Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

This is a rare photo of a symbiotic mixed-species flock. This probably develops in areas of high Bigfoot density. Bigfoot is a top predator that specializes in eating livers. It will take just about any mammal. The deer, cougar and raccoon are teaming up to pool their defenses against Bigfoot as they move through the forest at night. The raccoon is riding on the cougar's back to get a better position for keeping a look out. The deer act as sentinals at the front and rear of the group. The cougar foregoes eating the deer to keep himself from being deprived of his own liver. Some folks have reported skunks joining the group to act as a sort of artillery, but this information is anecdotal. Bigfoot forces interesting behaviors throughout its local ecosystem.

[Aepervius]

But wait ! In the photo you presented us, there is traitor ! In reality the "Tanuki" is a bigfoot disguised into a racoon !

PS: I think this thread is as dead as the amount of usable scientific evidence for the existence of bigfoot...

[Mad Hom]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

PS: I think this thread is as dead as the amount of usable scientific evidence for the existence of bigfoot...

This thread will never die...

.....why?

Because it's an argument based on opinion. The PGF is proof that SOMETHING was filmed schlepping across the Sandy Knoll one brisk October day back in 1967. What that something was is open to interpretation.

Bleevers interpret it differently than most people with common sense.They see it as the ultimate proof because it has of yet not been definitively de-bunked and I'd argue that it never will. I don't even think a death bed confession will kill it at this point.

They cite things like "first film corroborated by footprints" to which I'd argue no hoaxer worth his set of carved out feet would try and claim this film legit without faking a trackway to add a little frosting to the cake,but than I seem to be in the minority in thinking that hoaxers are a resourceful and creative lot who aren't to be underestimated in the way Bleevers do.

They insist that no one could pull it off in 1967 and that most FX people of the time agree. This of course is horse manure of the rankest stench. Somewhere on the interweb...Dfoot posted a pic of a Don Post mask that for all intents and purposes looked exactly like Pattie's mug in that blown up frame from the PGF. A Don Post mask that was available at the time. Does this prove anything? Not quite.......but it proves that the resources to pull this off were available.

But I digress....The PGF is an opinion debate plain and simple...so while the thread may die....the Bigfeetsus debate never will.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

That reminds me, Diogenes or Huntster, has the BFF been hacked again? ........

It's been hacked repeatedly.

If you can't destroy the message, kill the messenger............

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

How many Bigfoots can you find in this trailcam picture?

http://www.jesseshunting.com/photopo...7038cougar.jpg

None.

In fact, I see plenty of evidence of a doctored photo.

Now what?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Parcher :
How many Bigfoots can you find in this trailcam picture?

http://www.jesseshunting.com/photopo...7038cougar.jpg

At least 4 .

Just out of curiosity, what is the animal with a long tail in the middle ? It looks like a cougar/mountain cat. Was this photoshoped ?

And here's a person with an opinion on the PG film.

Amazing.................

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

This is a rare photo of a symbiotic mixed-species flock............

Thanks, fool. You just posted enough evidence to demonstrate that a photo simply won't do.

That's unlike a photo or film taken 40 years ago.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Mad Hom

........They cite things like "first film corroborated by footprints" to which I'd argue no hoaxer worth his set of carved out feet would try and claim this film legit without faking a trackway to add a little frosting to the cake........

Yet, there are plenty who try, aren't there?

Quote:

....than I seem to be in the minority in thinking that hoaxers are a resourceful and creative lot who aren't to be underestimated in the way Bleevers do.......

Hoaxers are underestimated?

Evidence, please?

Quote:

They insist that no one could pull it off in 1967 and that most FX people of the time agree. This of course is horse manure of the rankest stench. Somewhere on the interweb...Dfoot posted a pic of a Don Post mask that for all intents and purposes looked exactly like Pattie's mug in that blown up frame from the PGF. A Don Post mask that was available at the time. Does this prove anything? Not quite.......but it proves that the resources to pull this off were available.

Bullspit.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Huntster

And here's a person with an opinion on the PG film.

Amazing.................

Opinion are like @ss, everbody has one. But thankfully, on the contrary to you, I won't purport that my opinion is more valuable than yours, scientifically speaking they are both *worthless*. I can recognize that fact. You can't. This is why you think anedoct are good enough, whereas for the scientific community they are in that case as good as hearsay. This is also why you think a 40 years old film could not be hoaxed, and is enough to show the existence of a cryptozoid. Your opinion. Mine is that this is a man in suit. My opinion. both worthless, or better said, both as valuable as the other.

As for the quote above, this is about a reverse to appeal to authorithy. Because I can't recognize whether this is photoshoped or not, does not mean I am not able to have an opinion about a blurry film of 40 years ago. Well neither am I better at that thean you. See above about value of opinion.

Tsk, you are getting worse and worse in your argument Huntster, you should have stopped posting in this thread long ago when your argument was not name calling , ad hominem, false logic, and so on. At least you would have left a good impression of somebody argumenting for big foot.

Now in the mean time you have the aftertaste of a believer, which at loss at the lack of argument for its pet theory , spit bitterly toward every poster here.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Opinion are like @ss, everbody has one. But thankfully, on the contrary to you, I won't purport that my opinion is more valuable than yours, scientifically speaking they are both *worthless*. I can recognize that fact. You can't....

Yes, I can, and I've stated such many times.

Quote:

As for the quote above, this is about a reverse to appeal to authorithy. Because I can't recognize whether this is photoshoped or not, does not mean I am not able to have an opinion about a blurry film of 40 years ago.

That's correct. You have every right to have an opinion.

And we have every right to judge your opinion on your ability to recognize an obvious fake or not.

Quote:

Well neither am I better at that thean you. See above about value of opinion.

I knew at first glance that it was a fake photo.

Quote:

Tsk, you are getting worse and worse in your argument Huntster, you should have stopped posting in this thread long ago when your argument was not name calling , ad hominem, false logic, and so on. At least you would have left a good impression of somebody argumenting for big foot.

Again, I don't give a damn about your impression of me.

[kitakaze]

Yeah, that photo certainly shows the ease of doctoring an image but one would hope in the case of sasquatches that multiple photos from multiple credible sources that we can show with confidence to be undoctored demonstrating a sufficient degree of similarity and clarity would certainly defringe the subject.

[Mad Hom]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Hoaxers are underestimated?

Evidence, please?

Fudd,everywhere I go.....Craptomundo,The BFF Think Tank, Insert Generic Bigfeet website here________. Everyone talks about how most hoaxers are stupid bad people and/or they try to infer that hoaxers would NOT go to all the trouble of leaving prints in desolate areas, or to far away from where people will go. They also run off at the keyboard about .....motive. Why would they do it if there's no money in it,or anonymity means no fame blah blah blah. It's epidemic among most footers so spare me the Evidence Please take....ok.

I mean I guess I could troll the web to find the multitude of statements that prove my point...but right now I have not the time nor the inclination.......besides last time I did research for you Fudster you tried to say that Thylacine flicks and Biggus Feeticus flicks were of the same conclusiveness sooooo given that....color me reticent to contribute to your ever spiralling delusional fantasy web by squabbling over how many Bigfoot fans fit my description....it's your sanity that I'm concerned about here Fudley.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Hoaxers are underestimated?

Evidence, please?

Here's a couple specific quotes for starters:

Quote:

"I figured the whole thing out after studying the footprints; any hoaxer had to plan it all out from nothing. This requires an expert anatomist with a very inventive mind, more so than me, and I seriously doubt that any such person exists." -- Dr. Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, page 63.

Quote:

"If someone faked [these footprints] with all the subtle hints of anatomy design, he had to be a real genius, an expert at anatomy, very inventive, an original thinker. He had to outclass me in those areas, and I don't think anyone outclasses me in those areas, at least not since Leonardo da Vinci. So I say such a person is impossible, therefore the tracks are real." -- Dr. Grover Krantz, 1992 television interview with reporter John Yager

Some further quotes casting doubts on hoaxers being responsible for trackways/prints:

Quote:

"It is possible that Marx hoaxed the [Bossburg] prints too... However, I remain unconvinced that Marx hoaxed the first set of tracks at the dump, then (especially) the other, long trackway later, then perpetrated the film hoax a year later." -- Huntster, JREF forum.

Quote:

"To my knowledge, no one has come up with any kind of reasonable explanation of how that trackway [seven-mile long double trackway north of Carson] could have been hoaxed." -- LAL, BFF forum

Quote:

"The 15" tracks I saw on the sand bar in 1958 could not [be hoaxed], by any method any of us could think of then or that has been suggested since." -- John Green, posted by LAL on BFF forum here and here.

Quote:

"Of the known hoaxers in two states, did any have the expertise to pull off dermals that are neither human nor ape but are a match for prints from other areas or to fake metatarsus adductus or varying toe positions or midtarsal bending or even a good scar? To a man they seemed to be dumbkoffs. Their hoaxes were crude and quickly detected. I don't buy there was some anonymous super genius hoaxer dashing around from country to country faking compelling tracks and convincing sightings." -- LAL, BFF forum

Quote:

"Compare the professionally done Snow walker hoax to the Patterson/Gimlin effort. And then tell me how a couple of ranchers in 1967 (that was before computer graphics, kids) managed to do a better job." -- LAL, BFF forum

Quote:

"His point on the anatomy of the Bossburg prints was that a hoaxer would have had to have expertise greater than his and been able to figure out the mechanics from scratch. I don't think that fits Ivan Marx." --
LAL, BFF forum

Quote:

"...a hoaxer wouldn’t plant fuzzy or fragmented prints at a site." -- Roger Knights, Who'd Fake a Forgettable Footprint?

I found these in a matter of minutes by Googling and/or searching the BFF and JREF. I'm pretty certain there are many many other examples.

RayG

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Mad Hom

....it's your sanity that I'm concerned about here Fudley.

Don't concern yourself, "Mad" Horn.

Focus inward...........

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by RayG

....I found these in a matter of minutes by Googling and/or searching the BFF and JREF. I'm pretty certain there are many many other examples.

I'll admit that some folks are capable of underestimating hoaxers.

I'd also like to point out something in the quote attributed to me:

Quote:

It is possible that Marx hoaxed the [Bossburg] prints too... However, I remain unconvinced that Marx hoaxed the first set of tracks at the dump, then (especially) the other, long trackway later, then perpetrated the film hoax a year later.

That statement in no way can be shown as evidence of underestimating the capability of a hoaxer. I admitted the possibility, and stated that "I remain unconvinced", not that it couldn't have occurred.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Huntster

I'd also like to point out something in the quote attributed to me:

Quote:

It is possible that Marx hoaxed the [Bossburg] prints too... However, I remain unconvinced that Marx hoaxed the first set of tracks at the dump, then (especially) the other, long trackway later, then perpetrated the film hoax a year later.

That statement in no way can be shown as evidence of underestimating the capability of a hoaxer. I admitted the possibility, and stated that "I remain unconvinced", not that it couldn't have occurred.

Can you give a more detailed explanation of why you remain unconvinced that Marx may have hoaxed the tracks/trackway? You seemed to imply in this post on the BFF that it wouldn't be possible for Marx to be responsible. Too complex maybe? Am I misinterpreting?

Quote:

"It is possible that he faked the crippled footprints at the Bossburg dump where he would be relatively sure somebody would find them and report them, wait until the Bigfoot hunters came, then ran out into the woods at night when he wouldn't be seen, prepared to hoax more prints in hard, frozen winter soil, get blessed with fresh winter snow, make the trackway on both sides of the river, including sliding down the slope to the river with wooden sandals on, climb back up in the fresh snow in a place where sign of it wouldn't be found, drive over to private property behind a locked gate, find a place to climb down the gorge in the fresh snow where sign of it wouldn't be found, then climb out of the gorge wearing the sandals, find a place to make the footprints "disappear" without leaving sign of himself walking back to his car in the fresh snow without the sandals on, then drive home without being detected, even by his kids who snitched him out a year later on the hoaxed film.

Yeah, it's possible.

But I doubt it." -- Huntster

A little more digging on the BFF turned up this:

Quote:

"I simply can't imagine somebody walking 20 miles into the mountains, packing whatever gear they needed to perpetrate such a hoax, when (if they were so minded) they could have done it near the town of Porterville with much greater chance that it would be seen, and have a greater effect on more people." -- Huntster

Isn't that underestimating the length (or at least distance) that some hoaxers might go to?

And, isn't that similar thinking to this:

Quote:

"If that was the case, I can't imagine how the sign in the soft sand created by the hoaxed photography scene, then the sign of human activity placing the fake footprints could be hidden well enough for Titmus not to see (unless skeptics want to include Titmus in the hoax conspiracy)." -- Huntster

Both of these are nothing more than arguments from personal incredulity.In addition, you don't seem to credit Patterson with any ingenuity when you make statements like this, this, this, and this.

Quote:

"My thoughts when using the word "hokey" was to indicate an impression that a horse wrangler from Montana just isn't the kind of guy to contrive such a successful scheme, nor would he be technically capable." -- Huntster

Quote:

"IF that film was hoaxed like many think, how do you think a couple of rural bumpkins did it?" -- Huntster

Quote:

"Hoaxed? By a hokey Montana wrangler? In 1967?" -- Huntster

Quote:

"I also believe that the Patterson film couldn't be hoaxed so well with the 1967 technology available to a couple of average horse wranglers." -- Huntster

RayG

[kitakaze]

For me this begs the question of what people here might think constitutes the best example of an inventive or ingenius hoaxer being undeniably caught in the act (or after the fact) of going to great, surprising lengths to perpetrate their hoax.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by RayG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I'd also like to point out something in the quote attributed to me:

Quote:

It is possible that Marx hoaxed the [Bossburg] prints too... However, I remain unconvinced that Marx hoaxed the first set of tracks at the dump, then (especially) the other, long trackway later, then perpetrated the film hoax a year later.

That statement in no way can be shown as evidenc of underestimating the capability of a hoaxer. I admitted the possibility, and stated that "I remain unconvinced", not that it couldn't have occurred.

Can you give a more detailed explanation of why you remain unconvinced that Marx may have hoaxed the tracks/trackway? You seemed to imply in this post on the BFF that it wouldn't be possible for Marx to be responsible. Too complex maybe? Am I misinterpreting?

Again, I clearly stated that it was possible. I then outlined how I thought it wasn't likely:

Quote:

"It is possible that he faked the crippled footprints at the Bossburg dump where he would be relatively sure somebody would find them and report them, wait until the Bigfoot hunters came, then ran out into the woods at night when he wouldn't be seen, prepared to hoax more prints in hard, frozen winter soil, get blessed with fresh winter snow, make the trackway on both sides of the river, including sliding down the slope to the river with wooden sandals on, climb back up in the fresh snow in a place where sign of it wouldn't be found, drive over to private property behind a locked gate, find a place to climb down the gorge in the fresh snow where sign of it wouldn't be found, then climb out of the gorge wearing the sandals, find a place to make the footprints "disappear" without leaving sign of himself walking back to his car in the fresh snow without the sandals on, then drive home without being detected, even by his kids who snitched him out a year later on the hoaxed film.

Yeah, it's possible.

But I doubt it." -- Huntster

Quote:

A little more digging on the BFF turned up this:

Quote:

"I simply can't imagine somebody walking 20 miles into the mountains, packing whatever gear they needed to perpetrate such a hoax, when (if they were so minded) they could have done it near the town of Porterville with much greater chance that it would be seen, and have a greater effect on more people." -- Huntster

Isn't that underestimating the length (or at least distance) that some hoaxers might go to?

No, I don't think it's "underestimating the length (or at least distance) that some hoaxers might go to." I think it's a reasonable consideration.

Again, I did not write that it was impossible.

Quote:

And, isn't that similar thinking to this:

Quote:

"If that was the case, I can't imagine how the sign in the soft sand created by the hoaxed photography scene, then the sign of human activity placing the fake footprints could be hidden well enough for Titmus not to see (unless skeptics want to include Titmus in the hoax conspiracy)." -- Huntster

Both of these are nothing more than arguments from personal incredulity.

From your link:

Quote:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

Again, I make no such claims. I have consistently used words like "doubt", "unlikely", "I can't imagine", etc. I have not used words like "is not", "does not", "cannot", etc. When I have, you've caught me and rightfully asked for evidence, clarification, or reversal.

The same is not consistently true with others on this forum, where many people use words like "is not", "does not", "cannot", etc." with relative impunity.

Quote:

In addition, you don't seem to credit Patterson with any ingenuity when you make statements like this, this, this, and this.

Quote:

"My thoughts when using the word "hokey" was to indicate an impression that a horse wrangler from Montana just isn't the kind of guy to contrive such a successful scheme, nor would he be technically capable." -- Huntster

Quote:

"IF that film was hoaxed like many think, how do you think a couple of rural bumpkins did it?" -- Huntster

Quote:

"Hoaxed? By a hokey Montana wrangler? In 1967?" -- Huntster

Quote:

"I also believe that the Patterson film couldn't be hoaxed so well with the 1967 technology available to a couple of average horse wranglers." -- Huntster

That is correct. I still have strong doubts that Patterson could have pulled off such a hoax, complete with such a "suit" in that day, as well as the associated prints, especially after seeing a number of animal suits both from that era as well as today.

And so?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

For me this begs the question of what people here might think constitutes the best example of an inventive or ingenius hoaxer being undeniably caught in the act (or after the fact) of going to great, surprising lengths to perpetrate their hoax.

1. crop circle hoaxer giving in they did it, but still people thinks they are alien/paranormal/vortex what not. not caught in the act but confession.
2. Many UFO hoax clearly demonstrated as Hoax
3. This guy purporting he has something to do with some templar stuff in France (Pierre plantar?), with some sort of new document, it was demonstrated as being a hoax and that he is a scammer. He was really caught pant down.
4. homeopathy. really. I count this as a hoax/scam because the firm making those product KNOWS they don't work.

etc... etc...

[kitakaze]

Per my last post in the Skookum thread, if we have irrefutable evidence of hoaxers going to extraordinary lengths in perpetrating their hoaxes then we also have irrefutable reason not to make under-estimations. ETA: Oops. My last post was in this thread.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

1. crop circle hoaxer giving in they did it, but still people thinks they are alien/paranormal/vortex what not. not caught in the act but confession.
2. Many UFO hoax clearly demonstrated as Hoax
3. This guy purporting he has something to do with some templar stuff in France (Pierre plantar?), with some sort of new document, it was demonstrated as being a hoax and that he is a scammer. He was really caught pant down.
4. homeopathy. really. I count this as a hoax/scam because the firm making those product KNOWS they don't work.

etc... etc...

Fine examples, Aepervius. However, I don't think I'm having a filtration issue in asking what any of them have to do with bigfoot or how they illustrate the lengths to which some people have gone to perpetuate the idea. I'm sure if we are talking about the ingenuity that hoaxers in general have in the past exhibited I'm sure many very astute members would be more than generous in offering excellent examples.

[LTC8K6]

There are no prints connected to Patty, actually.

People like to say there are, but no evidence is ever offered except that prints were in the area.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

There are no prints connected to Patty, actually.

People like to say there are, but no evidence is ever offered except that prints were in the area.

How about on the same sandbar as where the filming took place?

But, of course, you knew that, didn't you?

[LTC8K6]

Where is the evidence that the prints were on the same sandbar, and that the prints were made by Patty?

[kitakaze]

I for one, were the PGF truly a hoax, would love to see it get nailed to wall and move on. That said, forgive the the simple question but do we actually have anything beyond anecdotal evidence to achieve that end?

[LTC8K6]

The PGF has to be proven real, actually.

No one has to prove it's a hoax.

It's assumed so, until proven real.

By real, I don't mean a real film....

[kitakaze]

Yes, LTC. Very true. I'm just hoping for something that can move it beyond a nebulous uncertainty for many and into a realm of certainty one way or the other. Again, though, you're correct. Proving it false is not the responsibility of those who seek resolution on the matter.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Where is the evidence that the prints were on the same sandbar............?

You can't be serious..............

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Huntster

You can't be serious..............

I would ask the same question, and I am very serious ...

[kitakaze]

Sorry for the DP but I felt I had to add that in the analogy of nailing the PGF to the wall I'd hope that anyone attempting to do so actually has at least one nail in the gun as opposed to some stick-its. While you, LTC, are sound in the assertion of the burden of proof lying with those claiming the validity of the PGF, one should bear in mind that while most viewing the PGF chuckle and say it's a guy in a suit, there are legions who are conversely convinced. Seems to me the respectable victory in skeptical thinking is to convert many of those people to your way of thinking through debate alone but the complete victory is in a thorough debunking. ETA: I'm taking my sweet ol' time posting.

[LTC8K6]

What's the big deal here, anyway?

Either you can show that the prints were made by Patty, or you can't.

If you can, then why not do so?

If you can't, then you should quit making the claim.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 :
Where is the evidence that the prints were on the same sandbar............?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You can't be serious..............

I would ask the same question, and I am very serious ...

Before I address this, does anybody else want to jump in (for the record), or have any other comments?

[LTC8K6]

Sit down and shut up?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Sit down and shut up?

You may sit up and shut down if you prefer.

I like that even better, myself.

[Mad Hom]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Before I address this, does anybody else want to jump in (for the record), or have any other comments?

Well you just have to know that I have some comments Fuddster.

1.) Thanks to RayG for doing what I was to lazy and disinterested in to do. Fudd feel free to resist using that statement as ammo given the fact that I knew full well where and how to look for my proof but ELECTED not to because I just knew you'd respond with something ridiculous. I also am guessing that you'll key in on the words lazy and disinterested and try and make funny about it.......or course that sure would be lame Fudley which is why I'm sure you'll do it.

2.) Are you going to prove that Patty left footprints on the sandbar already or what? Maybe a new Director's Cut of the PGF will come out augmented with 360 degree angles of the film,overhead viewpoints and possibly even a Patty POV shot of her looking down at her feet as they left prints in the sand...you know just like the original had.

Come on Fudnick....get with the delusional ranting already would ya!!

[bruto]

HUntster, could you refresh my memory on who documented the prints supposedly left by Patty? I don't remember who did it.

I think that if the footprints were documented/reported by the same people who did the film then whether you consider the film authentic or not, you must acknowledge that it's pretty obvious that the footprints do nothing to prove whether or not the whole enterprise was a hoax. If you trust the people who did the film, then the footprints are a good thing. If you think they were liars then there's no reason to believe they didn't lie about the prints too.

But I'm on a borrowed dialup connection and don't have the time or bandwidth to check back and see who did actually document the footprints, so the above paragraph is tentative.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Again, I clearly stated that it was possible. I then outlined how I thought it wasn't likely:

And by explaining HOW you thought it wasn't likely, you implied it was too complex (too many steps, etc. etc.) for a hoaxer to accomplish. If you had said it wasn't likely because Marx never left Dahinden's side, then that would be evidence to support your feeling. Would you agree that you can't imagine how Marx may have been able to conduct a successful bigfoot hoax at Bossburg?

Quote:

No, I don't think it's "underestimating the length (or at least distance) that some hoaxers might go to." I think it's a reasonable consideration.

Again, I did not write that it was impossible.

But you simply can't imagine someone doing it.

Quote:

From your link:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

You read the wrong section. I was referring to:

• The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

One of the two common versions of the argument is summed up as:

• "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true"

(Here's a better link to the particular info on that same page.)

That's very similar to your statements that:

• "I simply can't imagine somebody walking 20 miles into the mountains, packing whatever gear they needed to perpetrate such a hoax,"

and

• "I can't imagine how the sign in the soft sand created by the hoaxed photography scene, then the sign of human activity placing the fake footprints could be hidden well enough for Titmus not to see"

If you can't imagine how something is possible, you've usually underestimated the people that made it possible.

Quote:

Again, I make no such claims. I have consistently used words like "doubt", "unlikely", "I can't imagine", etc. I have not used words like "is not", "does not", "cannot", etc. When I have, you've caught me and rightfully asked for evidence, clarification, or reversal.

I think we'd both like things left open to possibility, but just because you or I can't imagine how something was accomplished doesn't mean it wasn't.

Quote:

The same is not consistently true with others on this forum, where many people use words like "is not", "does not", "cannot", etc." with relative impunity.

If you know anything about me, you know I leave the possibility door wide open. On the other hand, I try to never underestimate the lengths to which people will go to scam, fool, or con others.

Quote:

I still have strong doubts that Patterson could have pulled off such a hoax, complete with such a "suit" in that day, as well as the associated prints, especially after seeing a number of animal suits both from that era as well as today.

And so?

So calling him 'hokey', a 'rural bumpkin', or an 'average horse wrangler', seems to be questioning his intelligence and ingenuity, NOT the technology available to him. By labelling him in such a manner you're underestimating the ingenuity he may be capable of.

RayG

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Mad Hom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Before I address this, does anybody else want to jump in (for the record), or have any other comments?

Well you just have to know that I have some comments Fuddster.

That's why I asked, and need hands up for the record. I'd like to put this stupidity to bed for good this time.

Quote:

1.) Thanks to RayG for doing what I was to lazy and disinterested in to do. Fudd feel free to resist using that statement as ammo given the fact that I knew full well where and how to look for my proof but ELECTED not to because I just knew you'd respond with something ridiculous. I also am guessing that you'll key in on the words lazy and disinterested and try and make funny about it.......or course that sure would be lame Fudley which is why I'm sure you'll do it.

Naw.

I'd like to focus on the word ELECTED, especially when it's used in conjunction with "lazy and disinterested."

Further comment? Naw. Why bother? You wrote enough.

Quote:

2.) Are you going to prove that Patty left footprints on the sandbar already or what?

No.

Quote:

Come on Fudnick....get with the delusional ranting already would ya!!

Not yet. I want all who wonder "where is the evidence that the prints were on the same sandbar" to cast their lot.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by bruto

HUntster, could you refresh my memory on who documented the prints supposedly left by Patty? I don't remember who did it.

Patterson, Gimlin, Laverty, and Titmus.

Quote:

I think that if the footprints were documented/reported by the same people who did the film then whether you consider the film authentic or not, you must acknowledge that it's pretty obvious that the footprints do nothing to prove whether or not the whole enterprise was a hoax.

Neither Laverty nor Titmus had anything to do with the film, and Laverty has had nothing to do with sasquatchery before or after the day he saw and photographed the prints.

Quote:

If you trust the people who did the film, then the footprints are a good thing. If you think they were liars then there's no reason to believe they didn't lie about the prints too.

I have little reason to trust anybody.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by RayG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Again, I clearly stated that it was possible. I then outlined how I thought it wasn't likely:

And by explaining HOW you thought it wasn't likely, you implied it was too complex (too many steps, etc. etc.) for a hoaxer to accomplish....

Not necessarily too complex, but with too many other factors which made the hoax dangerous, or would leave evidence of the hoax (like sliding down the bluff in the fake feet, starting/stopping the trackway in snow without leaving sign of human arrival/hoax set-up/human departure, etc).

Quote:

If you had said it wasn't likely because Marx never left Dahinden's side, then that would be evidence to support your feeling. Would you agree that you can't imagine how Marx may have been able to conduct a successful bigfoot hoax at Bossburg?

That's correct. I can't imagine how anybody conducted a successful bigfoot hoax at Bossburg, in accordance with what I've read about the event. That doesn't mean I proclaim that it couldn't be done, but that I don't know how they did it.

Do you?

Why don't you properly "estimate" the length that a hoaxer might go, then definitively pronounce that the Bossburg event was a hoax.

Quote:

Quote:

No, I don't think it's "underestimating the length (or at least distance) that some hoaxers might go to." I think it's a reasonable consideration.

Again, I did not write that it was impossible.

But you simply can't imagine someone doing it.

As the event was recorded, that's correct.

Quote:

From your link:

Quote:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

You read the wrong section. I was referring to:

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

One of the two common versions of the argument is summed up as:

Quote:

"I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true"

(Here's a better link to the particular info on that same page.)

That's very similar to your statements that:

Quote:

"I simply can't imagine somebody walking 20 miles into the mountains, packing whatever gear they needed to perpetrate such a hoax,"

and

Quote:

"I can't imagine how the sign in the soft sand created by the hoaxed photography scene, then the sign of human activity placing the fake footprints could be hidden well enough for Titmus not to see"

I've never written that "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true."

I have written that I don't see that as likely, so I don't believe it.

Quote:

If you can't imagine how something is possible, you've usually underestimated the people that made it possible.

That's only if it is established that it was, indeed, a hoax. Otherwise, you are overestimating the length people will go to perpetrate a hoax.

Until it is established that it is, indeed, a hoax, people cannot fully review their previous opinion on it.

Quote:

Quote:

Again, I make no such claims. I have consistently used words like "doubt", "unlikely", "I can't imagine", etc. I have not used words like "is not", "does not", "cannot", etc. When I have, you've caught me and rightfully asked for evidence, clarification, or reversal.

I think we'd both like things left open to possibility, but just because you or I can't imagine how something was accomplished doesn't mean it wasn't.

That's correct.

It's also true that until it is firmly established that it was, indeed, a hoax, we would be premature to judge it so.

Quote:

Quote:

I still have strong doubts that Patterson could have pulled off such a hoax, complete with such a "suit" in that day, as well as the associated prints, especially after seeing a number of animal suits both from that era as well as today.

And so?

So calling him 'hokey', a 'rural bumpkin', or an 'average horse wrangler', seems to be questioning his intelligence and ingenuity, NOT the technology available to him.

I meant to compare his background with that of, say a Hollywood special effects insider; someone who has knowledge, experience, and assets to create such a suit. Someone like, say, Dfoot.

Oh, yeah. We know about him, don't we. It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that he's a hoaxer, hasn't it?

Quote:

By labelling him in such a manner you're underestimating the ingenuity he may be capable of.

I'm calling a spade a spade, and a hoaxer a hoaxer.