Jump to content
TD-40

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor

 

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.

 

 

No, what I'm saying is that if you have a Squatch body on a slab? The PGF will slip off into obscurity............nobody will care if it's a guy in a suit or not.

 

Even if a Bill Munns studies the body and then factually makes real time comparisons to the PGF and proves without a doubt that Patty is real? No body is going to care anymore............ The new focus would be entirely on the body on the slab, and the realization that humans are not the only bipedal walking apes on the planet anymore.

 

I think that's a fair observation on my part. A body would be akin to aliens landing on the white house lawn. Nobody would be debating Roswell any more..........it would be a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

P/G won't disappear when sasquatch is confirmed; rather, Roger Patterson will take his place among the great heroes of the natural sciences.  At least one scientist has already said that.

 

The point is that we don't have to kill one in order to act as if there's a host of possibilities we could be wrong about this.  Were an analysis like the proponent analyses of P/G done in astronomy or paleoanthropology, the findings would be close to a slam dunk, and the skeptical demurrers would be about as prominent as moon-made-of-green-cheese.

 

In other words:  that we are still talking about having to kill one of these to prove they aren't guys in suits is an indictment of the scientific mainstream.  It's not the way they treat anything else like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Very well said, DWA... DWA-AG3_zpsdc2de785.gif

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? 

 

 

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.

 

The ability to "think" does not qualify one in any field they care to choose. So I will assume the answer is no, you do not have any particular qualifications, credentials or degrees in relevant scientific fields. No problem. And if you think that in the real world ( outside of the BFF) that that fact does not matter, then you are sadly mistaken.  I'll wait until some other real experts weigh in. Thanks

 

I don't need to PM you for you to find your way to JREF and find the thread(s) dealing with the PGF/Munns.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

^^^JREF is not a place anyone needs to go who is serious about this topic.  You won't be able to decipher the combination to those locked minds, promise.  You say why:

 

"The ability to "think" does not qualify one in any field they care to choose. So I will assume the answer is no, [they] do not have any particular qualifications, credentials or degrees in relevant scientific fields."

 

Or, they demonstrably misuse them, as anyone can tell readily who, well, "thinks."

 

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I can see why any one who is seriously interested in only hearing one side of the story would avoid the JREF. The voices of reason there make a mighty amount of sense. But yes, "serious" Footers should avoid that by all means. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

No, they don't make sense.  They reject the evidence and make fun of people who try to make them look at it.

 

They are pretty much the epitome of what makes science, in the hands of most scientists, a pretty decent tool...unless they have to use it to address something with which they aren't comfortable.

 

I am constantly showing on this site why the serious proponents are serious.

 

Give me one halfway decent example why anyone who disagrees with them on anything should visit JREF to discuss it.  No excuses.  I've heard enough of those.

 

They're flat-earthers over there, plain and simple.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I don't care if they visit JREF or not. Sweaty asked where I had read counters to Munns and his "work". Perhaps they don't make sense to you, and that's fine.  I think a lot of Footers could benefit from a reading of certain threads over there. That is, of course, if they wish to remove their blinders. But I'm not here to shill for JREF, so I'm content to leave it at that. 

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Can't remove blinders by talking to people wearing them, and I say this having read Patty threads on JREF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

You're surrounded by people wearing them here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I don't care if they visit JREF or not. Sweaty asked where I had read counters to Munns and his "work". Perhaps they don't make sense to you, and that's fine.  I think a lot of Footers could benefit from a reading of certain threads over there. That is, of course, if they wish to remove their blinders. But I'm not here to shill for JREF, so I'm content to leave it at that. 

 

I think that Kerry may have gotten the information that he later found withheld data in so to taint the facts about Meldrum and something he had said. But if you can reference a particular study, then I'm happy to see it.

I can see why any one who is seriously interested in only hearing one side of the story would avoid the JREF. The voices of reason there make a mighty amount of sense. But yes, "serious" Footers should avoid that by all means. 

 

Are those the same voices of reason that believe the tracks on the P/G film site were all dug by hand?

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.

 

I thought you went by what your gut said to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

You're surrounded by people wearing them here...

Well, I'm not exactly thinking I'm not talking to one.

 

Glad I'm not though.  Clear eyes and a clear head are essential in science.  Somebody has to do it.

 

I don't care if they visit JREF or not. Sweaty asked where I had read counters to Munns and his "work". Perhaps they don't make sense to you, and that's fine.  I think a lot of Footers could benefit from a reading of certain threads over there. That is, of course, if they wish to remove their blinders. But I'm not here to shill for JREF, so I'm content to leave it at that. 

 

I think that Kerry may have gotten the information that he later found withheld data in so to taint the facts about Meldrum and something he had said. But if you can reference a particular study, then I'm happy to see it.

JREF is fact-proof, if the facts don't suit what they want to think.  Are there proponents like that?  Yes.  Just not serious ones.  But the only ones JREF confronts are the fringers; they lack the ammo to go after Meldrum toe to toe.

I can see why any one who is seriously interested in only hearing one side of the story would avoid the JREF. The voices of reason there make a mighty amount of sense. But yes, "serious" Footers should avoid that by all means. 

 

Are those the same voices of reason that believe the tracks on the P/G film site were all dug by hand?

 

The things the JREFers think would astonish them, If  they ever learned they were thinking them.  What would have to prevail for all this evidence to amount to a false positive is something not one of them would bet the handle of an old wooden spoon on.  And of course the thing they think is MOST likely - that a whole bunch of random fails is putting together the life history of a species - is the thing that is, by light years, LEAST likely.

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.

 

I thought you went by what your gut said to do.

 

Cherrypickers have to shift often.  They live dangerously.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

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 ;)

 

How many times does one have to correct you before you get it right? Measurements won't prove that Patty is a Bigfoot, but it can prove that Patty is not a man in a suit. Once that possibility has been erased, then one can ponder what other options are left concerning what Patty is.

 

Recap:  Measurements can  be taken so to compare limbs to see if they fall into the possibility of human. It's not about showing what Patty is, but rather what she is not. I cannot state it any clearer without the use of sock puppets.

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 ;)

 

How many times does one have to correct you before you get it right? Measurements won't prove that Patty is a Bigfoot, but it can prove that Patty is not a man in a suit. Once that possibility has been erased, then one can ponder what other options are left concerning what Patty is.

 

Recap:  Measurements can  be taken so to compare limbs to see if they fall into the possibility of human. Sweaty's study is not about showing what Patty is, but rather what she is not.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

The only guy in human history with those proportions has to be Patty.

 

Otherwise, um, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

dmaker wrote:

 

The ability to "think" does not qualify one in any field they care to choose. So I will assume the answer is no, you do not have any particular qualifications, credentials or degrees in relevant scientific fields.

 

 

 

My ability to think qualifies me to make simple comparisons between Patty and 'men in suits'....and to discover new details on Patty's body.  Details that you will never refute, or show how they can be replicated by a 'guy in a suit'. ('Arm proportion' is but one of those details.)

 

 

Btw, feel free to show why Patty's joints do not match-up with the man's, in the 'hand shake' comparison. 

 

And, then show why Bob Heironimus' body proportions do not match-up with Patty's.  

 

If you can... :lol:

 

 

dmaker wrote:

 

 

I'll wait until some other real experts weigh in. Thanks

 

 

 

What "dmaker" is waiting for doesn't matter to me...in the slightest. I'll just continue posting new analysis, and challenging people to refute it. :)

 

 

Edited to add:

 

Thanks for the support, Bigfoothunter... :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...