think otherwise until we have something tangible to show for it. "

100% or not kit ???
 
rockinkt said:
Since your your poor argument regarding my supposed contradiction was easily and completely destroyed by others - I will not bother to repeat their excellent points.

However, you seem to be at a loss for even a poor argument regarding the other points I made.
Since they strike at the heart of the matter - I am waiting for you to destroy them so you can keep being a bleever while feigning having an open mind.
Click to expand...


I have reviewed my remarks in post 9623 and am confident that they stand as reasonable, logical, and correct, in appraising you flawed logic. So I see no reason to re-state them. Your claim that my remarks are completely destroyed by some mysterious "others" that you will not cite looks like the classic bluff of a person backed into a corner, in my opinion.

I'll leave it as it is, for others who read the forum postings, to decide if they find your position or mine to be the more logical and well reasoned.

What this dialogue is doing is telling the people here more about you and more about me, your mindset and mine. I have confidence that (for the most part) they will appraise us both and make their decision as to whom is being the more logical.

Meanwhle, I'll continue to be intrigued exploring this controversy and its lack of solution.

CB
 
River said:
Smoking gun found November 5, 2011. The solution only eludes those that wish it so. Perhaps you should've said "me" instead of "us".
Click to expand...


River:

It is clear you have confidence in your material and what you feel it proves.

With no disrespect to you, I haven't seen any impact your material has on the thinking of others, so I'd classify it as a theory or a claim, but not a proof.

If, in fact, it proves what you state it proves, we should see some progress in acceptance of your work by others, and I will certainly look for such.

I personally would feel obligated to study disagreeing arguments so I may weigh the both sides before offering any personal opinion on how successful your proof is.

CB
 
I've said this before, but those footprints aren't going to dictate whether the humanoid creature seen in the film was real or not.
 
Based on the fact that no other BF type creature has ever been found in any way shape or form, the PGF was a man in a suit.
 
Cbengalensis said:
River:

It is clear you have confidence in your material and what you feel it proves.

With no disrespect to you, I haven't seen any impact your material has on the thinking of others, so I'd classify it as a theory or a claim, but not a proof.

If, in fact, it proves what you state it proves, we should see some progress in acceptance of your work by others, and I will certainly look for such.

I personally would feel obligated to study disagreeing arguments so I may weigh the both sides before offering any personal opinion on how successful your proof is.

CB
Click to expand...


No disrespect taken. It's not a requirement to accept any conclusions I've made. However, it is accurate, and it does offer proof of the claims. Many bigfooters will deny any proof offered. The proof is not a matter of opinion. It is right there on the film. No special pleading required. It really doesnt matter to me how many would or wouldnt accept it. I just made sure the information and claims I offered were accurate.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
I've said this before, but those footprints aren't going to dictate whether the humanoid creature seen in the film was real or not.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that the footprints could be fake and the creature real? That's a hoot. Meldrum published a paper on the footprints from the film. He named them, because he could not name the species with no verifiable source. If you truly feel like the footprints are not important, or part of the evidence in the film perhaps you should communicate with Dr Meldrum (Meldrum talking about the swim flipper walk. notice how bad their skeleton fits the film subject? lol) about their importance to the film and its authenticity. Patterson claimed the film subject made those impressions. He cast them and offered them as evidence of the encounter. Those footprints have been copied many times over and distributed as prime examples of a bigfoot print. They are a lot more important then you might expect.
 
Last edited:
CB just plays with the meaning of evidence, proof, smoking gun, trying to make something out of sophistry. It's so boring and been there done that with other bleevers. Proof is defined in the mind of the beholder, and conclusions reached are probabilistic. Anything is possible. blah blah. The fact is that there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that would convince many of the cultists that the film is a hoax. They have said as much.

People reach conclusions about the world about them. The rightness of conclusions is not determined by the 27% of Americans who have reached the opposite conclusion.

If you have something fresh to bring to the table besides playing with words, now is the time to do so. Your current bill of fare is stale and uninteresting.
 
CB just plays with the meaning of evidence, proof, smoking gun, trying to make something out of sophistry. It's so boring and been there done that with other bleevers. Proof is defined in the mind of the beholder, and conclusions reached are probabilistic. Anything is possible. blah blah. The fact is that there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that would convince many of the cultists that the film is a hoax. They have said as much.

People reach conclusions about the world about them. The rightness of conclusions is not determined by the 27% of Americans who have reached the opposite conclusion.

If he has something fresh to bring to the table besides playing with words, now is the time to do so. His current bill of fare is stale and uninteresting.
 
parnassus said:
CB just plays with the meaning of evidence, proof, smoking gun, trying to make something out of sophistry. It's so boring and been there done that with other bleevers. Proof is defined in the mind of the beholder, and conclusions reached are probabilistic. Anything is possible. blah blah. The fact is that there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that would convince many of the cultists that the film is a hoax. They have said as much.

People reach conclusions about the world about them. The rightness of conclusions is not determined by the 27% of Americans who have reached the opposite conclusion.

If you have something fresh to bring to the table besides playing with words, now is the time to do so. Your current bill of fare is stale and uninteresting.
Click to expand...


You sound like rockinkt's wingman.

Can't decide to refer to me in the first person or the third person?

I've read a lot of your posts. The above is not one of your finer ones.

I choose not to take your advice. Thank you for offering it, however.

CB
 
No problem i am always happy to help out, I will point out between the two of them they pack a ton of knowledge about the BF subject and are rarely found to be wrong, Just saying ( Hate that term ) but you most likely don't know me at all so i had to say it.

Tim :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom