Cotter Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Also, there are supposedly 2 pics of this skull in his book. Any idea where one can see these short of buying a book? Have these skull pics been discussed on the BFF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 "You have a player in the PGF that claims it was a hoax." This is a bit off topic, but there are many more who don't believe he was a "player" in the PGF than do. Therefore, any "claims" he might make carry little weight, due to an endless string of contradictory testimony. Dr Ketchum is a professional in her field and has a professional reputation on the line. The alleged "player" in the PGF had no such thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Granted I'm not following everything in the BF world, but is this out of left field or what? I don't recall any references to this anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 You have a player in the PGF that claims it was a hoax. Why do you not believe him yet the guy from ENOCH gets dismissed? Is it because one is a book and the other is a film? It's one thing to claim it was a hoax, it's another to show how it was done. Nobody in the world has shown how a hoax of that quality could be done using 1967 technology. Maybe you will be the one to finally do it! Again, I maintain that the PGF is either the real deal or an incredible hoax, and nobody has shown how it could have been hoaxed. At least we both agree that it's not a bear? Has any hair come come back that wasn't identified as something else? Don't you know the answer to this? You seem to think you are quite knowledgeable on the subject. Luckily for you, we live in a world where the entirety of human knowledge is available at your fingertips. Why don't you let us know what you find out. Prints have been faked and misidentified, they may be evidence for something but you can't say what they are either for or against the existence of bigfoot. Is it really evidence then? Prints certainly have been faked and misidentified, but the great majority of them fall into a natural bell curve suggesting a real population. I can't say what animal it is, but given all the circumstantial evidence, I would say IF IT IS AN UNKNOWN ANIMAL MAKING THOSE PRINTS, then it is most likely the animal we have come to know as bigfoot. I don't make the rules. I tried presenting evidence for a unicorn of equal quality that has been proferred for bigfoot. Yeah, except you didn't. You offered a weak scenario comparing something where there is at the very least circumstantial evidence- Bigfoot- with something in which there is virtually no tangible evidence at all, circumstantial or otherwise. YOu actually said in a prior quote, " What is NOT reasonable is to assume any evidence is not real evidence, because the animal is known to not be real. That's bass-ackwards as they say." So which is it more plausible based on the quality of the evidence and why? I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant is that any time tangible evidence is offered (hair, blood, saliva, thousands of prints), or eyewitness accounts submitted, they are automatically discounted because the subject matter is "known" to not exist. How will we ever get anywhere that way? I don't mean to be rude, but you obviously have done virtually no research on the subject and have given nothing more than the very basic, minimal effort to discussing this subject from a skeptical point of view. There are several skeptics on this board who's opinions and discussions are quite respected on this board, even among those of us who steadfastly believe in Bigfoot. They have been respectful enough to at least be knowledgeable on the subject matter when they are coming to a forum specifically created for those of us who believe, to discuss why they are of the belief that it DOESN'T exist. You don't walk into a room full of Apollo astronauts and just casually say "yeah, uh... didn't they prove the moon landing was a hoax because like... uh... it's made of cheese and the rockets would have melted the surface or something?" and then dismiss everything they say out of hand. Do better; I know you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Before anyone makes a decision on whether this guy is legit - watch ALL his videos. If memory serves, he even discussed fairies - as in winged fairies. I was worried this complaint against Melba might be a serious issue..... That's all I'm gonna say bout that. http://www.youtube.c...uresSecretAgent Edited to add: OPPS.. I forgot the link - and I hope it's okay that I posted the link. Edited August 1, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted August 1, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted August 1, 2012 Granted I'm not following everything in the BF world, but is this out of left field or what? I don't recall any references to this anywhere. In defence and in my memory, Tom was way out in left field himself also if you get my drift. Nice Guy, but........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 In defence and in my memory, Tom was way out in left field himself also if you get my drift. Nice Guy, but........... Hey- what's that s'posed to mean?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 "You have a player in the PGF that claims it was a hoax." This is a bit off topic, but there are many more who don't believe he was a "player" in the PGF than do. Therefore, any "claims" he might make carry little weight, Many more? Many more who? Many more on these forums, for sure, but I doubt that would hold true out in the world at large. Ask people on the street if they think the PGF was real or a hoax, and likely they will say they'd heard the guy wearing the suit confess it was a hoax. So, the "many more" is kind of a subjective group of people, because almost anyone could argue that "many more" people believe he was in fact a player, and was in fact the guy in the suit, and that his story was real and credible. Not saying what he says was true, just pointing out that I don't think your majority opinion is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 ***Mod Statement*** There are numerous ongoing threads in the Patterson-Gimlin Film sub-forum dealing with this very subject. Let's keep those conversations where they belong, and not risk derailing this thread. Thanks everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 It's one thing to claim it was a hoax, it's another to show how it was done. Nobody in the world has shown how a hoax of that quality could be done using 1967 technology. Maybe you will be the one to finally do it! Again, I maintain that the PGF is either the real deal or an incredible hoax, and nobody has shown how it could have been hoaxed. At least we both agree that it's not a bear? Nicely said. I don't want to add to the train derailing off the topic track, but since tomorrow is another Thursday and nothing is really new or forthcoming here yet, it seems of little harm to comment on the tangent. Agreed, nobody has yet produced a convincing Patty suit, nor recreation attempt to prove the event could have been hoaxed. Doesn't mean someone couldn't do it, just means nobody has done it for whatever reason. Agreed, either real or a very nicely done hoax. Agreed completely, not a bear, although that Patty fur looks suspiciously similar to bear fur... ;-) I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant is that any time tangible evidence is offered (hair, blood, saliva, thousands of prints), or eyewitness accounts submitted, they are automatically discounted because the subject matter is "known" to not exist. How will we ever get anywhere that way? I don't mean to be rude, but you obviously have done virtually no research on the subject and have given nothing more than the very basic, minimal effort to discussing this subject from a skeptical point of view. There are several skeptics on this board who's opinions and discussions are quite respected on this board, even among those of us who steadfastly believe in Bigfoot. They have been respectful enough to at least be knowledgeable on the subject matter when they are coming to a forum specifically created for those of us who believe, to discuss why they are of the belief that it DOESN'T exist. You don't walk into a room full of Apollo astronauts and just casually say "yeah, uh... didn't they prove the moon landing was a hoax because like... uh... it's made of cheese and the rockets would have melted the surface or something?" and then dismiss everything they say out of hand. Do better; I know you can. The whole world of bigfoot moves so slowly, I'm afraid that nothing will ever be resolved in our lifetimes. I keep hoping something will develop, something will come to light, but sadly everything is a wait and see what happens scenario. So those interested are always forced to debate the issues. That's our lot in life, it seems. So as you suggest, since we're all stuck in debate mode with so little actual proof that can convince everyone completely, might as well settle in, and not pee in the pool we all share, eh? ***Mod Statement*** There are numerous ongoing threads in the Patterson-Gimlin Film sub-forum dealing with this very subject. Let's keep those conversations where they belong, and not risk derailing this thread. Thanks everyone. Sorry, I was posting as this was coming through. Didn't see it until after I hit post, otherwise I would not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 they are automatically discounted because the subject matter is "known" to not exist. No, the correct wording would be "Not known to exist" in other words, we have no proof of it's existence. You can't say 'we have proof of it's non-existence' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 LOL NGJ! Apparently he must've sent SOMETHING to the lab. Boy, I would really like DMK or Sally to comment on this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 No, the correct wording would be "Not known to exist" in other words, we have no proof of it's existence. You can't say 'we have proof of it's non-existence' I agree with you. I worded it that way on purpose because that often seems to be what it has morphed into. "You have evidence of the existence of Bigfoot? Impossible, because it doesn't exist; now let's see the evidence... yup, just as I suspected! Obviously a misunderstanding/misidentification/fabrication since Bigfoot doesn't exist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 "You have evidence of the existence of Bigfoot? Impossible, because it doesn't exist; now let's see the evidence... yup, just as I suspected! Obviously a misunderstanding/misidentification/fabrication since Bigfoot doesn't exist." I would try it like this "You have evidence of the existence of BF?, really? Show me the evidence.<<Read bigfoot sighting, Look at blurry video, Hold up a giant plaster cast to the light>>.. OK, when you get some actual evidence, the kind that they have used to ID animals for 500 years, nothing special, just that standard new species evidence, we will revisit this." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 "Okay fair enough, thanks for indulging me. Oh- I almost forgot this stuff!" *hands over as-yet unidentified hair and blood samples* "That's something, huh?? Put these unknown biological samples together with those footprints you were looking at, that really compelling video taken by that Patterson guy, and the thousands of eyewitness reports and I think we might have something here! I know it's in no way proof, but it sure is interesting! I don't expect you to take any of this as proof, mind you, just don't ridicule me for wanting to investigate further, since that's the only hope of ever finding your precious proof!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts