Jump to content

Patty's Feet.....and The Footprints (Part 2)


Guest Admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Passionate Member
BFF Donor

dmaker:  Do you understand that there were reports of pretty much every other animal that is alive in the world now, or that existed in the past during the age of Man, before bodies of those animals were on a slab?

 

I too do not understand why some PGf skeptics seem to 'obsess' with arguing about the film.  I totally do get why the proponents are so interested (it's because we think that the film shows an animal as it naturally appears in the wild and because Patty being legit means BINGO: Bigfoot are real.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Passionate Member
BFF Donor

If you truly do not understand the significance of Bigfoot being real then I:

 

A.) honestly have no idea why you might be here (other than to detract) and,

B.) don't think I can help you.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not ignoring the impact of the importance of bigfoot as a discovery. But without evidence, there is no reason to expect such a discovery.  There are plenty of things in the world, that if discovered, would have great importance. But I don't see thousands of people clinging to other ideas and embracing hoaxes and ignoring strong indicators that the discovery will likely never happen. This seems to occur, from what I can tell, mostly in fortean circles. 

 

So I ask again, why is the existence of bigfoot important to YOU. I don't understand why bigfoot supporters persist in believing in something that requires so much wilful ignorance and denial of facts and reality. What is the payoff?

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 examples, but you've pretty much excluded them already.  

 

P&G film, while hotly disputed for and against, it has been researched and vetted by scientist - albeit Russian - without being dismissed. It has also been researched by film experts (yes I have to include Mr Munns) while quickly dismissed by others in the same industry without actually delving into the film. 

 

Foot Prints, again hotly contested and debated, but what other doctorates or 'scientists' have actually studied them except Dr Meldrum? 

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html is just one of his papers which was pretty well done.   John Napier - a Director of Primatology, couldn't approve or deny Bigfoot as he could never never dismiss tracks that he studied.

 

Biologists in the field (with degrees) =- John Bindernagel, Leroy Fish, John Mionczynski.  

 

They have all researched it carefully and to an extreme, so it falls under 'vetted'. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But who has confirmed their vetting? No one outside of the bigfoot community, including phds, has confirmed their findings. And until they attempt to publish in mainstream journals, that is not going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Bigfoot's only significance is to reflect on man's love of the mysterious and unknown.  It is what keeps it afloat.  It also serves as a sounding board on how far humans are willing to go in accepting that which by nearly all other conventions offers precious little to believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I don't understand why bigfoot supporters persist in believing in something that requires so much willful ignorance and denial of facts and reality. What is the payoff?

 

 

kit talked me into it... :thumbsup: ...

 

SweatyYeti asketh: "Do you think there is a "reasonable probability" that Bigfoot exists, within North America?  'Yes' or 'No'?""

 

kit saith: "Within, yes, such as the kermode bear."

 

 

Sorry, dmaker...but when kit talks.....I listen... :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Passionate Member
BFF Donor

"I don't understand why bigfoot supporters persist in believing in something that requires so much willful ignorance and denial of facts and reality." 

 

So, by describing Bigfoot supporters as willfully ignorant; are you suggesting that the average PGf skoftic is more knowledgeable about this subject than the average PGf proponent?  Well, I can tell you for sure that the barrage of mis-information and hollow promises of 'hoax proof' from your side of the fence do not seem to a support such an opinion, at all.

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My side of the fence, as you put it, can point to the absolute lack of proof of bigfoot anywhere.  No verifiable evidence of bigfoot has ever been produced. Now, some people might consider that a compelling reason to think bigfoot does not exist. Others may choose to believe despite the glaring lack of proof. 

 

Your choice. You can choose to continue believing, by all means, that is your prerogative. But, I can tell you this, 20 years from now when there is still no proof of bigfoot, are you going to persist in your belief? And if so, will it be the same old excuses for why there is no proof? Will you be content to hang your belief on the same old tired special pleading and worn out excuses? Or is simple, blind belief, enough for you, even then?

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

 

 

So, by describing Bigfoot supporters as willfully ignorant; are you suggesting that the average PGf skoftic is more knowledgeable about this subject than the average PGf proponent?  Well, I can tell you for sure that the barrage of mis-information and hollow promises of 'hoax proof' from your side of the fence do not seem to a support such an opinion, at all.

Actually the bigfoot issue can be answered very simply, very quickly and without willfulness.  All it takes is three questions.  1. Does the subject of bigfoot exist?  2. Do people support the idea of it's existence?  3.  Has there ever been tangible proof to support the belief system?  Yes, Yes, No are the answers to the three questions.  To get another answer to #3 requires an intense amount of supposition and pleading.  It required far more willfulness on my part to accept bigfoot's reality than it did/does to discount it.

 

Or is simple, blind belief, enough for you, even then?

 

 

Can you see Patty's "calf muscle" appear to contract? :popcorn:

 

There is no solid biological evidence to support the existence of bigfoot.  And that will continue to trump the PGF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Or is simple, blind belief, enough for you, even then?

 

 

Can you see Patty's "calf muscle" appear to contract? :popcorn:

 

 

There is no solid biological evidence to support the existence of bigfoot.  And that will continue to trump the PGF.

 

 

 

And they call us blind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Passionate Member
BFF Donor

My side of the fence, as you put it, can point to the absolute lack of proof of bigfoot anywhere.  No verifiable evidence of bigfoot has ever been produced. Now, some people might consider that a compelling reason to think bigfoot does not exist. Others may choose to believe despite the glaring lack of proof. 

 

Your choice. You can choose to continue believing, by all means, that is your prerogative. But, I can tell you this, 20 years from now when there is still no proof of bigfoot, are you going to persist in your belief? And if so, will it be the same old excuses for why there is no proof? Will you be content to hang your belief on the same old tired special pleading and worn out excuses? Or is simple, blind belief, enough for you, even then?

 

You seem to be talking in circles.  What is 'absolute lack of proof' supposed to mean?  There is either: proof or no proof, nothing in between.  And, many people have all the proof they need already, such as: they have seen one or more of these things or, someone who they completely trust has seen one or more of them or, they have seen footprints which cannot be explained away, etc. etc.  For me, the proof is a combination of the reports, the footprints, the vocalizations and, wait for it... the video evidence.

 

Since the Patterson-Gimlin film cannot be debunked as a hoax then, how is that not verifiable evidence?  To answer your question: the same 'tired special pleading', 'worn out excuses' and 'simple, blind belief' seems to be enough for your side, not mine.  I have all the proof I need (and I don't need to see one killed for 'science'). 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems clear that you are content with mere faith. You are happy with a belief without proof.  Good for you. Bigfoot will be real for you for as long as you wish it to be. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber pinned this topic
  • masterbarber unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...