Jump to content

"hoax Confessors"


Recommended Posts

masterbarber
Admin

Mine were from Merriam-Webster (nana nana boo boo?) :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't look, you ain't gonna find it-whatever it is.

This is a sentiment I've expressed before. I wanted to give you a "+", but I already used it on a post from Saskeptic.

The last time I expressed this idea, I was disagreed with. My memory is a little foggy right now (recovering from a concussion), but I think it was you who disagreed. If not, sorry about that, I'm not trying to stir anything up.

I think there is a gross misperception (from all sides) about just how many people are actively seeking evidence of BF on a daily basis. If there were more people looking, there would be more evidence either way, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a sentiment I've expressed before. I wanted to give you a "+", but I already used it on a post from Saskeptic.

Thanks Spazmo, but I'll disagree on this "only find stuff you're looking for" idea. That's not how the majority of vetebrates have been first collected and described. Instead, discovery has come from people exploring new areas and intentionally collecting what's there. Lewis and Clark didn't discover McCown's Longspur through a series of McCown's Longspur expeditions. They were simply the first group to encounter the species and intentionally collect it for scientific description. If anything like a bigfoot body is ever to be collected, I'm confident that the discovery will NOT have come from an intentional "bigfoot expedition." It'll be someone in the right place at the right time with a big enough gun or a big enough truck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

Mine were from Merriam-Webster (nana nana boo boo?) :lol:

So what would be wrong with this statement?

Proof is a cogency of outward signs( evidence) that compells acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact.

The outward signs being the tracks, sounds, biological samples, pictures and vids, scat, tree breaks etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber
Admin

The last time I expressed this idea, I was disagreed with. My memory is a little foggy right now (recovering from a concussion), but I think it was you who disagreed. If not, sorry about that, I'm not trying to stir anything up.

I'd have to see that in the context of what we were discussing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Spazmo, but I'll disagree on this "only find stuff you're looking for" idea. That's not how the majority of vetebrates have been first collected and described. Instead, discovery has come from people exploring new areas and intentionally collecting what's there. Lewis and Clark didn't discover McCown's Longspur through a series of McCown's Longspur expeditions. They were simply the first group to encounter the species and intentionally collect it for scientific description. If anything like a bigfoot body is ever to be collected, I'm confident that the discovery will NOT have come from an intentional "bigfoot expedition." It'll be someone in the right place at the right time with a big enough gun or a big enough truck.

Agree, and I should have been more specific.

You won't find anything (regardless if it is the subject of your search or not) unless you go looking. That was the point I was trying to make.

(Darn noggin' ain't 100% just yet)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Spazmo, but I'll disagree on this "only find stuff you're looking for" idea. That's not how the majority of vetebrates have been first collected and described. Instead, discovery has come from people exploring new areas and intentionally collecting what's there. Lewis and Clark didn't discover McCown's Longspur through a series of McCown's Longspur expeditions. They were simply the first group to encounter the species and intentionally collect it for scientific description. If anything like a bigfoot body is ever to be collected, I'm confident that the discovery will NOT have come from an intentional "bigfoot expedition." It'll be someone in the right place at the right time with a big enough gun or a big enough truck.

A purpose-driven expedition focused on it's task and shaping it's activities to maximize the potential for positive results is always going to be more likely to accomplish it's purpose than one engaged in generalized looking around.

It's like hunting. A hunter does not just grab his gun, go out in the woods and start looking for things to shoot. He knows what he wants to shoot before he leaves, and plans the location, timing and method of the hunt to give him the best chance to be successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Thanks Spazmo, but I'll disagree on this "only find stuff you're looking for" idea. That's not how the majority of vetebrates have been first collected and described. Instead, discovery has come from people exploring new areas and intentionally collecting what's there. Lewis and Clark didn't discover McCown's Longspur through a series of McCown's Longspur expeditions. They were simply the first group to encounter the species and intentionally collect it for scientific description. If anything like a bigfoot body is ever to be collected, I'm confident that the discovery will NOT have come from an intentional "bigfoot expedition." It'll be someone in the right place at the right time with a big enough gun or a big enough truck.

well said. i too believe that if bigfoot is ever found (and i hope he will be) it will

not be from a "footer" spending the night looking. it will be from a family of 5 visiting grandma that accidently crashes into one, one a deer hunter unexpectantly catching one on a trail cam. not from a random "believer" mimiking calls or looking for squatch doing a "telekenetik belly crawl" on a thermal cam. simply. not. good. enough.

imho that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
well said. i too believe that if bigfoot is ever found (and i hope he will be) it will

not be from a "footer" spending the night looking. it will be from a family of 5 visiting grandma that accidently crashes into one, one a deer hunter unexpectantly catching one on a trail cam. not from a random "believer" mimiking calls or looking for squatch doing a "telekenetik belly crawl" on a thermal cam. simply. not. good. enough.

imho that is.

You just don't give up, do you Vincent? No one is talking about a "random believer" mimicking calls. We are talking about organized, well equipped purposeful expeditions that set out with the specific intent of documenting BF evidence and tailoring all aspects of their setup to maximize potential results.

Same as any other hunter. Know your quarry. Know it's habits. Know it's habitat and range. Find a place that gives you the maximal chance to obtain your goal. Works for every other critter...no reason to think it won't for BF.

Oh, couple of thoughts:

Call blasting to provoke a response or attract interest is no different than a game hunter likewise using sound to locate and draw in his quarry.

And nice little slip of an ad ridicule by bringing in the word "telekinetic" (note proper spelling again).

Lastly, in some ways a good thermal cam shot would far surpass a conventional light photograph. Any MIAS would stand out like a sore thumb under thermal imaging. There has been some good thermal imagery taken fairly recently as a matter of fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as any other hunter. Know your quarry. Know it's habits. Know it's habitat and range. Find a place that gives you the maximal chance to obtain your goal. Works for every other critter...no reason to think it won't for BF.

Thanks for shoring up a primary piece of evidence for the lack of a physical bigfoot, unless of course, you're trying to insinuate that the many people who have been intensively looking for bigfoot for at least the past 5 decades have been incompetent rubes.

(BTW, note proper spelling of "its." The apostrophe is used for the contraction of "it is", not to denote possession.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

You just don't give up, do you Vincent? No one is talking about a "random believer" mimicking calls. We are talking about organized, well equipped purposeful expeditions that set out with the specific intent of documenting BF evidence and tailoring all aspects of their setup to maximize potential results.

Same as any other hunter. Know your quarry. Know it's habits. Know it's habitat and range. Find a place that gives you the maximal chance to obtain your goal. Works for every other critter...no reason to think it won't for BF.

Oh, couple of thoughts:

Call blasting to provoke a response or attract interest is no different than a game hunter likewise using sound to locate and draw in his quarry.

And nice little slip of an ad ridicule by bringing in the word "telekinetic" (note proper spelling again).

Lastly, in some ways a good thermal cam shot would far surpass a conventional light photograph. Any MIAS would stand out like a sore thumb under thermal imaging. There has been some good thermal imagery taken fairly recently as a matter of fact.

you are correct in that respect, i suppose specifically seaeching for an animal increases your chances of finding it. But your dealin with a squatch here...presumably more intelligent than an average wild boar or bear.

and why, i ask, should i "give up"? do you believe in crushing all opposition to the pgf? just because your convinced its a bigfoot, doesnt mean we cant question that belief, especially since (imho) theres more than enough evidence to call "hoax" although i do admit there are interesting aspects of the film, but i put that down to bad quality and "seeing faces in the clouds". It really just reminds me of the OJ case. the gyys git motive, is civered in blood, runs from the cops... but defenders would say " oh he didnt fit into the glove".... i.e focusing on the small things (arms are a couple inches linger than a normal human) and ignoring the huge gorilla costume in the middle of the room

ok, im off to do some dimension jumping now.

Edited by Vincent
Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

Where, exactly, is the room where the gorilla costume is located? You know, the red, horse-hair suit Bob H states Patterson crafted. Where is the large hole Bob H jumped into, to avoid any hunters?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

so you believe that since "they" cant find "the hole" he jumped into, you are therefore looking at a bigfoot.

look....bob h mighta exaggerated stuff, lets not forget he was IN on the hoax, so he might be covering his tracks.

but any inconsistencies in his story are incredibly minor in comparison to those of p and g!!! like i said... their story and history has more holes in it than a bigfoot family massacred by rifle fire.

patterson had friggin drawings of the pgf before he filmed it, he hung out with footprint hoaxers, he bought a ape suit, it goes on and on and on.

hell, even if it wasnt bob h in the suit, it was someone else.

im sorry but imho p ang gs credibility is so shot to peices i simply cant beleive the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

and like i said, the film is interesting. i cant explain all of it, but than again im a newbie in terms of knowing the stories behind the film.

can i be so bold as to ask one of the more knowledgable members here to give me a quick run down as to why bob h might be mistaken or untruthful? i.e what exactly is being disputed about his claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you believe that since "they" cant find "the hole" he jumped into, you are therefore looking at a bigfoot.

look....bob h mighta exaggerated stuff, lets not forget he was IN on the hoax, so he might be covering his tracks.

but any inconsistencies in his story are incredibly minor in comparison to those of p and g!!! like i said... their story and history has more holes in it than a bigfoot family massacred by rifle fire.

patterson had friggin drawings of the pgf before he filmed it, he hung out with footprint hoaxers, he bought a ape suit, it goes on and on and on.

hell, even if it wasnt bob h in the suit, it was someone else.

im sorry but imho p ang gs credibility is so shot to peices i simply cant beleive the film.

1) not a proven hoax

2) Heronimus may or may not have lied

3) this crap is 50 years old and inconclusive and is doomed to stay that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • masterbarber locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...