Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norseman

Patty's Calf And Tricep

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

I may need to borrow your hair splitter some day as I don't own one.  I clarified what she said.  Skeptics cling to things like this. They ignore what a scientist actually will say.  There are few scientist that will go on record and when they do they say how the lean toward this, or "my impression is a hoax of some kind"  Thus the skeptic ignores this and states, "She agrees with me"

 

What we have at the end of the day is exactly what  said in your post #135.  She agrees with me and I am glad to find out she does.   Skeptics is a generic term as most terms are.  If I felt ALL skeptics said something I would say all skeptics.  

 

Thanks again for BobZenor for tracking down the right vid.  I have often quoted the food issue she mentions as the most reasonable explanation to doubt a north American ape from a wildlife stand point. I don't agree with her but respect where she is coming from on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

My pic...De Lint's quote !   :)

 

Pat...

post-279-0-04373000-1382553679_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I may need to borrow your hair splitter some day as I don't own one.  I clarified what she said.  Skeptics cling to things like this. They ignore what a scientist actually will say.  There are few scientist that will go on record and when they do they say how the lean toward this, or "my impression is a hoax of some kind"  Thus the skeptic ignores this and states, "She agrees with me"

 

What we have at the end of the day is exactly what  said in your post #135.  She agrees with me and I am glad to find out she does.   Skeptics is a generic term as most terms are.  If I felt ALL skeptics said something I would say all skeptics.  

 

Thanks again for BobZenor for tracking down the right vid.  I have often quoted the food issue she mentions as the most reasonable explanation to doubt a north American ape from a wildlife stand point. I don't agree with her but respect where she is coming from on that.

 

I may need to borrow your hair splitter some day as I don't own one. 

You can call it splitting hairs if you want; this is not the first time that you have fabricated skeptics' responses to some real or imagined scenario. 

 

 I clarified what she said.  Skeptics cling to things like this. They ignore what a scientist actually will say. There are few scientist that will go on record and when they do they say how the lean toward this, or "my impression is a hoax of some kind"  Thus the skeptic ignores this and states, "She agrees with me"

You come up with these alleged comment by skeptic(s) as if you have special knowledge or access to some collective skeptic mind.   

 

What we have at the end of the day is exactly what  said in your post #135.  She agrees with me and I am glad to find out she does.   Skeptics is a generic term as most terms are.  If I felt ALL skeptics said something I would say all skeptics.

So how many skeptics were you including when you said, "The skeptics say, "see she said it science states patty could not exist"', or "Skeptics cling to things like this. They ignore what a scientist actually will say" or "Thus the skeptic ignores this and states, "She agrees with me""?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Oh Ramano,

 

I think we have to look at the use of the term Skeptic. 

 

First let me start by saying I have contacted the BFF weeks ago about what I feel is a need to come up with a term to describe two groups:

 

Those think Patty is a creature of Nature

Those who think patty is man made

 

Thus to define the groups we use the term skeptic or believer.  The problem with those terms is they mean different things to diff people. As an example you might have a 'Skeptic' that is open minded and is called a skeptic by some just because they have doubts about this or that. Some of those doubt could be very very reasonable.  The same would hold true with the group of believers. Some 'believers' might blindly follow Patty is real no matter what you show them. Many believers have reasonable cause for their position as well.  These problems can happen with the 'skeptic' in that would could show them some points to consider and they just reject them outright in a closed mindedness.  Is this to say, ALL skeptics are closed minded?  No.

 

So, I never heard from the Bigfoot Forums in that I never heard if we could use a term to describe where someone is coming from.  Now that is no fault of the BFF. They may have considered this before or addressed this before. I just felt this lack of understanding needs to be resolved to more easily have discussion.  So far, I have not known of a suggestion by them.

 

 Do we call someone the "Pattersons" and the other group the "Doubters"?  I don't know.  Do we use a 1-10 scale.  I don't know.

 

What I do know is when I say, "Skeptics will say...." it is 100% true that skeptics will in fact say that.  Now that is not ALL skeptics but skeptics like all groups have divisions in that group.  I do not and can't think that I have said, "ALL SKEPTICS..." 

 

If the rubber fake shoe fits, the skeptics should wear it. The skeptics who have said on the BFF 'science rejects the existence of bigfoot' is not true.  First we need to define 'objects'. THen we need to see what scientist actually say. That is, when we say Hollywood suit makers say bigfoot is an obvious fake, it may be true Stan Winston stated words to that effect. Now, it is also true he makes the claim it could be done today for a couple hundred bucks. Thus, we can take 2 things away from this:  Stan is a skeptic who does not believe. Fine. But we also know the skeptical expert has defined a parameter for this statement by saying it is so bad one of his assistance would be fired for making such a crappy suit. And, we know he says it could easily be done for a couple hundred bucks.  That is something that could be tested.  It has and it goes down in flames each time.  THe fact other attempts have failed in this regard cast doubt on what this expert said as part 2 of his statement.  There are other Hollywood people on many of these shows that say, "my impression is it is a suit of some kind"  That is a far cry from saying what the "skeptics" claim.  What he skeptics claim is said it not true. It is a Paul Harvey -- what is the 'rest of the story' situation.  Some of these same experts are in fact later saying in the same interview, "we would use [this or that] but I don't know how they would do it in 1967 since it did not exist then."

 

We can make universal assumptions.  One would be those who are believers are by definition and reason must believe patty is a creature of nature. Those who are skeptics will universally think patty is a man ( or dog or robot) in a ape suit.

 

Without a term like "Patterson Level 2" or "Doubter Level 9" I will use the term available:  Skeptic. It is not a universally understood or defined term. It is all we have even though it will mean different things to different people. Thus, some will be offended when they read a post that says, "the Skeptics will say..." But that is a thing called a generic position.  You can call it a straw man if you like.

 

I will continue to use the term, "The skeptics will say..."  

 

I know this bothers some as they are embarrassed of the lack of open mindedness of many of the skeptical friends behavior. They hate to be called a skeptic as they want to make it clear they KIND of skeptic they are.  They are embarrassed when a skeptic claims:  "The patty tracks were faked by roger digging the tracks deep and the troweling over them and then happed to catch a real bigfoot who happen to walk by right after that occurred and he happen to catch the creature on film but the tracks are fake"  (Yes this an actually a skeptical position held on the [footprints] thread).

 

 

 

As Forrest Gump would say, "That is all I have to say about that"

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...