Guest Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 However - again, IMHO - if a person doesn't move past that, doesn't look into the matter in more detail, then I would suggest they aren't seriously curious about the subject. But what of those of us who are curious, have examined the film in greater depth and end up having our skepticism reinforced by the experience? It's a cop out to brush us aside as biased. The simple reality is the film subject is not as universally and objectively compelling as its proponents like to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 U r correct that the non-"animal" DNA has been human. Not close to human ..HUMAN. That is what we will see in the future as well. The source will not be run of the mill, typical white Anglo European or Hispanic. Parnassus, do not forget that there is documented circumstances along with morphology of the hairs that I would base my opinion of said evidence, not just the DNA. I do not believe the multiple independent researchers could haphazardly find (not run of the mill), uncut , and morphologicly different human hairs in the wilderness without there being a unique population of said humans and perhaps geneticly isolated to some small degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 But what of those of us who are curious, have examined the film in greater depth and end up having our skepticism reinforced by the experience? It's a cop out to brush us aside as biased. The simple reality is the film subject is not as universally and objectively compelling as its proponents like to think. Exactly what about the film subject reinforced your skepticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Exactly what about the film subject reinforced your skepticism? Nothing that hasn't already been "refuted" by PGF proponents, so is there much point in listing things here other than to take us further OT in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 A new macaque in Bhutan was identified from this photo but it's not 7' tall and bipedal. I wonder how different their DNA is from other macaque's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 But what of those of us who are curious, have examined the film in greater depth and end up having our skepticism reinforced by the experience? It's a cop out to brush us aside as biased. The simple reality is the film subject is not as universally and objectively compelling as its proponents like to think. Yes but you're mind is automatically going to interpret and adjust the visual stimuli as a perpetuation of your mind's idea of what you are viewing. It's how the human mind works. This isn't about what you are actually seeing - it's about what you're mind wants you to see. A skeptic watches the PGF and it reinforces his skepticism. A believer watches the PGF and it reinforces his belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 A skeptic watches the PGF and it reinforces his skepticism. A believer watches the PGF and it reinforces his belief. . . . Which supports my contention that the film is inconclusive as evidence for bigfoot. For contrast, the subject of the photo LAL posted is unambiguously a monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 . . . Which supports my contention that the film is inconclusive as evidence for bigfoot. For contrast, the subject of the photo LAL posted is unambiguously a monkey. No argument here. However, a point I have been trying to make is this: What do you see when you watch PGF? The bare bones of it - without analysis? You see a Sasquatch walking. You DON'T see a man in a gorilla costume. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this...but it's frustrating that people go back and forth so much on this footage. It's far more reasonable to suggest this footage supports the existence of Bigfoot than the suggestion that it supports that Bigfoot does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ShadowPrime Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) Saskeptic - Well, you must have seen something, or read something, that I haven't. Just saying. I have yet to see anyone produce an even marginally convincing "Patty analogue" from the 1960s, let alone one that could credibly have been slapped together by Roger Patterson, given his financial and logistical means, and 1960s monster suit technology. And as been amply noted elsewhere - seems odd that not one other hoaxer has been able to come up with PGF Part 2, if it was so easy to produce Part 1 using a primitive, simple, off the shelf 1960s gorilla suit and a shakey cam. On the old boards, I recall a thread where there was post after post after post of 1950s-1960s era gorillas and furry monsters from movies and TV shows... and they were almost without exception, laughable when compared with Patty. 1960s movie ape/monsters suits just didn't have flexing, moving musculature, under the "skin/fur" layer. Some supposedly incorporated "water bags", etc, to try for a more massive effect, but...well... Patty they weren't. Not even close. And yes, there are skeptics who stop at the "looks like man in suit" level. During that BF special I mentioned, another "skeptic" mentioned that Patterson made Patty from a gorilla costume, or cowhide, or...something. It appeared the only thing he was really sure of was that Patty COULDN'T have been a real BF, so I guess the particulars of the hoax didn't matter. Hmmm. Or if you prefer, flip through Dr Meldrum's book, pages 150 and on for some glib commentary from skeptical scientists offering that this is "obviously a man in a suit" - based on...???. Their vast scientific knowledge of monster suits, apparently. As you noted, there is plenty here on the PGF, so - as you also noted - no reason to turn this into yet ANOTHER PGF thread. Just saying... watching the PGF and declaring "that has got to be a man in a suit" because the alternative is too hard to believe...is NOT skeptical thinking. Edited February 28, 2011 by ShadowPrime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 But what of those of us who are curious, have examined the film in greater depth and end up having our skepticism reinforced by the experience? It's a cop out to brush us aside as biased. The simple reality is the film subject is not as universally and objectively compelling as its proponents like to think. Thanks for blowing up yet ANOTHER irony meter, Sas--"skeptics" brush proponent analyses, even those by credentialed scientists (such as Dr Meldrum) every day on the basis of "bias". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 . . . Which supports my contention that the film is inconclusive as evidence for bigfoot. For contrast, the subject of the photo LAL posted is unambiguously a monkey. Don't be silly. That's a dog. A strange looking dog with a hairless face, short ears and a medium tail, but a dog none the less. You can point out all the "monkey" features you want, but when I look at it I will always see a dog and find my belief that it is a dog reinforced. I would certainly find a new breed of dog much more believable than some undiscovered species of medium-sized fauna. Hmm... I think I might also see traces of Photoshop in that picture. Wow. Being a skeptic is easy! On a more serious note, and back on topic, it is sometimes good to circumvent the more traditional publication routes. Scientists do become ensnared in their own doctrines. I was recently reminded about the Inca mathematical system. For many decades, anthropologists just assumed that it was always base 10, even though this failed to explain many observations concerning their calendar and some book keeping. Anyone who tried to publish a paper refuting the base 10 system, or ignored the inferred Inca-based dating in favor of other dating evidence, was shot down by the established Inca researchers. It took a European engineer, from outside the Inca research community, publishing independently of those "experts", to correctly explain the Inca mathematics and calendars. It seems anthropology, in general, is full of mistaken beliefs, and the last 20 years have seen a lot of those old ideas challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 What do you see when you watch PGF? The bare bones of it - without analysis? You see a Sasquatch walking. You DON'T see a man in a gorilla costume. And exactly what makes you the arbiter of the things I see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Thanks for blowing up yet ANOTHER irony meter, Sas--"skeptics" brush proponent analyses, even those by credentialed scientists (such as Dr Meldrum) every day on the basis of "bias". Thanks for committing your favorite logical fallacy, yet again. If Meldrum was that 5th dentist I bet you'd be chewing sugary gum all day long. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) Parnassus, do not forget that there is documented circumstances along with morphology of the hairs that I would base my opinion of said evidence, not just the DNA. I do not believe the multiple independent researchers could haphazardly find (not run of the mill), uncut , and morphologicly different human hairs in the wilderness without there being a unique population of said humans and perhaps geneticly isolated to some small degree. Yahoo The hair of tribal people is much thicker than that of Anglos. It is well known that some tribal people do not cut their hair. Tribal practices regarding disposition of the dead and self mutilation may have allowed for the current availability of relic human bones. There are a few isolated tribes several of whom in different places were visited by Paulides. Paulides has a questionable ethical history. Really all of a sudden Ketchum is affiliated with Paullides and is receiving specimens that she thinks is Bigfoot fom several places around the country. Paulides went on talk radio and described his idea of Bigfoot interbreeding with tribal peoples. On the same show Ketchum asked Paulides if she could talk about the bone and he told her no. Ketchum has been running suspected Bigfoot specimens for years and didn't believe it existed. Those seem to be the facts, along with fact that tribal DNA has a few unique features. I put it all together this way: Paulides is clearly the instigator of this surge of specimens that have changed Ketchum's mind. He seems to be running the show. So where and how how did Paulides get these specimens? Did he just tell tribal people that he would pay for hair or other relics from Bigfoot? And the tribal people brought him some old relic tribal hair or bone and said it was from a Bigfoot? Or did he see the Snelgrove Lake DNA fiasco and figure that he could fool a vet by just collecting specimens from living tribal members? My sense is that Paulides is the culprit, that he knows what he's doing and thinks he can get away with it. I think he has fooled Ketchum, tho that will probably change when she shows the sequences to a primatologist or population geneticist. I certainly think that it is possible he is being played by tribal people who are laughing at the dumb Anglos ...did anyone else notice that the sketches in Paulides' book resemble Paulides? At this point it's all just educated guesswork as to what Paulides is orchestrating. Or trying to. Edited March 1, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I've been in touch with Dr. Ketchum, and Paulides. I've submitted samples to her myself, so not all of the samples are submitted by Paulides, he is not running the show where the analysis is concerned, and I do have good provenance of the sample I submitted. I'll be bedazzeled if the DNA is 100% sapiens sapiens, but if so , yes that will change my thoughts about what bigfoot is, but only slightly. Technically , if bigfoot were human it would be a Native, I'll concede that, but I don't believe Native American (sapiens sapiens) are the hairy ones whom are seen and are depositing the hairs in the same places. I think you are believing your own speculation too much, you should verify things first. To those of us who have submitted samples, you are sounding alot like a conspiracy theorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts