Jump to content
Old Dog

Why Fake It?

Recommended Posts

Guest Cervelo

They were attempting to make a movie about hunting for Bigfoot.

Got some of the film developed looked pretty good..and the rest is "history" shall we say ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Well, one must disprove the photographic and footprint evidence on the PGF.  That is, evidence has been put out there.   Photographic evidence is used all the time to tell who robbed a bank and so on.  Those who are skeptics asked for film evidence.  The PGF is film evidence.  It is up to those who doubt this to prove it is a hoax.  If you are satisfied that has been accomplished, then there is probably little else to say.  I have searched for such a rebuttal to the PGF starting this summer. I thought I would find it on the BFF.  I was shocked how absolutely weak the attempts have been to refute it.  

Right.

 

I get a little tired of people telling me it's all on the proponents to prove this.  It's on scientists to prove this.  That's their job; and a blanket refusal to review the evidence cuts no ice with me or anyone else serious about the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

They were attempting to make a movie about hunting for Bigfoot.

Got some of the film developed looked pretty good..and the rest is "history" shall we say ;)

 

 

Understatement of the year....and, of the last 46 years... ;) ...

 

MorrisFunnySuit2_zpsc31515ca.jpg

 

 

It's also good enough, that some skeptics will avoid answering questions about the film subject. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Right.

 

I get a little tired of people telling me it's all on the proponents to prove this.  It's on scientists to prove this.  That's their job; and a blanket refusal to review the evidence cuts no ice with me or anyone else serious about the topic.

 

Well, when the conclusions don't support what you wish to believe that could be the problem.  If the PGF is proved a fake or even a fake comes close to showing how it was done with similar result, fine by me. I will go where the facts take me.  The PGF is very simple.  It is a figure that must be a creature of nature or a hoax.  A hoax would only be able to be accomplished in 1967 with a man in a suit.  If we living in these times would might think it is computer generated or a man in a suit or even a trained robot for that matter.  But, for now those are you choices:  A man in a suit or a real 'thing' of some sort.

 

The attempts to show it is a man in a suit have failed at every attempt.  Also, since no side has a lock on science on their 'side' one must each make their best case based on what is on the film.

 

You seemed satisfied what you see is a fake.  If it were me, I would move on to other things. I cannot see myself spending time on a loch ness monster site when I do not think it exists.  

 

Prevailing science has thought at the time there sun went around the earth, the earth was flat, and so on.  To retreat to the position of, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a retreat to the intellectually lazy.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

And going back to the OP we see "why fake it?"

 

People fake because science has vacated this field to amateurs; and people who like to play jokes are among the ones filling the vacuum.  See any deer fakers or bear fakers on YouTube lately?

 

That fakery explains very little of the evidence (and really doesn't even count; what it explains is set aside and not part of the discussion).  There is a great bulk of truly anomalous stuff that needs to be examined.  When I hear a scientist talk about this (with certain obvious exceptions), I satisfy myself within his first couple of sentences that I need not take him seriously when it comes to this topic, because he contradicts what evidence would clearly tell him.

 

And nope, I'm not going to a ghosts-and-poltergeists site to say "not proven" over and over.  So many better things to do with one's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Here you go Doc:

 

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=249835

 

That is part 4 of a 4 part, should be easy to navigate to part 1 from there. As far as I understand, there was another thread that dealt with Munns specifically, but then he threatened legal action and it was since removed. That was before my time at JREF, so I don't know any details. The thread I linked deals with the PGF in general.

 

 

 

Thanks for the info. Not knowing what the site was I was not aware it was the James Randi site. I had started there about a year or so ago before I stumbled across the BFF.    I will retread what I have already read there for months but I was not impressed before.  Now I like James Randi but like anyone I like I do not always agree with him.  It has been my observation he retreats to the realm of 'this person must have a psychological problem' to explain what he cannot explain.  Ironically it is the JREF types who do walk the walk and talk the talk of James Randi. That is, randi will take a person claiming to have powers to move objects or bend spoons. He will then do the same exact thing showing exactly the same result. Thys, leaving it to the viewer to determine if his exact demo would indeed explain this to the thinking man.  

 

With the PGF where is the James Randi attempt to take 1967 materials and make the suit.  If one exist you could save me a lot of time and just point me right to that attempt.  But instead, many of those professing to be the intellectuals retreat to rumor, and accusation.  Just have Mr. Randi do what he has done so well before. Make that suit that should cost so little and be so easy to do using 1967 materials and he can have the last laugh.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

I wouldn't go to the Randi Forums for anything approaching an intelligent take on this topic.  Been there, seen that, not worth it.  A Know-Nothing site when it comes to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

With the PGF where is the James Randi attempt to take 1967 materials and make the suit.  If one exist you could save me a lot of time and just point me right to that attempt.  But instead, many of those professing to be the intellectuals retreat to rumor, and accusation.  Just have Mr. Randi do what he has done so well before. Make that suit that should cost so little and be so easy to do using 1967 materials and he can have the last laugh.  

I do think it's funny that the proponents on this issue are sticking to science and evidence, and it's always the so-called skeptics who try the irrational "you must believe me" tack and tail off into character assassination and other distractions from what they seem unable to show a clear thinker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

You watch an interview with one of these scientists and they say things like, "well I am troubled rumors exist of a hollywood suit about that same time" or my favorite, "There are many times people develop a mental condition that is anthropological where we are seeing things in the dark that are not really there"   What do those things have to do with what is on the film? What does it have to do with the ability to replicate the 1967 work called the Patterson Gimlin Film?

 

We have heard reports for years of the goat eating creature in texas and mexico.  For years we have video cameras and 8 mm movie cameras and so on with no film of such creature.  Now we are starting to have video of such smooth looking, long snouted 'dogs'    This may or may not be such a creature.  Yet, only recently do we have film of such a creature.  I say recently based on how long such stories have been around.  Some scientist have stated the videos of these 'dogs' are dogs with a sickness but are in fact dogs.  That may or may not be. But these scientist have not said the film of these subjects is a fake.

 

I would assume it would be a lot easier to capture a 'dog' type creature in a desert type setting than a ape like creature in a vast northwestern forrest. What took them so long?

(Yes I know since the time of this vid they have captured live specimens)

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Right.

 

I get a little tired of people telling me it's all on the proponents to prove this.  It's on scientists to prove this.  That's their job; and a blanket refusal to review the evidence cuts no ice with me or anyone else serious about the topic.

Didn't Sykes recently, and ongoing I might add, examine some evidence? What else would you have science examine? Blurry photos and tall tales?  Bring biological evidence to the table and science will examine it. Sykes has a standing offer. What more could you ask for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 What else would you have science examine? 

 

 

Patty's skeletal lengths/proportions. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I did say biological evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Didn't Sykes recently, and ongoing I might add, examine some evidence? What else would you have science examine? Blurry photos and tall tales?  Bring biological evidence to the table and science will examine it. Sykes has a standing offer. What more could you ask for?

What I asked for.  And no, Sykes examining random hairs sent to him isn't cutting it.  He is doing what he can from where he is, just like, you know, Meldrum and Krantz and Napier and Mionczynski and Bindernagel, which is a far cry from mainstream science entering a field they're already over a century late for.

 

It's like paleontologists trying to advance the field by just sitting around analyzing any old bones people send them.  It's something, but don't say it's the mainstream being involved.

Until full-time field searches for long periods of time, we are talking months and years here, are happening, nothing much is.  Period.

 

We need NAWAC effort with full-time commitment, which laymen aren't funding out of their pockets on their vacation time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^

 

The science will get after it when there is the next Patterson event. Once there is a good video out there and good encounter science will dive in. Such an encounter will only come if luck meets opportunity.  I could see a trail camera and a footprint and hair investigation afterwards to be the most likely future Patterson event. 

 

I could see if a person set up a trail camera and the images were compelling this would lead to those going to the site.  There could be an CSI like investigation of the site including hair, footprints, and computer models of the footprints.

 

Until this time, we are left to go back to the PGF. Great efforts have been made to squeeze each drop of info out of the PGF.  Even this has a limit.

 

If we have that next image or video that also has compelling footprints, DNA that points to an unknown something, and the image just looks 'real'  that will be the only thing to move science investigators beyond just a handful.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

The very reason we are still having the "fake" discussions is that no concerted scientific effort has been devoted to separating fact from fiction in this field.

 

The isolated experts who step outside the mainstream to handle this - not a single one of which vouches for Pattyfake - just aren't getting listened to by a critical mass of their peers (who are willing to step up and say they're listening).

 

It's really humorous how Sykes is separated by skeptics from Meldrum and Krantz when really he is the precise same kind of animal - a qualified expert who steps out of his mainstream shoes to focus scientific light on this topic.  It's just that his peculiar area of expertise covers only a small fragment of the evidence; and that evidence isn't being submitted to him by biologists who know they have something but by random Joes who think they have something.

 

Huge diff there.  Doesn't mean Sykes is doing the wrong thing; just means that one needs to understand what its impact is on the overall evidence, which is minimal.  At least he's doing something.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...