Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[RedRatSnake]

Haha, true. I'm just getting around to it now, my severe lack of internet time means that i'm only just catching up...

It started back in 67 and has built into a lifestyle for some, and a means of support for others. It is clearly a guy in a suit, but no matter what you do or say it won't make any difference. "Patty is real cause she has to be"

It's like trying to prove there is no god.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Originally Posted by Cbengalensis
"why doesn’t the public, the media, some larger consensus, accept the claim of a hoax sufficient to cause the public and the media to lose interest in further debate?"


Why do you care what the public or the media think? It seems as though the only thing that would solve this solution for you would be if enough people all agreed with the same conclusion... That's baffling.

I mean, do you spend many sleepless nights tossing and turning, wondering why the majority of people believe in God, despite the general lack of evidence for such an enchanted sky wizard?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

deleted

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Well that's it, ain't it? Bill Munns has finally cracked...

It wasn't enough to seek adoration on the BFF, he now seeks weird debates under fake accounts... That's the creepiest thing since Christopher Walken creeped across my floorboards.

 

[GT/CS]

I must have missed something.
Please elaborate.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I must have missed something.
Please elaborate.

You missed the part where Bill Munns pretended to be someone else. Even I missed it, that's how great he is at pretending to be other people.

 

[RedRatSnake]

deleted

Why ? Stand by your post or don't post at all. Kinda just wastes my time posting back to ya don't it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You missed the part where Bill Munns pretended to be someone else. Even I missed it, that's how great he is at pretending to be other people.

Do you have any specifics ?

Where this took place ? Who did he pretend to be ?

 

[Vortigern99]

I heard Munns was sockpuppeting CBengalensis, but I suppose that's unsubstantiated rumor not fit for open discussion. Or is it? I'm still bewoozled.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I received some info, and am In wait and see mode..

 

[OntarioSquatch]

CBengalensis writes the same way Bill Munns does and uses similar words. But that could be just a coincidence. I'll have to go back and do more reading.

Eta - I went back and did more reading. His writing is practically identical to Bill's. I'm not sure what to think at this point.

 

[GeeMack]

CBengalensis writes the same way Bill Munns does and uses similar words. But that could be just a coincidence. I'll have to go back and do more reading.

Eta - I went back and did more reading. His writing is practically identical to Bill's. I'm not sure what to think at this point.

Perhaps you'll begin to understand that dishonesty is pervasive in the Bigfoot peddling hobby? That desire to perpetuate the myth is the only reason the Patterson-Gimlin film still gets any attention at all. There certainly isn't any objective evidence to support the claim that the creature in that film is anything other than a guy in a suit.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

It doesn't change my opinion on the film. I acknowledge Bill's great work on the film btw, but my opinion on the film is based mostly on what I personally see in it.

 

[rockinkt]

OS...I ask this question in all honesty hoping that you - or someone else - can fill me in on what "Bill's great work on the film" has been.

Can you name just one thing that Bill Munns has established as a fact about the PGF that was not already known?

So far - all there has been from him is sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[xtifr]

Can you name just one thing that Bill Munns has established as a fact about the PGF that was not already known?

Well, he's established that the PGF is capable of fooling Bill Munns, which presumably wasn't known before. Of course, whether that says more about the PGF or Bill Munns is another question....

 

[OntarioSquatch]

There's hardly anything established as fact about the PGF. No one has proven it was even Roger who shot the film. Bill Munns helped eliminate certain questions about the camera that was used and some other stuff as well. Which I think is really good, because that actually puts both skeptics and proponents in the right direction. Even though it may not be by much.

 

[GeeMack]

There's hardly anything established as fact about the PGF. No one has proven it was even Roger who shot the film. Bill Munns helped eliminate certain questions about the camera that was used and some other stuff as well. Which I think is really good, because that actually puts both skeptics and proponents in the right direction. Even though it may not be by much.

The right direction, contrary to your misunderstanding of critical and rational thinking, is for any Bigfoot proponents to objectively demonstrate that such a creature exists. Unless that happens, reasonable rational sane intelligent people accept any claims of its existence as lies, hoaxes, or mistakes. That goes for the guy in the suit in the Patterson-Gimlin film, too. Bill Munns is a nut with an agenda based on irrational belief and/or seeking some kind of bizarre fame and/or a mistaken notion that he might make some real money from it.

The skeptics are already going the right direction and don't need to move anywhere. They start by requiring objective evidence. That would be the correct place for believers to start, too, but part of what makes them believers is their lack of ability or willingness to apply critical thinking to the issue.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Those who say someone is lying would also need to prove it. The "I don't know stance" seems to be pretty rare. That is why I say many Bigfoot believers and skeptics may not actually be going in the right direction.

 

[Resume]

Those who say someone is lying would also need to prove it. The "I don't know stance" seems to be pretty rare. That is why I say many Bigfoot believers and skeptics may not actually be going in the right direction.

Well, you're half right.

 

[LTC8K6]

Those who say someone is lying would also need to prove it. The "I don't know stance" seems to be pretty rare. That is why I say many Bigfoot believers and skeptics may not actually be going in the right direction.

Does that mean that we'd have to prove that a person didn't see bigfoot, if they say they did?

That would be silly.

Not sure why this keeps coming up.

If you claim you saw bigfoot, you are, by default, mistaken or lying, or you've been hoaxed.

Just as if you claim you saw a pink giraffe in Central Park.

Now, there is a very slim possibility that you did see an actual pink giraffe in Central Park, but that is not the default position of objective folks.