Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?

[Guest DWA]

"The question of whether the [Patterson] film is in fact a hoax or not is still open, but the claim that the film could not have been faked is demonstrably false."

Here we have a failure to stay current and read what is available. In point of fact, Bill Munns' recent book, "When Roger Met Patty", effectively makes a for-now un-rebutted case of just the opposite conclusion: The film could not have been faked according to the  sole person to weigh in with the specialized knowledge or experience in the field of film and costuming, after analyzing the images to a degree heretofore never attempted. (For good measure, Munns also throws in some subjective opinions about the nature of a hoaxer and the contradictions he sees for the conclusion the film was hoaxed..but that is beside my point).

 

So, unless and until you are prepared to take Bill's conclusions on by rebutting them one by one...and he is on the record as stating he would welcome that...any who would advance this kind of rhetoric need to just take it off the table.  It stands, at the present, to be a demonstrably false assertion. And where does that leave those who would dismiss this footage? In an uncomfortable crack, I would say.  

 

Precisely.  And Munns is not the only specialist in the effects field who says there is no way P/G is fake...and backs it up with technical chops unmatched.  Yet another intellectually bankrupt scoftic assertion.  But isn't this how they operate:  seeing a cloud in their coffee; braying it out as truth; and running when the factual heat gets turned up.  Haw haw.  "Demonstrably false."  One wishes they would just demonstrate something already.  Something.  ANYTHING.  But what they *are* demonstrating...which, well, I wouldn't want to demonstrate if I wanted you to respect me in the morning.

 

 

dmaker - you don't believe that corporations, government and military entities, and private interests keep things from the public?  That does seem a very naive way to look at the world don't it?  Something government is constantly engaged in:  protecting the public from what they don't think - AND RIGHTLY, just by reading the BFF - the public are prepared to deal with.  Anyone who thinks otherwise ...well, I am just not sure a more naive view of the world exists.

What would this effort you speak of look like in your opinion? How is that you can only find bigfoot if you are looking for bigfoot? Except, of course, for the thousands of people who claim to have seen one while not looking for one. It' a bit of a paradox, no?  Not if anyone understands the difference between the practice of science, and people just out there in the world going about their business just seein' stuff like wildlife.  Which, er, ah, um, hopefully *most* of us do.

 

I don't know.  I'm not a professional animal scientists/observer/photographer.  Have not been trained on it, have no experience in it.  I would start by assembling experts in the field, sharing thoughts on what possibly we are up against (may even have to bring in survellience (sp?)/reconnesaince (sp?)/spy organizations as well, let the think tank come up with a plan.  Call Donald Trump, and borrow a billion dollars.

A lot of thought and effort already goes into bigfoot. There are dozens and dozens of amateur bigfoot organizations out there.

 

All of this thought and effort by amateurs does not equate to even 1 scientific effort. (IMO)  and your quote in red above hints precisely why.

[dmaker]

This has to be one of my favorite contradictions in footery: Bigfoot has not been classified because scientists are not out there doing their job.  Contradicted by all the shouting about what such wonderful citizen science is being done by proponents. For all that citizen science being done, when push comes to shove, no one seems to have much confidence in any of it producing proof of bigfoot. But it sure sounds cool to call ourselves citizen scientists and researchers, but it doesn't stop many people from blaming scientists for not finding bigfoot. 

 

Degrees? We don't need no degrees. We're doing noble citizen science here!  But don't expect us to find bigfoot, no, no. You need someone with a degree to do that!

Edited September 1, 2015 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

 

^^^Right.  Putting credence enough to fully examine into something technically consistent *that thousands of non-technical people are reporting* only makes sense, given every other single bingle gingle zingle fact of our life here on this earth.

 

Right, because it takes so much expertise to fake a bigfoot report. Please. The hallmarks are simple enough to recognize. Bipedal, stinky, conical head, tree peeking, rock throwing, bluff charging, huffing, etc.  Gee, that was hard. 

 

Besides, we all saw how great your " non-technical" skills were in separating fact from fiction back around April 1st, didn't we?     :)

 

I was right then, and I'm right now.  See, what you do not understand - other than not reading reports and understanding what they say - is *how to think about stuff like this.*  I clearly detailed on the very thread you refer to that even when I'm wrong I am right and even when you're right, you are wrong.  And anyone who calls himself a scientist gets it...or isn't one.  Period.

 

Or as this guy puts it (and for someone for whom English isn't the first language he does uncommonly well):

 

[M]y first thoughts are still that people are honest and know what they are doing and talking about, and wait untill I’m proven wrong, not the other way around. Believe me, it’s faster – foul things get obvious quickly, while the other way keeps you in the dark. History of science is full of examples of manipulation and stolen credits, so you might miss the right thing if your perception and thinking operate in a negative mode. Dealing with frequent disappointments is worth it. As Dr Ian Stevenson once said (not an exact quote): it’s much better to be 51% sure in something important, than 99% sure in something trivial. - Degnostik

 

Someday you may get it.  But that someday...is clearly not today.  And here I thought a break from this place would help somebody.  Guess not.

[Rockape]

<"The question of whether the [Patterson] film is in fact a hoax or not is still open, but the claim that the film could not have been faked is demonstrably false.">

 

Umm, I must have missed the demonstration where it was shown to be false. That's what I want, someone to recreate the film and demonstrate to me how it can be someone in a suit.

 

I'm not a believer in the PGF, we'll never be able to prove within a shadow of a doubt if it's the real thing, but if it's a hoax it's a well done hoax and I'd like someone to show me how they did it.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Rockape

[Guest DWA]

^^^Cold compresses help with that.

[dmaker]

Cotter, here is an interesting article about some of the most important scientific discoveries made by amateurs. 

 

 

http://scribol.com/anthropology-and-history/the-5-most-important-amateur-scientists

 

 

Why do you think the search for bigfoot will only be concluded by professional scientists?

[Rockape]

<^^^Cold compresses help with that.>

 

Helps with what, easing an aching head after reading one of your posts?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Rockape

[dmaker]

Rockape, I agree. Compared to most bigfoot videos, the PGF is more compelling than most. Where its greatest achievement comes though, imo, is in what followed. I truly think that without the PGF, bigfoot as a modern American myth would not likely have taken root and spread like it did. 

 

I would love to see an unveiling ceremony that included how it was done. You kidding? Who wouldn't?

[Rockape]

As a child of the 60's I always thought the PGF was better than anything I had seen as far as sci-fi special effects goes. I still think if it was a hoax Patterson would have been better off admitting to it and going to work for a movie studio because he outdid most of what was around at that time.

[Guest DWA]

[changes shirt] Guys!  Spittle, you know?

 

I'd just do An Adjustment.  Y'all are wound so far around the axle on this we'd destroy the axle just tryin' to see it!

Bonehead74:  THANKS FOR THIS THREAD, MAN!

[dmaker]

As a child of the 60's I always thought the PGF was better than anything I had seen as far as sci-fi special effects goes. I still think if it was a hoax Patterson would have been better off admitting to it and going to work for a movie studio because he outdid most of what was around at that time.

 

Not so sure about the whole go work for a movie studio thing. I think the PGF works mostly based on the right balance of ambiguity and clarity. There is enough clarity for the material, surrounding light and movement of the actor to produce, imo, the illusion of muscle movement. There are some odd bulges here or there as well some curious anatomy presented within this illusion, but those are not focused on by the average lay person. But it is not close up and certainly not high definition. The suit must have been good, but combine it with the camera used, the distance from the actor, etc. That is where the magic happens I believe. 

 

I don't think the suit would have been good enough for a movie. Who wants to watch a version of Planet of the Apes where we only see the apes from a distance with a shaky cam? No one, I would guess.  No, I don't think the suit used in the PGF would work well in hollywood movie at all.

[Guest DWA]

 

If you are smart enough to read you know the huge pile is enough to prove bigfoot exist.

Discussion over...... deniers are wasting our time by distracting us from THE pile.

Show me the science that says bigfoot doesn't exist... end of story.

That sounds vaguely familiar, Martin.

If only somebody here could present this actual pile in a clear and concise fashion instead of merely constantly alluding to its existence...

 

I had to reach back and stab at this.

 

Present the pile?  Why?????  Given the reactions of so many here who won't budge off their scoffstool until a sasquatch throws it through the bar window with them on it?

 

No, Grasshopper.  The pile is out there and obvious and if you are not diving into it, with abandon, here, I doubt your purpose is a good one.

 

See, cool thing about the frontiers of science:  it is up to *you* to do the science!  The mainstream isn't doing it for you; the people whom you entreaty for the pile know you aren't interested.

 

Get interested...or continue an existence I'd rather not, thanks.

(Hint:  the precise nature of the pile has been laid out - in English - *numerous times* here.  You just aren't interested, are you.)

[dmaker]

The pile smells funny.

[WSA]

After some contemplation, I believe I'll sit this thread out. I view it as a safe haven for those who want to deny there is any evidence of BF.  Have at it.  Stay here and deny all you want, I say.  It seems this forum should be big enough to host this kind of discussion, on a limited and contained basis. Fair warning though to those who would attempt to derail other threads where evidence is being seriously discussed...I will report your posts to the moderators as being inconsistent with the rules of this forum, as I understand them to be. A number of others have committed to this action as well. With that... Adios.   

[Guest DWA]

And adios here as well, stick stuck in, stirred, hornets out.

 

It's just silly.  A total waste of time talking to people who don't want to do anything but get stuff fed to them.

 

I am one of those who has made the commitment to which WSA refers.  The reason this thread is here:  don't try that denialist crap anywhere else.  It is getting dealt with accordingly.

 

Welcome worn out.  Ta-ta.