Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martin

For " The Record "

Recommended Posts

adam2323

Anybody that is envolved in the commitment of a hoax losses all credibility in any debate. There word is no good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Some of you guys are getting off topic here. This is a Tontar fan thread, so spread the love or move on.

:giveheart:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Tontar is a valuable asset to this topic.

His posts are well thought out and clearly written.

....

Umm, I guess since that is written on the Internet now, it must be true? ; )

As mentioned, the Patty suit had various pads in various areas...

The Patty suit people were smart enough to realize that legs have quads and calves, and chose to make a more natural looking calf bearing leg instead of a stove pipe pant leg style. It's kind of a no brainer to some people.

What a wealth of information! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Running around out in the wild parts of the continent where it belongs.

Where in the wild parts of the continent where it belongs?

Which parts in the wild of the continent?

Do you have a regional map? Better yet do you have a photo and/or video?

You chose a Tontar thread to declare BF exists.

I am only asking for confirmation.

Running around in the woods on the continent has gotten bigfootery this far.

I'll ask you one more time, Mulder,

Where is the monkey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I'll ask you one more time, Mulder,

Where is the monkey?

Go ask Brian Gosselin....face to face. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'll ask you one more time, Mulder,

Where is the monkey?

You mind showing some respect JREFer? You're deliberately trying to provoke something. You are also consciously ignoring the evidence there is. Do you expect this to devolve into a debate over the PGF all over again? Well, if you want, go over to that thread to raise your suit and football pad argument.

To ask someone, a witness no less, to 'show you the monkey', is disrespectful. People's lives have changed because of their encounters. Many of these people were as cynical and naively glib as you appear to be.

It's easy to be an armchair critic on this subject and score some points by mocking others through the belittling of their entire experience. It is much harder, however, to come out as a witness in a world where being ridiculed to pieces on this is the norm.

Edited by Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

Some of you guys are getting off topic here. This is a Tontar fan thread, so spread the love or move on.

:giveheart:

Personally seen more evidence that Bigfoot exists then Tontar

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Tontar is a valuable asset to this topic.

His posts are well thought out and clearly written.

Without him this topic becomes an echo chamber.

While I'm sure that's what some of you want, I would hope that you would reconsider.

Strong arguments each way make this discussion better.....

Just for you, Martin....and anyone else who's reading this thread... :) ...

Tontar wrote.....on 16 August 2011 - 01:14 PM...

"In other words, why try to fit a mystery into the real world when it is much happier fitting into a fantasy world where no rules apply.

This is exactly what erodes any consideration of the bigfoot subject being real or rational.

As if you or anyone else really has some sort of proof of existence, that you have more knowledge, or are smarter, or wiser than the whole of the scientific community, or the public at large. You say, and add quotes to the word scientist as if science and scientists are clowns, jokes, lacking in any credibility.

That's really, really ironic coming from someone who believes without a doubt that hairy giants live in the woods and have abilities far beyond any other living creature.

Scoffing at science and scientists as if they are silly dolts, while maintaining that the boogy man exists in and out of reality, well, it boggles the mind.

I think that I am being generous by saying that I think that there may be the possibility that bigfoot exists. I'd like to believe in that possibility. I grew up with the Patterson book in my hot little hands, as well as with the PGF in my mind, having seen it in the theaters as a kid. I was impressed, and still am, yet I am driven by at least some of the rules of analytical thinking. There are far smarter guys than me, no doubt, far more rational guys than me, but I try to keep my feet grounded in reality, what's real and what's possible, and what's logical.

Logic and reason dictate that bigfoot does not exist.

My desire for it to exist, my desire for Patty to be the real deal, is at conflict with that logical side of me.

But no matter what I do, I cannot simply turn off the logical side of my brain, like so many people seem to be able to do without even a hint of remorse.

Denying the world around us, the evidence, the lack of evidence, the reasonableness, is akin to not being able to separate fantasy from reality.

There are guys that believe bigfoot exists, and they do so within the framework of rational, scientific speculation. It's a stretch, no doubt, to say that bigfoot can exist against all the other evidence against it, but I at least give them credit for keeping their imaginations under check. But the flip side are those that cast science and reason to the winds, and believe in spite of reason.

Example; scientist A says he believes that bigfoot exists because there are footprint casts from all over, and statistically there shouldn't be that many hoaxers in the world. So even if 99% of those casts are hoaxes, and 1% is real, then we have proof of a real bigfoot. Scientist B says there's no way that bigfoot could exist because we have no substantial evidence, no remains, no DNA, no reputable photos, no fossil record, no firm evidence of alternate primates existing anywhere in the world. According to your statement above, you'd hail scientist A as being a hero because he believes, and denigrate scientist B as not knowing his butt form a hole in the ground because he doesn't believe, no matter if his argument is more sound. That's the difference between a logical thinker and one who believes just to believe.

For me, I have serious doubts about Patty being real. I want to believe she is, but there's a mountain of solid evidence against it. There're also convincing details in the film itself that lead me to believe she is a suited figure. If Patty is real, very cool, I'd be happier than a clam, seriously happy. But I suspect she is not the real deal. Even so, I still allow myself to think there is a possibility, a very slim possibility, that bigfoot really does exist. Hey, I go out in the woods hiking quite frequently. I have plaster in my pack just in case. Imagine that, packing around plaster just in case! I allow for the possibility bigfoot exists. I want to believe, I want it to be proven true, yet I know that reason and logic are against it. The woods are not as primitive and vast as one might want to imagine. People go everywhere in the woods, and they have for years. There's not a lot of places these days that bigfoot could hide undetected. So for me, I recognize that my hope has one foot in the scientific possibility, and one foot in fantasyland. I get that. Some are happy to have both feet planted squarely in fantasyland, where anything is possible, regardless of the rules of reality. Chalking it up to "there's a lot we don't know..." is a cop out. "We" know a lot more about the world than some are willing to admit to, simply because it would diminish the legitimacy of their beliefs.

Answer me this, Batman; is it possible for mermaids to exist? Is it possible for dragons to exist? Is it possible for elves to exist? Is it possible for fairies to exist? Is it possible for werewolves and vampires to exist?

How broadly does this allowance for the unknown and incredible to go?

Are there really no rational rules to follow when discussing whether mystery creatures really might exist?"

Edited to add... :) ...

"Tontar is a valuable asset to this topic. His posts are well thought out and clearly written."

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ What exactly is your point? I would agree with almost all of that post by Tontar. Is it supposed to be damning or something to him since you felt the need to reproduce it? I find that to be a good example of the type of sentiment or logic that die hard Footers like you and Mulder hate hearing. It does add something to the topic, it just happens to be something you disagree with so you think you can summarily dismiss it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^^I think the point that Sweaty is making is that Tontar is a skoftic, not a skeptic.

There is no objectivity when you classify the subject along with fairy tales. Even though some may classify Bigfoot in the same category, you need to remember the purpose of this forum.

Without that objectivity there is no real discussion, so what's the point? There's a good reason all of his arguments seem to end up with fairy tale references or 'Bigfoot doesn't exist!'. Those kind of comments don't come from objective debate, they come from trying to win an argument and tick off your opponent. It's only function is to turn every debate into a flame fest.

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

roguefooter, Agreed. On the positive side, he never did bring anythin' ta the table that was any more serious than his grand speculations. I had a good laugh at his last go round regardin' a comparison of tracks. But hey...gettin' use to it. Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

"Answer me this, Batman; is it possible for mermaids to exist? Is it possible for dragons to exist? Is it possible for elves to exist? Is it possible for fairies to exist? Is it possible for werewolves and vampires to exist?"

Just for the record: comments such as the above don't make any sense. If Bigfoot are just a silly notion then why would anyone have to waste time losing arguments about them on a Bigfoot forum?? I don't get that but, to each their own I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^^I think the point that Sweaty is making is that Tontar is a skoftic, not a skeptic.

That is one of the main points, rogue... :) What Tontar wrote was pure 'scofticism'. If it isn't, then I'd like to know......what is???

The other main point....is that, when someone suggests, many times over....that people who give consideration to the possibility of Bigfoot's existence are thinking "irrationally"....and are not "separating fantasy from reality"......are they really to be considered an "asset" to the discussions.....as Martin proposed, in his opening post???

As a bonus....here is a really nice contradiction within that one post, of Tontar's. First, he says this...(the 'key words' in blue)...

"In other words, why try to fit a mystery into the real world when it is much happier fitting into a fantasy world where no rules apply.

This is exactly what erodes any consideration of the bigfoot subject being real or rational."

But then, in the very same post....look what happens to "the erosion of any consideration of the bigfoot subject being rational"...

"If Patty is real, very cool, I'd be happier than a clam, seriously happy. But I suspect she is not the real deal. Even so, I still allow myself to think there is a possibility, a very slim possibility, that bigfoot really does exist."

Gee, I thought there was 'something' that "eroded any consideration of Bigfoot's existence being rational"?????

Hopefully, Tontar will post again, and clarify what he was saying....so I will know whether it is o.k./rational for me to give "any consideration" to Bigfoot's existence........................(like he does!)... :)

There is no objectivity when you classify the subject along with fairy tales. Even though some may classify Bigfoot in the same category, you need to remember the purpose of this forum.

Without that objectivity there is no real discussion, so what's the point?

That's right, rogue. When a person completely scoffs at any, and all, of the evidence for the creature's existence....they really don't have much to offer in the way of 'analysis'.....other than 'instant write-off', of it.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

TRUTH: BF exists.

Carry on...

BF is pure fantasy!

Funny how people are considering the relevance of a skeptic's position - on a topic involving a purely mythical being that there is zero hard evidence to support. hahahahahaha

The other main point....is that, when someone suggests, many times over....that people who give consideration to the possibility of Bigfoot's existence are thinking "irrationally"....and are not "separating fantasy from reality"......are they really to be considered an "asset" to the discussions.....as Martin proposed, in his opening post???

News Flash: BF does not exist, never has and never will. There is Bigfootery but there is no BF. The best posters on this forum were Kit and Tontar, if you don't get that, well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

Funny how people take extreme positions. One side says Bigfoot's existence is a fact. The other says it can't exist.

These types of responses are fuelled by emotion. An ad hominem is what it is :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...