Why bother discussing Bigfoot?

[makaya325]

Why should Bills analysis and measurements even matter if the General consensus is that of a suited man?

Split from: Bigfoot PG Film The Munns report (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133244)

[Skeptical Greg]

It matters to those who do not share that consensus .

Should we stop discussing Bigfoot since the general consensus is that there is no such
animal ?


This thread is to discuss the pros and cons of the report..

Do you have a specific point about Bills analysis and why you agree or disagree
with his findings ?

Stay on topic ..

Have you noticed how your posts keep disappearing ?

[Aepervius]

Why should Bills analysis and measurements even matter if the General consensus is that of a suited man?

As a similar reason, it matters discussing a subject like PGF or BF, because science is never definitive, and who knows, maybe somebody could fish out evidence everybody overlooked and increase (or decrease) the likelyhood of existence.

Anybody open to a question will continue to discuss it. From all skeptic here, I doubt there is many which will honestly say "I am 100% sure BF don't exisst", although I am pretty sure many of us are infinitely NEAR that 100% (99.9 with plenty of 9 behind).

So yes, we will continue to discuss it, until we are either bored of it, or dead, or dead borred.

[Delscottio]

You're correct.Squarely through the heart of the question. So far none of the nails have reached their mark to everyone's reasonable satisfaction.

The problem is they never will.

[makaya325]

As a similar reason, it matters discussing a subject like PGF or BF, because science is never definitive, and who knows, maybe somebody could fish out evidence everybody overlooked and increase (or decrease) the likelyhood of existence.

Anybody open to a question will continue to discuss it. From all skeptic here, I doubt there is many which will honestly say "I am 100% sure BF don't exisst", although I am pretty sure many of us are infinitely NEAR that 100% (99.9 with plenty of 9 behind).

So yes, we will continue to discuss it, until we are either bored of it, or dead, or dead borred.

Is the reason why the PGF attracts so much attention to skeptics is because it is viewed as the Holy Grial among bigfoot researchers?

[Crowlogic]

Is the reason why the PGF attracts so much attention to skeptics is because it is viewed as the Holy Grial among bigfoot researchers?

The reason the PGF attracts so much attention is because it occupies a position where speculations about can be endlessly put forward by any and all positions. It is the perfect argument platform.

[Aepervius]

The reason the PGF attracts so much attention is because it occupies a position where speculations about can be endlessly put forward by any and all positions. It is the perfect argument platform.

It is the perfect believer argument plateform to begin with. If there was enough evidence a way or another , it would be quickly shot down and buried by skeptic. But the same as UFO blurried photo, believer can hide themselves behind a lack of evidence or "unknown" and pretend whatever they want, without ever really proving their claim. This is the perfect woo subject.

Most if not all skeptic here aren't married with any hypothese, they jsut say likelyhood of it being what the believer say it is are near zero, and they point out at the flaw of the explanation of the believer (sometimes with flaw in their own argument).

There is a good reason there is so many similarity in the belief in UFO=Alien and the belief BF exists.

[makaya325]

It is the perfect believer argument plateform to begin with. If there was enough evidence a way or another , it would be quickly shot down and buried by skeptic. But the same as UFO blurried photo, believer can hide themselves behind a lack of evidence or "unknown" and pretend whatever they want, without ever really proving their claim. This is the perfect woo subject.

Most if not all skeptic here aren't married with any hypothese, they jsut say likelyhood of it being what the believer say it is are near zero, and they point out at the flaw of the explanation of the believer (sometimes with flaw in their own argument).

There is a good reason there is so many similarity in the belief in UFO=Alien and the belief BF exists.

So does this mean skeptics dont give a hoot about the PGF? If its a known fake, why bother with it? Discussing the PGF is like discussing measurements of One of BigfootBubba's youtube videos: Its a waste of time.

[Skeptical Greg]

Then why are you wasting yours ?

[makaya325]

Then why are you wasting yours ?

I am asking others here this question before you just did, so dont turn this on me. I am not curious about the PGF, i am curious on why skeptics care so much about the film.

[Aepervius]

So does this mean skeptics dont give a hoot about the PGF? If its a known fake, why bother with it? Discussing the PGF is like discussing measurements of One of BigfootBubba's youtube videos: Its a waste of time.

Read again : that is not what I said. The PGF can only lead to "improbable, but inconclusive". Skeptic merely look at the argument of woo believer and check it. I would wager out of personal fun itnerrest, like other look at a good mathematical problem. But in the very end in absence of further evidence it is inconclusive, one can only state what are the most probably hypothese. And right now it is PGF=Hoax to 99.99+% for me for example, YMMV, the Munns report was supposed to change that using SCIENTIFIC methods, sorely lacking in BF domain, but was an utter disappointment, so we are back to stating msot likely hypothese.

[Aepervius]

I am asking others here this question before you just did, so dont turn this on me. I am not curious about the PGF, i am curious on why skeptics care so much about the film.

It is not that we care about the PGF SPECIFICALLY. My guess is that most of us try to train/use their skeptical skills on such sort of woo-attracting subject.

Which is why we speaks of ghost, PGF, homeopathy, speaking to the dead etc... None of us is probably particularly interrested in a woo subject, but we may use our skills on it out of fun (again YMMV , as other reason exists).

[SweatyYeti]

FASCINATING discussion....:).....please continue...

[EHocking]

So does this mean skeptics dont give a hoot about the PGF? If its a known fake, why bother with it? ...Because sceptics (and scientists) are just as fascinated by these subjects as bleevers? It's human nature to be curious.

The difference is that sceptics and scientists use a different logic toolkit to analyse the evidence available in order to determine their position regarding a particular phenomenon, rather than being comfortable with blind faith.

A few possible paths, for instance;

The study of maths can lead to the study of logic which inevitably leads to philosophy which then can lead to pondering the phenomenon of religious belief and the existence of gods.

The study of physics can lead to astrophysics and pondering the existence of planets that can support life and whether those planets could be reached in our lifetime (or vice versa).

Studying biology leads to attempts to discover new species (and possibly cryptozoology) or pondering the origin of life.

[desertgal]

If its a known fake, why bother with it?

Since the PGF cannot, at this point in time, be proven 100% to be either authentic or a hoax, how can it be a "known fake"? A believed fake, yes. Known fake, no.

Discussing the PGF is like discussing measurements of One of BigfootBubba's youtube videos: Its a waste of time.

Not for skeptics who would like to establish belief that it is a hoax.

That's like saying that analyzing all Bigfoot evidence is a waste of time for any skeptic. Not so. How can any evidence be determined to be less than authentic if it isn't analyzed?

[Skeptical Greg]

I am asking others here this question before you just did, so dont turn this on me. I am not curious about the PGF, i am curious on why skeptics care so much about the film.


Then start a new thread about that ..
Stop cluttering up this thread, which is a discussion of the Munns Report ...

[LONGTABBER PE]

I guess a woo has to do what a woo has to do

Theres a new science in town and its ( you guessed it) BIGFOOTprobability® ( fooled you that time didnt I)

Sorry, I couldnt pass this one up

Its from a related thread based on a related thread tied into the Munns report

>>>In the meantime:
I did re-calculate the hoax probability (although nobody seemed to care or, maybe nobody 'got it'), using Bill's 13 'Circumstances', and his Premise that the 'usual' is twice as likely to occur as the 'unusual' (which is actually equal to a 1 in 3 chance for the unusual), to be 1 in (3 to the 13th power) or 1 in 1,594,323. So, there's that.

Actually, thats the wrong scenario for a multitude of reasons but here is the short version and how it should be arranged in an accurate meaningful probability model.

The question is : What is the probability that the PGF is representing a BF.

First thing you need to do in statistics is model what you want and assign meaningful equations and values. In this case, its pretty simple.

A good choice would be a deterministic system because we are looking for a singular answer ( it is or isnt)

The PGF is a dependant variable related to the global question of : Does BF exist?

Thats a yes or no answer. No inbetween so the value of the global question is 0 or 100%

The question of the PGF being probably a BF is still a variable because its 100% possible that BF is real and the PGF is still a hoax so its not a true 1:1 correlation.

So, to define a probability ( with any degree of useful meaning) to the PGF, it has to be directly weighed against the global question because if BF isnt real- the PGF is defaulted to fake regardless. ( no other option)

All variables have to be weighed by a common scale for the equation and assigned a positive,negative or null value. You either have evidence for ( +), evidence against (-) or evidence that doesnt show either way [null] (~)

Cant prove BF doesnt exist:+
Nothing forbids BF from existing:+

Those 2 are givens

Evidence

Evidence by definition is a fact that in and of itself is true but only rises to the level of support of a whole ( ie- suspicious person has a gun, victim is dead- the 2 need more evidence to link the 2)

There is no conclusive body of evidence establishing a case for BF ( if there was, we wouldnt be debating now would we?) so its ~

There is no conclusive body of evidence establishing BF doesnt exist ( if there was, we wouldnt be debating it still) so its ~

Proof

Proof by definition is a fact that is not only true ( evidence) but it of a level of completeness that establishes the "case" ( answers the question in an absolute)
( ie- unaltered and clear/verifiable video showing suspicious person with the gun shooting the victim)

Obviously, there is no "proof" of BF either way so they are ~

So, based on all available information on the 0-100 scale, there are 2 +'s, no _'s and nulls are discarded.

Reasonably, theres about a 2% chance then that BF exists based on a deterministic model.

Since the PGF is a variable and subordinate to the global question, ( remember theres still a 50-50 chance the PGF is still a fake even if BF exists) its equally divided.

Theres about a 1% chance the PGF shows a real BF thus its a 99% probability of being a fake.

[makaya325]

I guess a woo has to do what a woo has to do

Theres a new science in town and its ( you guessed it) BIGFOOTprobability® ( fooled you that time didnt I)

Sorry, I couldnt pass this one up

Its from a related thread based on a related thread tied into the Munns report

>>>In the meantime:
I did re-calculate the hoax probability (although nobody seemed to care or, maybe nobody 'got it'), using Bill's 13 'Circumstances', and his Premise that the 'usual' is twice as likely to occur as the 'unusual' (which is actually equal to a 1 in 3 chance for the unusual), to be 1 in (3 to the 13th power) or 1 in 1,594,323. So, there's that.

Actually, thats the wrong scenario for a multitude of reasons but here is the short version and how it should be arranged in an accurate meaningful probability model.

The question is : What is the probability that the PGF is representing a BF.

First thing you need to do in statistics is model what you want and assign meaningful equations and values. In this case, its pretty simple.

A good choice would be a deterministic system because we are looking for a singular answer ( it is or isnt)

The PGF is a dependant variable related to the global question of : Does BF exist?

Thats a yes or no answer. No inbetween so the value of the global question is 0 or 100%

The question of the PGF being probably a BF is still a variable because its 100% possible that BF is real and the PGF is still a hoax so its not a true 1:1 correlation.

So, to define a probability ( with any degree of useful meaning) to the PGF, it has to be directly weighed against the global question because if BF isnt real- the PGF is defaulted to fake regardless. ( no other option)

All variables have to be weighed by a common scale for the equation and assigned a positive,negative or null value. You either have evidence for ( +), evidence against (-) or evidence that doesnt show either way [null] (~)

Cant prove BF doesnt exist:+
Nothing forbids BF from existing:+

Those 2 are givens

Evidence

Evidence by definition is a fact that in and of itself is true but only rises to the level of support of a whole ( ie- suspicious person has a gun, victim is dead- the 2 need more evidence to link the 2)

There is no conclusive body of evidence establishing a case for BF ( if there was, we wouldnt be debating now would we?) so its ~

There is no conclusive body of evidence establishing BF doesnt exist ( if there was, we wouldnt be debating it still) so its ~

Proof

Proof by definition is a fact that is not only true ( evidence) but it of a level of completeness that establishes the "case" ( answers the question in an absolute)
( ie- unaltered and clear/verifiable video showing suspicious person with the gun shooting the victim)

Obviously, there is no "proof" of BF either way so they are ~

So, based on all available information on the 0-100 scale, there are 2 +'s, no _'s and nulls are discarded.

Reasonably, theres about a 2% chance then that BF exists based on a deterministic model.

Since the PGF is a variable and subordinate to the global question, ( remember theres still a 50-50 chance the PGF is still a fake even if BF exists) its equally divided.

Theres about a 1% chance the PGF shows a real BF thus its a 99% probability of being a fake.

Did the creature in your 2 encounters resemble Patty? Just curious here

[makaya325]

Since the PGF cannot, at this point in time, be proven 100% to be either authentic or a hoax, how can it be a "known fake"? A believed fake, yes. Known fake, no.



Not for skeptics who would like to establish belief that it is a hoax.

That's like saying that analyzing all Bigfoot evidence is a waste of time for any skeptic. Not so. How can any evidence be determined to be less than authentic if it isn't analyzed?

It is a KNOWN fake. Thanks to Dfoot, the authenticity of the PGF has been shattered and demolished.

[desertgal]

It is a KNOWN fake. Thanks to Dfoot, the authenticity of the PGF has been shattered and demolished.

No. It has been widely discredited, but it is not a known fake. That cannot happen until it is either proven, with verified evidence, that Patty is a man in a suit, or a flesh and blood creature.

Has anyone found the suit? No. So we cannot "know" the film is fake. We can believe it, but we cannot know it.
Has anyone proved the existence of such a creature? No. So we cannot "know" the film is real. We can believe it, but we cannot know it.

You consistently confuse "fact" with "assumption", "proof" with "theory". You don't understand the concept of critical thinking, and you demonstrate no ability to apply it to any subject. Are you here just to make yourself look dumb?

[makaya325]

No. It has been widely discredited, but it is not a known fake. That cannot happen until it is either proven, with verified evidence, that Patty is a man in a suit, or a flesh and blood creature.

Has anyone found the suit? No. So we cannot "know" the film is fake. We can believe it, but we cannot know it.
Has anyone proved the existence of such a creature? No. So we cannot "know" the film is real. We can believe it, but we cannot know it.

You consistently confuse "fact" with "assumption", "proof" with "theory". You don't understand the concept of critical thinking, and you demonstrate no ability to apply it to any subject. Are you here just to make yourself look dumb?

A suit is not needed, due to the fact that we know ape suits existed then and currently now. We have no sasquatch evidence, and never did have any, so it is only appropiate to assume the only explanation of the PGF is that of a fraud.

[RayG]

Theres a new science in town and its ( you guessed it) BIGFOOTprobability® ( fooled you that time didnt I)


I thought for sure you were going to mention Bigfoot ScienceTM...

http://www3.sympatico.ca/raygavel/bigfootscience001.JPG

:D

RayG

[ElectricVoodoo]

It is a KNOWN fake. Thanks to Dfoot, the authenticity of the PGF has been shattered and demolished.

It is a KNOWN fake.
I challenge you to provide sufficient evidence to prove and support this statement. If you cannot provide this, that invalidates your statement, does it not? What more proof can you bring to the table that it is a fake than others can bring proof that it is a BF? Please, humor me.

[makaya325]

It is a KNOWN fake.
I challenge you to provide sufficient evidence to prove and support this statement. If you cannot provide this, that invalidates your statement, does it not? What more proof can you bring to the table that it is a fake than others can bring proof that it is a BF? Please, humor me.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, it is only on the proponent. There is no need to provide a suit because we know complex suits exist and have testimony of the man inside the suit. What do we have for bigfoot, besides blurry photos, ambigious tracks, and testimony from a LIAR.

[ElectricVoodoo]

The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, it is only on the proponent. There is no need to provide a suit because we know complex suits exist and have testimony of the man inside the suit. What do we have for bigfoot, besides blurry photos, ambigious tracks, and testimony from a LIAR.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptic
Oh, but it is. So long as the skeptic makes a counter argument that is not yet verified it will fall on deaf ears unless it can be proven EVEN IF, as an example, most people believe the PGF to be fraudulent. If your proposed way of thinking was implemented in our legal system there would be A LOT of good people going to prison. You cannot make a counter argument without providing the evidence to back it up. More than one person claimed to have played the role of "Patty" and even more are suspected who deny it.

As you identify yourself as a skeptic I believe you are nothing more than someone with an opinion unwilling (read unable) to provide sufficient case evidence to support the opinion. Your opinion is that "Patty" is a man in a suit and the PGF was a staged event. Can cannot just "opine and recline" - making a statement, sitting back idly all the while expecting the other side to prove THEY are right. The world just doesn't turn like that.

There is no need to provide a suit because we know complex suits exist and have testimony of the man inside the suit. What do we have for bigfoot, besides blurry photos, ambigious tracks, and testimony from a LIAR.
Unacceptable. You must prove "Patty" is a man in a suit as much as the other side has to prove it is flesh and blood Bigfoot. You are going solely on the basis that Bigfoot is not proven to exist but there have been many men in suits pretending to be a Bigfoot. Since more than one people have claimed to be "Patty" which one is it? The tallest? The likely one? I'm all ears.

I don't expect to change your mind on the PGF and I really don't care to as you are entitled to your own opinion. It is where opinion meets proof to support it that you are lacking. Do you acknowledge the burden of proof is not one-sided?

[SweatyYeti]

makaya wrote:

It is a KNOWN fake.



And then, makaya wisely wrote this...


The burden of proof is not on the skeptic, it is only on the proponent.



"Yo, Little Mak...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Rocky1.jpg


....I don't know how to break the newz to ya' gently, man.......but, ahhh.....if you'd like your first statement to have any meaning......you know..."carry any weight"....have any relevance to the mystery before us....like, maybe be worth more than a piece of my pet's doo-doo.....you will NEED to support it.

Otherwise, it's 100% absoloodely....and I mean AB-SO-LOODLY meaningless.

You know what I mean??"

[SezMe]

It is a KNOWN fake.

We have no sasquatch evidence, and never did have any, so it is only appropiate to assume the only explanation of the PGF is that of a fraud.
My bold.

So which is it: A fact or an assumption?

[makaya325]

The burden of proof is not on the skeptic
Oh, but it is. So long as the skeptic makes a counter argument that is not yet verified it will fall on deaf ears unless it can be proven EVEN IF, as an example, most people believe the PGF to be fraudulent. If your proposed way of thinking was implemented in our legal system there would be A LOT of good people going to prison. You cannot make a counter argument without providing the evidence to back it up. More than one person claimed to have played the role of "Patty" and even more are suspected who deny it.

As you identify yourself as a skeptic I believe you are nothing more than someone with an opinion unwilling (read unable) to provide sufficient case evidence to support the opinion. Your opinion is that "Patty" is a man in a suit and the PGF was a staged event. Can cannot just "opine and recline" - making a statement, sitting back idly all the while expecting the other side to prove THEY are right. The world just doesn't turn like that.

There is no need to provide a suit because we know complex suits exist and have testimony of the man inside the suit. What do we have for bigfoot, besides blurry photos, ambigious tracks, and testimony from a LIAR.
Unacceptable. You must prove "Patty" is a man in a suit as much as the other side has to prove it is flesh and blood Bigfoot. You are going solely on the basis that Bigfoot is not proven to exist but there have been many men in suits pretending to be a Bigfoot. Since more than one people have claimed to be "Patty" which one is it? The tallest? The likely one? I'm all ears.

I don't expect to change your mind on the PGF and I really don't care to as you are entitled to your own opinion. It is where opinion meets proof to support it that you are lacking. Do you acknowledge the burden of proof is not one-sided?

Mr. Bob Heironimus was the man in the suit. He has been consistent with his story for over 30 years, and has the whole town of Yakima to back him up. I think that alone is evidence. You dont need a suit, because who knows, it was probably discarded or burned. Its useless to demand a suit because that is not an extraordinary claim. I guess if i follow your logic, then all of those who claim youtube videos of alleged bigfoot are fake, they should have to to provide a suit for every single one? Use common sense

[makaya325]

My bold.

So which is it: A fact or an assumption?

Common sense says its a fact. If it walks like a suited man, is as tall as a suited man, then its a suited man.

[Sean84]

Common sense is surprisingly uncommon. Perhaps Bigfoot walks like a suited man.

In all likelihood, it's a fraud, one of the best. But, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that outright.

Logic and reason mean nothing to a conspiracy movement (and the more I read the more I feel it is one, all it's missing is some quack shouting "THE JEWS!!!"); faith is faith and and a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat. The film will NEVER die in the mind of the true believer.

To answer the thread title: Because I'm the kind of guy who likes to watch a good squabble unfold from time to time. Beyond that: meh. Carry on, gentlemen.

[makaya325]

Common sense is surprisingly uncommon. Perhaps Bigfoot walks like a suited man.

In all likelihood, it's a fraud, one of the best. But, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that outright.

Logic and reason mean nothing to a conspiracy movement (and the more I read the more I feel it is one, all it's missing is some quack shouting "THE JEWS!!!"); faith is faith and and a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat. The film will NEVER die in the mind of the true believer.

To answer the thread title: Because I'm the kind of guy who likes to watch a good squabble unfold from time to time. Beyond that: meh. Carry on, gentlemen.

Its a horrible hoax: Sloppy, and so amateurish.

[desertgal]

Common sense says its a fact. If it walks like a suited man, is as tall as a suited man, then its a suited man.

Common sense is not the basis of fact.

[kitakaze]

I hope this thread dies a quick and boring death.

[Sean84]

Its a horrible hoax: Sloppy, and so amateurish.

Fooled me in elementary school. :D

[desertgal]

I hope this thread dies a quick and boring death.

We'll let mak talk to himself and it will.

[SweatyYeti]

makaya wrote:
If it walks like a suited man, is as tall as a suited man, then its a suited man.



It's just that timple!! :rolleyes:

[ElectricVoodoo]

Mr. Bob Heironimus was the man in the suit. He has been consistent with his story for over 30 years, and has the whole town of Yakima to back him up. I think that alone is evidence. You dont need a suit, because who knows, it was probably discarded or burned. Its useless to demand a suit because that is not an extraordinary claim. I guess if i follow your logic, then all of those who claim youtube videos of alleged bigfoot are fake, they should have to to provide a suit for every single one? Use common sense

Mr. Bob Heironimus was the man in the suit. He has been consistent with his story for over 30 years
And him saying that made him very famous and surely a bit of coin. Patterson and Gimlin were consistent for years too.

and has the whole town of Yakima to back him up
Have you spoken with any of the townspeople? Have you got any data to support this - or is it, in your opinion, up to the proponent to get it?

I think that alone is evidence
That redefines the word "evidence." You may want to contact the publishers of these dictionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#Major_English_dictionaries) to suggest a revision.

You dont need a suit, because who knows, it was probably discarded or burned.
It would put to rest this film's authenticity.

Its useless to demand a suit because that is not an extraordinary claim
The exact opposite of this is true.

I guess if i follow your logic, then all of those who claim youtube videos of alleged bigfoot are fake, they should have to to provide a suit for every single one?
What if some of them are not men in suits? What if we're wrong and BF exists? How would that change the PGF? My logic is to provide evidence (the current definition of it) to any claim, in this case saying the PGF is a man in a suit. Prove it. If you cannot, it carries no more weight than those saying it really is a BF (please note an absolute claim like that also requires evidence). It has been like this since the day the footage was released.

Use common sense
Practice what you preach.

[kitakaze]

*sigh*

Mr. Bob Heironimus was the man in the suit.

That's what I think but you stating it as fact doesn't make it so.

[ElectricVoodoo]

Common sense says its a fact. If it walks like a suited man, is as tall as a suited man, then its a suited man.

And you tell me to use common sense? This quoted post makes as much sense as putting someone with a severed prefrontal cortex against X3D Fritz in a game of chess expecting them to checkmate it in 2 moves.

[SezMe]

Common sense is not the basis of fact.
What she said.

BTW, ColMD, please continue to use the quote button....makes for a cleaner thread.

[kitakaze]

This conversation needs to move the the Heironimus thread if it is going to continue...

Mr. Bob Heironimus was the man in the suit. He has been consistent with his story for over 30 years
And him saying that made him very famous and surely a bit of coin. Patterson and Gimlin were consistent for years too.

Heironimus has made no significant money for his claim. ANyone who thinks no significant money hasn't been given to the owners of the PGF can listen to this interview with one of the members of the ridiculously well funded NASI Report:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sasquatchwatchradio/2009/03/17/Sasquatch-Watch-Radio-Guest-Henry-Franzoni

and has the whole town of Yakima to back him up
Have you spoken with any of the townspeople? Have you got any data to support this - or is it, in your opinion, up to the proponent to get it?

Watch from 2:25:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY-3SSE2NtY&feature=related

You dont need a suit, because who knows, it was probably discarded or burned.
It would put to rest this film's authenticity.

Patterson is the alleged suit owner and if he had the slightest sense how to cover his tracks (which we know he was quite good at) he would have destroyed or hidden very well that suit.

Its useless to demand a suit because that is not an extraordinary claim
The exact opposite of this is true.
It would be great to have the suit produced but no one really has any expectation it would be for the reason above.

I guess if i follow your logic, then all of those who claim youtube videos of alleged bigfoot are fake, they should have to to provide a suit for every single one?
What if some of them are not men in suits? What if we're wrong and BF exists? How would that change the PGF? My logic is to provide evidence (the current definition of it) to any claim, in this case saying the PGF is a man in a suit. Prove it. If you cannot, it carries no more weight than those saying it really is a BF (please note an absolute claim like that also requires evidence). It has been like this since the day the footage was released.

Just out of curiosity, are there any other Bigfoot videos that you think have any chance of being real?

I can't prove the PGF is fake but I can give you many excellent reasons to suspect it is. I don't want to have another PGF proxy thread so I won't go into major details but in short Roger Patterson was known to be dishonest and had the means available and was excatly the type of person we would expect to be able to pull off such a hoax. While not infallible, Bob Heironimus has passed two polygraphs regarding his assertion of being Patty. It becomes simple deduction when you realize that he has a long standing relationship with film makers, lives nine houses from Gimlin, is literally on Patterson's film, his horse was there when the alleged sasquatch was filmed, and his proportions are a basic match for Patty.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_89614996f85077c1f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15294)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/89614996f86ab415a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15295)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_89614996f894dcba4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15296)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/896149ab269001bdc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15466)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_896149ab1a3ecb321.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15464)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/896149ab1ce7e2e49.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15465)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_896149da772b378c7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15933)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_89614a13451fc1ffb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16384)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/89614a1cc47c23db0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16497)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_89614a1f7c7b4a76b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16535)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/896149ab4ae788f13.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15469)

[desertgal]

I can't prove the PGF is fake but I can give you many excellent reasons to suspect it is. I don't want to have another PGF proxy thread so I won't go into major details but in short Roger Patterson was known to be dishonest and had the means available and was excatly the type of person we would expect to be able to pull off such a hoax. While not infallible, Bob Heironimus has passed two polygraphs regarding his assertion of being Patty. It becomes simple deduction when you realize that he has a long standing relationship with film makers, lives nine houses from Gimlin, is literally on Patterson's film, his horse was there when the alleged sasquatch was filmed, and his proportions are a basic match for Patty.
]

I agree with you. Wholeheartedly.

I only wish that Makaya would learn that theory and conjecture are not the same as proof, assumption is not fact, common sense is not the basis of fact, unsupported anecdotal evidence has no value beyond a good story, believing is not knowing, eyewitness testimony is unreliable and has no value without evidence to support or negate it, and just because it is written/spoken doesn't make it so. I wish he would learn to research the validity of a thought before he presents it as fact.

In other words, I wish he would open himself to developing critical thinking, instead of just debating with superficial knowledge. If he takes nothing else away from this forum, he'll hopefully take the principles of critical thinking, that applying them aids the abilities to logic and reason, researching an interesting topic or idea is enjoyable, and learning stimulates the thirst for more knowledge.

And the PGF is not a known fake, any more than it is a known authentic. :D

That's what I hope. Not what I expect. When I was eighteen, I knew everything, too. ;)

[SweatyYeti]

desertgal wrote:
I only wish that Makaya would learn that theory and conjecture are not the same as proof


If ONLY makaya would learn things.....then maybe he wouldn't simply be parroting things that he's read.
Let's ALL hope!!!!!! :D

[makaya325]

desertgal wrote:



If ONLY makaya would learn things.....then maybe he wouldn't simply be parroting things that he's read.
Let's ALL hope!!!!!! :D

I have read things that are more reliable than your drivel.

[clayflingythingy]

Why do I find discussions of an imaginary creature fascinating? I dunno. BF is no more real than alien abductions or chupacabras but BF is the only woo subject I find interesting. Perhaps because I have read Big Footprints and found it appalling, especially Krantz's fuzzy math when he discussed footprint events.

I find the PEOPLE involved with BF to be fascinating. Why some people invest so much emotional energy in pretending an imagianry creature is real is beyond me.

[makaya325]

Why do I find discussions of an imaginary creature fascinating? I dunno. BF is no more real than alien abductions or chupacabras but BF is the only woo subject I find interesting. Perhaps because I have read Big Footprints and found it appalling, especially Krantz's fuzzy math when he discussed footprint events.

I find the PEOPLE involved with BF to be fascinating. Why some people invest so much emotional energy in pretending an imagianry creature is real is beyond me.

I find it interesting on why i was sucked into the mumbo jumbo. Perhaps it's because of my backround's traditions and hoping for a relict of the past to still be among us.

[ElectricVoodoo]

BTW, ColMD, please continue to use the quote button....makes for a cleaner thread.

Like this? Sure, if it makes it easier on the eyes.

This conversation needs to move the the Heironimus thread if it is going to continue...

The title of this thread is a daft one at best. To be honest, we're just beating the dead horse (and I'm likely the public enemy on this thread for doing just that). Until something new and amazing comes along we're going over the same arguments. I should have put up a disclaimer that my posts were to show 'Malakas'325 why any claim, especially an absolute claim of massive proportions requires evidence on both sides of the argument.


Heironimus has made no significant money for his claim. ANyone who thinks no significant money hasn't been given to the owners of the PGF can listen to this interview with one of the members of the ridiculously well funded NASI Report:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sasquatchwatchradio/2009/03/17/Sasquatch-Watch-Radio-Guest-Henry-Franzoni



Watch from 2:25:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY-3SSE2NtY&feature=related


Ah yes, the small town mentality. Believe me I know what it's like. If you don't believe what the majority believes you are an outsider of sorts. I'm NOT saying you are wrong, KK, not at all, I'm just saying whatever Bob H. says to the old-timers of the town is an automatic fact. Ain't no one gonna change them minds.

Patterson is the alleged suit owner and if he had the slightest sense how to cover his tracks (which we know he was quite good at) he would have destroyed or hidden very well that suit.

I would have (destroyed the suit).

It would be great to have the suit produced but no one really has any expectation it would be for the reason above.

Agreed. Completely.



Just out of curiosity, are there any other Bigfoot videos that you think have any chance of being real?

Not really, no. There is one piece of film I find interesting but the buck stops there. I don't believe it is real. I'll try and dig it up for you (I've seen a few edits of it, I want the whole film as I saw it). It cuts out in one particular scene after the alleged BF is coming towards the camera and seemingly restarts as it is walking away in dense foliage.

I can't prove the PGF is fake but I can give you many excellent reasons to suspect it is. I don't want to have another PGF proxy thread so I won't go into major details but in short Roger Patterson was known to be dishonest and had the means available and was excatly the type of person we would expect to be able to pull off such a hoax. While not infallible, Bob Heironimus has passed two polygraphs regarding his assertion of being Patty. It becomes simple deduction when you realize that he has a long standing relationship with film makers, lives nine houses from Gimlin, is literally on Patterson's film, his horse was there when the alleged sasquatch was filmed, and his proportions are a basic match for Patty.

I am rather indifferent. I'd love for the film to be the real thing, but I'm not going to ignore counter-arguments and I'm not holding my breath. As I stated, I was trying to get 'malakas' to show his proof based on his opinion. In this case it doesn't matter if the film is real or not, you cannot make a claim about something and then say "if you disagree then show me your proof."

I've never once made any comment about the authenticity of the film (hoax or real). I'm not in a position to, and it isn't something I'm going to dedicate my life to solving. I DO, however, give that small probability something like BF exists somewhere on this planet. I'm not closed-minded on the subject, but regarding the PGF I am just not sure.

To answer the thread's question "Why bother discussing Bigfoot?" I would say why not? It's hardly an odd topic considering what you can find on the JREF alone.

[desertgal]

I find it interesting on why i was sucked into the mumbo jumbo. Perhaps it's because of my backround's traditions and hoping for a relict of the past to still be among us.

Nope, I don't buy the first part. As impressive as your heritage might be, I'm also Native American-and the fact that my ancestors believed in certain myths and legends is negligible when it comes to separating fact from myth for myself.

Facts are facts, myths are myths. You might have more childhood exposure to certain myths because of a Native American heritage, but that doesn't guarantee that exploring myths will interest you in your adult life, or that you will be likely to believe one over the other once you are old enough to think for yourself.

As for Bigfoot and the PGF, discussing it is a pastime for a lot of people here, I think. They know they can't prove it, and they don't expect to.

Some people discuss Bigfoot. Some people collect string. Discussing Bigfoot might be beating a dead horse, bit it is a more interesting pastime than literally beating a dead horse.

[makaya325]

Nope, I don't buy the first part. As impressive as your heritage might be, I'm also Native American-and the fact that my ancestors believed in certain myths and legends is negligible when it comes to separating fact from myth for myself.

Facts are facts, myths are myths. You might have more childhood exposure to certain myths because of a Native American heritage, but that doesn't guarantee that exploring myths will interest you in your adult life, or that you will be likely to believe one over the other once you are old enough to think for yourself.

As for Bigfoot and the PGF, discussing it is a pastime for a lot of people here, I think. They know they can't prove it, and they don't expect to.

Some people discuss Bigfoot. Some people collect string. Discussing Bigfoot might be beating a dead horse, bit it is a more interesting pastime than literally beating a dead horse.

If some people here like discussing bigfoot, why not Unicorns, goblins, or dragons? Those are way more interesting creatures than bigfoot? Bigfoot has to be the lamest mythical creature out there.

[desertgal]

If some people here like discussing bigfoot, why not Unicorns, goblins, or dragons? Those are way more interesting creatures than bigfoot? Bigfoot has to be the lamest mythical creature out there.

The thread title doesn't ask "Why bother discussing unicorns, goblins, or dragons?". If you want to discuss unicorns, goblins, and dragons (and the tons of recent sightings and film footage of them), start a new thread and discuss them.

Besides, who are you to decide what is interesting to other people? You haven't exactly balked at discussing Bigfoot here, either, despite his 'lameness'.

[SweatyYeti]

desertgal wrote:
Some people discuss Bigfoot. Some people collect string.

Discussing Bigfoot might be beating a dead horse, bit it is a more interesting pastime than literally beating a dead horse.



Or.....perhaps it could lead to saving a closely-related hominid species from becoming extinct.


The way I see it.....given the evidence at hand, it's better to err on the side of humanity :), than to worry about 'chasing the wind'.
Besides, if somebody spends some time out in the woods.....hiking, camping....sightseeing....(Whitehall, NY area)...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA3NXgdd4P0


......looking for a myth...:o...and never finds the Beast...has anything been lost??

In my book....it's a net gain. :)

[desertgal]

Or.....perhaps it could lead to saving a closely-related hominid species from becoming extinct.


Well, sure. I heard that's how they kept the condor from becoming extinct, too. A bunch of unassociated people got together on a skeptic's forum and discussed whether a section of film featured a real live condor or just a guy in a bird suit. It's a very effective method for wildlife conservation.

[makaya325]

Well, sure. I heard that's how they kept the condor from becoming extinct, too. A bunch of unassociated people got together on a skeptic's forum and discussed whether a section of film featured a real live condor or just a guy in a bird suit. It's a very effective method for wildlife conservation.

What are you trying to say?

[desertgal]

What are you trying to say?

The condor is a bird, mak. A big ol' homely bird. (I thought you lived in California for 14 years? Oh, wait, no. You grew up in Yakima.) When its numbers began to dwindle, California passed an act to preserve the condor, and protect it from poachers. They put it on protected land, and introduced a breeding program and the numbers began to rise.

Sweaty's right. We should protect Bigfoot from extinction. I mean, he's existed for hundreds of years without our help, but he could die out any second. Look at all those Bigfeet who have been killed by poachers. Oh, and the ones who have been killed by trappers. And we should put them on protected land, so there won't be any more Bigfeet killed by trains or cars or unnatural accidents. The ones who die from illness or natural causes-you know, like they find every so often-we'll put them in museums. We should breed them, too, so the numbers will grow. I'm sure, if we catch 2 of them, and study them closely, we'll figure out how to best do that. Yep. If we discuss it here enough, it'll protect him...

[SweatyYeti]

Well, sure. I heard that's how they kept the condor from becoming extinct, too. A bunch of unassociated people got together on a skeptic's forum and discussed whether a section of film featured a real live condor or just a guy in a bird suit. It's a very effective method for wildlife conservation.


I guess you think it's hopeless to even try, desertgal.....but I think the Big, Stinky Hominids (if they exist) deserve our best efforts....whatever those efforts are.

[kitakaze]

I guess you think it's hopeless to even try, desertgal.....but I think the Big, Stinky Hominids (if they exist) deserve our best efforts....whatever those efforts are.

Along with Reptoids, Greys, ghosts, chupacabras, and Jesus, people see Bigfoot all over the place. On top of that we haven't killed any that we know about. Why should we worry about a beast that seems to be prospering on every corner of the continent and in between. Bigfoot seems to be doing better than cougars and bears in terms of range.

BTW, still waiting...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4830948#post4830948

[SweatyYeti]

desertgal wrote:
Sweaty's right. We should protect Bigfoot from extinction.


Actually....when I said "discussing Bigfoot", I was refering to all discussions, and analysis, of the evidence for Bigfoot...in general......not just on Jref.

The point being....to try to determine if the evidence does actually carry some significant weight, because, if it can be shown to carry significant weight...(even if it doesn't rise to the level of 'proof').....then it may inspire enough people to take the steps necessary to fund a serious, definitive search in an area where there's supposedly the strongest evidence for them...like the PNW.


Personally, I think the Federal Government should fund an intensive search in that area, to effectively settle the question.....once and for all.

[kitakaze]

Well, sure. I heard that's how they kept the condor from becoming extinct, too. A bunch of unassociated people got together on a skeptic's forum and discussed whether a section of film featured a real live condor or just a guy in a bird suit. It's a very effective method for wildlife conservation.

:D

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:
Why should we worry about a beast


Because that beast would be a human being...or an early form of human.


That's enough for me to be concerned.....but apparently, not enough for you. :)

[kitakaze]

Besides, if somebody spends some time out in the woods.....hiking, camping....sightseeing....(Whitehall, NY area)...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA3NXgdd4P0


......looking for a myth...:o...and never finds the Beast...has anything been lost??

In my book....it's a net gain. :)

Not a bad view. I'll take Vancouver Island and the west coast any day but still very pretty, no Bigfoot mystique necessary.

Why don't you get in on something like this?:

Bigfoot Fanatics Meet In Northern New York
(http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Bigfoot.Loch.Ness.2.236641.html)

There is a loss when spending a bunch of time in the woods looking for Bigfoot and never finding anything like so many people do. That's time you could have spent appreciating the forest for what it is without the distortion of some boogeyman mystique. You could spend your time learning about what is actually there and appreciating our understanding of the varied ecosystems. That is nothing when compared with what I consider John's fantasy or this idiot who thinks Bigfoot knocked him out with infrasound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrpGcvmlohk&feature=channel_page

[kitakaze]

Because that beast would be a human being...or an early form of human.


That's enough for me to be concerned.....but apparently, not enough for you. :)

That's your messed up logic at play again. How do you know Bigfoot would be a human or early form of human? Gigantopithecus was neither and you've often argued for people to consider it a candidate for Bigfoot. Also you partially quoted me and distorted the meaning of the question thereby avoiding the point. Regardless of what you think Bigfoot is, there is no reason to think that they are in any danger. Across North America much of what used to be farmland has returned to forest and Bigfoot is seen all over the place while no bodies turn up. Greys may be some form of human. Why aren't we rallying to get the government to do something about them.

Oh wait, that's right. You think there is some clandestine war going on where we are shooting crazy space weapons at UFO's in orbit.:boggled:

[kitakaze]

Actually....when I said "discussing Bigfoot", I was refering to all discussions, and analysis, of the evidence for Bigfoot...in general......not just on Jref.

The point being....to try to determine if the evidence does actually carry some significant weight, because, if it can be shown to carry significant weight...(even if it doesn't rise to the level of 'proof').....then it may inspire enough people to take the steps necessary to fund a serious, definitive search in an area where there's supposedly the strongest evidence for them...like the PNW.

Here's the thing, Sweaty - with what you've got so far, which is a bunch of weak coffee, you're not going to get anything like that happening. The PGF, MDF, PFF, Joyce, and any other garbage you can spin your wheels about is never going to be reliable evidence for Bigfoot. That's what you need to get the right people interested. You don't even have an unambiguous image. I can get those for animals with a population of less than 60 but not for this massive 9 ft beast living across two of the most advanced industialized nations on Earth. What is the precedent for such a thing, Sweaty. Please answer that question.

People, including those who work for the goverment, are in the areas where Bigfoot is often reported every day and yet nothing good in the way of evidence has ever been forthcoming, just more crap here and there. This is exactly what you would expect for a social construct. There is nothing about Bigfoot that isn't easily explained as the result of being something that people made up.

Personally, I think the Federal Government should fund an intensive search in that area, to effectively settle the question.....once and for all.

Let's try this out. Choose one. What is the one place where you'd send the government to do an intensive search? Why that place? If nothing was found would you really stop being a woo? I don't think so. I don't think you'd stop being a Bigfoot fanatic. And if the sky fell down and you ever stopped it would only mean that guys like this would get a lot more of your time...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amqlYJsbr54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_SNHRej8fE&feature=PlayList&p=9F4038F0C1D1AFE9&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=43

[desertgal]

I guess you think it's hopeless to even try, desertgal.....
Well, gosh. Sweaty, how did I ever get along without you to tell me what I think? You must have derived from that all the hours we've spent together in person, talking and sharing ideas...

As a matter of fact, no. I don't think it's hopeless to try. And if Bigfoot proponents want to head off into the woods and look around, be my guest.

but I think the Big, Stinky Hominids

Oh! That's right! Bigfoots are Hominids! Of Course! No one could ever mistake a big, hairy, stinky, bear standing on his hind legs for a big, hairy, stinky hominid standing upright. Homo Sapiens aren't that dumb. They don't get their species confused. They would certainly never confuse a near man with a wild animal.

And those orange jackets that hunters wear are fashion statements.

The point being....to try to determine if the evidence does actually carry some significant weight, because, if it can be shown to carry significant weight...(even if it doesn't rise to the level of 'proof').....then it may inspire enough people to take the steps necessary to fund a serious, definitive search in an area where there's supposedly the strongest evidence for them...like the PNW.Personally, I think the Federal Government should fund an intensive search in that area, to effectively settle the question.....once and for all.

I think that's a fantastic idea. I mean it. I think the government should do it very soon. I mean, okay, we're in the middle of a recession, and the American auto industry has just collapsed on itself, but why spend money on aid to Americans, or the unemployed when there is Bigfoot to be found? Better yet, they should fund searches to establish the existence of other mythical creatures, like the chupacabra. It might take a while, these searches, since there is, you know, no evidence to go on but anecdotes, blurry pictures, and a shaky film whose authenticity hasn't been established even after 42 years, but so what? So it could cost millions with no end in sight. We'll just take the money out of education. The teachers won't mind another pay cut or more cut backs, and, heck, our schools can survive a few more limitations on resources. Kids can learn just as well if we double the class numbers. The problems with our education system are overhyped-after all, little mak just finished high school and look how well he came out. Special needs kids can just be mainstreamed-can't baby them forever.

Or we could borrow from Social Security again. Old people don't need all that money. They only worked all their lives, raised families, paid their taxes, defended our nation - scraping to make ends meet is a learned skill they should continue to use. Suck it up, Grandpa. And the SSDI folks-well, they're just crybabies anyway.

Or, hey, we could cut back on law enforcement again. Cops don't need those big salaries to risk their lives to protect and serve, and a few more people might get robbed, but Americans are tough. We can take some of the law into our own hands-that'll help calm things down and lower the crime rate. Okay, a few hundred murders might go unsolved, but, shoot, can't win 'em all. Taxpayers are already pissed that billions of dollars are being spent so NASA can photograph space dust and maintain a space station that, by rights, should have fallen out of the sky five years ago, not to mention the millions more spent to bail out millionaires, but it's cool. No matter that public education is becoming a joke, unemployment is rising, the homeless problem is escalating, inflation is exploding, and people are going hungry. They can't get much more pissed if we hike taxes yet again to spend millions searching for creatures with absolutely no conclusive proof that they even exist.

That wil definitely help the financial crisis. Here, I thought what we needed was for the federal government to reevaluate the priorities, but I see now that the real answer is to hell with all that other nonsense-mythical creatures must be found!

Good call, Sweaty. You better send the proposal to Obama quick. I'll bet he'll see that the idea has significant weight.

[kitakaze]

We'll just take the money out of education. The teachers won't mind another pay cut or more cut backs, and, heck, our schools can survive a few more limitations on resources. Kids can learn just as well if we double the class numbers. Special needs kids can just be mainstreamed-can't baby them forever.

Sweaty could be a volunteer teacher. He would prance into the class giggling with crayons and pixie dust flying out of his pockets and the kids would love him. He'd have a room-full of them going like this...

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:boxedin::eek::eek::jaw-dropp:faint::covereyes:scared::eye-poppi:yikes::wide-eyed:jaw::boggled::confused::jaw-dropp:faint:

...as he told them about the elusive monster wood apes living in the nearby woods even as close as Whitehall where little Judy's grandma live. That would be before recess. After recess it would be time to learn how to shout at dirty skeptics which would be bliss. They would be up on the desks straight out of Dead Poet's Society. After lunch they would be in for a treat and learn about the civilizations on Mars and their connections to Earth at such places as Avebury and Silbury Hill and before the day is done he'd have them learning about the real Star Wars with the STS-48 shuttle mission video. The kids would scramble to school and would light up like a crackhead finding a $20 whenever you asked them to do homework.

Mom! Mom! Mom! Check this out! I got an A+ in Thinking Outside the Box today. Look at this, it say's "excellent work, Kevin" and you can tell how much Mr. Sweaty loved it because all the letters are big and in different colors. By the way, Mom, can you sign this and give me fifty dollars? Mr. Sweaty says we're going on a field trip with the magical tour bus to New York with some lady named "Miss Joyce" to look for sasquatches.

What's this hole in my pants? Awww, that's nothin'. Stupid Tommy McGillicuddy pushed me down during lunch hour when I called him a close-minded sewer-dwelling skeptic. Can I have my dinner in my room while I do my homework? Pleeeease! I have to learn how to outline baby sasquatches for the test next week.

[desertgal]

Sweaty could be a volunteer teacher. He would prance into the class giggling with crayons and pixie dust flying out of his pockets and the kids would love him. He'd have a room-full of them going like this...<snipped for brevity>


Reaching for the Windex...

Every time you write one of these, I end up laughing soda out my nose onto my screen...

And, Sweaty, don't respond. Just don't. That you could blithely suggest spending any federal money on finding Bigfoot while so many Americans need the help of their government just to feed their kids...wow. Your obsession with Bigfoot has taken you off the deep end. Seriously. That is one whacked set of priorities.)

[SweatyYeti]

desertgal wrote:
I mean, okay, we're in the middle of a recession, and the American auto industry has just collapsed on itself, but why spend money on aid to Americans, or the unemployed when there is Bigfoot to be found?


We're also smack dab in the middle of the greatest Pork-Barrel spending spree the government has ever passed.......by far.

The amount of money required to fund a major search is literally only a drop in the bucket, compared to the billions our thoughtful legislators just spent (or, threw away)....on everything from Pork....to Pork.....to Pork.....to wasteful spending projects.....to bailing out the wealthy.
WASTE....in all of it's glory.


You have the right to your opinion, desertgal....and so do I. :) I think Humanity is worth giving the 'benefit of the doubt'.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:
There is a LOSS when...... (One doesn't do what the Great and Powerful Kaaz recommends you do)...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/WizardofKaze.jpg



......spending a bunch of time in the woods looking for Bigfoot and never finding anything like so many people do.

That's time you could have spent appreciating the forest for what it is without the distortion....

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Curly.jpg



....of some boogeyman mystique.


You could spend your time learning :rolleyes: about what is actually there....(with your teacher.....Mr. Flames...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/WizardofKaze.jpg


.....and appreciating our understanding of the varied ecosystems.


(Awwwwww.....isn't that a wonderful thought. :p I could learn all about the various things all around me! Instead of doing whatever the heck I feel like doing!)





Yes......Mr. Flames.....you're right. Everybody should check-in with you, first, before venturing out into the beautiful world around us......so that we can get the maximum pleasure/learning experience out of our recreational time....doing, and thinking what you recommend.....while minimizing our thoughts of any potential human-like creatures which may exist out there.


Kitz....you're just an all-around assssset ;) to Humanity. Thank you!! :)

[kitakaze]

We're also smack dab in the middle of the greatest Pork-Barrel spending spree the government has ever passed.......by far.

The amount of money required to fund a major search is literally only a drop in the bucket, compared to the billions our thoughtful legislators just spent (or, threw away)....on everything from Pork....to Pork.....to Pork.....to wasteful spending projects.....to bailing out the wealthy.
WASTE....in all of it's glory.


You have the right to your opinion, desertgal....and so do I. :) I think Humanity is worth giving the 'benefit of the doubt'.

Sweaty is like a critical thinking whoopy cushion...

Gigantopithecus is known to have existed, and it fits the basic description of BIG-foot.
The only question is whether or not it was bipedal......but, since the shape of the jawbone points towards an upright posture, it is evidence (and being a fossil, it's "reliable") of an upright-walking BIG-footed Primate. :)

Because that beast would be a human being...or an early form of human.

*BRRRT*

Very hard not to laugh at.

Since Sweaty can't decide what he thinks, we should just set aside the goverment fuding for Bigfoot searches idea and wish for something more directly helpful. More money for education so when someone tries to tell kids there a monster wood apes sneaking about the forest all over North America undiscovered they just point and laugh. Also universal healthcare in the U.S. would be great. People who suffer from delusions involving Bigfoot could have easier access to psychiatric care and wouldn't get robbed by pirates when they went to pick up there prescriptions

[kitakaze]

Yes......Mr. Flames.....you're right. Everybody should check-in with you, first, before venturing out into the beautiful world around us......so that we can get the maximum pleasure/learning experience out of our recreational time....doing, and thinking what you recommend.....while minimizing our thoughts of any potential human-like creatures which may exist out there.


Kitz....you're just an all-around assssset ;) to Humanity. Thank you!! :)

Hey, if you want to spook yourself with delusions of Bigfoot and poke around in the woods looking over your shoulder constantly to keep an eye out for the monster wood apes, knock yourself out.

SHHH! What's that sound? Sounded like Bigfoot. Oops... just an owl. Did you see that? Something moved! Oh... just a deer. Wooooow! Look at that view! I bet you could have like, 12 Bigfoots hiding there and nobody would ever know...

:rolleyes:

Sounds like fun.

BTW, happy birthday, old boy. You've been making me laugh for about three years and the forum wouldn't be the same without Sweaty's Amazing Technicolour Dreamposts. Here's a present that a forum friend shared with me on my birthday a few weeks back that I'd like to share with you...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1241

Cheers, brilliance. Hope you have a nice day...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_8961492354fae059f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14295)

[remirol]

I personally agree from the following perspective:

I see no point in endlessly debating blobsquatch pictures, films, and the like when everyone is aware how trivial the possibility is of fakery. I'm not sure why skeptics bother spending so much effort debunking Bigfoot (well, other than cheap amusement :) ) when the position would seem to be simple:

Until someone produces a live bigfoot, dead bigfoot, or part of a bigfoot, there is no reason to believe that bigfoot exists. I don't care how many blurry pictures you show me, how many gorilla suits in a freezer you show me, how many lumpy plaster casts or how many bear poops... No bigfoot means no bigfoot.

[desertgal]

We're also smack dab in the middle of the greatest Pork-Barrel spending spree the government has ever passed.......by far.

Ah. I see the motto of politicians and grifters is coming up: "A bunch of wrongs make another one okay." I figured you'd come back with that.

That doesn't really work with me, though. Fortunately, I'm one of the patriotic, loyal American taxpayers pulling together and calling for less government spending, not more, to get this country back on track. There are several million of us. Not you, of course, but still quite a large number. You can use "current government overspending is an excuse for even more needless spending" to justify your lack of patriotism to yourself, but I'm not in the market for snake oil.

The amount of money required to fund a major search is literally only a drop in the bucket

Of course, you have a breakdown of the costs of a grid search and sample testing for every region in the United States where a Bigfoot has been spotted. I should have known. Can we see it? Did you remember to include kickbacks?

, compared to the billions our thoughtful legislators just spent (or, threw away)....on everything from Pork....to Pork.....to Pork.....to wasteful spending projects.....to bailing out the wealthy.
WASTE....in all of it's glory.

See above. You aren't convincing me, but feel free to repeat that as much as you like to yourself.

You have the right to your opinion, desertgal....and so do I. :) I think Humanity is worth giving the 'benefit of the doubt'.

Sure you do. I don't think someone like you, willing to take money and aid from human beings who need it, to waste looking for a mythical creature who doesn't, should ever use the word "humanity". Just my opinion.

Since you are dead set on wasting our money to find folklore. could you please give the government a hand and jump start the search? Now go out into the woods and don't come back until you've found a Bigfoot. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just can't grasp that fairy tales aren't real.

[EHocking]

I personally agree from the following perspective:

I see no point in endlessly debating blobsquatch pictures, films, and the like when everyone is aware how trivial the possibility is of fakery. I'm not sure why skeptics bother spending so much effort debunking Bigfoot (well, other than cheap amusement :) ) ...It's not just cheap amusement, or tilting at windmills that got me started on these sorts of subjects, it's the consistent MISAPPLICATION OF SCIENCE.

I just find it irritating that people with little or no grasp of science pretend to use a scientific approach to prove their particular fantasy.

Many a post at this forum is a poster attempting to explain "the scientific method" to those who would subvert it by deliberately misrepresenting beliefs as facts.

The Munns Report is a case in point.

It is written in a manner that those lacking a basic scientific background might think represents "good science".

When it indeed does not.

And these "studies" are then repeatedly referred to by an uncritical bleever as some sort of scientific proof of their particular fantasy.

The natural world and the science being applied to discover and understand it is quite mind-boggling on it's own without having to invent fairies, monsters and other spiritual guff just because someone is too ignorant or lazy to check out the real deal.

[Vortigern99]

If discussing BF is pointless, then surely discussing whether discussing BF is pointless... is equally, if not more, pointless.

The fact that this question has been posed by one of the more proliferate contributors to the BF discussion is further evidence that this discussion is, you guessed, it -- pointless.

Thereby rendering my involvement in this thread utterly absurd.

IOW... huh? :confused:

[desertgal]

If discussing BF is pointless, then surely discussing whether discussing BF is pointless... is equally, if not more, pointless.

The fact that this question has been posed by one of the more proliferate contributors to the BF discussion is further evidence that this discussion is, you guessed, it -- pointless.

Thereby rendering my involvement in this thread utterly absurd.

IOW... huh? :confused:

I get your point. :D

I don't think discussing the BF phenomenon is completely pointless. I didn't know anything about the phenom when I came here, beyond a vague memory of the PGF in elementary school. I've read the threads as they progressed, and I've learned quite a bit. (Including, apparently, that that lil' dickens Roger Patterson was born 3 times - or 4, including little mak's fictitious year.) So, since one of the goals here is to educate, then it isn't pointless.

Now, threads like John's claim, yes. Mainly because he will accept no other explanation. His anecdote isn't much different than many others, so he isn't educating us and we aren't educating him. Total stalemate. Same with Sweaty.

The PGF threads are pointless, because we can never confirm the authenticity, but also useful, because they usually include much information about the details of the film. Very helpful if you are looking to learn about it. I guess learning about the PGF would be considered a pointless pastime by some, but each to their own. I think it's interesting stuff.

[Ashles]

If discussing BF is pointless, then surely discussing whether discussing BF is pointless... is equally, if not more, pointless.

The fact that this question has been posed by one of the more proliferate contributors to the BF discussion is further evidence that this discussion is, you guessed, it -- pointless.

Thereby rendering my involvement in this thread utterly absurd.

You could not be more right. Thus rendering this post even more pointless.

[SweatyYeti]

Hey, if you want to spook yourself with delusions of Bigfoot and poke around in the woods looking over your shoulder constantly to keep an eye out for the monster wood apes, knock yourself out.

SHHH! What's that sound? Sounded like Bigfoot. Oops... just an owl. Did you see that? Something moved! Oh... just a deer. Wooooow! Look at that view! I bet you could have like, 12 Bigfoots hiding there and nobody would ever know...

:rolleyes:

Sounds like fun.

BTW, happy birthday, old boy. You've been making me laugh for about three years and the forum wouldn't be the same without Sweaty's Amazing Technicolour Dreamposts. Here's a present that a forum friend shared with me on my birthday a few weeks back that I'd like to share with you...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1241

Cheers, brilliance. Hope you have a nice day...





Thanks for the friendly Birthday wishes, kitty. :) I appreciate it.


Here's a little something in return, for you....and everyone else. A new song from Cat Stevens...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfgdqk0QXm0

[SweatyYeti]

desertgal wrote:
I don't think someone like you....should ever use the word "humanity".

Just my opinion.



Just a little more info about me, desertgal...


I apply this same philosophy....'giving a potential Human :rolleyes: being the 'benefit of the doubt''....to the controversial issue regarding the unborn potential Human :rolleyes: being.

Given the fact that there is a "chance"...some "degree of probability" that the unborn may be every bit as fully human as you are....I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt... :eye-poppi...not....the alternative.




So....while, in your opinion....I should never use the word "humanity".....in my opinion, I think I have every right in the world to use it......because I care about any and all human beings :) on this planet....whatever their 'state' is....or may be.



BTW...did you like Cat's song, about human warmth, and love? :)

Or were you too busy counting your money to listen to it?

[desertgal]

Just a little more info about me, desertgal...

I apply this same philosophy....'giving a potential Human :rolleyes: being the 'benefit of the doubt''....to the controversial issue regarding the unborn potential Human :rolleyes: being.

Given the fact that there is a "chance"...some "degree of probability" that the unborn may be every bit as fully human as you are....I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt... :eye-poppi...not....the alternative.

Well, I am so glad you told me that, because I was just sitting here wondering, apropos of nothing, what your views on abortion are. :rolleyes:

So....while, in your opinion....I should never use the word "humanity".....in my opinion, I think I have every right in the world to use it......because I care about any and all human beings :) on this planet....whatever their 'state' is....or may be.

Just less about the ones who have to go without federal aid while the money is spent on tracking down a folk tale.

It's okay, though. I get it your point. Gross overspending of tax dollars is wasteful, it's okay if the needless spending is limited to 'drops in the bucket'. Attempting to save humanity by looking for said folktale-that's the important thing. :rolleyes:

BTW...did you like Cat's song, about human warmth, and love? :) Wow, that was subtle. Oh. Ouch. Ow.

Or were you too busy counting your money to listen to it?
What money? I'm one of the ones who will have to go without if the federal government continues overspending on both pork barrels and folklore searches. The "drop in the barrel" that you consider so insignificant help people like me. They help people like my son, who, unlike you, Sweaty, willl never have the ability to have a job, get married, have children, have a full fledged conversation about ideas or concepts, or, even, live without someone to aid him with basic care for the rest of his life. The one good thing is that he will never run across people like you, who are so full of humanity and love, they treat people like him as sub humans.

I'd love to debate with you more, Sweaty, but "Searching For Tinkerbell" is on Unsolved Mysteries at 3, and I think they may actually find that sassy little pixie this time. Or not.

You just keep on pretending that you know anything about me. I'm done. On ignore you go. Life is too short to deal with hypocritical scum.

[Ashles]

Oh Jesus Christ, bigfoot at the top four positions in General Skepticism again... :rolleyes:

I cannot understand what there is to keep discussing about this imaginary and ludicrous creature.
What is the appeal of bigfoot v say the Loch Ness Monster? Or aliens?

Why does it need so many separate threads? I see no clear distinction between what is discussed in any of them.

[Vortigern99]

It's all pretty absurd. Most of it, I think, derives from most of us who are involved in the debate having been, at one time, a BF "believer" or otherwise intrigued by the question. Most of us, having done a modicum of research into the subject, have concluded that BF's existence is highly improbable given the dearth of evidence. But others cling to the idea, while we try to talk them out of it. The idea of a hidden wood-ape in NA is so compelling to some that they ignore/overlook/dismiss reams of rational thought and mounds of evidence to the contrary.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Ashles]

It's all pretty absurd. Most of it, I think, derives from most of us who are involved in the debate having been, at one time, a BF "believer" or otherwise intrigued by the question. Most of us, having done a modicum of research into the subject, have concluded that BF's existence is highly improbable given the dearth of evidence. But others cling to the idea, while we try to talk them out of it. The idea of a hidden wood-ape in NA is so compelling to some that they ignore/overlook/dismiss reams of rational thought and mounds of evidence to the contrary.

That's it in a nutshell.


I guess my issue isn't so much as to why people believe in Bigfoot - people believe all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.

I just don't understand how it generates so many different threads. They might have different titles but they all seem to discuss exactly the same things and have exactly the same arguments over and over.

A few minutes ago the top 15 threads in Skepticism had 8 Bigfoot threads. Over one in two threads was about Bigfoot. That's insane.
Just how much can BF believers discuss about one blurry film and some fake plaster casts?

There's more hard data for the Cottingley Fairies!

[desertgal]

Just how much can BF believers discuss about one blurry film and some fake plaster casts?


Honestly, I don't think it's always so much that Bigfoot believers-the ones that Vortigern described that want to cling to the idea-want to discuss, say, the PFG in great detail as much as they just want to argue.

I don't mean that in a derogatory way, it is just something I've noticed. Believer will throw out a belief or a question-skeptic will give a logical alternate explanation or answer, and the believer will begin to argue points with illogical statements. Depending on the believer, I'm not sure that some them truly fail to see the fallacy in these statements. It's more a game of "jerk the skeptics around" vs. "try to get the believer to accept a logical point of view".

A-Class believers debate, usually well. B-Class believers seem to hang around to do the jerk chain game. I think the B-Class generate the frequency of threads.

I don't get it, myself, and I've been guilty of letting B-Classers jerk my chain. The complaint among the Bigfoot community is that established science doesn't accept Bigfootery as legitimate, and neither does society at large.

But many Bigfooters sabotage the credibility of the entire community. For every A Class believer who wants to discuss the topics with intelligence and reasoned debate, there are three of the B-Class who throw out completely illogical points, don't debate as much as argue pointlessly, and rebuff the most reasonable of explanations, just for the enjoyment of yanking the skeptics' chains, why would anyone take them seriously?

(In fairness, several of the many threads today aren't new, they are resurrected threads. Not that it matters. I wish the mods would merge them.)