Meldrum Debate

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, Sircalum said:

Meldrum admitted the first possibility for the Patterson film was it’s BS.

And?

[Incorrigible1]

43 minutes ago, Sircalum said:

Meldrum admitted the first possibility for the Patterson film was it’s BS.

 

I don't know who Bart is, nor do I care, but his YT video revelation is a complete swing and miss. ::eye roll::

[Celtic Raider]

This is a really fascinating video, thanks so much for posting! 

 

It's kinda nitpicking, but I think it's an important point that it's not really a 'debate' as no one is trying to 'win' or score cheap points, it's very much a discourse and that is so much more productive. I feel like a lot of these discussions turn into debates where people compete against each other to try and 'win' the argument and at the end of the day everyone loses.

 

For full disclosure, I am sceptical by nature. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in ghosts and I don't believe aliens have visited earth. On the topic of bigfoot or sasquatch I'm very much torn as when I see the 'Patty' film it just looks real and genuine to me. That looks like a massive, weighty, bipedal ape that is definitely not a human in a suit and moves with a real looking cadence. However, there are so many questions surrounding other evidence sources such as testimony, hair samples, lack of body, lack of better definition visual record etc.

 

As I said, I'm actually really torn on this subject as it's a bit of a Occam's razor to me:

 

Is it simpler for me to explain away the lack of a cadaver, lack of fossil record, lack of good visual record or is it easier for me to explain away the 'Patty' film which I think looks very much real. I just can't explain away the film, I've tried to rationalise it and have read Mr. Munn's fascinating book and I can see no way realistically in 1967 that a couple of Cowboys pulled that off as a hoax, I think they filmed a real live animal there but that brings up just so many questions....................