Hi
I have been watching a Yowie forum the last few days seeing what is new in that part of the world. Tonight someone posted about his brother went to LA and seen in a museum what they said was the patterson costume used in making the film.
Has anyone heard of it or even seen what they are talking about ?
Full Version: Anyone know anything about this ?
That would be an effortless claim to make and quite simple to aquire the costume. From someone who believe's the Patterson film is the 'genuine article,' I am sick of these 'nay sayers,' trying to prove it fictitious! :soapbox:
QUOTE(big C @ Jan 18 2005, 08:52 AM)
I am sick of these 'nay sayers,' trying to prove it fictitious! :soapbox:
And I'll say it again: It is not up to skeptics to prove that the subject of the PGF is false. The burden of proof lies entirely with those claiming that the subject represents an unclassified species of bipedal primate.
That being said, since neither party is able to make an entirely definitive argument, the most accurate attribution that can be made of the PGF is that it is intriguing, and nothing more.
Avindair
...who has thought it's looked like a guy in a suit with a furry motorcycle helmet since 1978.
QUOTE(Avindair @ Jan 18 2005, 09:27 AM)
And I'll say it again: It is not up to skeptics to prove that the subject of the PGF is false.
Quite true Avindair. However, it IS up to those particular skeptics who claim 'such and such' stories are behind the P/G footage 'hoax' to prove their claims. If they want to claim it's a hoax then they have to prove it. So far, none of them have even remotely been able to do that. Like you said though, neither side can actually 'prove' anything, regardless of how much the evidence leans towards a real animal filmed.
I just asked if anyone had heard this story before or even seen this suit they say was used.
I for one feel that the patty film is the only true picture/film even taken of a real Bigfoot that I have even seen. I personally feel that every thing else you can find online are fakes or blobs only.
But the point of this post was to ask if anyone had ever heard about this museum clams or even went to see this so called Bigfoot suit.
I for one feel that the patty film is the only true picture/film even taken of a real Bigfoot that I have even seen. I personally feel that every thing else you can find online are fakes or blobs only.
But the point of this post was to ask if anyone had ever heard about this museum clams or even went to see this so called Bigfoot suit.
QUOTE
And I'll say it again: It is not up to skeptics to prove that the subject of the PGF is false. The burden of proof lies entirely with those claiming that the subject represents an unclassified species of bipedal primate.
- AvindairIt seems that is always the argument by the Skeptics of the Patterson film. They repeatly say it is fake and it is up to "those" who "believe" it is a "true" article. yet, in the past 38+ years I have yet to see any of the Skeptics bring into the light of day the proof that it is fake.
I think there is a error in thought if only one group of people must "prove" or "validate" their claims. I keep hearing over and over that it is up to "those" who have been researching this year after year to "prove" it. yet the Skeptics use old arguments and fancy words to hide the fact they are just stirring that pot of trouble to get some attention or watch others debate the "proof".
I think the evidence that everyone seeks is right in front of us. We just have not openned our eyes to see it. So, if you claim that it is a fake then prove it, show us the evidence so we can move on from arguing this topic that seems to bring out the best and worst of people.
Sort of like wagging the dog...eh...
I am curious to know if there is some truth behind the question about a "suit" on display. Does anyone know of heard anything about that?
Hey, Footracker --
To address your points:
It seems that is always the argument by the Skeptics of the Patterson film.
This would be because it's a reasonable -- and accurate -- statement.
yet, in the past 38+ years I have yet to see any of the Skeptics bring into the light of day the proof that it is fake.
A skeptic doesn't need to prove a negative. It's up to those making extraordinary claims to offer the required proof.
I think there is a error in thought if only one group of people must "prove" or "validate" their claims.
Alas, that is how science works. After all, anyone can make an extraordinary claim. "Cold Fusion" back in 1988 comes to mind. But one must be able to prove said claim when pressed. In the Cold Fusion issue, the scientists couldn't. In terms of the PGF, all that can be honestly said is that the film shows a hairy, bipedal figure. Beyond that, it's all conjecture, no matter how thoroughly researched.
...yet the Skeptics use old arguments and fancy words to hide the fact they are just stirring that pot of trouble to get some attention or watch others debate the "proof".
I wholeheartedly disagree. Indeed, to my knowledge the only time the PGF gets addressed by skeptics is when extraordinary claims are made about it. The claim of the figure's size, for example, was addressed quite handily in a skeptical research paper that challenged and ultimately disproved the larger figure. And let's not forget that this kind of skepticsm has also kept the debate alive, too. After all, it was the some of the same logic and methodology that addressed the size issue that also pointed out that Cliff Crook's "belt buckle" could not really be seen.
I think the evidence that everyone seeks is right in front of us.
And if there were more films of this quality that matched this figure in morphology, I'd agree. Alas, in thirty-eight years this is pretty much the only relatively clear footage ever to have been captured. As I've said before, this not only doesn't convince me that it's the real deal, it actually impugns its authenticity even further.
Please bear in mind that I would love to be proven wrong. Nothing would make me happier than some clear, unimpeachable footage of an animal that looks like the PGF figure. But as time goes on I'm more and more convinced that if such footage is ever obtained it will only vaguely resemble the subject of the PGF.
I am curious to know if there is some truth behind the question about a "suit" on display.
Well, a pic or two of said suit would speak volumes. As it is, though, I sincerely doubt it. After all, my personal guess is that any suit used in such an effort would have been destroyed very quicly afterwards to cover the hoaxer's tracks. After all, no suit = doubt, and doubt = more showings of the footage in public. Thus a cash cow never dies.
Just my opinion, of course, but I stand by it.
Avindair
To address your points:
It seems that is always the argument by the Skeptics of the Patterson film.
This would be because it's a reasonable -- and accurate -- statement.
yet, in the past 38+ years I have yet to see any of the Skeptics bring into the light of day the proof that it is fake.
A skeptic doesn't need to prove a negative. It's up to those making extraordinary claims to offer the required proof.
I think there is a error in thought if only one group of people must "prove" or "validate" their claims.
Alas, that is how science works. After all, anyone can make an extraordinary claim. "Cold Fusion" back in 1988 comes to mind. But one must be able to prove said claim when pressed. In the Cold Fusion issue, the scientists couldn't. In terms of the PGF, all that can be honestly said is that the film shows a hairy, bipedal figure. Beyond that, it's all conjecture, no matter how thoroughly researched.
...yet the Skeptics use old arguments and fancy words to hide the fact they are just stirring that pot of trouble to get some attention or watch others debate the "proof".
I wholeheartedly disagree. Indeed, to my knowledge the only time the PGF gets addressed by skeptics is when extraordinary claims are made about it. The claim of the figure's size, for example, was addressed quite handily in a skeptical research paper that challenged and ultimately disproved the larger figure. And let's not forget that this kind of skepticsm has also kept the debate alive, too. After all, it was the some of the same logic and methodology that addressed the size issue that also pointed out that Cliff Crook's "belt buckle" could not really be seen.
I think the evidence that everyone seeks is right in front of us.
And if there were more films of this quality that matched this figure in morphology, I'd agree. Alas, in thirty-eight years this is pretty much the only relatively clear footage ever to have been captured. As I've said before, this not only doesn't convince me that it's the real deal, it actually impugns its authenticity even further.
Please bear in mind that I would love to be proven wrong. Nothing would make me happier than some clear, unimpeachable footage of an animal that looks like the PGF figure. But as time goes on I'm more and more convinced that if such footage is ever obtained it will only vaguely resemble the subject of the PGF.
I am curious to know if there is some truth behind the question about a "suit" on display.
Well, a pic or two of said suit would speak volumes. As it is, though, I sincerely doubt it. After all, my personal guess is that any suit used in such an effort would have been destroyed very quicly afterwards to cover the hoaxer's tracks. After all, no suit = doubt, and doubt = more showings of the footage in public. Thus a cash cow never dies.
Just my opinion, of course, but I stand by it.
Avindair
QUOTE(Lyndon @ Jan 19 2005, 02:17 AM)
Quite true Avindair. However, it IS up to those particular skeptics who claim 'such and such' stories are behind the P/G footage 'hoax' to prove their claims.
Lyndon --
This is true, and I agree that, to this point, those individuals who have made such claims have been laughably incompetent.
Personally, though, I'm curious to see the new Heironimous suit footage in motion, as a few of the stills were intriguingly close to the PGF footage. Though I have strong reservations about his story, I won't rule it out entirely until I've seen the recreation.
Avindair
QUOTE(micahn @ Jan 19 2005, 03:06 AM)
I just asked if anyone had heard this story before or even seen this suit they say was used.
I guess by the lack of anybody saying "yes" to your opening question that would tell you that nobody here has heard of any such thing. If there was even so much of a rumour going around then I'm sure that the BFF would be one of the first places to mention it. Not much escapes the good folks here. If a Bigfoot fart was heard somewhere then you can bet it would be discussed here within days.
Bigfoot fart *snort*
Yeah Jaylee, some people think they hear thunder but it's really ol' BF letting rip.
QUOTE
Personally, though, I'm curious to see the new Heironimous suit footage in motion, as a few of the stills were intriguingly close to the PGF footage.
Links, please!
Whomever the burden of proof is on is debatable, but this is a fact........Bigfoot skeptics suck! 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.