Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

salubrious
Moderator

The reason the PGF is better than a body? Its really simple.

 

We've all seen it is subjected it to quite a bit of study. Its on the internet. Trust me on this, if there ever is a body, it won't be publicly available. Or else you are a lot more trusting than I am!!!!!! I'd add more !s but you get the point.

 

The PGF shows incontrovertibly that BF is real and it can't be denied. But that does not matter, it gets denied anyway by people who simply refuse to do their homework.

 

So how is a body going to be any better? They will just deny that too (another Daisy in a Box). Only difference is, they will not be able to examine it with their own two eyes. They will have to trust (there's that word again) someone else for their opinion (or fact, whatever).

 

The fact is that trust issue. You can trust that the PGF is a film of something that was moving on the landscape. How in the heck are you going to trust that a body really exists somewhere and isn't some sort of elaborate hoax?

 

The answer is you won't; here we are nearly 5 decades down the road and people still argue about the PGF even though the proof is right in front of them if they could only cause their hand to move. You think for a moment that will be any different with a real body? :haha:

 

Those of you who doubt me on this and ridicule my position are simply wrong, but no matter. Its all juicy fun anyway right and no-one died or got maimed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

 

The PGF shows incontrovertibly that BF is real and it can't be denied. But that does not matter, it gets denied anyway by people who simply refuse to do their homework.

 

 

The PGF shows that the subject in the film was real at the time of the filming in 1967.  It says nothing of what became of the subject or any others of the type.  It's not that the PGF happened yesterday it happened a long time ago and is but a singular event that hasn't been repeated to any meaningful level that might lessen it's singularity.  It's not unlike the film of the last Tasmanian Tiger known to have existed.  Until further notice neither Patty and type or the Tasmanian Tiger are present and accounted for.

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

I don't have an argument with that. I have no idea what happened to Patty since her film debut :)

 

But I do know they are still out there...

 

However I don't expect anyone to believe that.

 

But if a person is OTOH saying that Patty isn't real, then he has to show how a human could fit into the space that is Patty in the film. I have yet to see a single skeptic step up to bat and do that (not that I've not seen them try).

 

Science is often better done when you try to disprove a theory as opposed to when you try to prove it. And quite often we learn more from our failures than our successes.

 

To disprove that Patty is a BF, you have to show how a flexible suit could be at the same time flexible and yet able to have the joints where they are.

 

Or: you could try to prove how Patty is in fact a man in a suit, by showing that his joints are all in the correct locations.

 

Of course this has all been done before (and is the point of this thread). If there are any skeptics that doubt the PGF is real, please show your work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

Based on some polls that were done, it seems like people in North America are ready to believe in Bigfoot if the proof for it ever surfaces. While it's true that the PGF shows a real Bigfoot, it just doesn't meet the standard for scientific proof. A specimen on the other hand will be the hardest form of proof possible if it falls in the hands of the right people and not the U.S government. A paper will likely be published in the right journal by qualified people and it'll pretty much be accepted. The PGF will one day be widely recognized as authentic, but that'll only happen after Sasquatch are recognized as real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have an argument with that. I have no idea what happened to Patty since her film debut :)

 

But I do know they are still out there...

 

However I don't expect anyone to believe that.

 

But if a person is OTOH saying that Patty isn't real, then he has to show how a human could fit into the space that is Patty in the film. I have yet to see a single skeptic step up to bat and do that (not that I've not seen them try).

 

Science is often better done when you try to disprove a theory as opposed to when you try to prove it. And quite often we learn more from our failures than our successes.

 

To disprove that Patty is a BF, you have to show how a flexible suit could be at the same time flexible and yet able to have the joints where they are.

 

Or: you could try to prove how Patty is in fact a man in a suit, by showing that his joints are all in the correct locations.

 

Of course this has all been done before (and is the point of this thread). If there are any skeptics that doubt the PGF is real, please show your work.

That's it.  This is about as simple as one could ask for. 

 

A kindergartener could get it.

 

You have to either prove Patty is fake...or either accept Patty as genuine (which the evidence makes clear is the scientific alternative) or accept that the question is open.

 

It's not "fake until proven."  That defies rationality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

I don't have an argument with that. I have no idea what happened to Patty since her film debut :)

 

But I do know they are still out there...

 

However I don't expect anyone to believe that.

 

But if a person is OTOH saying that Patty isn't real, then he has to show how a human could fit into the space that is Patty in the film. I have yet to see a single skeptic step up to bat and do that (not that I've not seen them try).

 

Science is often better done when you try to disprove a theory as opposed to when you try to prove it. And quite often we learn more from our failures than our successes.

 

To disprove that Patty is a BF, you have to show how a flexible suit could be at the same time flexible and yet able to have the joints where they are.

 

Or: you could try to prove how Patty is in fact a man in a suit, by showing that his joints are all in the correct locations.

 

Of course this has all been done before (and is the point of this thread). If there are any skeptics that doubt the PGF is real, please show your work.

A very possible scenario can be that of species extinction.  The reality of the bigfoot question in 1967 was that it was a rare occurrence when one encountered it.  It was by no means was the ubiquitous thing it has become.  This is a telling argument never really addressed.  Supposing Patterson got his film as the story goes his experience should have done nothing one way or the other to alter the comings and goings of all the rest of the bigfoot from all other reputed habitats.  Sightings sounds, tracks and structures should have been as relatively common then as they are now.That Patterson was in the gold standard of hot spots getting only a one time catch does not speak well for events that followed.  He felt we'd have it in hand within 10 years of his film.

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

 Sightings sounds, tracks and structures should have been as relatively common then as they are now.That Patterson was in the gold standard of hot spots getting only a one time catch does not speak well for events that followed.

 

I think something is not being considered. Sightings do occur still - too many people hear strange sounds and only think it may have been a Sasquatch (then and now) - tracks are still found, but in the days of bulldozing up through the forest ... tracks were seen often enough that according to Gerry Crew .... it was getting difficult to keep men on the job - and structures have not been tied to Sasquatch other than in the minds of those who are seeking attention.

 

Patterson got lucky - his success came about because he was there at the tight time and at the right place to have his encounter. This has been the case with every encounter. Then people started going to the film site to see if they see where the film was taken or just to say they were there. If anyone could find Sasquatch when they wanted to or hoax a PGF, then they (including Roger) have not been able to have accomplished that feat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

A lot of sightings occur every year, but they generally last only a few seconds. That's not enough time to even pull out a camera and when a non-believer sees one for the first time, they're usually just too shocked to remember they even have a camera on them. Roger on the other hand was ready for what was about to happen and was able to get that rare opportunity of a lifetime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

A lot of sightings occur every year, but they generally last only a few seconds. That's not enough time to even pull out a camera and when a non-believer sees one for the first time, they're usually just too shocked to remember they even have a camera on them. Roger on the other hand was ready for what was about to happen and was able to get that rare opportunity of a lifetime.

 

 

I imagine even someone somewhat prepared might get "buck fever" if a Sasquatch came into view. Roger had a lot of prescence of mind, but he had rehearsed from what I have been given to understand, probably something that made him successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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.

 

I might be more attentive to Sweaty's technicolour dream posts if he did not himself refuse to answer questions as he will openly admit. Pat is free to ask whatever he likes. If it's on topic and written coherently in a way where I don't have to wade through Rosco, I'll answer.

 

It took only a minute to point out that your response to Drew was rather Drax...

 

drax2.jpg

 

Bigfoothunter, look at these three posts again slowly if need be...

 

 

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. There really isn't any way to do that now either. 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Do you think Drew agrees with Salubrious' appraisal of science being provided a holotype specimen for Bigfoot?

 

Do you understand that in your attempt to laugh at some perceived irony, you were in fact completely clueless to obvious sarcasm, which if was meant sincerely, would mean Drew would agree that a body of Bigfoot is not enough for science?

 

No you do not, thus, adorable. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Yes - I noted the irony in the use of known entertainers who's sport is "fake" who are supposedly saying "fact" as that was my point.

 

And we know what you have said about not answering Sweaty, but Pat - Gigantofootecus - Neanderfoot  - Rouguefooter - and others have asked the same of you as well but to no avail. I must say that you have run out of excuses .... not that the past excuses ever passed the laugh test.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

 

Yes - I noted the irony in the use of known entertainers who's sport is "fake" who are supposedly saying "fact" as that was my point.

 

 

LOL, looks like they are saying "fat" to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

It does look like that I reckon'.   :)

 

However,  certain skeptics don't appear to have anything better to do like learning the causes for additional track depth per bi-pedalism so to better understand the track evidence seen in a film they merely wish to say must be fake, or care to actually get a PGF trackway cast and flip it over to see if it is a match to what is seen on the film before starting another 'chicken-little' dance - well, worthless video clips is about all I have come to expect.

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