"hoax Confessors"

[Huntster]

hi hr

good point, im using absolutisms, but i kinda thought since we were dealing with a bigfoot then "of course" its imho...since nobody exactly knows.

im new to the "scene" and didnt realize how rabidly pro pgf some folks were... i believe in the possibility of bigfoot (although im more of a yeti/asian bigfoot believe) and im hoping ones caught.

I wasnt aware that most peoples belief in bigfoot hinged soley on the pgf... while to me, its an embarresment and a piece if kitchy 60s americana. I believe a bi pedal spe might exist but im still in possesion of my mental faculties and when i see a fake, read about a fake, and do deductive reasoning, i have to go with fake.

can it be real? i guess. is OJ looking for the real

killers? possibly.

but thanks ill start inserting imho opinion, just in case pgftards think i have definitive proof as opposed to common sense

best wishes

v

Being familiar with political forums of a world-wide bend, I have to ask:

Are ALL Europeans like this ALL the time?

(This is yet another prompt to me to thank my lucky stars I'm Alaskan................)

[Guest fenris]

Congrats Vincent, arrogant tripe like what you've brought to this thread is a whole lot of why I (and likely many others) could give a rat's ass about the PGF. It is not the beginning nor will it be the end of things footery.

[Guest Vincent]

Im an American living in Europe.

See? theres always another side to the story. Just like your friend in the suit. Just because its hairy and has 2 legs does not mean its a bigfoot. especially now that kit is tearing the pgf new orfices on what seems like a daily basis. i think hes already dug up

more than enough evidence to "convict" patterson, but convincing you guys is gonna be hard, especially cuz you see bigfoots where others see suits.

the freeman footage looked more belieavable to

me, but i found his reaction unconvincing.

now, back to a "real" bigfoot question, ive always wondered about alaskas bigfoots? got any? i.e are there any good sighting cases out there?

[Guest Vincent]

fenris i agree. the pgf is a thorn in the side of true bigfooters like ourselves.

the pgf is like the movie "aliens" to a scientist thats interested in life on other planets. in other words, bs.

[Guest]

Mulder, help me out here. You believe people up to the point of the confession of a hoax, then you disregard the confession and continue believing?

What do you believe when I say?:

I saw bigfoot.

No I didn't.

Did I or didn't I? Just wondering.

Ok, to understand what I am saying I'm going to walk through this one point at a time:

I saw a bigfoot.

That initial claim, with no evidence that you are being dishonest I am open to accepting, even if you do not produce anything physical to support it. If down the road, I receive evidence from another source that you are in fact being dishonest about your claim, then I will revisit that decision.

No I didn't.

Now you have a problem, as I stated in my original post. Your second statement (to the effect that your first was a lie), no longer exists in a vacuum. That original statement you claim was a lie, which indicates you will lie on this topic.

The question I have to ask myself is: given that you have impeached your OWN credibility, what reason do I have to believe your second statement?

Now, I fully understand that in the context of your question, your statement may well be true: you lied when you said you saw a bigfoot.

But that is not quite the question at hand:

The use of hoax claims is NOT generally as you have done here.

It goes thus: Person A says they hoaxed BF evidence. Therefore Person B's BF evidence must stand impeached.

NOW the primary question must be the credibility of Person A. By definition, Person A has admitted to being dishonest, esp in regards to BF evidence (hoaxing is inherently a dishonest act). Thus any logical person MUST demand further imperical proof of the veracity of that claim, as Person A's credibility stands impeached on the basis of his own admission of dishonesty.

[Guest]

Meant to post this the other day, but the net is frakked again:

Let's review:

Now, isn't your statemnet that some humans have hoaxed bigfoot evidence "part of your argument against the existence of bigfoot"?

Not only is it a part, it is one of the most important parts of the whole "skeptic" circular arguement.

To wit: it is not permitted to consider evidence for bigfoot without bigfoot first being proven, which cannot be done when all proffered evidence is rejected on the basis that such evidence may be the product of fraud.

If someone says he hoaxed something, and has at least reasonable proof, like bob h. or that footprint fella.. just go with it, really.

Except that neither has any reasonable evidence. Bob H failed to accurately describe key features of the film scene he allegedly saw first hand. He claimed he jumped into a hole at the end of the walk sequence. No such hole exists at the PGF filming location. If by "the footprint fella" you are referring to Wallace, I've already pointed you at a thorough debunking of that claim.

i still know aguy in a suit when i seei t. PGF is a guy in a suit. Its painfully obviose to even a child.

Numerous scientists and costume/makeup experts disagree with you, so no, it ISN'T "painfully obvious

i believe that when dealing with cryptids, sometimes the obviose answer is what we should go with until proven otherwise. for instance, if theres proof bob h was there (his horse was filmed),

Has not been definitively established, but even if the horse was there, that does not prove anything about Bob H being there. he walks like patty, is

the same heiggt as patty

Again not proven

has a believable back story

VERY not proven.

lives a few houses from bob h [Gimlin?]

So do any number of people.

and has some collaborative evidence

Not one shred. He has a story, and that's it.

id believe him over a known, proven hoaxer who claims he filmed a real bigfoot... exactly the way he saw in a book, while making a movie. about bigfoot.

This also has never been proven. There are CLAIMS that Patterson may have hoaxed, but not one shred of proof. Claims alone are not proof.

You REALLY need to read LMS.

[Huntster]

Im an American living in Europe.

I'm sorry for your unfortunate situation.

ive always wondered about alaskas bigfoots? got any? i.e are there any good sighting cases out there?

I don't know if Alaska has any, but I believe we do. There are lots of reports in Southeast Alaska documented by Rob Alley in Raincoast Sasquatch, a number of reports over the past century around the state generally, and a significant aboriginal tradition of sasquatches (especially in Southeast).

Edited November 18, 2010 by Huntster

[Huntster]

Meant to post this the other day, but the net is frakked again:

I hate when that happens..........

Huntster, on 15 November 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

Let's review:

Now, isn't your statemnet that some humans have hoaxed bigfoot evidence "part of your argument against the existence of bigfoot"?

Not only is it a part, it is one of the most important parts of the whole "skeptic" circular arguement.

To wit: it is not permitted to consider evidence for bigfoot without bigfoot first being proven, which cannot be done when all proffered evidence is rejected on the basis that such evidence may be the product of fraud.

I can't disagree, but specifically with regard to River posting on the new BFF, he clearly posted at least 3 times about the fact that people hoaxed bigfoot evidence, and that was part of the reason why such evidence wasn't evidence in his view.

How he could come back later and claim otherwise is a mystery to me, but I'm willing to let it go (especially if it doesn't continue).

Of course, such silliness doesn't work with you and I, and I appreciate your persistence in the debate. It's good to see common sense and a refusal to be swayed with such tactics in today's society. Too bad it's so rare anymore.

A plus to you!

[Guest River]

I hate when that happens..........

I can't disagree, but specifically with regard to River posting on the new BFF, he clearly posted at least 3 times about the fact that people hoaxed bigfoot evidence, and that was part of the reason why such evidence wasn't evidence in his view.

How he could come back later and claim otherwise is a mystery to me, but I'm willing to let it go (especially if it doesn't continue).

Of course, such silliness doesn't work with you and I, and I appreciate your persistence in the debate. It's good to see common sense and a refusal to be swayed with such tactics in today's society. Too bad it's so rare anymore.

A plus to you!

Huntster: I've never claimed that because some of what is claimed as "sasquatch evidence" can be proven to be either hoaxed, fabricated or misidentified that ALL alleged sasquatch evidence is so. What I have specifically claimed (for the fourth time now) is that we do know the source for some alleged sasquatch evidence and it is not a sasquatch. It is men. I'm looking forward to the day when you or mulder can prove the source for one piece of this evidence is a sasquatch. Then the debates will be less one sided as far as the "proof" goes.

So to summarize: I'm claiming we know the source for "some" alleged sasquatch evidence. It is hoaxed, fabricated or misidentified. We can prove clear examples of this. What I'm also claiming is: We cannot prove that even one sasquatch left any evidence.

To clarify: This does not mean ALL alleged sasquatch evidence fits into one of those categories. It means we can prove those sources, and only those. The thing I'd like to see done away with is mis-labeling things sasquatch evidence when it is "suspected" or "unidentified". I personally have recorded audio of something in the woods that I had no idea what made it. I don't immediately jump on the bandwagon and say "it must be sasquatch evidence!" Just because it is not identified as to the source, does not make it anymore likely to be a large hairy bipedal ape 7-12 feet tall wandering the North American woods.

When we can identify the source of the evidence, I'll be personally happy to label it as such. Just trying to keep it real man.

[Guest River]

snip

Numerous scientists and costume/makeup experts disagree with you, so no, it ISN'T "painfully obvious

/snip

Numerous?

Definition of NUMEROUS

: consisting of great numbers of units or individuals <born into a numerous family>

How about very few. I think that is more accurate. The great majority of either field disagree with your theory of the PGF representing a real animal. An overwhelming majority.

[masterbarber]

Not only is it a part, it is one of the most important parts of the whole "skeptic" circular arguement.

To wit: it is not permitted to consider evidence for bigfoot without bigfoot first being proven, which cannot be done when all proffered evidence is rejected on the basis that such evidence may be the product of fraud.

Not all of it's rejected due to fraud, some of it is rejected because no one's produced a Bigfoot-so a reasonable person would have to conclude that it's unknown and not automatically assume it belongs to a Bigfoot.

[Guest]

Not all of it's rejected due to fraud, some of it is rejected because no one's produced a Bigfoot-so a reasonable person would have to conclude that it's unknown and not automatically assume it belongs to a Bigfoot.

I'm breaking my self-imposed moratorium on doing the Circle Dance with you, but no one is "automatically assuming" it belongs to a bigfoot. However, numerous scientists, (Meldrum, et al) have examined the characteristics of the evidence and stated their professional opinion that at the very least it IS valid evidence of some unknown animal, and further stated that the observed characteristics argue strongly that it meets those you would expect from a bigfoot.

Two different things...

[Guest]

Not all of it's rejected due to fraud, some of it is rejected because no one's produced a Bigfoot-so a reasonable person would have to conclude that it's unknown and not automatically assume it belongs to a Bigfoot.

No one has produced a "black hole" either, but they are assumed to exist. Amongst the astrophysical science community that is.

[masterbarber]

It's not a circle dance, Mulder. You seem to have a preconception that everything Meldrum says or writes is absolute.

Put that copy of LMS down and take a look at some of the questions being asked to you. Who are these numerous scientists? What exactly have they concluded? Have they agreed that there is a bigfoot wandering the land? What do they think of the lack of skeletal remains? Verifiable dna? Propensity to elude cameras everywhere? Where do they sleep, rest, bare children, die, etc...?

You want to take issue with everyone who doesn't see things according to Mulder, but I guess that's your MO.

[Huntster]

Huntster: I've never claimed that because some of what is claimed as "sasquatch evidence" can be proven to be either hoaxed, fabricated or misidentified that ALL alleged sasquatch evidence is so. What I have specifically claimed (for the fourth time now) is that we do know the source for some alleged sasquatch evidence and it is not a sasquatch. It is men.

And......?

We also know that some of the alleged evidence of various crimes is manufactured. So does that mean we don't prosecute crimes?

I'm looking forward to the day when you or mulder can prove the source for one piece of this evidence is a sasquatch.

Don't hold your breath for me to do so. I don't give a rip if you or anybody else ever get the proof you demand. I'm quite happy with my beliefs, thanks.