See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 " Many things are useful that are ambiguous. It is that ambiguity, I think, that compels people to declare it unambiguous" -WSA Fair enough. Do you truly think the photos of Chewtilda are ambiguous? Do you not recognize the startling resemblance to a certain popular culture icon from the Star Wars films? You place your trust in the perception of eye witnesses in the BFRO reports, yet none in the perception of the many people here, and elsewhere, that have pointed out this glaring issue with the Erickson photos. That perception, in your view, is the act of self-appointed judges. I just don't understand how one groups perception is fine for you, yet another is not. It seems you would rather just declare everything as real or potentially real in the event that you might be wrong by stating an opinion on something that looks pretty obviously fake to many others. Which is fine, but when you accompany that with moral high ground like you do, it comes off as a bit hypocritical. The difference is that we've actually seen the evidence they've presented to substantiate their claim before we came to the conclusion that it was a hoax, unreliable and, therefore, untrue. We didn't make an assumption they were lying, mistaken or hoaxing beforehand.
GuyInIndiana Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) Dmaker...what does it matter what I think about that? I've never seen such an animal. Now, I know of many who say they have. I'd be much more interested to know what THEIR opinion is on looking at these films. Those who do have that knowledge, I listen to. Instead, a bunch of people yammering about how something HAS to be this or the other? Not very interesting to me and I don't call it progress. It is sort of like the whole piling on of Sasquatch Ontario. I found myself asking, so, what is a BF supposed to sound like? We are so enamored with our own opinions we can't just sit on our hands and consider what we are being shown and admit what we couldn't possibly know. So... the whole Chewbacca mask doesn't bother you? ETA: It does me. And other people I know who've seen a sasquatch before. And the whole thing. The whole stinkin' thing. Edited October 3, 2013 by GuyInIndiana
BobbyO Posted October 3, 2013 SSR Team Posted October 3, 2013 Well it's gone airstream now for sure, international too. That wasn't meant to be " airstream " it was meant to be " mainstream ". **** iPad.
Guest Darrell Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 The difference is that we've actually seen the evidence they've presented to substantiate their claim before we came to the conclusion that it was a hoax, unreliable and, therefore, untrue. We didn't make an assumption they were lying, mistaken or hoaxing beforehand. So are you saying the Erickson Project stuff is a hoax and untrue and that they are lying about the "evidence" and also perpetuating hoax? And as an extention, Dr Ketchum by association?
dmaker Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) The difference is that we've actually seen the evidence they've presented to substantiate their claim before we came to the conclusion that it was a hoax, unreliable and, therefore, untrue. We didn't make an assumption they were lying, mistaken or hoaxing beforehand. See, what is the difference between reading a witness report ( say the pig tossing one from Texas) and deciding that without some compelling, objective evidence that this is not a true story, vs looking at a photo and deciding that is is not likely genuine? In both cases I have examined all that is being offered as evidence. Edited October 3, 2013 by dmaker
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) See, what is the difference between reading a witness report ( say the pig tossing one from Texas) and deciding that without some compelling, objective evidence that this is not a true story, vs looking at a photo and deciding that is is not likely genuine? In both cases I have examined all that is being offered as evidence. When the witness still gets teary eyed to re tell the story 5-10 years later it must be a lie right ? (sabine river hunter in tree stand seeing BF kill hog) Edited October 3, 2013 by GEARMAN
dmaker Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 ^^ No that does not mean it must be a lie, but tears do not make it true either. So are you saying the Erickson Project stuff is a hoax and untrue and that they are lying about the "evidence" and also perpetuating hoax? And as an extention, Dr Ketchum by association? I'm curious about some of these by associations. Ketchum obviously is involved directly. But we see Meldrum, Bindernagel and Leila Hadj-Chikh all in talking head segments of the documentary trailer. I don't believe Meldrum was directly involved with the project, but I believe Bindernagel visited there and saw a Bigfoot or something? But a press release I read recently listed Hadj-Chikh as part of the project. Not sure if that is true or not, or what that involvement would actually be. I am sure time will tell on that one, and if this is outed as a hoax, then I would imagine reputations will be tarnished all around. Kind of hard for it not be sadly if you attach your name to something like this. But if they were just used for interviews for the documentary then their reputations should remain unchanged by this farce I hope.
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Got to be the same thing, surely ? Edit : Either that or they based Chewwie on Matilda.. Another complete train wreck, when will it end ? I swear these people get paid to throw spanners into the works of this subject, i'm convinced of it Oh come on, everyone knows Wookiees throw Hydrospanners into the works... http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hydrospanner St. G-
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 ^^ No that does not mean it must be a lie, but tears do not make it true either. No but it would convince a jury
dmaker Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Thankfully science has a different view when it comes to anecdotal evidence. 1
Guest Darrell Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 ^I have been thru more than a few jury trials and tears do not always a jury sway.
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Hey just saying not to poo poo on consistant witnesses that say the same acount over the years and stand by it. Its not enough fot ya'll but it is not thrown out either. Plot location and habitat potential and plot other reports look for a patterns and consistancy of behaviors , physical descriptions and habitat.. Stuff some of us like.
Guest Darrell Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 So Biscardi can actively aid a hoax and he becomes the butt of every hoaxing joke out there, but Ketchum and Erickson and a whole bunch of other experts can do this and get a pass? Why? How do you get 20 bigfoot experts all in the same room? Throw in a dollar bill!
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 On this thread I have learned two new terms: "Chewtilda" and "Rugsquatch" Plussed. At least some new terms have been created.
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Who is giving MK and AD a pass? Not me, you have not seen all my FB posts. Spent the last couple days telling people all this stuff in the news this week is crap and a hoax.
Recommended Posts