Jump to content

Why Fake It?


Recommended Posts

In the public we often think that many other things in life are subject to corruption and bias --but not science.  We assume science is the one area where we can look to that is immune from bias, office politics and so on. While I would guess it is less prone to some of this stuff it certainly exists.  I have to believe there are those in academia who are fearful of the serious study of even blood or hair evidence of a bigfoot for fear they will be targeted as studying a fairy tale.  I would imagine there are jobs on the line for some if they hold a certain academic view.

 

We are told science is the pure arena where one can put an idea out there and have it tested.  We are told that if it withstands that tests, then it is accepted science. 

 

One of the shows in the subject of bigfoot played a segment by a skeptical science person in some field. He remarked about Dr. Meldrum by saying something like, " I have to give Dr. Meldrum credit for having the courage to study [this or that about the Bigfoot concept an the PGF]"   Why should it take courage.

 

Serious study has not been devoted to this topic.  I do think it will be forced upon science when another Patterson like encounter happens. When it does it will be with better technology.  That will lead to better details and bring the truth-- whatever it is-- into focus easier.

 

In the end, it is a scientific fact of observation to date the 'its easy to make a patty suit using 1967 tech ' crowd has failed.  Based on this, science must account for why it has not been done.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Orygun

Reporting fee for using the PGF = $10k per usage in the the royalties thread.

 

Someone mentioned $1700 to make it. Sounds plausible.

 

But apparently DWA has a different number...

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

I was only joking, in mentioning a $1700 figure, Orygun. The tip-off that I wasn't being serious, is that I also said...."plus or minus an un-determinable amount". :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reporting fee for using the PGF = $10k per usage in the the royalties thread.

 

Someone mentioned $1700 to make it. Sounds plausible.

 

But apparently DWA has a different number...

If $1700 sounds plausible to you, then "Titanic" probably cost $2000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.  Your evidence and comparative budgets available on request.

 

Heeeey.  This bigfoot-skeptic approach to posts really works...!



Common sense says that faking this would probably cost more than "Titanic," actually.

 

Common sense also goes by the name Bill Munns.  If you were wondering and I doubt that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Yes, that's all well and good DWA, but you made the claim that it has been proven that the pgf cost more to make than was ever earned by it.

 

So what are those numbers? Or were you just making that up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and saying that it's not at all incumbent on the skeptics to prove their point by doing it is a non-starter.

 

46 years and no effort even coming close says:

 

Patty's real.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

If the film is fake the hoaxers would have simply used what the technology of the day offered.  To them at the time that was the state of the art.  To us it may seem crude but you use what is available and their state of the art would serve them as well as they needed.  Music studios used to record on 2 inch wide tape on big tape machines weighing hundreds of pounds.  Today a 20 lb digital computer does the same thing.  But the results from the old technology are as outstanding as the new.  P&G weren't hampered by thoughts of future tech.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the film is fake the hoaxers would have simply used what the technology of the day offered.  To them at the time that was the state of the art.  To us it may seem crude but you use what is available and their state of the art would serve them as well as they needed.  Music studios used to record on 2 inch wide tape on big tape machines weighing hundreds of pounds.  Today a 20 lb digital computer does the same thing.  But the results from the old technology are as outstanding as the new.  P&G weren't hampered by thoughts of future tech.

Well, we know what the state of the art offered in 1967.

 

The simple answer:

 

Nothing remotely approaching what is seen in the PGF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

DWA, So I guess we can assume you just made that up about it costing more to make than it earned?  Ok. Well that is good to know for the next time you start claiming what is proven.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...