"hoax Confessors"

[Huntster]

Mulder, on 18 November 2010 - 10:26 AM, said:

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

Finally, it has been admitted: Since there is no proven bigfoot, evidence of a bigfoot cannot be evidence of a bigfoot.

so a reasonable person would have to conclude that it's unknown and not automatically assume it belongs to a Bigfoot.

So if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, s***s like a duck, swims like a duck, and otherwise appears in all ways to be a duck, it cannot possibly be a duck because it hasn't been proven that ducks exist?

For example, I've stated repeatedly that the PGF subject cannot be anything other than a sasquatch or a man in a suit, so it "automatically" has to be a man in a suit because sasquatches haven't been proven to exist?

That is as remarkable a statement as the one Drew came up with stating that if a sasquatch turned out to be a marine mammal, it would prove that believers were wrong all along.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Is there a comic book out there that I'm unaware of?

[masterbarber]

Finally, it has been admitted: Since there is no proven bigfoot, evidence of a bigfoot cannot be evidence of a bigfoot.

Not necessarily but it would at best be an unknown source without verification that a BF exists. You've said yourself several times that a body is what it will take and that IS what it will take.

So if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, s***s like a duck, swims like a duck, and otherwise appears in all ways to be a duck, it cannot possibly be a duck because it hasn't been proven that ducks exist?

Ducks don't exist?

For example, I've stated repeatedly that the PGF subject cannot be anything other than a sasquatch or a man in a suit, so it "automatically" has to be a man in a suit because sasquatches haven't been proven to exist?

What? People aren't just taking your word that it's a Bigfoot? Preposterous, I say! Off with their heads!

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 18 November 2010 - 02:15 PM, said:

Finally, it has been admitted: Since there is no proven bigfoot, evidence of a bigfoot cannot be evidence of a bigfoot.

Not necessarily but it would at best be an unknown source without verification that a BF exists.

And if that "unknown source" is unknown after comparison to all known indigenous wildlife, guess what? You either have a deleterious species, or an unknown species. So, as a responsible wildlife manager, you are going to simply stick your hands in your pocket, whistle Athair Ar Neamh, and kick a stick up the road with a ho-hum attitude because it can't be a sasquatch? ("Everybody knows that there is no proof sasquatch exists.")

Really?

And that's "science"?

You've said yourself several times that a body is what it will take and that IS what it will take.

I've also said myself more than several times that chasing down "unidentified sources" might be a good way to catch that corpse.

Ya' think?

Huntster, on 18 November 2010 - 02:15 PM, said:

So if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, s***s like a duck, swims like a duck, and otherwise appears in all ways to be a duck, it cannot possibly be a duck because it hasn't been proven that ducks exist?

Ducks don't exist?

Not if it walks like a sasquatch, looks like a sasquatch, howls like a sasquatch, s***s like a sasquatch, swims like a sasquatch, and otherwise appears in all ways to be a sasquatch.

Huntster, on 18 November 2010 - 02:15 PM, said:

For example, I've stated repeatedly that the PGF subject cannot be anything other than a sasquatch or a man in a suit, so it "automatically" has to be a man in a suit because sasquatches haven't been proven to exist?

What? People aren't just taking your word that it's a Bigfoot?

Nope. Some are going to great, ridiculous lengths to ensure that it is a man in a suit.

Some even say it must be a man in a suit because sasquatches haven't been proven to exist.

[masterbarber]

And if that "unknown source" is unknown after comparison to all known indigenous wildlife, guess what? You either have a deleterious species, or an unknown species. So, as a responsible wildlife manager, you are going to simply stick your hands in your pocket, whistle Athair Ar Neamh, and kick a stick up the road with a ho-hum attitude because it can't be a sasquatch? ("Everybody knows that there is no proof sasquatch exists.")

Really?

And that's "science"?

Heck no, you keep looking. You may solve a mystery, but I understand the reluctance of agencies to expend resources to hunt for BF.

I've also said myself more than several times that chasing down "unidentified sources" might be a good way to catch that corpse.

Ya' think?

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

Edited November 19, 2010 by masterbarber

[Huntster]

I understand the reluctance of agencies to expend resources to hunt for BF

So do I.......kinda'..........

NASA had no problem funding SETI. Congress shut it down, though.

It would set the wildlife management agencies up for criticism from the skeptic community and skeptic industry, and they in no way, shape, manner, or form have the backbone to deal with that.

But the federal agencies have no problem at all declaring the absolutely huge polar bear population "threatened" (likely because they also don't have the backbone to confront the environmental industry, either.......)

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

They should have the wildlife fish and game look for BF to create ecotourism, even if it's BS. It would build up the hype and bring dollars to certain areas. To support this theory they should look at the bucks that arrive in Lake Champlain which gets tourist money just from their cryptid. These folks go there just for Champ. They pay for hotels, gas, food in that area and they buy Champ merchandise in the local shops. It's a good thing.

[Guest Kerchak]

im new to the "scene" and didnt realize how rabidly pro pgf some folks were...

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.

Vincent,

You should be aware that only this year the National Geographic Channel did a serious and very interesting evaluation on the PGF in a major documentary and came to the conclusion that the PGF was very likely authentic.

Something like the Ivan Marx footage is a very clear fake. The PGF, on the other hand, has been hotly disputed for over 40 years and has never been successfuly debunked nevermind proven to be a hoax. Even some scientists and wildlife biologists advocate it's authenticity or at least appeal for the possibility it could be authentic.

[Guest Kerchak]

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................)

Huntster, I'd just like to point out that Europeans are as different to each other as chalk is to cheese. Your average Englishman (European) shares far less in common with your average Greek or Italian (also Europeans) than he does with an American or Canadian. About the only thing an Englishman has in common with a Greek or an Italian is a love of football. They don't even talk the same language and they certainly don't think all the same thoughts.

Just sayin'.

[Guest Vincent]

hi kerchack,

Ive seen lots of shows, including the ng! fun stuff.

I think the reason several or a handful of scientists and 1 or 2 film guys cant get their heads around the pgf is mainly due to the extreme bad quality of the film.

i also think sometimes its easy to complicate minor details, like "oh the arms are too long" ..well.. get a suit with long arms and stuff the hands with sand or styrophome. done.

i would even be willing to "go with" the pgf IF the backstory, circumstances and shady characters werent involved.

but, im still open to bigfoot, just because a little kid claims to see dinosaurs in his cliset doesnt mean theres not some prehistoric throwback swimming on the ocean floor, just because some schizophrenic new ager claims to have been given a tour of the universe by blond aluens does not mean "intelligent" life does not exist on one of the Billion Billionor so planets in our universe, and just because a conman and his carny pals dressed some ******* up in a suit (and didnt even pay him) does not mean a bi-pedal ape can not exist.

that, my friends,is called healthy skeptisism. not denial, but being reasonable and open minded. but also knowing when your being duped.

[Guest]

hi kerchack,

Ive seen lots of shows, including the ng! fun stuff.

I think the reason several or a handful of scientists and 1 or 2 film guys cant get their heads around the pgf is mainly due to the extreme bad quality of the film.

i also think sometimes its easy to complicate minor details, like "oh the arms are too long" ..well.. get a suit with long arms and stuff the hands with sand or styrophome. done.

Not even close, Vincent. That utterly fails on the basis of shown motion and flexure in the lower arm/wrist as well as other evident characteristics.

Meldrum covers all this in LMS. Been there, done that and trotting out "skeptic" talking points that have been rebutted thoroughly many times over well before now is only showing that you are either way behind the times or willfully ignorant.

[Guest Vincent]

Meldrum is one guy. Id like to see or hear more. He is not jesus, and his book is not the bible. its a grainy, distorted video. you or he cant tell willfull wrist movement from

a sand bag swing on that film.

Mulder do you often believe what television says? amd do you often read books and take every word for absolute truth?

mulder ask questions in life. be open minded, use your own eyes.

i dont care what meldrum thinks. im sure hes a smart fellow. at least hes portrayed that way on the TV. but i see a suit.

mulder imho beluevers in pgf are doing a great dusservice to the real footers out there. im sorry to see you contributing that disservice.

[Guest Kerchak]

hi kerchack,

Ive seen lots of shows, including the ng! fun stuff.

I think the reason several or a handful of scientists and 1 or 2 film guys cant get their heads around the pgf is mainly due to the extreme bad quality of the film.

Hi Vincent.

The Ivan Marx footage is of worse quality than the PGF with much less details visible yet it's very clearly a fake:

The PGF is actually of decent quality. The camera is even steady during the most famous section. If the PGF was extremely bad quality then we would never been able to get the blow ups that we have. They aren't crystal clear but neither are they blobsquatch images.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Kerchak

[Guest]

Meldrum is one guy. Id like to see or hear more. He is not jesus, and his book is not the bible. its a grainy, distorted video. you or he cant tell willfull wrist movement from

a sand bag swing on that film.

Mulder do you often believe what television says? amd do you often read books and take every word for absolute truth?

mulder ask questions in life. be open minded, use your own eyes.

i dont care what meldrum thinks. im sure hes a smart fellow. at least hes portrayed that way on the TV. but i see a suit.

mulder imho beluevers in pgf are doing a great dusservice to the real footers out there. im sorry to see you contributing that disservice.

Are you familiar with this quote from Lincoln?

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"?

Your psuedo-objections have been countered many many times. Call it a day already...

[Guest Vincent]

mulder the only one whos arguing is you. I dont argue with people who think a guy in a monkey suit is a bigfoot.

mulder, like your namesake... you WANT to believe. i dont need an apesuit to believe in bigfoot. you do. your entire beluef rests on that suit. and thats fine. some of us belueve in the possibility of an upright ape....others, like you mulder, believe in a suit.

and thats fine by me.

[Guest RayG]

The Ivan Marx footage is of worse quality than the PGF with much less details visible yet it's very clearly a fake...

Clearly. Now. Not so much then. Krantz and Green, two of the original four horsemen of bigfoot, were both initially taken in by the film.

"You are right about my falling for the Marx film, for a while anyway." -- Dr. Grover Krantz, personal correspondence with Rene Dahinden, May 14, 1975

John Green arrived and wasted no time in declaring the film authentic. He offered Marx eight hundred dollars for a copy... Green was moved to write a tribute to Marx for the pages of the Bigfoot Bulletin, a mimeographed publication sent out intermittently from a base in Oakland, California. Part of it read: "I am satisfied...that he could not have faked all he has to show, and that the film is genuine." -- Don Hunter with Rene Dahinden, Sasquatch/Bigfoot: The Search for North America's Incredible Creature, page 162.

RayG