Jump to content

Thoughts About Munns' Book - " When Roger Met Patty " (2)


Recommended Posts

kitakaze

If you could be specific, that would be a great help. Sweaty's image was about showing mouth and facial movement, which I think also shows skull movement by the same reasoning. Sweaty's just now removed it though, so let's set it aside for now and focus on your image.

 

What are we supposed to be seeing in your gif that is particularly Bigfoot-ish?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

If you could be specific, that would be a great help. Sweaty's image was about showing mouth and facial movement, which I think also shows skull movement by the same reasoning. Sweaty's just now removed it though, so let's set it aside for now and focus on your image.

 

 

Yeah, it did appear that the head/skull was changing shape slightly....but, I think I must have had one of those two images mis-scaled....(causing the effect).

 

Hence...I deleted the animation. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

If you could be specific, that would be a great help. Sweaty's image was about showing mouth and facial movement, which I think also shows skull movement by the same reasoning. Sweaty's just now removed it though, so let's set it aside for now and focus on your image.

 

What are we supposed to be seeing in your gif that is particularly Bigfoot-ish?

 

That the lower back flexion is not something not seen in the Muppet suit demonstration that Heironimus and Morris did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Krantz also said, "The skeptics deny the existence of the Sasquatch because they see no evidence for it. The fact that they refuse to look at what evidence there is available, and try to discourage the gathering of more data, seems not to bother them at all." That is how Grover explained how skeptics will hold the field. That by shoving a body in their faces will then force them to see the evidence.

Holding the field through ignorance.  Oh what a feeling.

"At this point the burden of proof is still on the believers. Until a specimen is produced the skeptics will continue to hold the field"

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/believers.htm

Man alive does it feel good to be holding the field.

...and proof that I = B.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"At this point the burden of proof is still on the believers. Until a specimen is produced the skeptics will continue to hold the field"

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/believers.htm

Man alive does it feel good to be holding the field.

 

Classic case of  "False Default Position"

 

Top 6 Skeptical Fallacies

 

1) Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance

 

"After thousands of years and millions of game cams and billions of searchers, if bigfoot existed we would have discovered it by now."

 

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then we have reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is not evidence. In all its incarnations, this is the fallacy the skeptics commit the most often.

 

2) Fallacy: Argumentum Ad Populum

 

"There is a consensus among the scientists that bigfoot is not a real flesh and blood animal. It is not worthy of scientific investigation."

 

Fallacy 1 proves it. In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

 

3) Fallacy: False Default Position

 

"Until such time a bigfoot is discovered, it doesn't exist."

 

This is the fallacy of assuming a negative default position until proven otherwise. Science doesn't work this way. It has no default position either way. 

 

4) Fallacy: Red Herring/False Dilemma

 

"Since bigfoot has been reported so often all over NA, even seen dumpster diving in town he must be everywhere, yet he remains undiscovered. Ergo, bigfoot doesn't exist."

 

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. Skeptics use a false dilemma to claim that all the sighting reports are either all true or all false and bigfoot is either everywhere, or no where. No middle ground. They believe they are countering the numerous sighting reports with "where are they then?"

 

5) Fallacy: Begging The Question

 

"Since we've found the bones of every large animal that has ever existed on the NA continent, we would have found bigfoot bones by now."

 

A skeptic begging the question provides what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.

It can never be know what has not been discovered.

 

6) Fallacy: Special Pleading

 

"I don't care what any analysis comes up with, bigfoot ain't real so it's all invalid."

 

Also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption. The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Thank you Giganto for post #605.  A reasonable thought for all to consider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

To compare with the animation above....here is a simulation...(crude, I'll admit)...of how it would look if Bob H tried swingin' his butt, in his Cow Camp catastrophe ...

 

BobbyCowCamp-ButtSwingSimulationAG1_zpsb

 

 

As one can plainly see, it isn't nearly as realistic as the movement seen on Patty. ;)

 

Note the position of the hand, well above the crotch area. Compare to Patty. We see that Patty's very functional arm is longer with a functional hand on the end of it.

 

 

A physical specimen will be no good and the PGF is better proof.

 

Just wow.

 

Exactly. Now you have to sort out why I think that way, since you don't seem to have gotten that the first time around. Do I have to outline it for you or do you think you can sort it out for yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think a body on a slab is going to do anything to convince anyone. In all likelihood they will hear/see about it on TV if it ever happens, and just simply think its another hoax. The PGF is actually a better proof as there was no way to make a suit at the time that would allow the misplaced joints to exist as they do with Patty. 

 

vynaffdgs8khayone5uk.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

I really don't think a body on a slab the PGF is going to do anything to convince anyone. In all likelihood they will hear/see about it on TV if it ever happens, and just simply think its another hoax. The PGF a body on a slab is actually a better proof as there was no way to make a suit that would allow the misplaced joints to exist as they do with Patty a dead specimen.

 

^fixed

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

The thing about the PGF is that no matter what it is it has done nothing to further the case for bigfoot.  It's specific location has not resulted in another significant event and there is nothing in the PGF that  points towards what the event actually indicated.  Patterson and Gimlin in retrospect do not furnish a model for  research either in location or methodology.  

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

  Patterson and Gimlin in retrospect do not furnish a model for  research either in location or methodology.  

 

Sure they did - they filmed the model in action. The problem has been is that many people aren't qualified to get what experts who actually spent any time studying the film had to say about it. We have lots of people here alone that wish to debate evidence that we soon find they know little about. One recent example was about the front and back of one of the foot prints and cast seen in the second PGF reel. This individual was leaning towards some conspiracy afoot as they may not be from the same plaster pour, but a simple check of the copy cast managed to demonstrate that all it was is another instance where someone makes silly tabloid allegations that are not supported by the evidence to which they knew nothing about.

 

http://www.cryptozoology.com/articles/dmitri.php

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about the PGF is that no matter what it is it has done nothing to further the case for bigfoot.  It's specific location has not resulted in another significant event and there is nothing in the PGF that  points towards what the event actually indicated.  Patterson and Gimlin in retrospect do not furnish a model for  research either in location or methodology.  

Crow, this post if none other you've made establish your lack of seriousness.  It's one of the silliest and wrongest posts I have ever seen here, and that is going some.  I have to pull people off Ignore to bash them over the head occasionally.  You're getting more bashing than most do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

....and there is nothing in the PGF that  points towards what the event actually indicated.  

 

 

Like DWA, Crow....I have to totally disagree. 

 

There are plenty of details on Patty which look much more like the result of real flesh/muscle...than they do a 'padded suit'.

 

Patty's entire right leg alone....(contracting quadracep/contracting calf/moving toes...and thigh ripple)....contains a few of those details.

 

And then there's... ;)

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