Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[JcR]

They say things come and go. But I still gotta wonder sometimes.

 

[Aepervius]

I am happy to see the thread go on. I think I might be a little addicted and fascinated at the discussion here. *wear pom pom bigfoot costume* Please big foot enthusiast come here and discuss more ! I need my fix !

Clay, the lack of a body. We have other forms of evidence

Normally Before you try to cite those evidence I would advise you to read the other thread to see how far those evidence are either :
* utterly destroyed
or
* not an evidence of anything in the scientific sense

but I need a FIX this week end so please provide your so called evidence. it will be entertaining to see them destroyed another time again (and i bet for some of what you think are evidence it will be the 14th or 15th time they get trashed to nothingness).

 

[JcR]

Here is my demonstration... That crap is left in the woods.
The cycle of Poo.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think some people get confused about evidence .

A sighting is evidence that someone saw something.

A print is evidence that something made a print. An elk, perhaps ? A joker with a wooden foot ?

A film is evidence that someone had a camera and film ..


We have to understand why a non-human North American primate is not even on the B list ..

 

[William Parcher]

I think some people get confused about evidence.

A sighting is evidence that someone saw something.

I would even argue that this can't even be assumed as is. A sighting report is evidence that a person gave a sighting report. To say that they must have seen something is already giving any hoaxer an advantage. The evaluation of the report may erroneously go straight to trying to figure out what they saw instead of maintaining the possibility that the report is fictitious.

I can sit here at my computer and create a wholly fictitious sighting report for myself. If I give some sort of decription of the "Bigfoot" then people will debate the actual thing I saw. That debate about the something that I saw requires an assumption that I really did go into the woods and see something at all.

 

[kitakaze]

Dio, what does bill munns have in costume expertees that you dont? Please!

No where near as much as Oscar winners Rick Baker and Chris Walas and other master fx artists such as Verne Langdon who have studied Patty in detail and confirm it to be a bad suit.

That is the proper way to make an appeal to authority.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I would even argue that this can't even be assumed as is. A sighting report is evidence that a person gave a sighting report. To say that they must have seen something is already giving any hoaxer an advantage. The evaluation of the report may erroneously go straight to trying to figure out what they saw instead of maintaining the possibility that the report is fictitious.

I can sit here at my computer and create a wholly fictitious sighting report for myself. If I give some sort of decription of the "Bigfoot" then people will debate the actual thing I saw. That debate about the something that I saw requires an assumption that I really did go into the woods and see something at all.

I agree completely and thats one of the reasons Rock and i stayed on them.

I dont rule out that a large portion are legitimate misidentifications or simply honest errors and I dont rule out the small possibility some may have seen a real BF but i CERTAINLY dont rule out the PROBABILITY that a large percent are people who make them up.

You could have people who just want attention ( Florida and beans come to mind as well as garlic) or want to say they experienced one to be part of a crowd or simply because its "unusual" and may give them some kind of "status" or just to be "cool".

If youtube is an accurate representation, making a "bigfoot" story seems to be pretty popular.

 

[makaya325]

Kita, what about janos prohaska who said its unlikely to be a suit?

 

[kitakaze]

Kita, what about janos prohaska who said its unlikely to be a suit?

Yes, makaya, what about him?

 

[makaya325]

Kita, i remember him in an interview about the pgf. He said its unlikely to be a man in a suit, and if it were a suit, he said "its the best i have ever seen"

 

[kitakaze]

So what's your point? If we're going to make appeals to authority, doesn't it mean that the person with the bigger, better authorities wins?

 

[jayman]

A Good Response

What would a good response be to a bigfoot proponent who claims that the Patterson film is proof positive for there being a bigfoot?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

What would a good response be to a bigfoot proponent who claims that the Patterson film is proof positive for there being a bigfoot?

Ask him who "proved it" and how and if it is proof positive, why hasnt BF been officially recognized as its own species by any official body.

That should stimulate the conversation PDQ

 

[kitakaze]

What would a good response be to a bigfoot proponent who claims that the Patterson film is proof positive for there being a bigfoot?

That they have a very bad understanding of what constitutes proof.

 

[makaya325]

Yet, long, how could you be a proponent if you like dismissing things, yet you argue your sighting of a blur of fur is valid?

 

[Crowlogic]

No where near as much as Oscar winners Rick Baker and Chris Walas and other master fx artists such as Verne Langdon who have studied Patty in detail and confirm it to be a bad suit.

QUOTE]

So are there any truly great ape suits? Are there any that simply bowl the viewer over and defy detection. And what/who would the authority be to have made such a suit and where can it be seen? Any Rick Baker or Vern Langdon can say anyting is a bad suit. But until they exibit a masterful example either by themselves or another they're just blowhards.

 

[makaya325]

Crow, Munns is definitely no woo, like some people here contend he is. Does anyone here know more about fx effects and costumes more than Munns here?

 

[makaya325]

Kitz, its not proof, but it COULD qualify as POSSIBLE evidence, yet thats unlikely

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Yet, long, how could you be a proponent if you like dismissing things, yet you argue your sighting of a blur of fur is valid?

I dont dismiss anything, I'm open to everything.

I dismiss these things because I AM a scientist and I KNOW how research is done properly and as such can show where this crap being passed off as science is utter BS because I have evaluated it.

I do not argue my NOT SURE encounters as valid other than the fact the incidents happened. I have NEVER said they were CONCLUSIVE of a BF. I have NEVER said they WERE a BF.

Thats how science actually works. I reported the sightings and the facts as they were and what little we did. Results were inconclusive in both. Inconclusive does NOT default or contribute to the possibility of BF existing.

 

[rockinkt]

No where near as much as Oscar winners Rick Baker and Chris Walas and other master fx artists such as Verne Langdon who have studied Patty in detail and confirm it to be a bad suit.

QUOTE]

So are there any truly great ape suits? Are there any that simply bowl the viewer over and defy detection. And what/who would the authority be to have made such a suit and where can it be seen? Any Rick Baker or Vern Langdon can say anyting is a bad suit. But until they exibit a masterful example either by themselves or another they're just blowhards.

Do you not understand that people who manufacture quality suits have the experience to see where the usual problems and identifiers of a suit are most likely to be found - and then look for those give-a-ways?

It is Like Randi watching a fraud who trying to pretend he is something other than an illusionist.
Randi does not have to be able to do what the fraudster does better than the fraudster - he just has to look for the usual tricks of the trade that give the hoax away.
Once he identifies the simple tell-tales - the hoax is exposed.

That is what Baker, Walas and Langdon have done. They looked for the tell-tales of a suit. Once they spotted the tell-tales - they did not have to do anything else.
The suit is busted.