Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5 - Page 3

William Parcher · 15th August 2015, 07:50 AM

The only thing I desperately want is for OS to never become a Bigfoot skeptic/denialist.

OntarioSquatch · 15th August 2015, 07:54 AM

How come?

Maurice Ledifficile · 15th August 2015, 08:00 AM

I'm going to take a wild guess: Because this side needs people with critical thinking skills and intellectual honesty?

William Parcher · 15th August 2015, 08:04 AM

Right. That way of thinking (or not thinking) just doesn't fly for Bigfoot skeptics posting on the web.

OntarioSquatch · 15th August 2015, 08:11 AM

It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not.

Maurice Ledifficile · 15th August 2015, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not.

We've established that there can be no denialism about sasquatch, since the scientific consensus is that there is no such thing.

What available evidence? The anecdotes? The ones that don't jive with the PGF?

OntarioSquatch · 15th August 2015, 08:33 AM

As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives.

I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though.

Maurice Ledifficile · 15th August 2015, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives.

As far as you know... Well, you should know more. Science definitely agrees there's no bigfoot.

Keep dreaming. No body will be brought in, since there is no such thing.

And again, even that shouldn't be a victory for you. Given the evidence (there is none), the correct conclusion at this time is that there is no bigfoot, regardless of the future.

OntarioSquatch · 15th August 2015, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

Science definitely agrees there's no bigfoot.

Not true.

ETA: If it is, please link to any published study that proves there isn't Sasquatch in North America.

Maurice Ledifficile · 15th August 2015, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Not true.

Care to back up that ridiculous assertion? Bigfoot is not listed in any zoology textbook. That's because there is no such thing. Same with faeries and leprechauns. Exactly the same.

OntarioSquatch · 15th August 2015, 08:48 AM

Just because something isn't listed, doesn't mean there is a negative consensus on it. Remember, science doesn't focus on negatives.

The default is that Bigfoot isn't known to exist. That same default applies to anything else that's unknown.

Maurice Ledifficile · 15th August 2015, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Just because something isn't listed, doesn't mean there is a negative consensus on it. Remember, science doesn't focus on negatives.

The default is that Bigfoot isn't known to exist. That same default applies to anything else that's unknown.

This is beyond wrong. You are now basically saying that science does not have a consensus on leprechauns. Get real. (This is the intellectual honesty part I was talking about.)

Resume · 15th August 2015, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives.

Science doesn't focus on mermaids, dragons, unicorns, menehunes either. Do you know why?

Quote:

I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though.

None to be had. Anywhere.

Resume · 15th August 2015, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not.

As had been pointed out, this is a good thing.

OntarioSquatch · 15th August 2015, 09:34 AM

There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed. Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards.

The Shrike · 15th August 2015, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely,

Trolling word games. I don't know for sure that a monkey won't fly out of my butt today, so . . .

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence,

It's not controversial if evidence for the thing in question has been sought but not found. This is the case for bigfoot, in which bigfooters have been trying to prove its existence for at least the past 50 years, and the whole of North American settlement and exploration has turned up thousands of species, none of which are bigfoot. Don't even get me started on the absence of such a creature from the fossil record . . .

Yes, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that there is no such thing as bigfoot. (Recall that I am a scientist who studies wild animals.)

Maurice Ledifficile · 15th August 2015, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed. Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards.

There are not endless possibilities. There are patterns and ecological rules. Possibilities should be reasonable. Sasquatch makes no sense in his alleged environment.

The scientific method is all we have to evaluate claims. Other standards are useless and can be dismissed summarily.

Also, the anecdotes don't jive with the PGF. Believing either is ludicrous. There is no word strong enough to qualify the inanity of believing both.

OntarioSquatch · 15th August 2015, 11:02 AM

People can sometimes be afraid of what they love. It's one of those irrational things that exists in the human psyche.

Resume · 15th August 2015, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed.

Footie can be dismissed. It has been, in fact.

Quote:

Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards.

The absence of evidence for a biological entity that would necessarily leave loads of it is indeed evidence of absence. This has been explained to you on several threads, including this one.

RayG · 16th August 2015, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though.

Until that time, the default position should be disbelief.

Just the same as if we were dealing with fairies, chupacabra, werewolves, unicorns, mermaids, angels, fire-breathing dragons, God, gremlins, thunderbirds, Ogopogo, Nessie, or vampires.

RayG

eerok · 16th August 2015, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

People can sometimes be afraid of what they love.

People can sometimes refuse to deal with reality in order to sustain a cherished fantasy.

People can sometimes confuse the memory of an experience for what they wanted to have happened.

People can sometimes be fooled by sketchy fraudsters like Patterson.

Gilbert Syndrome · 17th August 2015, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.

As far as I'm aware, the undertaking of that suit wasn't done by NASA or anything, it was done by Philip Morris, so I'm unsure why our advancement in technology would matter one iota. Also, it's interesting that you mention the flat breasts, as though nothing of the sort exists naturally. Unless you go out with a page 3 model from the British tabloids then surely you'd realize that Patty's unmoving breasts that appear partway down her chest aren't natural, either.

Monza · 17th August 2015, 12:51 PM

So a guy with a dubious past decides to shoot a bigfoot movie. He has a friend dress up in an Indian costume but they don't have a bigfoot costume for this bigfoot movie. Later they are out not far from a logging road in an area frequented by a bigfoot track hoaxer. Without trying, they stumble upon a real bigfoot and shoot a few seconds of footage. When they get back home, the guy parades the film around like PT Barnum complete with an actor portraying his sidekick. The original film is then lost. Attempting to gather more evidence of bigfoot, they guy tries to return to the original location but misses it by 8000 miles.

Seems legit.

comncents · 17th August 2015, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

They're intelligent, paranoid and extremely stealthy, but not invisible. Clear and up close sightings are extremely rare and 99% of the time they happen inside a forest and don't allow for people to get any kind of good footage. It usually happens very quickly and witnesses with no experience are usually too shocked to worry about getting pictures or video. If it happened frequently enough, we would probably have more footage like the PGF.

One or two reports of Bigfoot doing something unique doesn't necesarily mean they're doing it. What if those several reports are hoaxes?

So based upon "facts" you state above, 99% could be written off as mistaken identities since they happen so fast...and the other 1% describe things that are too ridiculous to believe???? So we're done here, right?

Pacal · 17th August 2015, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Not true.

ETA: If it is, please link to any published study that proves there isn't Sasquatch in North America.

Not this philosophical absurdity again. You do know, I hope, that you can't "prove" a negative. For example you can't prove I didn't see the flying purple people eater materialize in my living room and eat the sofa and then vanish in a puff of smoke leaving the sofa behind.

This is a common technique of trying to reverse the onus. Sorry but it is not the responsibility of skeptics to prove that Bigfoot does not exist, (An impossibility.), but it is the responsibility of those who make the positive claim Bigfoot exists to prove he does.

So far they have completely failed.

HarryHenderson · 19th August 2015, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Monza

So a guy with a dubious past decides to shoot a bigfoot movie. He has a friend dress up in an Indian costume but they don't have a bigfoot costume for this bigfoot movie. Later they are out not far from a logging road in an area frequented by a bigfoot track hoaxer. Without trying, they stumble upon a real bigfoot and shoot a few seconds of footage. When they get back home, the guy parades the film around like PT Barnum complete with an actor portraying his sidekick. The original film is then lost. Attempting to gather more evidence of bigfoot, they guy tries to return to the original location but misses it by 8000 miles.

Seems legit.

Roger Patterson was a genius in creating a whole new brand of 'wishful thinking'.

mgidm86 · 21st August 2015, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives.

I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Scientific_view

This is as far as I'm going with this, and I believe scientist feel the same way...

Quote:

The evidence that does exist supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature has been attributed to hoaxes or delusion rather than to sightings of a genuine creature.[7] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."[90] In addition, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate,...

Quote:

Mainstream scientists do not consider the subject of Bigfoot an area of credible science[313] and there have been a limited number of formal scientific studies of Bigfoot.

Evidence such as the 1967 Patterson–Gimlin film has provided "no supportive data of any scientific value".[314]

Quote:

As with other proposed megafauna cryptids, climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely.[315] Great apes have not been found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains are known to have been found. The breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility.

Gilbert Syndrome · 21st August 2015, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by mgidm86

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Scientific_view

This is as far as I'm going with this, and I believe scientist feel the same way...

Expect OS to totally ignore this and simply keep on truckin'.

William Parcher · 21st August 2015, 05:15 PM

There was a time in the past when the JREF PGF thread was really about the PGF.

It isn't anymore.

Resume · 21st August 2015, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

There was a time in the past when the JREF PGF thread was really about the PGF.

It isn't anymore.

It's a fuzzy film of a guy in a monkey suit, made by a shady, shifty fellow who announced he was going to make a monkey movie. Unless there's some new intel about the monkey suit, the guy, the shifty fellow, or fuzziness, I don't know what's left to discuss.

William Parcher · 21st August 2015, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

It's a fuzzy film of a guy in a monkey suit, made by a shady, shifty fellow who announced he was going to make a monkey movie. Unless there's some new intel about the monkey suit, the guy, the shifty fellow, or fuzziness, I don't know what's left to discuss.

Maybe you are too new here to understand. A member for 5 years only. We used to talk about the PGF as being a hoax film instead of talking about it as a hoax film that should never be discussed because it is a hoax film.

Resume · 21st August 2015, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Maybe you are too new here to understand. A member for 5 years only.

Too new to understand what, exactly?

Quote:

We used to talk about the PGF as being a hoax film instead of talking about it as a hoax film that should never be discussed because it is a hoax film.

Yes, yes, it's a film of a guy in a monkey suit. I knew this way back when it first came out and I was just a young-un. It can be discussed until the footies come home, but I can't see how derails are avoidable given the fact there isn't much new to talk about. Unless you have something.

Do you?

William Parcher · 21st August 2015, 06:44 PM

We used to talk about the PGF and post frames from it and talk some more. A gif would pop up from the promoters and we would talk some more. There was active banter going on between PGF belief and PGF skepticism.

That doesn't happen here anymore. It has changed. Something significant has changed. The PGF thread used to be the most popular Bigfoot thread on JREF. It isn't anymore.

Resume · 21st August 2015, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

We used to talk about the PGF and post frames from it and talk some more. A gif would pop up from the promoters and we would talk some more. There was active banter going on between PGF belief and PGF skepticism.

That doesn't happen here anymore. It has changed. Something significant has changed. The PGF thread used to be the most popular Bigfoot thread on JREF. It isn't anymore.

Many proponents pimp the PGF as their best evidence, yet few come here to promote or even defend it as of late. Is this indicative of a lack of confidence in the PGF as good evidence, or a lack of confidence in proponents who might defend it?

If the PGF is dying as a symbol, isn't bigfootery terminal as well? It doesn't seem possible on the surface, but . . .

William Parcher · 21st August 2015, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

Too new to understand what, exactly?

We used to post frames (or little gifs) from the PGF and talk about those as being the elements from which the authenticity or fabrication could be derived. It was how arguments were created and defended or attacked. Now it's simply that the PGF is fake and you can skip all of that old frame-by-frame stuff.

Quote:

Yes, yes, it's a film of a guy in a monkey suit. I knew this way back when it first came out and I was just a young-un. It can be discussed until the footies come home, but I can't see how derails are avoidable given the fact there isn't much new to talk about. Unless you have something.

Do you?

My newest thing on the PGF is interest in the specific very shiny black synthetic fur material and how it created illusions of musculature and overall form.

Resume · 21st August 2015, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

My newest thing on the PGF is interest in the specific very shiny black synthetic fur material and how it created illusions of musculature and overall form.

Well, good luck with that. I'm not being flip, either.

OntarioSquatch · 21st August 2015, 08:31 PM

Patty from Roger's view

The full sized version http://i.imgur.com/35IE56G.jpg

Patty up close

]

Cibachrome scan from Bill Munns

One of the early frames that clearly shows the individual glutes

Another early frame

One of the later frames

Resume · 21st August 2015, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Patty from Roger's view

http://i.imgur.com/arQ6oH2.jpg
The full sized version http://i.imgur.com/35IE56G.jpg

Patty up close
http://i.imgur.com/nlHDRdP.jpg]

Cibachrome scan from Bill Munns

http://i.imgur.com/jBSsSW1.png

One of the early frames that clearly shows the individual glutes

http://i.imgur.com/gGKnwD6.jpg

Another early frame

http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/.../notasuit2.jpg

One of the later frames

http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/...ps03af9703.jpg

Why do you think, what's your best explanation for the bald fact that there is nothing in the North American fossil record, no biological entity in the natural history of North America that matches ~~the guy in the suit~~ the ~~pattysuit~~ the thing in the PGF.? Not one thing that is even close to a 9-ft monkey? Where are the animals that match? **** the plural, how about just one?

LTC8K6 · 21st August 2015, 09:51 PM

Wow! What great new PGF stills!

Oh wait, it's only 356th time I've seen them.

Why would Munns need to scan the Cibachromes again?

The Cibachromes really show what a drunken patchwork job the suit is...

Drewbot · 24th August 2015, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Patty from Roger's view

Patty, Roger and Bob, from the baby in the Woods viewpoint:

I love how they took the black image blob over the mouth in the full-frame, and in the Cibachrome, turned it into a smile.
The black image blob is clearly visible in the full frame right over where the imaginary mouth-line is.

15th August 2015, 07:50 AM	#81
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	The only thing I desperately want is for OS to never become a Bigfoot skeptic/denialist.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th August 2015, 08:00 AM	#83
Maurice Ledifficile Lost in translation Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,964	I'm going to take a wild guess: Because this side needs people with critical thinking skills and intellectual honesty?
	__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

15th August 2015, 08:04 AM	#84
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	Right. That way of thinking (or not thinking) just doesn't fly for Bigfoot skeptics posting on the web.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th August 2015, 08:25 AM	#86
Maurice Ledifficile Lost in translation Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,964	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not. We've established that there can be no denialism about sasquatch, since the scientific consensus is that there is no such thing. What available evidence? The anecdotes? The ones that don't jive with the PGF?
	__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

15th August 2015, 08:33 AM	#87
OntarioSquatch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,783	As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives. I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though.
	Last edited by OntarioSquatch; 15th August 2015 at 08:36 AM.

15th August 2015, 07:54 AM	#82
OntarioSquatch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,783	How come?

15th August 2015, 08:11 AM	#85
OntarioSquatch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,783	It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not.

15th August 2015, 08:36 AM	#88
Maurice Ledifficile Lost in translation Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,964	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives. As far as you know... Well, you should know more. Science definitely agrees there's no bigfoot. Keep dreaming. No body will be brought in, since there is no such thing. And again, even that shouldn't be a victory for you. Given the evidence (there is none), the correct conclusion at this time is that there is no bigfoot, regardless of the future.
	__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright Last edited by Maurice Ledifficile; 15th August 2015 at 08:39 AM.

15th August 2015, 08:39 AM	#89
OntarioSquatch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,783	Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile Science definitely agrees there's no bigfoot. Not true. ETA: If it is, please link to any published study that proves there isn't Sasquatch in North America.
	Last edited by OntarioSquatch; 15th August 2015 at 08:41 AM.

15th August 2015, 08:42 AM	#90
Maurice Ledifficile Lost in translation Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,964	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch Not true. Care to back up that ridiculous assertion? Bigfoot is not listed in any zoology textbook. That's because there is no such thing. Same with faeries and leprechauns. Exactly the same.
	__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

15th August 2015, 08:48 AM	#91
OntarioSquatch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,783	Just because something isn't listed, doesn't mean there is a negative consensus on it. Remember, science doesn't focus on negatives. The default is that Bigfoot isn't known to exist. That same default applies to anything else that's unknown.

15th August 2015, 08:53 AM	#92
Maurice Ledifficile Lost in translation Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,964	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch Just because something isn't listed, doesn't mean there is a negative consensus on it. Remember, science doesn't focus on negatives. The default is that Bigfoot isn't known to exist. That same default applies to anything else that's unknown. This is beyond wrong. You are now basically saying that science does not have a consensus on leprechauns. Get real. (This is the intellectual honesty part I was talking about.)
	__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

15th August 2015, 08:56 AM	#93
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 21,549	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives. Science doesn't focus on mermaids, dragons, unicorns, menehunes either. Do you know why? Quote: I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though. None to be had. Anywhere.
	__________________ " Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

15th August 2015, 08:58 AM	#94
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 21,549	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not. As had been pointed out, this is a good thing.
	__________________ " Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

15th August 2015, 09:34 AM	#95
OntarioSquatch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,783	There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed. Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards.
	Last edited by OntarioSquatch; 15th August 2015 at 09:37 AM.

15th August 2015, 10:02 AM	#96
The Shrike Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 5,147	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, Trolling word games. I don't know for sure that a monkey won't fly out of my butt today, so . . . Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, It's not controversial if evidence for the thing in question has been sought but not found. This is the case for bigfoot, in which bigfooters have been trying to prove its existence for at least the past 50 years, and the whole of North American settlement and exploration has turned up thousands of species, none of which are bigfoot. Don't even get me started on the absence of such a creature from the fossil record . . . Yes, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that there is no such thing as bigfoot. (Recall that I am a scientist who studies wild animals.)

15th August 2015, 10:05 AM	#97
Maurice Ledifficile Lost in translation Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,964	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed. Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards. There are not endless possibilities. There are patterns and ecological rules. Possibilities should be reasonable. Sasquatch makes no sense in his alleged environment. The scientific method is all we have to evaluate claims. Other standards are useless and can be dismissed summarily. Also, the anecdotes don't jive with the PGF. Believing either is ludicrous. There is no word strong enough to qualify the inanity of believing both.
	__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh "There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

15th August 2015, 11:02 AM	#98
OntarioSquatch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,783	People can sometimes be afraid of what they love. It's one of those irrational things that exists in the human psyche.

15th August 2015, 04:26 PM	#99
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 21,549	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed. Footie can be dismissed. It has been, in fact. Quote: Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards. The absence of evidence for a biological entity that would necessarily leave loads of it is indeed evidence of absence. This has been explained to you on several threads, including this one.
	__________________ " Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Last edited by Resume; 15th August 2015 at 04:28 PM.

16th August 2015, 06:32 PM	#100
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though. Until that time, the default position should be disbelief. Just the same as if we were dealing with fairies, chupacabra, werewolves, unicorns, mermaids, angels, fire-breathing dragons, God, gremlins, thunderbirds, Ogopogo, Nessie, or vampires. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

16th August 2015, 06:51 PM	#101
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 5,369	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch People can sometimes be afraid of what they love. People can sometimes refuse to deal with reality in order to sustain a cherished fantasy. People can sometimes confuse the memory of an experience for what they wanted to have happened. People can sometimes be fooled by sketchy fraudsters like Patterson.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

17th August 2015, 07:15 AM	#102
Gilbert Syndrome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 7,301	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are. As far as I'm aware, the undertaking of that suit wasn't done by NASA or anything, it was done by Philip Morris, so I'm unsure why our advancement in technology would matter one iota. Also, it's interesting that you mention the flat breasts, as though nothing of the sort exists naturally. Unless you go out with a page 3 model from the British tabloids then surely you'd realize that Patty's unmoving breasts that appear partway down her chest aren't natural, either.
	__________________ Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

17th August 2015, 12:51 PM	#103
Monza Alta Viro Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,307	So a guy with a dubious past decides to shoot a bigfoot movie. He has a friend dress up in an Indian costume but they don't have a bigfoot costume for this bigfoot movie. Later they are out not far from a logging road in an area frequented by a bigfoot track hoaxer. Without trying, they stumble upon a real bigfoot and shoot a few seconds of footage. When they get back home, the guy parades the film around like PT Barnum complete with an actor portraying his sidekick. The original film is then lost. Attempting to gather more evidence of bigfoot, they guy tries to return to the original location but misses it by 8000 miles. Seems legit.
Monza Alta Viro Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,307

17th August 2015, 01:40 PM	#104
comncents Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 272	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch They're intelligent, paranoid and extremely stealthy, but not invisible. Clear and up close sightings are extremely rare and 99% of the time they happen inside a forest and don't allow for people to get any kind of good footage. It usually happens very quickly and witnesses with no experience are usually too shocked to worry about getting pictures or video. If it happened frequently enough, we would probably have more footage like the PGF. One or two reports of Bigfoot doing something unique doesn't necesarily mean they're doing it. What if those several reports are hoaxes? So based upon "facts" you state above, 99% could be written off as mistaken identities since they happen so fast...and the other 1% describe things that are too ridiculous to believe???? So we're done here, right?
	__________________ WARNING - DO NOT FEED THE BLAARGers!

17th August 2015, 03:47 PM	#105
Pacal Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,403	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch Not true. ETA: If it is, please link to any published study that proves there isn't Sasquatch in North America. Not this philosophical absurdity again. You do know, I hope, that you can't "prove" a negative. For example you can't prove I didn't see the flying purple people eater materialize in my living room and eat the sofa and then vanish in a puff of smoke leaving the sofa behind. This is a common technique of trying to reverse the onus. Sorry but it is not the responsibility of skeptics to prove that Bigfoot does not exist, (An impossibility.), but it is the responsibility of those who make the positive claim Bigfoot exists to prove he does. So far they have completely failed.

19th August 2015, 10:56 PM	#106
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,874	Originally Posted by Monza So a guy with a dubious past decides to shoot a bigfoot movie. He has a friend dress up in an Indian costume but they don't have a bigfoot costume for this bigfoot movie. Later they are out not far from a logging road in an area frequented by a bigfoot track hoaxer. Without trying, they stumble upon a real bigfoot and shoot a few seconds of footage. When they get back home, the guy parades the film around like PT Barnum complete with an actor portraying his sidekick. The original film is then lost. Attempting to gather more evidence of bigfoot, they guy tries to return to the original location but misses it by 8000 miles. Seems legit. Roger Patterson was a genius in creating a whole new brand of 'wishful thinking'.
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

21st August 2015, 01:27 PM	#107
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,471	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives. I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Scientific_view This is as far as I'm going with this, and I believe scientist feel the same way... Quote: The evidence that does exist supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature has been attributed to hoaxes or delusion rather than to sightings of a genuine creature.[7] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."[90] In addition, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate,... Quote: Mainstream scientists do not consider the subject of Bigfoot an area of credible science[313] and there have been a limited number of formal scientific studies of Bigfoot. Evidence such as the 1967 Patterson–Gimlin film has provided "no supportive data of any scientific value".[314] Quote: As with other proposed megafauna cryptids, climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely.[315] Great apes have not been found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains are known to have been found. The breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility.
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,471

21st August 2015, 01:38 PM	#108
Gilbert Syndrome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 7,301	Originally Posted by mgidm86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Scientific_view This is as far as I'm going with this, and I believe scientist feel the same way... Expect OS to totally ignore this and simply keep on truckin'.
	__________________ Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

21st August 2015, 05:15 PM	#109
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	There was a time in the past when the JREF PGF thread was really about the PGF. It isn't anymore.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

21st August 2015, 05:39 PM	#110
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 21,549	Originally Posted by William Parcher There was a time in the past when the JREF PGF thread was really about the PGF. It isn't anymore. It's a fuzzy film of a guy in a monkey suit, made by a shady, shifty fellow who announced he was going to make a monkey movie. Unless there's some new intel about the monkey suit, the guy, the shifty fellow, or fuzziness, I don't know what's left to discuss.
	__________________ " Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

21st August 2015, 05:57 PM	#111
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	Originally Posted by Resume It's a fuzzy film of a guy in a monkey suit, made by a shady, shifty fellow who announced he was going to make a monkey movie. Unless there's some new intel about the monkey suit, the guy, the shifty fellow, or fuzziness, I don't know what's left to discuss. Maybe you are too new here to understand. A member for 5 years only. We used to talk about the PGF as being a hoax film instead of talking about it as a hoax film that should never be discussed because it is a hoax film.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

21st August 2015, 06:25 PM	#112
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 21,549	Originally Posted by William Parcher Maybe you are too new here to understand. A member for 5 years only. Too new to understand what, exactly? Quote: We used to talk about the PGF as being a hoax film instead of talking about it as a hoax film that should never be discussed because it is a hoax film. Yes, yes, it's a film of a guy in a monkey suit. I knew this way back when it first came out and I was just a young-un. It can be discussed until the footies come home, but I can't see how derails are avoidable given the fact there isn't much new to talk about. Unless you have something. Do you?
	__________________ " Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

21st August 2015, 06:44 PM	#113
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	We used to talk about the PGF and post frames from it and talk some more. A gif would pop up from the promoters and we would talk some more. There was active banter going on between PGF belief and PGF skepticism. That doesn't happen here anymore. It has changed. Something significant has changed. The PGF thread used to be the most popular Bigfoot thread on JREF. It isn't anymore.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

21st August 2015, 06:52 PM	#114
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 21,549	Originally Posted by William Parcher We used to talk about the PGF and post frames from it and talk some more. A gif would pop up from the promoters and we would talk some more. There was active banter going on between PGF belief and PGF skepticism. That doesn't happen here anymore. It has changed. Something significant has changed. The PGF thread used to be the most popular Bigfoot thread on JREF. It isn't anymore. Many proponents pimp the PGF as their best evidence, yet few come here to promote or even defend it as of late. Is this indicative of a lack of confidence in the PGF as good evidence, or a lack of confidence in proponents who might defend it? If the PGF is dying as a symbol, isn't bigfootery terminal as well? It doesn't seem possible on the surface, but . . .
	__________________ " Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Last edited by Resume; 21st August 2015 at 07:13 PM. Reason: ? and the Mysterians

21st August 2015, 06:55 PM	#115
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	Originally Posted by Resume Too new to understand what, exactly? We used to post frames (or little gifs) from the PGF and talk about those as being the elements from which the authenticity or fabrication could be derived. It was how arguments were created and defended or attacked. Now it's simply that the PGF is fake and you can skip all of that old frame-by-frame stuff. Quote: Yes, yes, it's a film of a guy in a monkey suit. I knew this way back when it first came out and I was just a young-un. It can be discussed until the footies come home, but I can't see how derails are avoidable given the fact there isn't much new to talk about. Unless you have something. Do you? My newest thing on the PGF is interest in the specific very shiny black synthetic fur material and how it created illusions of musculature and overall form.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.