Guest Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 but thanks ill start inserting imho opinion, just in case pgf proponents think i have definitive proof as opposed to common sense ChrisBFRPKY rightfully edited pgf-**** from your response to me. However, several members quoted your original post in their responses to you prior to his edit. You need to be aware that such offensive terms directed at any portion of our members will not be tolerated by me. I'm a fairly easy going person and like to warn someone *once* when they cross a line prior to taking action against them. Consider yourself warned and conduct yourself in accordance with the Forum Guidelines in the future. If need be, refresh your memory as to how to conduct yourself by reading/re-reading them. You are well within your rights to consider the PGF a fake. You are not allowed to question the mental faculties of those who don't share your opinion. That is disrespectful and I won't tolerate such blatant disregard towards the rules or members here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vincent Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 agreed. it wasnt aimed at anyone, although they were insulting the sxxxt out of me;) but hey. its a believers forum and ill respect the rules of course. After all we are talking about a guy in a monkey suit, nothin to get heated about. warning noted, thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vincent Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 the marx footage is unbearable fake. still think the best "fake" footage is freeman, that looked awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 especially now that kit is tearing the pgf new orfices on what seems like a daily basis. i think hes already dug upmore than enough evidence to "convict" patterson, but convincing you guys is gonna be hard, especially cuz you see bigfoots where others see suits. Actually Kit's methods have been greatly and legitimately questioned. Some might even say he has an agenda in disporving the PGF, but as I so diligently said before, some of us go what our own experience, and the PGF really just isn't that important. Kit will fail miserably if he truly believes disproving the PGF will deraill all of footery. Some of his tripe comes off like his exit strategy is nothing more than make his movie, declare victory and claim that footery is bogus cuz he says so, "just watch my movie, you'll see" and the DJ-Skeptic will move on to his next obsession/project. Some predicted the same thing after Ray Wallace, Wallace was refuted as a p[rankster and huckster and life went on. Reports still come in, skeptics still try to debunk and enthusiasts still go out to look. What changed after that. Essentially nothing. Kit will fare no better. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 After all we are talking about a guy in a monkey suit, nothin to get heated about. warning noted, thx I'm not heated at all and you forgot the IMO or IMHO in the quoted portion of your statement. You think the PGF depicts a guy in a *monkey-suit*, but you can't prove it. This is a Bigfoot Forum but one of the few that welcomes skeptical opinions. I think we are somewhat unique in that. However, all opinions should be respectful and conform to Forum Guidelines. When they aren't, I'll call believer, skeptic, or fence-sitter on the issue to task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vincent Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 hi hr. i believe its been proven. its been more than proven (imo)... theres so many things that point to a fraud (imo) that patterson and gimli, if were put on "trial" would be easily convicted(imo) based purely on the circumstantial evidence. unfortunately the only way you guys will see its a suit(imo) is if the suit itself is produced. between the drawings patterson did, the fact that he set out to make a hollywood movie, his known association with a footprint hoaxer, his one day film development, theres more holes in tne pgf story than in tbe bodies of tje bigfoots that were massacred by rifle fire. imho. us, it just looks like a suit. i believe there might be 2 camps goin on. believers in tje pgf exclusively and only, which is more of a cult than anything, and good folks like meself who just wanna get down to real bigfoot inquiry. but keep in mind. its all just imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vincent Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 Actually Kit's methods have been greatly and legitimately questioned. Some might even say he has an agenda in disporving the PGF, but as I so diligently said before, some of us go what our own experience, and the PGF really just isn't that important. Kit will fail miserably if he truly believes disproving the PGF will deraill all of footery. Some of his tripe comes off like his exit strategy is nothing more than make his movie, declare victory and claim that footery is bogus cuz he says so, "just watch my movie, you'll see" and the DJ-Skeptic will move on to his next obsession/project. Some predicted the same thing after Ray Wallace, Wallace was refuted as a p[rankster and huckster and life went on. Reports still come in, skeptics still try to debunk and enthusiasts still go out to look. What changed after that. Essentially nothing. Kit will fare no better. i agree to a point. debunking the pgf would be great though because its so fake (imo) that it causes most people to NOT believe in bigfoot. now... a good photo, areal hair sample, a mass close sighting, etc... would convince the public. again... the pgf is to the upright ape theory what whitley striber is to the theory of life on other planets. i hope kitkatz is only out to debunk the pgf.. i never read about him doing it to debunk bigfoot completely. you footers should be helping him, not blocking him. imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 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. Yeah, admitted. It seemed to me that I got very little little silliness from Spaniards, eastern Europeans, and Italians, but the UK, France, Australia, , Netherlands, and Canada seemed full of............well, I didn't get along with them much at all. I just figured that was because there were lots more posting in English from those nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 i believe its been proven. its been more than proven (imo)... More than proven? Just how does that occur? Is that like bearing twins is "more than" pregnant? It is "more than" remarkable to me that I'm debating with people who have no command of the language whatsoever, yet who believe themselves to be so very intelligent scientifically. The silliness with regard to the words "evidence" and "proof", for example (even with people like law enforcement officers), has become "more than" tiresome. I must wonder if this is intentional or if people really have difficulty understanding such simple words? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 (edited) Bravo, Huntster, for summing many of my own feelings. The new Kitakaze acolyte revels in dancing the fine line ridiculing anyone intelligent enough to see it's entirely possible Patty may be more than a suit. And for the life of me, I fully understand the definitions of "evidence" and "proof." Silliness sometimes reigns supreme, even when HRP does his best to provide a steadying hand. Edited November 19, 2010 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 your entire beluef rests on that suit. My "belief" is based on the fact I frakking SAW one once, as have close friends of mine of outstanding character. Given you don't know who I really am any more than I do you, I'll let that one go. and thats fine. Condescend much? others, like you mulder, believe in a suit. No, they believe in what is plainly before their eyes. The PGF film is supported by MANY scientists, albeit in a low-key manner given the prejudicial atmosphere towards any scientist taking an honest look at the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted November 19, 2010 Admin Share Posted November 19, 2010 (edited) The silliness with regard to the words "evidence" and "proof", for example (even with people like law enforcement officers), has become "more than" tiresome. I must wonder if this is intentional or if people really have difficulty understanding such simple words? That's BS and you know it. The issue is not what those two words mean but rather differing opinions on what constitutes each. In my field, evidence needs to support proof. In Bigfootery, evidence is everywhere we choose it to be. What's "more tiresome" is listening to yet another tale of a tree break, yowling call, footprint, hair, scat sample, etc... being attributed to BF instead of recognizing that, sans a biological example of BF, it is currently unknown. Unknown meaning you haven't established where it came from thus it's merely conjecture that a BF was the source. Edited November 19, 2010 by masterbarber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 Huntster, on 19 November 2010 - 08:39 AM, said:The silliness with regard to the words "evidence" and "proof", for example (even with people like law enforcement officers), has become "more than" tiresome. I must wonder if this is intentional or if people really have difficulty understanding such simple words? That's BS and you know it. No, I don't. I'm genuinely amazed at the phenomenon. The issue is not what those two words mean but rather differing opinions on what constitutes each. Amazing. More confusion?: What they mean is different than what constitutes each? In my field, evidence needs to support proof. In Bigfootery, evidence is everywhere we choose it to be. Deeper and deeper we go. Unknown meaning you haven't established where it came from thus it's merely conjecture that a BF was the source. Well, at least you appear to understand the word "unknown". I think......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted November 19, 2010 Admin Share Posted November 19, 2010 Amazing. More confusion?: What they mean is different than what constitutes each? Confusion? I'll assume that you're being serious here. 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 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 Definition of CONSTITUTE transitive verb 1: to appoint to an office, function, or dignity 2: set up, establish: as a : enact b : found 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... Deeper and deeper we go. The path of Bigfooting is long and deep.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 19, 2010 Share Posted November 19, 2010 (edited) Hmm, here's Dictionary.com as a source: ev·i·dence    /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing. –noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. ------------------------------------------- proof    /pruf/ Show Spelled[proof] Show IPA –noun 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. 2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. 5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. 6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind. Note: I left out numbers 7 through 17 as they weren't pertinent to our discussion. Edited November 19, 2010 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts