Jump to content
TD-40

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.

Recommended Posts

Guest DWA

Well, SY, this is the funniest thing about bigfoot skeptics.

 

I haven't heard from a single one who gives *any* proponent - much less a serious one - reason to change anything they're thinking.

 

The play to the lazy mass that doesn't understand how the world works.  There are varied reasons for that - fear; anxiety; arrogance; ignorance; I could go on - but the result is the same.  If it's not proven you can go back to sleep because it's not real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

 

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.)

 Maybe his gut has told him not to engage a ruler.   :o    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

John Green showed pretty durn conclusively that proportion makes the smart bet that Patty is authentic.

 

Not a scientist, last time I checked.  He seemed to understand it.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

DWA wrote:

 

Well, SY, this is the funniest thing about bigfoot skeptics.

 

I haven't heard from a single one who gives *any* proponent - much less a serious one - reason to change anything they're thinking.

 

The play to the lazy mass that doesn't understand how the world works.  There are varied reasons for that - fear; anxiety; arrogance; ignorance; I could go on - but the result is the same.  If it's not proven you can go back to sleep because it's not real

 

 

 

 

That's right, DWA....in many cases, they don't provide reasons/analysis to support their propositions. They just say "they don't accept the pro-Bigfoot analysis"...as if that is something that actually matters. 

 

But that is not what really matters....'Bigfoot scoftics' are a 'dime a dozen'....it's easy to dump on the evidence, and the analysis....with nothing but 'words'. Talk is cheap.

 

Showing something to be true, or not true, with something of substance is a whole other thing. That is where they all fail. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

And I got it when he explained it.  (Green's explanation, that is.  Expected it to be appended to my previous post then that **** SY checked in.  :-D  )

 

Called "thinking."  Cool if you can do it.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

 

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.)

 

 

 Maybe his gut has told him not to engage a ruler.   :o    

 

 

 

Something has told him not to... ;)

And I got it when he explained it.  (Green's explanation, that is.  Expected it to be appended to my previous post then that **** SY checked in.  :-D  )

 

Called "thinking."  Cool if you can do it.

 

 

I think you still have time to edit it into your previous post, DWA. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Almost all the analysis that makes one seriously doubt that the hoax hypothesis works for Patty requires no specialized scientific training at all.

 

But it does require one to think the way a scientist does.

 

Which is why those of us who do can tell in a minute when a scientist is talking out the wrong hole on this question.  He misses stuff that is either easy to find or right in front of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

John Green showed pretty durn conclusively that proportion makes the smart bet that Patty is authentic.

 

Not a scientist, last time I checked.  He seemed to understand it.

 

His tummy told him that it was ok to engage all the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Almost all the analysis that makes one seriously doubt that the hoax hypothesis works for Patty requires no specialized scientific training at all.

 

But it does require one to think the way a scientist does.

 

 

 

Very true, DWA.

 

Albert Einstein thought like a scientist, long before any special education in the field of science. He even dared to write scientific papers.

 

An excerpt from the Wikipedia article, on Einstein...

 

"His father intended for him to pursue electrical engineering, but Einstein clashed with authorities and resented the school's regimen and teaching method. He later wrote that the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in strict rote learning. At the end of December 1894, he travelled to Italy to join his family in Pavia, convincing the school to let him go by using a doctor's note.[19] It was during his time in Italy (at the age of 15) that he wrote a short essay with the title "On the Investigation of the State of the Ether in a Magnetic Field."[20][21]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

 

 

dmaker wrote:

 

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?

 

 

 

:lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

 

Almost all the analysis that makes one seriously doubt that the hoax hypothesis works for Patty requires no specialized scientific training at all.

 

But it does require one to think the way a scientist does.

 

 

 

Very true, DWA.

 

Albert Einstein thought like a scientist, long before any special education in the field of science. He even dared to write scientific papers.

 

An excerpt from the Wikipedia article, on Einstein...

 

"His father intended for him to pursue electrical engineering, but Einstein clashed with authorities and resented the school's regimen and teaching method. He later wrote that the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in strict rote learning. At the end of December 1894, he travelled to Italy to join his family in Pavia, convincing the school to let him go by using a doctor's note.[19] It was during his time in Italy (at the age of 15) that he wrote a short essay with the title "On the Investigation of the State of the Ether in a Magnetic Field."[20][21]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

 

One can tell on questions like this one whether one is talking to a well-qualified technician in a narrow scientific box or to a true scientist.

 

Meldrum:  scientist.  Doesn't accept anything without evidence; doesn't let preconceptions dilute or erase the evidence.

 

Most mainstreamers:  well-qualified technicians in the areas they know.  But in this one, they act like laymen:  they dismiss evidence without review and provide reasons for doing so that any layman well-read on the topic can see through.  They don't apply their expertise to the subject matter.

 

Ask a bigfoot skeptic what the mainstream is saying that makes its stance worthwhile and you'll hear:  [crickets]

 

That is what uninformed 'consensus' sounds like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

edited to remove comments

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

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?

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

That was kinda funny ... so the questions should be:   Does it take a scientist to read a ruler? I will have to check with my tailor.   (sigh)

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 I agree with the opinion it does not take a lot of technical knowledge to understand the various analysis of the PGF. Measurements are measurements. Approaches like pointing out that it might be, could be just within the range human on this thing and that thing are pretty weak. As improbable as it is, it is even more so if its a hoax. It is clear, if its a suit, its far better than anything we have seen to date, until the digital era. Its all right there, plain to see. I think in this case skepticism has slipped more into a pattern of denial. To the point where they picked the back story to death.  A back story that will always seem "odd" in some ways to those who do not take into consideration human exaggeration, their individual personality flaws, or that mysterious trait we see in some to just "one up" everyone, for their own ego or something. I think these things have affected the back story, yet the core truth of the encounter remains the same, Bob H being Patty is not even on the radar of consideration. 

 Maybe science will not acknowledge, and give the film the credit and the evidence it presents proper consideration. But, its a much weaker argument for the hoax theory, than it is for its authentic theory. It all really comes down to one simple thing. It cannot be authentic, because Bigfoot is not real. That way of thinking however, does not change what you see on the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

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?

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

That was kinda funny ... so the questions should be:   Does it take a scientist to read a ruler? I will have to check with my tailor.   (sigh)

 

 

 

It sure is funny, Bigfoothunter... ;) ....especially when compared with the much more complex scientific work Einstein was engaged in, at a young age.

 

Unlike the work he was doing....this happens to be a very simple branch of Science.....'Suitology'...  :sarcastichand: Suitology1_zps892c5dd3.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Its pretty sad when a skeptic who wishes to be taken seriously will want to wait and have a scientist read a ruler for him or her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...