Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

PGF Research Update

Recommended Posts

Bill

Dmaker

 

What you lack in empirical evidence, you more than make up for with passion for your argument. Unfortunately, passion for an argument ultimately fails, and empirical evidence ultimately succeeds.So however certain you are of your position, it will not prevail. But of course you can continue to argue your idea as long as you like. But you likely will not sway any minds unless you start talking about good empirical evidence and analysis that supports a conclusion about that evidence.If you've got any, I'm willing to listen and consider.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, PBeaton said:

 

 

 

In my opinion dmaker...if you can't live up to your own words...hopefully you'll find the help you need ! ;);) 

 

Pat...

 

 

Here's to dmaker's "lack of interest in the PGF, and in the BFF", Pat! :lol:  :drinks: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

One thing that does fascinate me about the forum environment is that each forum has what may be called a prevailing concept, and obviously here, that prevailing concept is that such an entity as Bigfoot does or may exist and the evidence is worth talking about. At the skeptical venue (not sure on the policy of naming it so I'll assume all know what I mean), the prevailing mindset was that the entity commonly called bigfoot is just a myth or an epic fantasy game. So going in, you would immediately know if your ideas will be received with support or met with hostility, in any given forum. Now I went over to the other venue years ago with the specific intent of trying to establish a cordial dialogue and see if I could find some kind of common understanding with them, That was my intent. But I see sometimes the intent is simply to argue, to belittle, to annoy. It's destructive, not constructive, and having all my life been a person who wants to  constructively accomplish things, I find the destructive agenda bizarre, to say the least. I see it often, but simply don't understand the goal, why a person bent on that conversationally destructive goal feels that such an activity is even worthy of their time.

 

I doubt I'll ever figure it out. I guess some people simply like to tear down others and their efforts, instead of constructively accomplishing anything of their own. The only analogy I can find that makes sense would compare to football, where some players are on offense, trying to score, and some players are on defense, trying to stop the opposition from scoring.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
11 hours ago, Bill said:

Dmaker

 

What you lack in empirical evidence, you more than make up for with passion for your argument. Unfortunately, passion for an argument ultimately fails, and empirical evidence ultimately succeeds.So however certain you are of your position, it will not prevail. But of course you can continue to argue your idea as long as you like. But you likely will not sway any minds unless you start talking about good empirical evidence and analysis that supports a conclusion about that evidence.If you've got any, I'm willing to listen and consider.

 

Bill

Bill, by empirical I can only assume you mean observable and testable via experimentation. In other words, falsifiable. You should certainly know that I cannot prove to you that bigfoot does not exist. There are, I believe, many reasons to hold that opinion, but it is not a falsifiable claim. You can prove to me that bigfoot does exist, however. 

 

You wish to hand wave and pretend the absence of evidence is a non issue. You also like to dismiss the role of human perception in witness testimony. The fallibility of human perception is supported by a large body of empirical evidence.

 

To insist that empirical evidence be used to prove the non existence of something is a hallmark of pseudoscience. Even if a perfect replication were done, the staunch PGF supporters would reject it, I am sure. But even putting that reaction aside, a perfect replication does not logically prove the PGF is a hoax, anyway. I am sure there would be those that would be quick to rally behind that flag out of desperation as well. 

 

You, and others, can go on soothing your conviction with the lack of a convincing replication, as if it matters as much as you think it does. Meanwhile, what really matters--biological evidence, empirical evidence--remains absent.   But that's not what is important, right? It's the lack of a matching costume that makes bigfoot real.  If you can't see the problem with that approach, then I don't know what to say.

 

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Dmaker said:   Yeah, I'm done. One thing I forgot to mention, WSA, you're an idiot.

 

A badge I wear proudly!

 

What is the expression? "How can we miss you if you won't go away?" Indeed.

 

As to things that actually matter...

 

Since reading Bill's "When Roger Met Patty", I've been hewing to his same line of thought regarding the empirical evidence. Also, I've been disputing this pernicious idea that his conclusions can't be proven false. They possibly can be, but we don't know for certain because, so far, there has been a remarkable lack of curiosity and a lot of what appears to be an abundance of garden-variety laziness inherent in those who never care to put their brains where their mouths are. The only thing that will ever matter are the images on that film. Not whether or not Patterson was a deadbeat. Not if his backstory was blemish-free, or if he saw it as his ticket to wealth. Skeptics who want to talk about those things instead of the images are legion, and they all telegraph their lack of understanding of the fundamental question from the start. 

 

One of the basic pillars of scientific experimentation is the unspoken challenge: Tell me why I'm wrong. I would shell out even more than what Bill's book cost me (cheap for the content BTW...I encourage you to get a copy) to read a refutation of his analysis if it were backed up with even a pinch of the rigor he used in forming his conclusions. Instead, what we get consistently is: Can't be true because there is no such thing.  If this is the best you can do, you are out of your league. 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

dmaker,

 

When I asked you "Do you think the PGF tracks were made by a guy in a suit, stompers or created by hand " this was your reply "I don't know, Pat. I also don't know how most magic tricks are done, but I still know they are fake. I also don't need to spend my life trying to figure out how every magic trick is done. I am happy knowing it's just a trick.''   Talk about soothin' ones convictions.

 

Pat...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
58 minutes ago, WSA said:

Since reading Bill's "When Roger Met Patty", I've been hewing to his same line of thought regarding the empirical evidence

I am so shocked.

 

 

58 minutes ago, WSA said:

Also, I've been disputing this pernicious idea that his conclusions can't be proven false.

Of course you do. You and logic have been divorced for as long as I can tell.

 

58 minutes ago, WSA said:

The only thing that will ever matter are the images on that film. Not whether or not Patterson was a deadbeat. Not if his backstory was blemish-free, or if he saw it as his ticket to wealth. Skeptics who want to talk about those things instead of the images are legion, and they all telegraph their lack of understanding of the fundamental question from the start. 

It's nice that you took a moment out of your illogical musings to cheerlead for Roger, but you may have noticed that I don't really talk about Rogers character. 

 

58 minutes ago, WSA said:

One of the basic pillars of scientific experimentation is the unspoken challenge: Tell me why I'm wrong

Ok, why don't you explain, then, how one would prove without a doubt, using empirical evidence, that bigfoot does not exist. 

 

58 minutes ago, WSA said:

Instead, what we get consistently is: Can't be true because there is no such thing.  If this is the best you can do, you are out of your league. 

 

You say this as if it was a ridiculous assertion. It is not. There has been plenty of time for quality evidence of bigfoots existence to appear. It has not. The reports continue to grow and spread across populated areas. Technology continues to improve. Yet somehow, bigfoot escapes detection. And so on and so on. Plenty of logic and reason behind the opinion that bigfoot does not likely exist. If someone uses the simple fact that no one has been able to prove a bigfoot exists anywhere as support for why they also believe the PGF is a hoax, added to which it looks like a hoax, does not render their position laughable or unsupported with  facts or examination. 

 

Buddy, the day I am out of your league is one you will never see.

 

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter
3 hours ago, dmaker said:

 

Edited by Cotter
Never mind....had some troubles posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Bill,

 

If the Tech and methods you have come up with are supportive of the PGF (as I would expect they would be) don't you expect those die-hard skeptics to attack the method?  I would imagine those that hold some kind of crazed skeptic dogma will attack the method because the facts it would point to would be too much of an attack on their belief system.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
19 hours ago, Bill said:

Apparently he went through a video of me talking and pulled the one frame which showed a facial expression

 

Nope. I found that pic in a photobucket account years ago. I didn't screencap it or create it.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Bill said:

It's destructive, not constructive, and having all my life been a person who wants to  constructively accomplish things, I find the destructive agenda bizarre, to say the least. I see it often, but simply don't understand the goal

 

19 hours ago, Bill said:

I concern myself only with trying to rectify the truth of the topic,

 

19 hours ago, Bill said:

I guess I hold on to the hope the pendulum will one day start swinging back to the value of integrity in one's words.

 

IIRC (and I do) you are the man who wrote a 7 page letter to Columbia House Publishing. 

 

Urging them to see it your way; to cancel printing of 'Abominable Science' and recall any existing copies. Because you disagreed with its premise :)

 

Which way was the pendulum swinging that day Bill? Would you care to post that letter or should I?

 

Sasquatchproboards is long defunct, but I still have a text version of that letter in a folder.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

dmaker,

 

you’re bringing up problems with the phenomenon in general into a discussion that’s specifically about the PGF. The memo in case people missed it: the PGF qualifies as evidence for the existence of Sasquatch, just as much as a type specimen would. Analysis of the former may be more challenging and controversial than the latter, but that doesn’t disqualify it from being evidence

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Dmaker:  Did you notice that the title of this thread is "PGF Research Update" not "Dmaker's Private Soapbox"?  I'm sad now because you promised us that we would never see you again : /.  Honestly, when yours and McSquatch's endless drivel starts up it always seems like two members just left discussion instead of two joining it.  Why not make way for some intelligent and qualified analysis of the film instead of worrying that everybody else (except you of course) is wasting their life away?  ;)

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

xspider, I was responding to a comment by Bill. Feel free to proceed with more analysis of the film. The case should be cracked any day now, I'm sure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
2 hours ago, xspider1 said:

Dmaker:  Did you notice that the title of this thread is "PGF Research Update" not "Dmaker's Private Soapbox"?  I'm sad now because you promised us that we would never see you again : /.  Honestly, when yours and McSquatch's endless drivel starts up it always seems like two members just left discussion instead of two joining it.  Why not make way for some intelligent and qualified analysis of the film instead of worrying that everybody else (except you of course) is wasting their life away?  ;)

 

Disrupt  and Derail is all a few here ever do. There appears to be a connection between that modus-operandi and not having anything intelligent to add.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Squatchy:

 

Yes, I wrote to the publishers of "Abominable Science" and suggested they pull the book because of what I outlined in detail as being what I felt was intellectual

hypocrisy. My action there is a matter of public record and I stand by it. And yes, I said above in a post " having all my life been a person who wants to  constructively accomplish things, "  The vast body of my activity is indeed constructive, in my opinion, but once in awhile I find i must speak out against another's words or actions I feel are grossly wrong.Just as I would describe myself as a very calm person, but a few times in my life I have lost my temper.  So when I speak of human behavior, I do not expect an absolute perfection in adhering to an ideal, but at least a sincere effort and substantial achievement of adhering to that ideal as much as possible. I would allow exceptions and occasional frailty in any person, myself included.

 

Returning to the question at hand, I do feel that on occasion, when I see what I perceive as blatant hypocrisy, especially in a publication presented as emphasizing factual analysis, I feel I must speak up and voice my concern.However, I will devote the majority of my time to making a constructive accomplishment of my own, rather than simply being a mere critic who just demeans others with no positive accomplishment of his own. The criticism of that other book is the exception to my usual activity of proactively doing my own research and trying to prove a conclusion I advocate constructively.

 

Dmaker:

 

I appreciate your post above, and want to respond with a thoughtful reply, but I need a bit more time to compose it, so I just wanted to mention a reply will be posted later. (By the way, my time is 7:30Am so I'm just starting my day. You are likely going into evening where you are. But I hope to have the reply up in a few hours or less.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×