Jump to content

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.


Recommended Posts

dmaker

 

Actually, no you have pointed out where you think I have misstated things, but you have not ( that I could see) shown examples of  where I have contradicted myself.  

 

You said, "Bigfoot skeptics do not ignore the evidence"  in one breath and in another you say, "I don't have any real opinion on it. I look at it and it looks fake and does not engage me" and "I don't need to go much deeper than thought to have, what I have freely described as a "gut reaction"". So you do not ignore the evidence until your tummy tells you not to engage it. (certainly no contradiction there or was there)  sigh~

 

Then you said to Sweaty about pro-Bigfooters, "you, and all the other proponents, push for science/scientists to spend their time searching for Bigfoot" to which I told you that I am a pro-Bigfooter and I do not push for scientist to spend their time searching for Bigfoot as its not their job unless they choose to do so. So 'all other proponents push for scientist to spend all their time searching for Bigfoot' was a misstatement of the facts from where I sit.

 

 

Another instance was when you said, " ... there is far more evidence that BF is a hoax, than there is otherwise." Now you can tell me what 'than there is otherwise' means and how it applies to there not being any evidence that Bigfoot may be real.

 

 

 

Sorry, Bigfoothunter, wrong again. None of those are statements  wherein I contradict myself. Because I do not engage in debate about Patty does not contradict the statement that skeptics do engage in the evidence. Perhaps not the particular piece of evidence that thrills you, but still evidence is evidence. Every time we read an eye witness report, or watch a Bigfoot video, or read someone's report here, or read a book by proponents ( and yes I have bought and read several), we are engaging the evidence. Like I said previously, no one is obligated to engage in Patty analysis. In fact, just watching the PGF as many times as I have is "engaging" it. 

 

And where I incorrectly included you when I said all proponents do something, then yes that is a misstatement, and I apologize for that. But I am not contradicting myself anywhere in that statement. 

 

And when I say there is far more evidence of Bigfoot hoaxes than otherwise simply means we have numerous confirmed Bigfoot hoaxes, we have zero confirmed Bigfoots.   Where am I contradicting myself there?

 

Care to keep quote mining me looking for where I contradict myself or would you like to retract your misstatement now?

This thread is way way off kilter........

 

We are back to debating page after page about the existence of the creature *yawn*.

 

Well Norse, if you would just hurry up and bag one already, then we'd have LOTS to talk about!   ;)

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites

"And when I say there is far more evidence of Bigfoot hoaxes than otherwise simply means we have numerous confirmed Bigfoot hoaxes, we have zero confirmed Bigfoots.   Where am I contradicting myself there?"

 

You may not be contradicting yourself, but you are making an irrelevant statement.

 

As I have pointed out here numerous times, it's not difficult for anyone cognizant of this topic to take the hoaxes, and set them over HERE [opens garbage can, inserts hoaxes]....and then take the live evidence, and put it right HERE in front of us, and focus on that.

 

Hoaxes are simply irrelevant.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Irrelevant to you DWA,but maybe very relevant to other people when looking at this phenomenon. And since you are not the judge of all things relevant...

Link to post
Share on other sites

In science, the evidence is the judge.

 

Sorry, but "belief in" doesn't really belong here.  It's a dodge that basically says:  I'm not really knowledgeable about this, and have no intention of getting there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is way way off kilter........

 

We are back to debating page after page about the existence of the creature *yawn*.

 You can change it by shooting one.

 

Until then...well, I do wish that 'skeptics' would show the acquaintance with the evidence that skepticism requires.  Not my fault they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"And when I say there is far more evidence of Bigfoot hoaxes than otherwise simply means we have numerous confirmed Bigfoot hoaxes, we have zero confirmed Bigfoots.   Where am I contradicting myself there?"

 

You may not be contradicting yourself, but you are making an irrelevant statement.

 

As I have pointed out here numerous times, it's not difficult for anyone cognizant of this topic to take the hoaxes, and set them over HERE [opens garbage can, inserts hoaxes]....and then take the live evidence, and put it right HERE in front of us, and focus on that.

 

Hoaxes are simply irrelevant.

What you are saying then: You will not learn anything from hoaxes. 

 

If a kid puts on a dark outfit and stands on a country road at night, and then runs away when cars approach, and then car occupants report seeing an ape standing and running on two legs on the road, running away faster than any human could -- you are saying the entire event is irrelevant to the Bigfoot issue. Right? Can't learn anything from it. Right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Pretty easy no Bigfoot or significant part of a bigoot has been proffered that looks anything like what's in the film....whirl completed and tummy feels good :)

Mission accomplished!!

 

 

Pretty easy ....no Human, or 'Human w/hand extension'  has been proffered that looks anything like what's in the film...

 

 

ManShakingHandswithPatty1_zps9f1cede8.jp

 

 

 

....in the 'arm proportion' department. 

 

 

Here's a tune for you to enjoy, Cervelo....while you ponder the difference... :) ...

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Again your claim you prove it...no body no Bigfoot until then wow nice diaper butt there Patty...

Whew that pic of Patty really looks fake/costumey but love the composition well done...man and Bigfoot working together for a better future!!!

Edited by Cervelo
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Again your claim you prove it...no body

 

 

Nobody...with a comparable 'arm proportion'....let alone somebody with an extension on their lower arm... :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Show me a Bigfoot body to compare it to..or just an arm.

Trying to convince people what in your opinion it can't be doesn't make it what you think it is ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"And when I say there is far more evidence of Bigfoot hoaxes than otherwise simply means we have numerous confirmed Bigfoot hoaxes, we have zero confirmed Bigfoots.   Where am I contradicting myself there?"

 

You may not be contradicting yourself, but you are making an irrelevant statement.

 

As I have pointed out here numerous times, it's not difficult for anyone cognizant of this topic to take the hoaxes, and set them over HERE [opens garbage can, inserts hoaxes]....and then take the live evidence, and put it right HERE in front of us, and focus on that.

 

Hoaxes are simply irrelevant.

What you are saying then: You will not learn anything from hoaxes. 

 

If a kid puts on a dark outfit and stands on a country road at night, and then runs away when cars approach, and then car occupants report seeing an ape standing and running on two legs on the road, running away faster than any human could -- you are saying the entire event is irrelevant to the Bigfoot issue. Right? Can't learn anything from it. Right?

 

If it's a kid in a suit, the car occupants aren't reporting that.  Unless they are lying.  And if there is no reason to believe they are, then there isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Show me a Bigfoot body to compare it to..or just an arm.

Trying to convince people what in your opinion it can't be doesn't make it what you think it is ;)

You could be looking at a Bigfoot body from two feet away and you won't know it until that body has been classified as such.

 

Your last line made me laugh for the same could be said to having an opinion Bigfoot can't be real not making it so.  ;)   

 

You need something more like 'I bet my dad can beat up your dad' ... now that would mean something!

Again your claim you prove it...no body no Bigfoot until then wow nice diaper butt there Patty...

Whew that pic of Patty really looks fake/costumey but love the composition well done...man and Bigfoot working together for a better future!!!

 

Do you believe there are black holes in outer space?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

What you are saying then: You will not learn anything from hoaxes. 

 

If a kid puts on a dark outfit and stands on a country road at night, and then runs away when cars approach, and then car occupants report seeing an ape standing and running on two legs on the road, running away faster than any human could -- you are saying the entire event is irrelevant to the Bigfoot issue. Right? Can't learn anything from it. Right?

 

Yes, one can learn that people do hoax, but it doesn't mean all ape sightings are a hoax. And that same rule applies to Bigfoot as well. Now what is the other side of learning how to spot a hoax ....... how about how to spot evidence that can't be explained away as a hoax .... is this relevant?  Some of us think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Again your claim you prove it...no body no Bigfoot until then wow nice diaper butt there Patty...

Whew that pic of Patty really looks fake/costumey but love the composition well done...man and Bigfoot working together for a better future!!!

 

Whoa now..........

 

Did you watch this video of Bills explanation of a diaper butt?

 

 

You can cut to the chase at 34 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

In science, the evidence is the judge.

 

Sorry, but "belief in" doesn't really belong here.  It's a dodge that basically says:  I'm not really knowledgeable about this, and have no intention of getting there.

 

 

Well said. Maybe there should be a section of the forum where people can say what they believe without actually engaging the evidence ... just on a gut feeling for instance and as the two sides just keep repeating themselves because they have nothing else to draw from ... it can be said that the winner will be the one who said their belief the most. This way those who want to actually evaluate can do so on a more academic level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...