Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
Inevitably perhaps, the sullen opponents plod towards each other, the arena reverberating with cheers, chants, and the thud of stomping feet. The noise level builds steadily as the antagonists close to only arms-length distance. The crowd noise becomes a deafening roar as they stand nearly eye-to-eye, foreheads scant inches apart. Slowly one of the combatants raises his head and, with the force of a category 5 hurricane, unleashes a torrent of abuse about the head and shoulders of his stunned victim.
"Poopy-pants!" he screams
"Momma's boy!" he bellows
"You sanctimonious sack of doggie-doo!" he shrieks as the audience sits in both mortified horror and eager anticipation of further abuse.
His target, rocked by the vile invective, stumbles and falls to one knee.
Seeing his opponent weakened, he senses the opportunity to end this quickly.
"Intellectual infant!" he blathers, as spittle drips from his lips.
"Sorry son of a...
er... hmm... ahem... sorry, got off track.
Right. Never mind, back to your umm... debate.
RayG
RayG - you crack me up
RayG
Master Poster
RayG - you crack me up
Based upon the Monty Python bit from The Holy Grail (Scene 8), and posted entirely for entertainment purposes.
So often I find there are parallels between Monty Python skits and what's happening in bigfootdom, and I sometimes just can't help pointing them out.
So there. Neener neener.
RayG
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Yes, I've been very rude.
I will continue to do so, considering that someone doesn't even have the decency to counter the arguments I'm actually making, and instead continually applies straw men.
My points, again:
1. Bigfoot "research" is neither credible, scientific, nor worthwhile.
2. The "experts" currently big in footdom are not doing science in regards to Bigfoot; letters after their names notwithstanding.
3. The bigfoot case is, only in the most generalized of ways (i.e.-both are looking for an animal) comparable to the IBW case.
4. If, in 40 years, the IBW evidence is comparable to the bigfoot evidence today, it will be in the same boat (crackpot pseudoscience).
While I try to make these points, I'm continually being told that someone doesn't believe in Bigfoot, that I can't dictate personal wealth (which was never part of my argument except to point out its a waste wether public or private), that there's a double-standard for not applying the exact same levels of confidence to two wildly varying investigations, and having someone else (who complains about others being psychic) dictate my thoughts and beliefs to me, contrary to what I've explicitly stating, while continually ignoring the context of any arguments in order to strawman them into caricatures and then follows this by playing semantic games to backpedal from asinine proclomations that are completly off the point.
Which was why I asked for any evidence, andy justification as to why money should still be spent on Bigfoot research. What I got in reply was "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to."
So I'll accept that answer. No scientifically valid reason to continue the search for Bigfoot.
I will continue to do so, considering that someone doesn't even have the decency to counter the arguments I'm actually making, and instead continually applies straw men.
My points, again:
1. Bigfoot "research" is neither credible, scientific, nor worthwhile.
2. The "experts" currently big in footdom are not doing science in regards to Bigfoot; letters after their names notwithstanding.
3. The bigfoot case is, only in the most generalized of ways (i.e.-both are looking for an animal) comparable to the IBW case.
4. If, in 40 years, the IBW evidence is comparable to the bigfoot evidence today, it will be in the same boat (crackpot pseudoscience).
While I try to make these points, I'm continually being told that someone doesn't believe in Bigfoot, that I can't dictate personal wealth (which was never part of my argument except to point out its a waste wether public or private), that there's a double-standard for not applying the exact same levels of confidence to two wildly varying investigations, and having someone else (who complains about others being psychic) dictate my thoughts and beliefs to me, contrary to what I've explicitly stating, while continually ignoring the context of any arguments in order to strawman them into caricatures and then follows this by playing semantic games to backpedal from asinine proclomations that are completly off the point.
Which was why I asked for any evidence, andy justification as to why money should still be spent on Bigfoot research. What I got in reply was "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to."
So I'll accept that answer. No scientifically valid reason to continue the search for Bigfoot.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Be careful what you ask for...
Well Huntsman, as much as you may not like my response - its a very valid reply. No one is "funding" my research except for me. I buy my own gear, I buy my own food, and when I travel outside of Texas for research, I pay for my own plane ticket and vehicle rentals. So, whos money are you saving by that comment? Seems kinda silly.
Im not sure how many researchers you think are getting "funding" but its not as many as you think, I only know of one and that was a grant.
You go right on ahead and accept that as a valid reason - whatever flips your switch. LOL.
Ohh your really mad, maybe you should lay down for a bit on LTC's couch, I think you need it more than I do
Im not sure how many researchers you think are getting "funding" but its not as many as you think, I only know of one and that was a grant.
You go right on ahead and accept that as a valid reason - whatever flips your switch. LOL.
Ohh your really mad, maybe you should lay down for a bit on LTC's couch, I think you need it more than I do
Huntsman said:
Last edited:
Luminous
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 296
Retract? What for?
Attachments
Luminous
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 296
How could this be any clearer?
Attachments
Mad Hom
Loose Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 475
Yesssss....you are correct sir...clearly it is wood debris.
Stating any differently amounts to not much more than wishful thinking at best.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Why use the crappy vids, Luminous?
Luminous
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 296
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.
There is a major difference in appearance between dirt and wood. The track is in dirt next to the debris. This strengthens my point that Patty was not walking down a debris-free, prim-rose pathway. This track is even possibly from another of Patty's associates.
Last edited:
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Mad Hom wrote:
When have I claimed that Bigfoot definitely exists?
Sure....their analysis is top-notch science. (Actually, it's total garbage.)
I'll take a good close look at LTC's "analysis" as soon as I can.....but in the meantime.....what do you think of it?
He says that the comparison images I posted are meaningless because the subject's arms are at different points in the arm swing...and that distorts the apparant length of the arm. And, therefore, we can't really tell that Bob's arm is shorter than Patty's arm.
Do you agree with his analysis, Mad Hom?
You say they're doing a SWELL job of making a mockery of the evidence.
Are they doing that with good scientific analysis.....or stupidity??
I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to "buy into" anything. I couldn't care less what you or any other skeptic on this board thinks, or believes.
I don't care if you're fascinated...amazed...bored...drunk...or dazed.
All I've said in regards to you....is that your "contribution" to the analysis of the evidence is NONexistent.
Your input to the discussion amounts to nothing more than a brain-dead parroting of the same old question...."where's the proof?"
You know what, Mad Man....when and if a Bigfoot body is brought in, you'll hear about it on your local news...you don't need to keep ranting on and on and on about "proof" like a pea-brained nutjob.
Until such time (if ever) that there is proof....people who take an interest in the evidence for Bigfoot will continue to analyse it as carefully and as thoroughly as possible, in an attempt to determine it's true weight....while you, and other skeptics, continue to post your meaningless, pointless, mindless babble.
BTW....when have I asked you, or anyone to "buy into" any of the analysis that I've posted here??
When have I claimed that Bigfoot definitely exists?
Sure....their analysis is top-notch science.
(Actually, it's total garbage.)I'll take a good close look at LTC's "analysis" as soon as I can.....but in the meantime.....what do you think of it?
He says that the comparison images I posted are meaningless because the subject's arms are at different points in the arm swing...and that distorts the apparant length of the arm. And, therefore, we can't really tell that Bob's arm is shorter than Patty's arm.
Do you agree with his analysis, Mad Hom?
You say they're doing a SWELL job of making a mockery of the evidence.
Are they doing that with good scientific analysis.....or stupidity??
I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to "buy into" anything. I couldn't care less what you or any other skeptic on this board thinks, or believes.
I don't care if you're fascinated...amazed...bored...drunk...or dazed.
All I've said in regards to you....is that your "contribution" to the analysis of the evidence is NONexistent.
Your input to the discussion amounts to nothing more than a brain-dead parroting of the same old question...."where's the proof?"
You know what, Mad Man....when and if a Bigfoot body is brought in, you'll hear about it on your local news...you don't need to keep ranting on and on and on about "proof" like a pea-brained nutjob.
Until such time (if ever) that there is proof....people who take an interest in the evidence for Bigfoot will continue to analyse it as carefully and as thoroughly as possible, in an attempt to determine it's true weight....while you, and other skeptics, continue to post your meaningless, pointless, mindless babble.
BTW....when have I asked you, or anyone to "buy into" any of the analysis that I've posted here??
Last edited:
- Status