Jump to content

Why Fake It?


Recommended Posts

If Bigfoot is real there should be a decent chance there are other Bigfeet out there.  If there have been encounters with such a creature in the past (Roger Patterson) they have been Uncommon. That is, there may have been several hundred or even several thousand encounters.  If Bigfoot is real then some % of those encounters would be assumed to be real.  There problem is getting evidence of such an encounter of such an elusive creature.  That is why I still say Trail Cameras will ultimately be the technology that snags a picture if it is indeed real. 

 

One person came put out 100's of cameras.  100 investigators putting out 100 camera is like 10,000 people looking for the creature. Now I will admit that camera is not walking or covering ground like a person. But in time, it's like fishing. The more lines you have in the water the more chances there are to catch some fish.

 

As these methods become cheaper to employ and as shows like Finding Bigfoot (I am not a fan) continue to capture the imagination, I have to believe there will be someone somewhere who will capture a Bigfoot image on a motion activated trail camera if one is to exist.  It is frustrating the best potential image we have to date is the 1967 Patterson Gimlin Film. 

 

 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of trail cameras - I agree, the more there are, the better the chance that one of these things would be filmed.  Do they ever put up trail cams spaced out close together so one could get several shots of an animal as it walked in the area of the cams?  Maybe from different angles that all take pics at the same time, or even spread out every second or half second? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

...and nothing, in 46 years, approaching a sliver of a sensible motive for a fake.

 

Money.

 

Leaving something ($$$) for his wife after he died.

 

Recognition (and, again money.)

 

If these concepts are foreign to you I suggest you stick to the sightings which have worked so well in your favour in the last 46 years.

 

Not asking for proof. Just credible evidence.

 

Try as you may you cannot deny the allure of cash. 

 

Roger faked it for monetary and no one has proven otherwise. Not here in these forums, not in the real world. Not at all. 

 

It must be a frustrating position for the proponent camp. Demanding the skeptics disprove bf's existence because they themselves cannot prove what they believe or know or think they have seen.

There is no null hypothesis. That term is for statistical analysis.

 

The default position is that it was faked. 

 

Deal with it or show me Monkey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Squatchy wrote:

 

Deal with it or show me Monkey.

 

 

 

Deal with this... :) ...

 

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Arm%20Comparisons%20Two/Elbow-Line-Up3_zps2f4de0c3.jpg

 

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Arm%20Comparisons%20Two/F362-Chabal-ArmProportionComp1_zps68c308c4.jpg

 

 

 

Try as you may you cannot deny the allure of cash. 

 

 

 

Makes you wonder why Bob Gimlin never "cashed in" on this "hoax", many years ago.

 

 

Also makes you wonder why Roger would unnecessarily cut Bob Gimlin out of the picture, early-on....with all that potential cash at stake.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually squatchy, the default position is it's a hairy biped. Whether or not it's a human or a large hairy cousin is a debate, and you denialists are losing in a blowout(screaming otherwise by you and dmaker notwithstanding). Please refute the findings of Mr Munns or Sweaty with more than Kitakaze told me so so it must be true!

 

Don't need to show you monkey AGAIN as Roger already did. As Bill and Sweaty have shown again. How's the rug monkey coming along?

Edited by stinkyfeet
Link to post
Share on other sites
chelefoot

It must be a frustrating position for the proponent camp. Demanding the skeptics disprove bf's existence because they themselves cannot prove what they believe or know or think they have seen.

There is no null hypothesis. That term is for statistical analysis.

 

The default position is that it was faked. 

 

Deal with it or show me Monkey.

The "Monkey" is in the video - and the work by Bill Munns.  I think proponents have made their play. It's skeptics turn to answer now.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

It's been the skeptics' turn to answer for the last several years, Chele... :)

 

I've been posting comparisons/graphics and animations on a few Forums, for years, and have gotten the same general response to them....(as Simon and Garfunkel once said)....."The Sounds....of Silence"... :music:

 

And, there is still plenty more analysis to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it have to start on one side of the scale or the other, real/fake.

 Why isn't it tested on an even bed, people put up their hypothesis for others to see and discuss.

One shouldn't discount something until it's been reviewed.

I'm quite skeptical on many sightings, pictures and whatever else evidence pops up.

Then base a decision on the review of the material.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best analysis should start neutral, and list the options to explain the matter, and then evaluate each with equal consideration.

 

If propoer analysis of the evidence can exclude all options but one, that one surviving option is the answer.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Why does it have to start on one side of the scale or the other, real/fake.

 

 Why isn't it tested on an even bed, people put up their hypothesis for others to see and discuss.

One shouldn't discount something until it's been reviewed.

I'm quite skeptical on many sightings, pictures and whatever else evidence pops up.

Then base a decision on the review of the material.  

 

 

The analysis doesn't have to start with a bias either way, Wheelug....but, pretty much all of the analysis that's produced meaningful results has been conducted by people who either started out as, or became, Bigfoot proponents.

 

Which is the reason why I don't bother getting into Q-and-A dialogues with the resident Bigfoot skeptics. The conversations I get into with them are more like... 'Q-and- ...........Chirp..........Chirp........" dialogues. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

"Why fake it?  For money.  So why did they only Fake it once? Makes no sense.   They would have faked it again and had another video.  This did not happen.

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the skeptic/scoftic arguments often repeated is what a huge coincidence would have been required for P/G to stumble on a Bigfoot while they were actually looking for one in an area where recent evidence had been found. I'll relate an experience in my life that I would postulate is a much more extreme example of coincidence.

 

Most of my working life, a month short of 26 years, was spent as a service technician for a family owned office equipment and supply store in my home town of Helena, Montana. After leaving the Navy in December of '73 I worked a few jobs lasting one to three years before starting with the company at the beginning of February, '79. In September of '88 I flew to Santa Ana, California for a week long technical training school on the line of fax machines being introduced by Mita, the copier company we were authorized dealers for. All of the technicians attending the school were staying in the same hotel, Wooley's Petite Suites I believe was the name. Following class on Wednesday, we gathered around the swimming pool deck at the hotel to recap the day's class over a few beers. While walking back to my group with a fresh brew, a man stepped up to me, put a hand on my shoulder and asked if my name was Jeff. When I replied in the affirmative, he said "I think we were in the Navy together."

 

It was one of my good friends from my aviation squadron whom I had neither seen or heard from in nearly 15 years. He and I and another buddy had even shared rent for an off base apartment for a few months in '73. He was a Texan and lived in a Fort Worth suburb, working as a technician for an international telephone equipment manufacturer and was also attending a technical school in Santa Ana for that company. He was over 1,200 miles from home and I was nearly 1,000. Add that he chanced to see me and was sure enough of his memory to approach me and ask my name and you certainly have a coincidence.

 

I'm sure a statistician with the proper data could compute the odds of that happening, I would simply say they are astronomical. A couple of men with a movie camera out looking for a creature in an area it had been reported in and actually finding it, not so much, IMNTBHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask a skeptic what conditions might have to be met in 1967 in order to film or a chance to film a bigfoot.  Some with a reasonable dialog will say:

 

Have a camera ready or near ready

Get it in an open area (hard to see it in the thickets)

Catch it unaware

Go to an area where they have been recently in order to increase the odds of an encounter

Keep searching in spite of disappointment

and so on.

 

When you think about the type of conditions that would need to be present to luck out the PGF has them.  Put another way, if Roger has claimed to take these in Central Park during a Rolling Stones concert the odds would seem to go down.

 

We have all heard Luck is when Preparation meets Opportunity.  Just something to think about.

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