Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

It is really something, watching dozens and dozens and dozens of pages of informed argument for Patty's authenticity, punctuated by posts from people who derive a sense of certainty and smugness from ignoring everything but what they want to think.


There is no position I have found in any scientific field that illustrates better the humility and skepticism that accompanies the best science better than the scientific proponents for sasquatch - and no position illustrating 'smugnorance' more than bigfoot skepticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

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

The PGF whether viewed as fake or real is it's own entity onto it's self.  It shows what it shows but does not present anything as to where or how further pursuits of said animal should proceed.  Part of the dilemma is it's singular uniqueness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong.  People who have never seen the film have seen that animal, and found tracks just like the tracks that animal left.  Try to keep up here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

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... ;)

Knowing what Patty is and how the film came about that day hasn't been a usable blueprint for anyone to repeat such a success.  I don't argue real or fake I have been through the Patty wars.  As I've already said it's singularity leaves it as something that apparently has not paid off down the research road.  That is to day you can't recreate Patterson and Gimlin's regimen for a bluebrint.  Cliff Crook I think came the closest with horseback but that was in the 80's and not much resulted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

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.

 

 

7) Fallacy: Genetic

 

"The PGF was made by a person with a questionable history, therefore, the film itself should be dismissed."

 

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that the skeptic leverages existing negative perceptions to make the PGF look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the film itself lacks merit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

vynaffdgs8khayone5uk.gif

 

 

Nice job - use a clip of sport fakers to claim something is a 'fact'. Now that is truely one for the blooper reel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Wrong.  People who have never seen the film have seen that animal, and found tracks just like the tracks that animal left.  Try to keep up here.

 I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it. And the only unique difference with Roger's encounter than others is that he was prepared to act only because they had a movie camera to film tracks for Roger's documentary if they came upon any. After all - were they not first summoned to CaliforniaI to film the 100's of BCM tracks that Green and then Hodgson reported to Patterson. Everything else has been implemented into the event by conspiracy minded finatics who really haven't cared enough to even get a copy of the cast Roger made before making unfounded allegations of possible smoking guns in the trackway.

7) Fallacy: Genetic

 

"The PGF was made by a person with a questionable history, therefore, the film itself should be dismissed."

 

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that the skeptic leverages existing negative perceptions to make the PGF look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the film itself lacks merit.

 

I would be surprised to find that no one in this field (skeptic or believer) has not been called out at one time or another in their life for doing something questionable.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Nice job - use a clip of sport fakers to claim something is a 'fact'. Now that is truely one for the blooper reel.

 

Most adorable Bigfoothunter moment of the day. BH, do you think Drew agrees with Salubrious' appraisal of science actually being provided with a Bigfoot holotype? Never mind...

 

It7xugI.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

NOBODY HAS TRIED TO REPEAT IT.  NAWAC is as close as anyone comes...and everyone in X has seen one, and them over you.

Your ignorance is in full bloom today I see!  You need to go back to a show broadcast in the mid/late 80's where it showed Cliff Crook on horseback Patterson Gimlin style.  He is credited in that show by maintaining that horseback may have been the reason P&G were successful.  I guess you are not as well schooled as some of us old timers.  BTW I watched a NAWAC video and it was a disappointment some old bunch of nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crow:  desperate is not better.  Did you not understand my post?  Of course you did not.  So let me help you:

 

WHO HAS DONE what P and G did, since they did it?

 

NOBODY.  

 

NAWAC has tried a different approach - which has also been validated by what we know about wild animals, and wild primates in particular.  That's how one solves this kind of thing.  They're animals.  Do what has worked for similar kinds of animals...if you can't do what worked before for this one.

 

Nice bloom there, Crow.

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

Most adorable Bigfoothunter moment of the day. BH, do you think Drew agrees with Salubrious' appraisal of science actually being provided with a Bigfoot holotype? Never mind...

 

It7xugI.gif

 

 

And to think that in the time to respond with more nonsense that you could have actually answered Sweaty's or Pat's questions. Never mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.  What, precisely, is it about this?  How could one telegraph more clearly that one has no case?  Zero evidence of a fake in 47 years...and this is what they're doing.  Obstructing a scientific investigation with malice aforethought.  Just wow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most adorable Bigfoothunter moment of the day. BH, do you think Drew agrees with Salubrious' appraisal of science actually being provided with a Bigfoot holotype? Never mind...

 

It7xugI.gif

 

I was hoping someone would see the fail, and point it out.

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