Dfoot
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 164
I agree that the time spent on debunking things like PGF is well spent.
My point was regarding the personal attacks you are receiving from a certain poster. I was also personally attacked by some posters. At a single case I decided the poster was unworthy of wasting any more time and bandwidth and sent to my "ignore" list.
But individually we have our own personal ways and tolerance limits. If you think you still should answer to the ravings of certain persons prone to make empty claims, its your choice. Its your right.
Now, at a more serious level, I can prove dogs steal hats from sleeping bigfeet. There are no pictures or sighting reports of bigfeet with hats.
Uh... Wait... If the dogs steal their hats while they are sleeping, then you will never see one awaken with a hat...
It's so easy to replicate creduloid thinking...
All of that is attack stuff you describe doesn't bother me at all. Doesn't that kind of knee-jerk response to harsh questions regarding the evidence being touted loudly demonstrate exactly what I'm saying?
If I saw a screenwriter put this kind of thing into a script I'd tell him that it's too dumb to use.
Think about this scene: Lawyer guy wants to prove that the Football Star is a killer. Football Star ignores his defense attorney and gets on the stand. Lawyer guy berates Football Star's version of events and tells him that he has an anger issue. Next thing you know, the Football Star goes into an angry frenzy on the stand denying that he has any anger problem and then threatens the Lawyer guy's life.
That's the kind of scene you might not see today on a top show. The audience won't believe our Football Star is that dumb in a television script. But you may just glimpse it in real life. In my case I'm watching a genuine hoaxer (Patterson) being vigorously defended by people who claim to be fighting hoaxing - all while in denial over the clear evidence of his hoaxing. This is a con man's delight. Gimlin must love it.
I'm sure I'll be angrily attacked and derided for daring to say that I'm being angrily attacked and derided, but that's the risk one takes when confronting the evidence created by bad wooden feet and extremely shaky footage of a gorilla suit that people have fallen in love with.
I'm still on the side of Bigfoot. I think there is something to the tales of large hairy mountaineers. But since the Yeti expeditions of the early 50's we had Wallace, followed by Patterson and others, mucking up any real investigation into this. John Green popularized it and made the claim that we shouldn't listen to Indian lore but focus instead on the post '57 evidence. Big problems with that thinking.
The Indian lore has been usurped by know-it-alls writing their own explanations for mostly faked evidence and we've gone so far down the hoaxer trail that anything alerting us to this fact has to be roundly attacked.
A lot of what I see being passed off as "facts" in defense of the phony stuff shown at BFRO worries me. If they can get even the simplest things so twisted in attempts to keep the Patterson film as evidence, then how can I trust their "follow-up investigations" into eye witness reports? It seems that finding unbiased info on Bigfoot is harder than locating Bigfoot bones.
Below is a Wallace wooden foot next to one of the many prints by Titmus. This is the foot likely used to create the Crew prints. Green says he knew all along about these feet and his assumption is that they were made long after the prints at Bluff Creek in an attempt to imitate the real tracks found. But by looking up at LAL's timeline we might notice that Wallace and/or Patterson are not far from the scene of the tracks discovered then.
So did Wallace merely imitate the tracks by carving wooden feet later in an effort to make himself a father of Bigfootery? Carving the feet in imitation of the Bluff Creek tracks and then never claiming to have made any tracks doesn't seem to be the best way to seek out the distinction of being the creator of the Bluff Creek tracks.
I watched a boy walk on the wet beach and leave footprints. I came back later when the beach was dry and found my boot didn't leave prints nearly as deep as his bare foot had - yet I outweighed him by nearly a hundred pounds. There was "evidence" of a bare footprint next to my own boot print that should (according to the usual thinking) have come from some incredibly heavy primate - possibly a juvenile Bigfoot.
Think of Green wearing a heavy backpack and stomping around trying to make prints as deep as those supposedly left by Patterson's creature. This is what he did. He says since he couldn't make tracks that deep while carrying extra weight the creature had to be very, very heavy.
Of course, that's nonsense. Since "the creature" never made those tracks it doesn't really matter. Patterson could make them twice as deep if he wanted to. This is the kind of bad science that has passed for research.
I'm no longer amazed when I hear that no one in Hollywood could make anything as good as Patty in 1967 or when Dr. Meldrum says that the creature in the film is real because it left such deep tracks.
This is what passes for scientific research when it comes to Bigfoot. And this is a big problem for those of us curious about the subject.
- Dfoot
