Incorrigible1 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I've apologized, there is not much else I can do. Gosh, perhaps review your "observations" and see just where you've gone wrong. Perhaps acknowledge I don't accept the PGF as gospel? Gee, I could go on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) I think so, but obviously you feel the PGF is 100% the real deal You were caught in a lie. Yeah, this false allegation pisses me off. You've not really apologized, Norseman. You've misrepresented my position about 180 degrees.What happened to ya? Edited February 24, 2011 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Please take this issue to PM at this point. You guys can settle it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 You show a video of a guy in a gorilla suit to illustrate that gorillas look like guys in suits? No, he shows a video of a guy in a gorilla suit that people thought was a real gorilla. Had you been astute and honest in your debate, you would have used the opportunity to show that people can be fooled by hoaxers in a suit, but instead you chose the clear and obvious denial in order to bolster your most recent (and erroneous) point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Had you been astute and honest in your debate, you would have used the opportunity to show that people can be fooled by hoaxers in a suit, but instead you chose the clear and obvious denial in order to bolster your most recent (and erroneous) point. Oy vey. Illustrating that a human in a suit can look like an animal is not the same as assuming that an animal looks like a human in a suit. No dishonesty or denial Huntster, just rejection of the transitive property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Oy vey. Illustrating that a human in a suit can look like an animal is not the same as assuming that an animal looks like a human in a suit. Indeed, which is a basic and recurring tenet in dealing with some of your claims. For example, recently you give us a photo of a robin (which I doubt Bob Heironimous could or would imitate in a suit) as an example of how easy it would be to give science a simple photo to solve this mystery. The PG film subject is one of two things: a sasquatch, or a man in a suit. It can reasonably be nothing else (unless you wish to take denial to the point of extraterrestrial alien or robot). That is why denialists must put Bob in the suit. Indeed, all sasquatch photos could be a man in a suit, and all good photos will feature denialists claiming that that is exactly what it is. We don't see photos of giraffes, robins, ivory-billed woodpeckers, or beetles with such claims, and we never will. No dishonesty or denial Huntster, just rejection of the transitive property. Maybe. Maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 But what if it's a large, naked, hairy human and not an animal? Would the picture be a hoax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I know that there are people who think BF is a member of the homo lineage, but are there really people who think it is homo sapiens sapiens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 It doesn't matter what people think, it's what can be proven with evidence. Replace belief with evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Are you saying that there is evidence for BF to be homo sapiens sapiens? (Sorry if I'm derailing this thread mods, you can split if it becomes necessary) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 25, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted February 25, 2011 Well I'd say the drama is increasing.....but the tale of the tape will be in the dna threads/sequences, and if it is a often hirsute naked Homo sapiens sapiens running the woods, alot of witnesses got a lot of 'splainin to do. And it's time to start categorizing everything that they've seen moving on to the next study I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 But what if it's a large, naked, hairy human and not an animal? Then it'll look like a large, naked, hairy human and not like a human in a gorilla costume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Then it'll look like a large, naked, hairy human and not like a human in a gorilla costume. But the whole point of the PGF is that it doesn't look like a human in a gorilla costume. It doesn't look human at all. As humans, we are pretty capable of identifying if another creature is human or not. Automatic signals in our brains instinctively analyze the walking patterns, the symmetry, the proportions, the size, and various other factors of any living creature to determine which species it is. All animals are capable of this. Can you honestly tell me the first time you watched the PGF you thought to yourself, "yep, that's just another human being". I don't care what kind of costume or what kind of makeup you put on a human - it's pretty easy to determine if it's human or not. The fact that it's so difficult to determine that "Patty" is a human is a clear indication that she, in fact, is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 But the whole point of the PGF is that it doesn't look like a human in a gorilla costume. It doesn't look human at all. I don't care what kind of costume or what kind of makeup you put on a human - it's pretty easy to determine if it's human or not. The fact that it's so difficult to determine that "Patty" is a human is a clear indication that she, in fact, is not. I totally agree with you. But I also have very good friends that look at the PGF and immediately say "..that's soooooo just a guy in a gorilla suit!" Some people clearly see an unidentified bipedal creature and some see a guy in a suit. You make a pretty darn good point in that last sentence (my bolding). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 But the whole point of the PGF is that it doesn't look like a human in a gorilla costume. It doesn't look human at all. . . . Can you honestly tell me the first time you watched the PGF you thought to yourself, "yep, that's just another human being". Yes. "Patty" has always looked to me like a guy in a gorilla suit of some kind, and not a living, breathing something else. That's the brutal truth for people who hold up the PGF as some great piece of photographic bigfoot evidence: the majority of people who've seen it don't find it at all convincing. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great looking suit - no obvious seams or zippers showing for example - but it has always looked to me like a guy in a suit. Still does. Forget Bob H. and Roger's background and the impossible timeline and all that: to me, Patty just isn't convincing as a real animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts