Jump to content
TD-40

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

This is not meant to belittle Bill's work at all. But the PGF has not proven to convince skeptics about the POSSIBILITY of the existence of Sasquatch. It's not proof, and it never will be.

 

For those of us that find it compelling, Bill's work is incredible.

 

To say one needs a Sasquatch body as if that is the only avenue to establishing that what is on Roger's film was not a man in a suit is like saying we need to dig up JFK to tell if there was a probable conspiracy in his murder. While a body will allow a classification to be given to the creature ... there is still a way to rule out it being a human in a fur suit. Sweaty offered such a sound alternative that has not been shown to be flawed. In at least once case a skeptic just does not want to engage it and everyone can draw their own conclusions as to why that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Oh it's been engaged to death LOL!

it will require a body or significant part to prove that Bigfoots real scientifically and then maybe Pattys identiy can be established and that's a huge maybe.

Consider engagement complete until further notice :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Oh it's been engaged to death LOL!

it will require a body or significant part to prove that Bigfoots real scientifically and then maybe Pattys identiy can be established and that's a huge maybe.

Consider engagement complete until further notice :)

 

As I thought I previously stated quite clearly that while a body will scientifically get Bigfoot classified as to what is is exactly - mathematics can tell us now if what is seen on the P/G film is a man in a suit or not. Once one has come to grips that it can't possibly be a man in a suit, then what is left ... a bear in a fur ape-like suit? There is no doubt that you are getting this and I believe it is why you carefully avoid that aspect of the equation. I'm certain that is why other skeptics avoid it as well.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Bigfoothunter, you really need to drop this. Are you actually questioning if I truly believe Patty to be fake? Because surely faced with Bill's analysis and Sweaty's crayon circles that I must have to train my brain to accept the fact that Patty is real. Well, here is a news flash for you: I am not convinced by Bill or Sweaty. Now after you pick yourself up off the floor and catch your breath, we can continue. I have read the threads here. I found some of the counter points by Tontar and Kit to be informative and could create doubt in someone's mind. I have read posts on other forums that do a good job of countering some of Mr.Munn's points. I am not, in any way, trying to belittle or diminish Mr.Munn's work. And I know this is hard for you to accept for some reason, I just don't agree with it. I have read the arguments for and against. I was not involved at all in the threads here, because like I have mentioned I do not really engage on the whole Patty./PGF. My mind on  Patty was pretty much made up when I looked at it as an adult. My gut tells me it's fake. It's that simple. I would need something pretty strong and convincing to change my mind on that. And right now, such a thing does not exist. Sadly, for Patty, not many scientists or professionals give the film much attention. So there really is not a whole of study one can do on the topic. Maybe some day that will change. Maybe Bill will get the funding he seeks to make his documentary, and maybe the documentary will prompt some other professionals to pick up the Patty torch. But to date, that has not happened. 

 

So it is your prerogative to be convinced that Patty is real. it is my prerogative to feel differently. As to your question, why do I come here and post that Patty is fake? Well first of all you make it sound like that is my favorite past time. I hardly ever comment on Patty. And when I do I am very careful to point out that it is merely my opinion based on my gut reaction to it.  That really should not disrupt the PGF apple cart all that much I would think. But as to the larger question of why I would come here and read and post at all? Well I have answered that many times in the past, but here's the succinct version just for you:

 

I was not always so convinced that BF was not real. I never really gave it much thought but with the constant exposure to it with Finding Bigfoot hitting the TV screen weekly a couple of years back, I decided to dig a little deeper because I had always been casually curious, but never really looked beyond that. After reading more, looking at more videos, buying as many BF books as I could get my hands on, and spending time here, my mind changed from curious to skeptical to pretty much at the BF is real = 0.5%    Alot of that sway had to do with the BF community. How tenuous the arguments for BF are. How quickly people will accept the weakest crap as evidence. etc, etc. Suffice it to say, when I came here I was not the same person I am now. I did not come here to deliberately shout down Bigfoot. My opinion swayed ( or solidified, who knows?) after spending time here, I just haven't felt the need to leave. 



I don't believe that mathematics can "prove" that Patty was not a man in a suit at all. You believe that, but I would need a whole lot more consensus on that than you, Sweaty and Bill Munns before I accepted that as truth. I have read posts on other forums that do a pretty good job of debunking the current "math proves Patty is not a man in a suit".  But I do not expect you to accept that, and that is totally fine. You have your sources and they align with your feelings so you accept them. Great, unlike you I am not going to harangue you for your opinions.  Now if I am wrong and there is some peer reviewed consensus that Patty cannot be a man in a suit, then I would love for you to point me in that direction.  

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Oh it's been engaged to death LOL!

it will require a body or significant part to prove that Bigfoots real scientifically and then maybe Pattys identiy can be established and that's a huge maybe.

Consider engagement complete until further notice :)

As I thought I previously stated quite clearly that while a body will scientifically get Bigfoot classified as to what is is exactly - mathematics can tell us now if what is seen on the P/G film is a man in a suit or not. Once one has come to grips that it can't possibly be a man in a suit, then what is left ... a bear in a fur ape-like suit? There is no doubt that you are getting this and I believe it is why you carefully avoid that aspect of the equation. I'm certain that is why other skeptics avoid it as well.
Yuck lets not drag science into this discussion... Edited by Cervelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter, you really need to drop this. Are you actually questioning if I truly believe Patty to be fake? " " " " " " "  " "  I would need something pretty strong and convincing to change my mind on that. And right now, such a thing does not exist.

 

Just how does someone know if something doesn't exist when it may, but that person has chosen not to engage it.

 

 

 

..... as to the larger question of why I would come here and read and post at all? Well I have answered that many times in the past, but here's the succinct version just for you:

 

I was not always so convinced that BF was not real. I never really gave it much thought but with the constant exposure to it with Finding Bigfoot hitting the TV screen weekly a couple of years back, I decided to dig a little deeper because I had always been casually curious, but never really looked beyond that. After reading more, looking at more videos, buying as many BF books as I could get my hands on, and spending time here, my mind changed from curious to skeptical to pretty much at the BF is real = 0.5%    Alot of that sway had to do with the BF community. How tenuous the arguments for BF are. How quickly people will accept the weakest crap as evidence. etc, etc. Suffice it to say, when I came here I was not the same person I am now. I did not come here to deliberately shout down Bigfoot. My opinion swayed ( or solidified, who knows?) after spending time here, I just haven't felt the need to leave.

So you believe that Bigfoot is a pointless subject that is in your mind one half of one percent. That part of your belief involved knowing how quickly people will accept crap which I will certainly agree on as I'm still recalling Kerry (a skeptic) telling the members that he had been mistaken about Meldrum because he had relied on a skeptic article that had left out information that lead to him being mislead. So I know exactly what you mean. And after spending time here, your opinion swayed you from the possibility of Bigfoot being real to it having almost a zero chance of being real. Then when confronted with the P/G film, you relied on your gut and opted not to engage the data being said to at least show mathematically that the subject on the film could not be a man in a suit. Ok ... if you say so.

 

 

 

I don't believe that mathematics can "prove" that Patty was not a man in a suit at all.

 

Photogammetry is an applied science ... as with math ... so please give at least some detail as to why you believe that mathematics cannot prove that Patty was not a man in a suit. Is it another gut reaction that you are relying on again?

 

 

 

I have read posts on other forums that do a pretty good job of debunking the current "math proves Patty is not a man in a suit".

 

Were they Sweaty's work? Maybe I have yet to see those convincing post. Please offer a specific source if you can so I can read the 'pretty good job of debunking Patty not being a man in a suit.

 

Now if I am wrong and there is some peer reviewed consensus that Patty cannot be a man in a suit, then I would love for you to point me in that direction. 

 

Well it was pointed out on Sweaty's invite and your response is that you don't engage the subject in the Patterson film, which can I assume that protocol started only after you read post on other forums that you thought did a good debunking job .... ? I do not recall you mentioning this to Sweaty, nor did you mention what they said that would show Sweaty's work in error. Interesting to say the least.

 

 

Oh it's been engaged to death LOL!

it will require a body or significant part to prove that Bigfoots real scientifically and then maybe Pattys identiy can be established and that's a huge maybe.

Consider engagement complete until further notice :)

As I thought I previously stated quite clearly that while a body will scientifically get Bigfoot classified as to what is is exactly - mathematics can tell us now if what is seen on the P/G film is a man in a suit or not. Once one has come to grips that it can't possibly be a man in a suit, then what is left ... a bear in a fur ape-like suit? There is no doubt that you are getting this and I believe it is why you carefully avoid that aspect of the equation. I'm certain that is why other skeptics avoid it as well.
Yuck lets not drag science into this discussion...

 

When you mentioned the word 'scientifically' in your post #212 ... what did you think that word meant?

 

sci·en·tif·ic  (simacr.giflprime.gifschwa.gifn-tibreve.giffprime.gifibreve.gifk)

adj.
Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science.
Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

BH, I don't know the rules specifically on cross posting from other forums, so I avoid doing things like that. As it stands right now the only people putting any words to paper in favor of the PGF are Munns and other BFF posters like you and Sweaty. No offense, but I'm going to need something a little more substantial than that before I would even start to consider that the PGF can be "mathematically" proven to not be a person in a suit, and that it's a Sasquatch in the video. I would love to see a scientific analysis of the paper performed by people (outside of the Bigfoot community)  with advanced degrees in relative disciplines subject to a peer consensus. Currently we have nothing like that, so I will remain unswayed until such an event happens.  I don't have the necessary credentials or experience to perform that analysis myself, do you? If not, then we both must rely on the work of others who do have the qualifications to make bold statements like the PGF has been "mathematically" proven to be anything. And then that claim has to agreed upon by peers before it can be anything more than just one qualified person's opinion.  So we have a long way to go, in my opinion, before we can claim that anything is proven when it comes to the PGF, much less harangue others for not accepting that "proof".  



Without naming names, the JREF forums have some counter arguments to Munns' PGF analysis if you care to wander over and read them.

 

 

 

"Photogammetry is an applied science ... as with math .."  I don't doubt that. Do we have a consensus from scientists that agree that the PGF mathematically proves anything?

 

 

Also, let me save you the hassle of posting a dictionary definition of "peer". I do not consider the acceptance of posters on the BFF as anything that comes close to a peer review.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

BH,

2+2=4 that's a simple example of how math is used

2+2 will never equal Bigfoot no amount of math will ever prove Patty is Bigfoot.

Cute little GIFs great display of computer skills no doubt...proof of anything other than that...not so much.

Again nothing to engage, refute or address Patty is fascinating on many levels and Bill's efforts make it more so but until there's a body to compare it to....it will remain that until a body is produced.

Oh yeah that's how science works...it's shall we irrefutable ;)

Edited by Cervelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

BH,

2+2=4 that's a simple example of how math is used

2+2 will never equal Bigfoot no amount of math will ever prove Patty is Bigfoot.

Cute little GIFs great display of computer skills no doubt...proof of anything other than that...not so much.

 

Again nothing to engage, refute or address Patty is fascinating on many levels and Bill's efforts make it more so but until there's a body to compare it to....it will remain that until a body is produced.

Oh yeah that's how science works...it's shall we irrefutable ;)

 

 

Except for the difference between Patty and a Human, seen in this 'hand shake' comparison...

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Arm%20Comparisons/ManShakingHandswithPatty5_zps0b86ec16.jpg

 

 

And a few hundred other comparisons I've made, and posted...over the years... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

dmaker wrote:

 

 

 

I have read posts on other forums that do a pretty good job of debunking the current "math proves Patty is not a man in a suit".

 

 

Were they Sweaty's work? Maybe I have yet to see those convincing post. Please offer a specific source if you can so I can read the '"pretty good job" of debunking Patty not being a man in a suit.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for asking for a source, bigfoothunter... :)

 

Source for these "refutations" of the measurable differences between Patty and a Human, dmaker???

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I've already said that I won't post other people's words from other forums here. I told you the general source, if you're that interested then you can go there and read the threads.  Or not, it really does not matter to me. 

 

Like I have already said, I will await some sort of scientific analysis done by someone outside of the BF community who actually has degrees or credentials and then await for some sort of peer review or consensus on these findings. Now I have freely admitted that I do not hold credentials or degrees in the relative sciences necessary here. Do you Sweaty? Do you BH?  And again, no offense Sweaty, but if you're not really qualified to make this type of analysis, then why should I take your work as definitive? Especially in the absence of a consensus by professionals outside of the BF community? And again, if I am mistaken and you do have degrees or other demonstrated qualifications or expertise then you should, by all means, push to have your work published and substantiated outside of the BFF. That might help push forward a subject that seems very near and dear to the heart of many here on this forum. Why keep all this work trapped up inside the confines of the BFF? 

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Well your entitled to your opnion but until a Bigfoot body shows up ya got nothing but your opinion.... I dont have to refute or replicate anything....like I said showing what it isn't doesn't prove what you think it is :)

Here ya go Sweaty maybe everyday is a new day for you....complete reset and forgotten our discussion we had yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I've already said that I won't post other people's words from other forums here. I told you the general source, if you're that interested then you can go there and read the threads.  Or not, it really does not matter to me. 

 

Like I have already said, I will await some sort of scientific analysis done by someone outside of the BF community who actually has degrees or credentials and then await for some sort of peer review or consensus on these findings. Now I have freely admitted that I do not hold credentials or degrees in the relative sciences necessary here. Do you Sweaty? Do you BH?  And again, no offense Sweaty, but if you're not really qualified to make this type of analysis, then why should I take your work as definitive? Especially in the absence of a consensus by professionals outside of the BF community? And again, if I am mistaken and you do have degrees or other demonstrated qualifications or expertise then you should, by all means, push to have your work published and substantiated outside of the BFF. That might help push forward a subject that seems very near and dear to the heart of many here on this forum. Why keep all this work trapped up inside the confines of the BFF? 

 

 

You can send me links in a PM. :)

 

 

dmaker wrote:

 

 And again, no offense Sweaty, but if you're not really qualified to make this type of analysis, then why should I take your work as definitive?

 

 

 

First off...I am very qualified to make direct comparisons between Patty and humans.....I can think.  :music:

 

Secondly....you are confusing my challenges to you, Cervelo and the rest of the gang....(to refute what the comparisons show)....with me caring about what you think/believe/accept. 

 

 

For the record....I do not care what any 'Discussion Board "Skeptic"' thinks, or says he thinks, regarding Bigfoot. I only care about what they are able to show, in the way of refuting what my work shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

^^^Bada-bing

 

Skeptics demonstrably lack the qualifications to take,  and substantiate, a position on this issue.  (Demonstrated understanding of how science works and attention to evidence are two qualifications.)  So for them to call proponents out is odd to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

 

Like I have already said, I will await some sort of scientific analysis done by someone outside of the BF community who actually has degrees or credentials and then await for some sort of peer review or consensus on these findings.

 

Well, isn't that what we're all waiting for?

 

The one thing I will never understand about the bigfoot-skeptic take is the coming on and on and on here over and over and over to post, really, no case for one's point of view at all.  Were I of that mind, here would be my one post on the BFF:

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I await the proof.  Until then, enjoy your conversations.

 

Then I would write a long letter to the major science journals, the gist being:

 

Is your curiosity level really so low that you can't even engage the evidence?  Or are you just afraid the proponents are right and you are wrong?

 

Then I would go about my life, content that when the discovery was made I'd hear about it.  My work would be done.  And good work it would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...