"hoax Confessors"

[Guest Vincent]

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.

hi fenris.

judging from your last 3 or 4 posts, you seem to be in the "i dont care" camp. i get it. i understand, but your 3 points prove nothing. i know its not a "proven" hoax, o.e. ot on a court of law. but theres enough to "convict"

i stated bob might not be 100 percent truthful. why bother re-stating that?

and yes, the film is 50 years old BUT technology is moving fast, computers, etc. bill munns did good work using modern technology, kitkatz is using the internet to maintain real, actual conversations with major players in tbe pgf circle.

so are you sure this "crap" will never be solved?

please read my posts nextime before replying.

v

[Guest fenris]

.

so are you sure this "crap" will never be solved?

thats gonna hafta fall into the prove me wrong column I'm afraid, lest we agree to disagree.

Edited November 22, 2010 by fenris

[Guest Kerchak]

patterson had friggin drawings of the pgf before he filmed it,

Or he filmed a real life female bigfoot that closely resembled the drawing that William Roe's daughter made after Roe's own alleged encounter with a female bigfoot?

Some of Patterson bigfoot drawings (actually I would say most) don't look much like Patty.

[Guest Vincent]

Or he filmed a real life female bigfoot that closely resembled the drawing that William Roe's daughter made after Roe's own alleged encounter with a female bigfoot?

Some of Patterson bigfoot drawings (actually I would say most) don't look much like Patty.

its a possibility that he copied a picture from the daughter of a guy who saw a female bigfoot. its possible OJ is hunting the real killers. possible.

but im going to use ockhams razor on this one and just say "fraud" (imho... but im just typing that so i dont get banned)

what i WOULD be interested in is any disputes regarding bob h's claims... as i hear theres more holes in his story than a bigfoot suit sitting in a moth infested closet, however i havent been able to find them... anyone wanna be kind enough to give me a rundown? honestly want to hear or discuss this

[Incorrigible1]

what i WOULD be interested in is any disputes regarding bob h's claims... as i hear theres more holes in his story than a bigfoot suit sitting in a moth infested closet, however i havent been able to find them... anyone wanna be kind enough to give me a rundown? honestly want to hear or discuss this

Plenty of discussions are available for your perusal in the proper PGF threads.

[Guest Vincent]

Plenty of discussions are available for your perusal in the proper PGF threads.

thanks mod! il try to dig it up

[Guest]

There used to be more on the old forum...did they ever get the database switched over?

[Guest Vincent]

i honestly cant really find a bob h hoax type thread, maybe im looking in the wrong sections.... i coukd google but im more curiose to see wat fellow bffers think... oh well im sure ill come across it.

[Huntster]

From your post:

Quote

Definition of EVIDENCE

1a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

2: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

Quote

Definition of PROOF

1a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

2obsolete : experience

3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity

4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness

5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal

Now, are you to tell us that you don't see the difference in the two definitions? That evidence is "an outward sign", and proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"?

So if you find a tree break and say, That is BF evidence and I say it's a natural occurance then we differ on what CONSTITUTES evidence. Same for hair, scat, footprints,etc...

I would not find a "tree break" and "say, That is BF evidence".

However, if I found a site that had been obviously trashed by an animal, had >15" footprints all over the place that closely resembled bare human footprints, had hair all over that gave DNA results as "unknown", and somebody claimed to see a bigfoot there thrashing the place, I'd likely say that a tree that had broken at the site might very well be "BF evidence".

Deeper and deeper we go.

The path of Bigfooting is long and deep....

So is the long and winding trail of denial.

[masterbarber]

Now, are you to tell us that you don't see the difference in the two definitions? That evidence is "an outward sign", and proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"?

What? I was responding to your post:

Amazing. More confusion?:

What they mean is different than what constitutes each?

I would not find a "tree break" and "say, That is BF evidence".

However, if I found a site that had been obviously trashed by an animal, had >15" footprints all over the place that closely resembled bare human footprints, had hair all over that gave DNA results as "unknown", and somebody claimed to see a bigfoot there thrashing the place, I'd likely say that a tree that had broken at the site might very well be "BF evidence".

So then you would or wouldn't?

So is the long and winding trail of denial.

You said it.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 22 November 2010 - 04:23 PM, said:

Now, are you to tell us that you don't see the difference in the two definitions? That evidence is "an outward sign", and proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"?

What? I was responding to your post:

Huntster, on 22 November 2010 - 04:23 PM, said:

Amazing. More confusion?:

What they mean is different than what constitutes each?

Let's see if we can cut to the meat here:

Do you agree "that evidence is "an outward sign", and proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"?

A simple yes or no will suffice for the moment, I hope.

Huntster, on 22 November 2010 - 04:23 PM, said:

I would not find a "tree break" and "say, That is BF evidence".

However, if I found a site that had been obviously trashed by an animal, had >15" footprints all over the place that closely resembled bare human footprints, had hair all over that gave DNA results as "unknown", and somebody claimed to see a bigfoot there thrashing the place, I'd likely say that a tree that had broken at the site might very well be "BF evidence".

So then you would or wouldn't?

I see. It's a game with you. What I wrote is plain enough for a middle school student to understand.

It appears you've been trapped with the written word, and you're now playing the lawyer game to try to escape while imagining that you've saved face.

In reality, you've already lost it.

Huntster, on 22 November 2010 - 04:23 PM, said:

So is the long and winding trail of denial.

You said it.

Actually, I wrote it.

And you live it.

[masterbarber]

Let's see if we can cut to the meat here:

Do you agree "that evidence is "an outward sign", and proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"?

A simple yes or no will suffice for the moment, I hope.

Absolutely. The sticking point between our opinions is what constitutes BF evidence and that evidence used to "compel acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact= Proof.

What I wrote is plain enough for a middle school student to understand.

And yet you failed and continue to fail to understand my responses. You're the one playing games here.

Edited November 24, 2010 by masterbarber

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

Let's see if we can cut to the meat here:

Do you agree "that evidence is "an outward sign", and proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"?

A simple yes or no will suffice for the moment, I hope.

Absolutely. The sticking point between our opinions is what constitutes BF evidence and that evidence used to "compel acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact= Proof.

Actually, I think we're on the same plane. I tried to illustrate that with my example:

So if you find a tree break and say, That is BF evidence and I say it's a natural occurance then we differ on what CONSTITUTES evidence. Same for hair, scat, footprints,etc...

I would not find a "tree break" and "say, That is BF evidence".

However, if I found a site that had been obviously trashed by an animal, had >15" footprints all over the place that closely resembled bare human footprints, had hair all over that gave DNA results as "unknown", and somebody claimed to see a bigfoot there thrashing the place, I'd likely say that a tree that had broken at the site might very well be "BF evidence".

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

What I wrote is plain enough for a middle school student to understand.

And yet you failed and continue to fail to understand my responses. You're the one playing games here.

How did you fail to read my example? I wrote that a broken twig in the forest is not "bf evidence", but if a site is offering all manner of sasquatch evidence, and that includes a broken tree, then I would consider such to be sasquatch evidence.

Was that difficult to understand? Why would you ignore it with this?:

So then you would or wouldn't?

Isn't my point quite clear?

[masterbarber]

How did you fail to read my example? I wrote that a broken twig in the forest is not "bf evidence", but if a site is offering all manner of sasquatch evidence, and that includes a broken tree, then I would consider such to be sasquatch evidence.

Dear Mr. Lawyer ,

Our positions are different because you might categorize it as sasquatch evidence sans benefit of a verifiable example of a sasquatch and I wouldn't.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 24 November 2010 - 03:33 PM, said:

How did you fail to read my example? I wrote that a broken twig in the forest is not "bf evidence", but if a site is offering all manner of sasquatch evidence, and that includes a broken tree, then I would consider such to be sasquatch evidence.

Dear Mr. Lawyer

Don't go bonkers on me, now. After all, you claim to be experienced with lawyers (of which I'm not)........

Our positions are different because you might categorize it as sasquatch evidence sans benefit of a verifiable example of a sasquatch and I wouldn't.

So, in my example above.....:

However, if I found a site that had been obviously trashed by an animal, had >15" footprints all over the place that closely resembled bare human footprints, had hair all over that gave DNA results as "unknown", and somebody claimed to see a bigfoot there thrashing the place, I'd likely say that a tree that had broken at the site might very well be "BF evidence".

....you would not call the site trashing, <15" footprints, unidentifiable DNA, and the testimony of a person who saw an animal resembling the common description of a sasquatch evidence of a sasquatch because sasquatches haven't been proven to exist?

Is that accurate?

That is similar to the PGF, isn't it?: There is a motion picture of the animal, footprint casts, footage of the footprints being cast, an independent person who came upon the site and photographed the footprints, and the testimony of two men who saw the creature. IOW, multiple layers of evidence.

And, again, you claim all of that is not evidence because sasquatches have not yet been proven to exist?

Edited November 25, 2010 by Huntster