Guest Crowlogic Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Bigfoot is a one trick pony in the form of the PGF. Prior to it we had tall tales and Ray Wallace and after it we have Rick Dyer and Todd Standing. Oh wait I forgot about those snazzy new portals opening up in a forest near you................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 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. Well, it's good enough I would have give him a shot with a bigger budget and professional cameramen. It just looks much better than the monkey suit scenes from those days. I would have wanted to see what he could do with more resources. The pile smells funny. I'd post a photo of that "pile", but I got in trouble for that so I'll leave it to the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 To DWA/WSA: I understand you have no wish to debate existence in this thread and that you will be most vigilant in your reporting of thread derails. You should know that flows both ways. This thread is not a muzzle to all skeptics like you seem to want to make it into. DWA, if you go wading into a thread with your anti-skeptic crusade and it is off-topic, then reporting should follow. The same goes for posting clearly incorrect information. Just because there is a thread for debating existence does not mean that the rest of the forum is an echo chamber where nothing gets challenged. The key is to remain on topic. One can be skeptical, and remain on topic. This thread is not a skeptic dungeon. This thread, and an increased attention to remaining on topic, will restrict proponents just as much skeptics. If someone says something like anecdotes are scientific evidence and they prove bigfoot, then that should be freely challenged outside of this thread as long as it is on topic. The blade very much cuts both ways in this case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 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! I think that the noble amateurs vs professional scientist thing was mainly pushed by Ivan Sanderson back in the Ye' Olden days of sasquatch. If I'm thinking of the right fella' he had loads of education but never received his doctorate and always seemed self conscious about that when dealing with those who worked with the backing of universities/museums. I'm reading something on the "us" vs. "them" right now and it's very interesting stuff. Oh, and to keep this on topic. I agree with your points regarding the lack of tangible evidence for the monsters and I too would happily eat my words if any were brought forward.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 dmaker....I know you've been absent for awhile, so let me just bring you up to speed. From just my point of view, and that of some others here, along with the acknowledgment that any interpretations of Forum rules and guidelines will ultimately be within the purview of the Moderators...a plain reading of those same rules has led me and some of us to conclude a blanket denial that any BF evidence exists, and espousing such a view on this Forum is directly in conflict with those rules. As such, this thread only is going unchallenged out of deference from some of the members who are not inclined to report it. In as much as this is true, your assertion that it "cuts both ways" is patently not true. Stay here and have at it. Come out in another thread with this same premise and your participation will be in the hands of the Moderators, very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Yes, but you don't get to change the rules of evidence to suit bigfoot. It is a correct statement to say that there is a ton of anecdotal evidence claimed for bigfoot. It is also correct to point out that anecdotal evidence is not testable using the scientific method and is a very unreliable form of evidence. It is also correct to point out that an anecdote is not actually evidence of bigfoot. It is evidence of a person claiming to have seen something that they believe might be bigfoot. Big difference. If that nuance escapes you, then that is too bad. It still remains a fact. That is why anecdotes are pretty useless. You can call them bigfoot evidence until you and DWA are blue in the face, but it will not change the facts. Anecdotes are not evidence of bigfoot. Plain and simple. Even if bigfoot was bagged, tagged and classified tomorrow, the anecdotes still remain untestable. Don't expect an environment where you get to say things that are factually incorrect and to challenge it equals a warning point. You can hold to your mistaken perceptions about facts, but you don't have a grant to spread them around here unchallenged. Pay close attention to the fact that I am not saying that bigfoot does not exist in the above. I am not saying that anecdotes are not evidence of bigfoot because bigfoot does not exist, therefore they cannot be. I am pointing out that an anecdote is evidence of a person claiming a story. Not direct evidence of the thing they are claiming. That is what you wish to be true, but it is not. Pointing this out should not be a punishable offence. From what I understand of the conversations, it is the " X cannot be evidence of bigfoot because bigfoot does not exist" position that is your problem. Correctly classifying evidence as what it properly is, is not the same thing. Edited September 1, 2015 by dmaker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 VERY quickly. When one side is spouting arrant nonsense and not willing to pay attention to where they have been told to go (other than there) to learn what it is they know nothing about...the time for putting up with them is past. This is - the Forums' rules state it - a "bigfoot house." It is not a denial house; it is not a house for people who cannot even be bothered to wipe their feet. Just being dealt with, 'sall. No. All opinions are not created equal; and those paying not a sliver of attention to the copious, consistent evidence ...just aren't playing either nice or right; and they're getting called on it, and not by any more of that pointless talking to walls. GREAT thread. But it ain't happ'nin' anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 From just my point of view, and that of some others here, along with the acknowledgment that any interpretations of Forum rules and guidelines will ultimately be within the purview of the Moderators...a plain reading of those same rules has led me and some of us to conclude a blanket denial that any BF evidence exists, and espousing such a view on this Forum is directly in conflict with those rules. Umm, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) I'm not denying anything in my post. I'm simply clarifying a point. You don't have to like it, but at some point you really need to accept the reality that anecdotes are what they are. Stories. I don't care if you think they are consistent or copious or downright titillating--they remain untestable evidence. They are not even putative evidence for bigfoot. The current physical evidence could be called putative evidence for bigfoot since conceivably at some point in the future, if bigfoot was a real animal, that evidence could successfully be compared to a type specimen. But anecdotes? Nope. The truth of them can never be ascertained. That is simply the nature of anecdotes. You can accept that or not. It's up to you. A fact doesn't care if DWA agrees with it or not. If anyone is doing any denying here, it is you in this particular regard. Edited September 1, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Sometime, but on another thread, you might share with us what you do consider to be some evidence of BF, not what you do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Let me just take a minute to step back from the role playing I'm typically doing here. It is really just that, because I have no personal identity bound up in Sasquatch being real, or not. I enjoy poking the incurious, no matter the subject, and this is just one outlet for that. Guilty pleasures I suppose. I'm not confusing my own ongoing self-indulgent exercise of free expression with anything that approaches productive discourse, or even with believing such is even possible. If I did have that that idea once, I certainly don't anymore. For all the possibility and promise that a discussion board like this holds, in practice it becomes apparent over time that substantive progress on an issue with this many hot-button feelings held by so many is not going to happen. After a point, you either just go away, or join in the fun. Across the internet, this realization has dawned on any number of communities who started with the idea of forming a consensus through reasoned discourse. If any have succeeded, I'm not aware of them. If they have, the issues must not be of much import. We here are especially vulnerable to this devolvement. When there are periods (like lately) where the pace of events have slowed, all that is left is to rehash past ones. This gets tedious quickly, and the merry-go-round cranks up. For the time being, I'm predicting the animus displayed lately will tail off. I am definitely resisting the urge to stir it up, and I think others have as well. Self-regulation is the only strategy that works in the long run. Imposing external limits on what should be a free-wheeling scientific discussion seems to me to be the last thing you'd want to do. dmaker....I know you've been absent for awhile, so let me just bring you up to speed. From just my point of view, and that of some others here, along with the acknowledgment that any interpretations of Forum rules and guidelines will ultimately be within the purview of the Moderators...a plain reading of those same rules has led me and some of us to conclude a blanket denial that any BF evidence exists, and espousing such a view on this Forum is directly in conflict with those rules. As such, this thread only is going unchallenged out of deference from some of the members who are not inclined to report it. In as much as this is true, your assertion that it "cuts both ways" is patently not true. Stay here and have at it. Come out in another thread with this same premise and your participation will be in the hands of the Moderators, very quickly. Hey WSA, I generally have you on mute but I'd like to remind you of your stated purpose on this site, please read the first quote above. You aren't here for serious discourse, you are here to stir up animus when the mood strikes you. We are apparently here to amuse you, I'll let the other members contemplate that. I wanted to let you know that when you bait someone so you can stir things up to amuse yourself, I'm 100% certain your old post will be in hands of the moderators along with your bait post. Serious discourse can be had between believers and skeptics but only if both parties are honest brokers. When a person's STATED purpose for being here is to cause friction that person probably should be on "ignore". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 That does it, I'm reporting everyone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) LOL Rock, We've had some back and forths but I've always understood your positions to be truly held. Regardless of our positions or where we end things you have always seemed sincere. My positions are not particularly popular but I don't take a position unless it's my true belief, I'm not here because I'm bored and am seeking out conflict. That seems pathological to me, the difference is that some people here are here EXPRESSLY to cause conflict for their own amusement. IMO, that's SICK. I cannot begin to understand that mentality and I'm happy about that. To get back on topic, how many of those who've claimed sightings are doing so simply for their own amusement or to cause conflict? How many reports on the BFRO site are from attention seekers? It's impossible to know but if it's happening here it's likely happening there and it's one more reason to doubt anecdotal reports. It's impossible to know what motivates some people..... Edited September 1, 2015 by Bodhi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 <To get back on topic, how many of those who've claimed sightings are doing so simply for their own amusement or to cause conflict? How many reports on the BFRO site are from attention seekers? > I don't think every single one is. Some are people who have been hoaxed but don't realize it. Some are people who are mistaken. Some are no doubt just plain crazy and are making it up as they go. But I also believe there are a few that have actually seen something. What they saw, I don't know, but they saw something. But then, I'm of the belief that if bigfoot is ever proven to actually exist, it won't be what we all think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Oh absolutely, I agree. I'd say the majority of reports are by people who honestly see something they cannot reconcile. What that something is I cannot say but I would suggest that how the sighting is interpreted will be skewed by their mindset/expectations. I think the number of outright hoaxers/mentally ill reports are pretty low. Any guess on percentages would be improper as I do not have the skill set to even begin to estimate. For me, it will always come back to testable evidence. That might chafe for some but that's my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts