Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Yeah_Right]

FYI, butt-kicking goes on on so-called believers boards, too. He's not mad; he's just tired of it.

He has found a place where his work is appreciated. He discovered something on a step-through that may be new. I certainly haven't seen it pointed out before.

I'd certainly be curious to read what Sweaty has to say, just hope it isn't a reprisal of the finger bending. That was probably the greatest waste of time I have ever seen from a bigfoot proponent. Does he have a BF body? He'd at least have something tangible.

 

[drapier]

I'd certainly be curious to read what Sweaty has to say, just hope it isn't a reprisal of the finger bending. That was probably the greatest waste of time I have ever seen from a bigfoot proponent. Does he have a BF body? He'd at least have something tangible.

If the fingers bend you must pretend! Yeah!
I don't know her, but I know Joyce wouldn't lie.
But what does reliable mean?

 

[Correa Neto]

You're right and I stand...errr... sit corrected. You're much better informed than the general public.

No problem. I belive your intentions weren't actually to say we are un- or misinformed, but to make a general statement. A statement addressed not to JREF skeptic posters, but to some posters and lurkers that have an non-skeptic position. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I jumped on this issue only because more than once its been said or left implicit -not by you- that we are skeptical of bigfeet as real creatures because we are uninformed (nowdays, the "denialist" explanation became more common). Thus I felt it deserved some additional clearing.

There will always be people who think it was photoshopped or hoaxed.

Same reason as above... there will always be people who think any photographs are faked.

I wish I could say you are wrong, but you are not. However, only an über die hard skeptic would consider material obtained say, by a renowned wildlife photographer or biologist as a hoax. Specially if a (prefferentially independent) second party can repeat the feat, based on the initial experience.

To deny suh material the status of reliable evidence (maybe even "proof") would require a reasoning too close to conspiracy theorists, advocates of Moon landing hoaxes, etc. I doubt you would find too many skeptical posters here willing to defend such line of reasoning. These people, unless they could provide a very good set of reasons to back their positions, probably would not be true skeptics.

At the risk of coming close to a Godwinian line of reasoning, I must say the "there will always be people who would not believe" is a two-way street. Some advocates of some causes will never accept they are wrong, regardless how many times their errors and mistakes are demonstrated. These positions are by no means rare and I bet you saw such situations somewhere else.

In the absence of a body, this would be the evidence that speaks the loudest.

Yes, but unfortunately, not available, just like the other types I listed. Some people posted about "unidentified DNA samples" as being "intriguing" or "compelling" evidence. A small WWW digging showed all the information that could be obtained from the sample was "mammal". Unless one thinks bigfeet belong to an unknown order of mammals, that particular piece of information is completely irrelevant.

When it comes to similar pieces of evidence or lines of reasoning, regardless on how dear they are to us, the best thing to do is to let them go. They may be interesting conversation subjects, but they will never be truly usefull to change a skeptical's position.

Moving fingers, untampered PGF negatives, unknown DNA, unidentified hair strands that look very like human hair and mid-tarsal breaks inferred from footprints are some examples that came to my mind.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

I agree Correa. I apologize to anyone I might have offended. It was not my intention at all to say anyone here is misinformed or uninformed. Just the by the sheer number of topics and posts on this forum it's apparent a lot of information passes through here, good, bad, or ugly.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

I wanted to add for those interested the Let's Talk Bigfoot internet radio show on Talkshoe is tonight this week instead of the usual Wednesday. Our guest will be Brian Brown (Bipto) founder of the BFF, Founder of the Bigfoot Information Project (BIP) and podcaster as well as founder of the Squatchopedia Wiki that has just gone live. Questions are welcome but I think it's too late to ask them here. The call in line is 724-444-7444, talk cast ID 30301. A PIN number will be required. The show starts at 9 p.m. Central.

 

[SweatyYeti]

If the people here cannot be convinced of the existence of an undocumented primate it's a good bet the every day public isn't convinced either. The onus is on us, as researchers, to obtain the kind of evidence that will convince them. In my humble opinion, I don't think anything short of a body or portions of a body will suffice and I've said all along it's going to take more than one body.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Bigfoot exists. I'm not 100% convinced Bigfoot exists, myself.
Bigfoot discussion boards are not all about "believers convincing skeptics".

I don't understand why you think that they are, Teresa.

One of the main reasons, and I think the most important reason, for such a board.....is to analyse and weigh the evidence for Bigfoot.

It's not about one peron making another person believe in Bigfoot.
I personally don't care what other people believe, and don't believe, about Bigfoot.
All I'm interested in is determining how much the evidence weighs....and that has nothing to do whatsoever with what Greg, LTC, Correa, you, me or anybody else "believes" about Bigfoot.

If a skeptic wants to honestly assist in weighing the evidence.....fine....I'd love to hear from him or her. If all they want to do is play games, like Greg just did a little earlier...concerning the 2-frame finger animation...then I'm not interested in talking to them. They're simply wasting my (and everybody else's) time.

On the other hand I can see why you're angry, you've come here with what you consider good evidence and were booed off the stage. With what's available to call evidence you're preaching to the wrong choir.

Oh.....I didn't know I was angry, Teresa. Can you show me how you determined that, please? Is there a specific post in which I sounded angry?

I said I won't debate anything here because there is precious little "intelligent discussion" to be had here....time spent here, is time wasted. I'll re-post LTC's "interview" later...as an example of what I'm talking about.

I prefer to spend my time on other Bigfoot boards, where my time is better spent. That doesn't mean I'm angry.....just smart!

 

[SweatyYeti]

"Intelligent Analysis".....courtesy of LTC8K6... ...post #3813....

An interview with LTC8K6 for the "Skeptical Scientist" magazine.....

So, LTC...what's your take on this little 2-frame animation in which the fingers appear to bend?


Quote: LTC8K6:
The fingers are hitting the top edge of the thigh pad and bending.

Hmmm....something to consider....


Quote: LTC...
Keep in mind that Sweaty has yet to show that Patty's fingers ever bend at all in the PGF.

Oh....I thought you just said they were bending?


Quote: LTC...
Yes, I see Patty's calf hit her rubber fingers and bend them.

O.k....then what do you think is happening?


Quote: LTC...
No fingers can be seen at all, in fact. I repeat, no fingers can be seen at all.

Ummm.....you're losing me, LTC.



Quote:
It could be hitting the fingers, thus bending them slightly and pushing the arm outwards and forwards slightly as well.

Ohhhhh yeah...I see what you mean...



Quote:
No fingers can be seen at all, in fact. I REPEAT, no fingers can be seen at all.

But LTC...you just said it could be....


Quote:
It may be that with this costume, the fingers bend a little with certain arm-swings due to the design of the costume. A strap may occasionally snag inside and pull on the hand/arm little.

OKAY....NOW we're gettin' somewhere!!



Quote:
No fingers can be seen at all, in fact. I REPEAT, no fingers can be seen at all.

But...


Quote:
That could simply be blobs of color merging into and out of the background colors, appearing, when blinked back and forth, a bit like a hand curving.

Are you SURE, LTC??? I mean...you've been wavering a little here....



Quote:
No fingers can be seen at all, in fact. I REPEAT, No fingers can be seen at all.

LTC....the boys from the home are coming for you ...you just sit tight.



Quote:
It's quite interesting how the wrist bulges in time with the hand "bend", even though the frames are not sequential and do not show a continuous hand "bending" motion.

It's almost proof that the two are related.

Sure, LTC....you've proved it...beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Now let the nice men put the coat on you...it's cold outside.

And as they drive on down the road.....LTC is faintly heard saying.....


Quote:LTC8K6:

JUST AS I FIGURED, the hand never flexes at all, and we are just looking at artifacts manipulated by Sweaty!

 

[SweatyYeti]

A beautiful example of "playing games"....as opposed to "intelligent analysis", and a sincere desire to assist in weighing the evidence.....

From post #4019....
Diogenes wrote:

One more time Sweety ..

The fingers bend .

You win !

And then...this morning.....

It turns out I was wrong .. Or most likely I was .. We can see the same effect with rigid fingers shot from two different angles.

Where is the explanation for the rest of us, as to how he determined that the finger-bending is most likely an illusion????

It's NOWHERE......because posting in a Bigfoot thread is nothing but a game to Greg.

No explanations = no interest in scientific analysis.

The lack of words.....substance....in Greg's posts speaks volumes.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Bigfoot exists. I'm not 100% convinced Bigfoot exists, myself.

Oh, this is precious. I'm not trying to convince anyone that Bigfoot exists. I'm only trying to convince them that Patty cannot possibly be a guy in a suit. Let them decide what it is, because it ain't human. I'm not sure that Patty is a Bigfoot, so I'm waiting for others to tell me what that creature is (other than a costumed human). When someone offers an alternative (other than human), I'll take it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

A beautiful example of "playing games"....as opposed to "intelligent analysis", and a sincere desire to assist in weighing the evidence.....

From post #4019....
Diogenes wrote:



And then...this morning.....



Where is the explanation for the rest of us, as to how he determined that the finger-bending is most likely an illusion????

It's NOWHERE......because posting in a Bigfoot thread is nothing but a game to Greg.

No explanations = no interest in scientific analysis.

The lack of words.....substance....in Greg's posts speaks volumes.

Gee Sweaty, I figured you were lurking when we solved this mystery ...

Since everyone but you, knows what I'm talking about, I'll just let you sweat for a while ...

And I really can't take credit for discovering the illusion .. Maybe we will share that with you also ..

Ever play with G.I. Joe ? Barbie ? Ken ?
Sometimes the fingers don't bend, and you must pretend..

 

[kitakaze]

A beautiful example of "playing games"....as opposed to "intelligent analysis", and a sincere desire to assist in weighing the evidence.....

From post #4019....
Diogenes wrote:



And then...this morning.....

Here's my favourite part, the one you can't seem to deal with. That you don't speaks volumes.

But let's go with your belief that they do bend ..

So what ?

So what, Sweaty? If the fingers bend, what must we pretend?

 

[carcharodon]

I realize you dislike this forum and it's occupants but they are probably a good representation of what the mainstream public is like outside the BF world.

Lyndon here.

I disagree with that Teresa. Most of the people here (with a few exceptions) go above and beyond what the mainstream public is like outside the BF world. Almost everybody I know is 'outside the BF world' yet none of them act like the peanut gallery sniggering pain in the backsides that post here. In fact, I would say in my experience MOST of the mainstream public outside the BF world that I have come across are pretty receptive to the possibilty of sasquatch and don't snigger and poo poo it outright when the subject is brought up. Most, when shown the evidence, (and there IS good evidence, no matter what the scoftics here say) are intrigued by it. I've never been in any pub conversation where anybody has relegated the whole sasquatch mystery to "complete nonsense" or openly laughed at it etc etc.

Of course, this could be the difference between the U.K and the U.S.A. From my experience in England, few people snigger about bigfoot when the subject is brought up and most don't poo poo it or poke fun of it when conversation arises about it. Religion and the Bible are more likely to be poo pood and mocked here.


This is a SKEPTICAL forum, and as such the people who post here don't represent the mainstream public anymore than the bigfooters do. While bigfooters represent only a small proportion of the general mainstream public, the same can also be said of these ultra skeptics (scoftics). In their own way, they are very much the extreme as the bigfooters are. How many people in your experience have you come across who are skeptical about EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING???? On this forum I've even butted heads with folks who refuse to accept alien big cats in Britain.....even though we have bona fide confirmed caught and shot examples. This is what we are dealing with here. Scoftics in the extreme. Most of the public are NOT scoftics in the extreme like the folks in this forum. In 'real life' I have come across very very few people who are as stubborn and as pig headed as many of the people posting here.

I've said all along it's going to take more than one body.

I totally agree with you there. One body won't be enough. A dead sasquatch from Oregon isn't going to convince the ultra scoftic about a sighting report in British Columbia.

 

[carcharodon]

Footage showing a film subject that's never been clearly identified.

It's actually been clearly identified by some people. It's actually been clearly identified as supposedly non human by some people, a man in a suit by others and as a sasquatch by others still. Whether you chose to accept these clear identifications is another matter.

I'm not aware of any footage showing the film subject actually leaving those tracks.

Nevertheless, we do have tracks from the site where the subject was filmed. That is not anecdotal. That's a fact.

I'm not aware of any evidence showing Patterson making said tracks himself.

Patterson could have been lying.

He wasn't lying about filming something. He did film something. It's not anecdotal. It's a fact. He wasn't lying about going to Bluff Creek in October 1967 and filming a large, hugely bulky hairy bipedal something.

No, he showed us a film.

He showed us a film of what walked in front of his camera....and it's CLEARLY not ol' Bob H wearing nothing but his clothes under a 'suit' and a football helmet over his head and it's CLEARLY, to anybody with even a semblance of knowledge about men in ape suits, nothing like any man in an ape suit that has been filmed before or since.

Had Gimlin pulled the trigger he would have been able to show us what he filmed.

How do you know? Other people have supposedly shot at them and not been successful. Had Gimlin shot the subject, supposed he didn't kill it and it came after him to rip his head off LOL???? Patterson didn't have his gun at hand. Might have been two dead bodies lying at Bluff Creek that day.

Of couse we can see the footage, but any claims made about the footage have not and cannot be proven.

Actually, many claims about the footage can and have been proven and corroborated. Conversely, there is not even any real evidence that pointed to Patterson feeding us guff and hoaxing us.

Patterson is dead, Gimlin ain't talking, and BH has no suit.

Patterson is dead and never confessed to a hoax. In fact, his behaviour and actions in the years after he took the footage strongly support his sincerity with regards to sasquatch and sasquatch like creatures (the Yeti etc).

Gimlin has said more than enough over the years and never changed his stance.

Bob H doesn't even have the body proportions, nor movements to have been the main in the suit. Bob H's claim is by far is the weakest and most preposterous of the three.

I agree, nothing. And what did P&G provide us?

A hell of a lot more than what Bob H provided us with. A film that is still shown and debated 40 years after. I don't think we will still be talking about Bob H and Greg Long's book in 40 years time. Even now, his claim is dying a death.

A film with an unidentified subject,

Who says it's unidentified? Plenty of others disagree.

a questionable timeline,

You mean the film mailing timeline?? Whoopie do.

stories that don't match,

What stories don't match?? The question of whether the horse fell or slipped?? Whoopie do.

tracks that may have been staged,

This is a theory with no supporting evidence whatsoever and nothing to indicate a staged trackway in the slightest.

and no bigfoot. Unless someone either produces an exact replica of 'the suit' or an actual bigfoot, debating the P&G film is about as productive as repeatedly counting a jar full of jelly beans.

RayG

Debating the P/G footage can be very productive. We can, for example, compare what we see in the P/G footage to a multitude of men in ape man suit hoaxes, Hollywood movies and t.v documentaries. The subject in the P/G footage looks and more importantly moves fluidly and more naturally better than all of them. It's very productive to compare the P/G subject in 1967 to the hoaxes that are showing up today on You Tube in 2007. It's very productive to analyse shot placement, subject position and subject activity in the P/G footage and it's very productive to study this and come to the conclusion that serious hoax attempts don't show us what we see in the P/G footage.....i.e subject in the open and not obscured by trees, subject at only around 100ft away, subject turning upper body to face the camera, the subject in clear view for more than a few seconds etc etc etc. It's productive to establish that in Patterson's footage we see things that hoaxers wish to avoid showing us and actually DO avoid showing us, even up to the year 2007. The ones that have showed us what Patterson showed us.............well we don't debate them because they are obvious hoaxes and we can clearly see that they are.

 

[carcharodon]

Oh boy. Does that mean that Heironimus gets a free pass for faulty recollection too?

Nope, because Bob Heironimus did not simply forget to remember something. He actually insists he just wore his clothing with no padding under the suit and a football helmet over his head......................which is of course impossible. That's not simply forgetting something. That's making a ludicrous claim.

 

[LTC8K6]

Folks, we were asked to supply possible alternative explanations by Sweaty. When we did so, these were made fun of, and Sweaty began playing the endless questions game about explanations he himself had requested.

They are still being made fun of by Sweaty, when he specifically asked us for possible alternative explanations. Since they were to be alternatives to an actual sasquatch's hand bending, I naturally suggested things that might give that appearance in an old, blurry, grainy film. Naturally, I never suggested that it could be an actual hand bending, since I was to post alternatives to that.

Sweaty has also mixed up the responses to benefit himself.

I stand by every possibility I gave, they were given in good faith to a request by Sweaty.

I'll also repeat what most of us said at the time. So what if the fingers bend?

 

[LTC8K6]

The subject in the P/G footage looks and more importantly moves fluidly and more naturally better than all of them.

Subjective.

How does a sasquatch move?
How do you know a sasquatch moves the way Patty moves?

 

[Belz...]

I'd certainly be curious to read what Sweaty has to say, just hope it isn't a reprisal of the finger bending. That was probably the greatest waste of time I have ever seen from a bigfoot proponent. Does he have a BF body? He'd at least have something tangible.

Bigfoot doesn't get hit by cars and is impervious to bullets. Just like monsters in old 50's movies.

Edited by chillzero: 

Removing deleted post

 

[RayG]

(and there IS good evidence, no matter what the scoftics here say)

What evidence would that be?

RayG

 

[Correa Neto]

I would be glad if any bigfoot proponent could show us the good evidence.

Just saying "its been shown and you scoffed at it" will not work. Show us evidence that can withstand examination.

Possible moving fingers, IMs, sloped foreheads and other PRATT stuff do not qualify.

 

[Melissa]

Quote:
stories that don't match,

I hate to throw myself in this discussion - but near as I can tell, the only person who has consistantly changed their story (often times when the inconsistant statements were pointed out) is BH. I would personally like to hear why many think BH is so credible, considering his changing storys? That to me smacks of a serious problem with BH's involvement that people should question.

Bob Gimlin's accounting of events has always remained the same, and Pattersons as well until his death.