email468
Well-Known Member
Great! And in what scientific journal can i read about it?
Have You Seen Any Weird Shit?
- Thread starter ace1059
- Start date
FrostyTHEgrowmaN
Well-Known Member
Typical "I have no debate left" quote. Research it yourself your the one who started pontificating to me, Then when I crush every debate you try to bring to the table you throw out the scientific journal again which when discussing ANYTHING paranormal IS NOT relevant. Go do some research come to some actual conclusions of your own and stop parroting websites that you think make you sound knowledgeable about these things. Then we can continue this discussion, until then that's check and mate.
Last edited:
FrostyTHEgrowmaN
Well-Known Member
YouTube - MonsterQuest | Bigfoot [PART 1 OF 5] this episode of monsterquest discusses some of the things I was talking about about the footage enhancement its not a scientific journal but it will save me time from collecting all the data and compiling here
email468
Well-Known Member
YOU are making the claim that there is scientific evidence. When i ask for proof you then announce you have "crushed me" in the debate because i asked for proof.. huh? that makes no sense at all. Explain how my asking for proof of your evidence is my "having no debate left". Wouldn't i have to examine the evidence in order to debate it? oh yeah - that's right... you STILL don't have any evidence but i'm the one who is crushed.... OK.
So science is not relevant when discussing the paranormal. Fine. Then stop saying there is scientific evidence and you won't hear from me. Otherwise, and once again, show me the scientific evidence which is found in peer reviewed journals and papers.
And here we go with insults again....where would your bigfoot "theories" and "evidence" be without internet based bigfoot sites? You don't have to answer -- it is a rhetorical question. Yet you have the gall to accuse me of what you are doing yourself. screw you pal - i'm sick of your insinuations and insults. Put up or shut up. I don't need an any websites to debate your baloney.
For what it is worth, I have reviewed the digitally enhanced footage and i still see a guy in a monkey suit. Oh boy - does this mean i crushed you in debate since i also do not offer any proof of why i think that?
email468
Well-Known Member
i'll translate. I was talking out of my ass when i said there was scientific proof so i'll instead pretend i could provide proof but don't have the time. Yet i do have the time to find youtube videos of a TV show called MonsterQuest as proof.
Oh yes - youtube and monsterquest .... how could i doubt you?
FrostyTHEgrowmaN
Well-Known Member
No actually you didn't ask for proof ,you said was what i said was wrong, when you can watch that piece and lo and behold what I said was 100% accurate. we never debated the existence of bigfoot we debated the possibility that this particular footage was hoaxed and you offered no evidence whatsoever scientific or otherwise to back up your claim so yes I crushed you. Not only that I actually stayed on topic I didn't offer up a bunch of ambiguous unrelated "Theories" just for the sake of having something else to say. where is your fucking peer reviewed PROOF it was a hoax ? if you dont have it shut the fuck up and consider yourself crushed!
email468
Well-Known Member
I didn't ask for proof? how many times do i have to ask before it registers with you? are you even reading my posts? I mentioned the UFO story to illustrate how easy our minds can be fooled by ordinary events. But you are claiming that was a red herring? Do you not see how that would apply to this conversation?
And you say we never debated the existence of bigfoot? What, exactly, are we debating then? The legitimacy of the Patterson film? And what do we gain by proving or disproving the film? Evidence of bigfoot, right? so we are indeed debating the existence of bigfoot.
I admit that with scientific evidence, I'd have no problem believing in a bigfoot. Would you be willing to concede that while there may be evidence in the future, there is currently no accepted scientific evidence for the existence of bigfoot?
Having said all that - even if bigfoot were captured tomorrow - that would still not "prove" the legitimacy of the Patterson film. Do you understand?
email468
Well-Known Member
unfortunately. i am just about finished. I am now attempting to determine if i am debating with someone reasonable or someone determined to "win" at all costs.You guys still at it?
FrostyTHEgrowmaN
Well-Known Member
So now an attempt to project your own inferiority on me, and every time I prove my point you change the subject or go in a different direction. I think you haven't been reading MY posts. In real life when you're talking to people they don't have the luxury of scrolling back up to call you on your BS but in forums we do and every thing you posted has been riddled with bs and i have poked holes in all your, what ill loosely refer to as arguments. Ive stated several times that i never said Bigfoot undeniably exists and you know that, and yes all you have is red herrings and nothing more to add to this debate. which again was about the possibility of THIS footage being hoaxed. Like I said YOU HAVE TO DANCE WITH THE GIRL YOU CAME WITH! and you can't dance. You can sidestep my questions all you want, again you're not fooling anyone who wasted their time reading any of this. Its obvious your the one with the wounded ego who cant except that he piped up and got shot down at every angle. i'm over it bro, nice nugz btw
email468
Well-Known Member
OK, if you want to strictly debate the video, i'm game.
Topic one: i say the video is a complete hoax because the original film was lost.
Topic two: there is nothing in the video that would rule out a man in a monkey suit.
Topic three: the film maker (Patterson) was a known con-man and thief. In fact, he stole the camera that the lost film was made with!
Three to start.
email468
Well-Known Member
are you asking me or anybody?
I am, of course, guessing but i would say you probably saw an airplane. One of the few that was permitted to take off.
FrostyTHEgrowmaN
Well-Known Member
well according to your own statement earlier #3 the camera was rented (YOU SAID THAT) #1 The footage was not lost the original 8mm footage is what was analyzed most recently #2 i've already covered over and over why the footage DOES NOT show a man in a monkey suit. AND THAT IS ALL I'M CLAIMING I NEVER SAID IT WAS "BIGFOOT" I just said it was not hoaxed. you are just making shit up now. like I said your kind of BS only works in real life (and not usually even then) people probably just wait till you walk away to laugh at you. you contradicted your own posts like 5 times. give up! you lost! you're wrong! game over! the end.
email468
Well-Known Member
Of course I am supposing and speculating as are you. But you use the phrase: scientific fact – every time you say that I am going to ask for citation to a peer-reviewed journal. Let’s at least agree we are both speculating.
I’ve reviewed the film and noted nothing of the kind. Besides if it is a guy in an ape suit – would his face muscles stop working?
False. Planet of the Apes was released the following year with far more convincing ape-like creatures. Hell the Murders in the Rue Morgue 1932 version is more convincing! The 1954 version blows the Patterson film away. I would add that Patterson, a con man, spent some time at the carnival so was no stranger to people in suits claiming to be freaks/ape-men and other creatures. There are also costume designers of note saying the suit could (not was) just could be faked.
EVERYTHING is debatable – nice try though. I saw what you are talking about and basing the analysis on some person walking on a treadmill vs. someone wearing an ape-suit and attempting to act like an ape is completely bogus. Go ahead and try it and film yourself. You’ll be surprised by how close you can match the gait in the patterson film.
Ah no. I know of one that tried – not many and that was the BBC and they made a very convincing Bigfoot to me. I would ask that you cite where many TV studios and other firms have tried and failed. I believe this is your strongest evidence that the film was not faked.
More ad hominems leading up to a big steamy pile of bullshit. Scientific facts?!?! Once again – peer reviewed journal time – otherwise it is supposition and speculation – just like me.
Not sure if you noticed but if you break up your sentences - you make bullet points too which are declarative and at one point not even debatable... goodness!
FrostyTHEgrowmaN
Well-Known Member
you are no good at this debating thing again going way outside the scope of discussion to embellish loosely related topics that seem to make you right. You don't give up. again refer to my original post to see what we were actually discussing since you apparently have forgotten a few times now. There is much much less PROOF of what you claim then what I have stated in fact your only proof is some guy said he wore the monkey suit. again the difference between a skeptic and a debunker is a skeptic actually looks at all the evidence to make conclusions not just seeing the evidence that fits into his or her own paradigm. Unlike you ,I haven't made any false claims, you keep doing it, I keep calling you on it, and then you keep changing the subject. Typical of a bullshitter. Which IS what you are and nothing more so Im done now
email468
Well-Known Member
So even point by point refutation doesn't pass muster with you? I know of no other way to debate than to take your words and point out how they may be incorrect. I would be willing to take the other side of the debate and argue why the film is genuine. Would you be willing to choose the other side of the debate and argue why the film is a fake?
True skeptic indeed.
Anyway, good luck in your endeavors.
Last edited:
FrostyTHEgrowmaN
Well-Known Member
I really don't see any true refutation, considering it has all been addressed in my previous post ( but false claims is kinda your thing) but a point by point refutation of every one of your posts hasn't dissuaded you in the least either, but, as you stated the circumstances surrounding the footage do seem very fishy. I myself wrote it off the first five hundred times i saw it. way too many coincidences just happened to come together at the perfect time. I fully understand why you write it off as well. Paterson's friend STILL though stands by what he saw. I know every point you brought up very well. It still doesn't mean your not wrong.
Planet of the apes didn't use animatronics btw. Most of the rhetoric about the films validity comes from the "fact" patterson got tired of the constant barrage of criticism and looky lous that wouldn't leave him alone so HE said HIMSELF he faked it(which is a false claim the loch ness monster guy admitted faking his pics not patterson). which led to all types of other stories (like the guy who claimed to be the one in the monkey suit) the reason though that he went out searching was because he claimed to have seen the creature in that area before. and like you stated one of the most illusive creatures in the world just happened to be standing right there like "here I am heres my titties whats up" though the sound of horses has been known NOT to spook wild animals like the sound of humans do.
Try this on for size (pun intended) and try out your horse shit debating technique with the Associate professor of Anatomy & Anthropology Idaho State University Pocatello, Idaho http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp
:cut and pasted from the above site:
The Patterson footage has never been debunked as a hoax. No one has ever demonstrated how it was done. Neither the original "costume," nor a matching costume, has ever been presented by honest skeptics, nor by various imposters who claim to have worn the costume.
Large amounts of money have been spent trying to make a matching costume. The best Hollywood costume design talents have been brought to the task, but have never succeeded. The British Broadcasting Corporation spent the most money so far. They failed miserably. .
Every attempt and failure to make a similar costume strengthens the case for authenticity of the Patterson footage. Comparing a man in a costume side by side with the Patterson creature in motion helps highlight the striking anatomical peculiarities.
If you hear debunking claims in the future, be ready to ask the obvious questions:
CHECK FUCKING MATE PAL
Planet of the apes didn't use animatronics btw. Most of the rhetoric about the films validity comes from the "fact" patterson got tired of the constant barrage of criticism and looky lous that wouldn't leave him alone so HE said HIMSELF he faked it(which is a false claim the loch ness monster guy admitted faking his pics not patterson). which led to all types of other stories (like the guy who claimed to be the one in the monkey suit) the reason though that he went out searching was because he claimed to have seen the creature in that area before. and like you stated one of the most illusive creatures in the world just happened to be standing right there like "here I am heres my titties whats up" though the sound of horses has been known NOT to spook wild animals like the sound of humans do.
Try this on for size (pun intended) and try out your horse shit debating technique with the Associate professor of Anatomy & Anthropology Idaho State University Pocatello, Idaho http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp
:cut and pasted from the above site:
The Patterson footage has never been debunked as a hoax. No one has ever demonstrated how it was done. Neither the original "costume," nor a matching costume, has ever been presented by honest skeptics, nor by various imposters who claim to have worn the costume.
Large amounts of money have been spent trying to make a matching costume. The best Hollywood costume design talents have been brought to the task, but have never succeeded. The British Broadcasting Corporation spent the most money so far. They failed miserably. .
Every attempt and failure to make a similar costume strengthens the case for authenticity of the Patterson footage. Comparing a man in a costume side by side with the Patterson creature in motion helps highlight the striking anatomical peculiarities.
If you hear debunking claims in the future, be ready to ask the obvious questions:
- Where is the costume?
- If the original costume is gone, why can't they make an identical costume and do it again? Why is that so hard?
- Why does the news media always trumpet every half-baked "man in the costume" story that comes along without asking for the obvious proof, which should be so simple to provide?
CHECK FUCKING MATE PAL
Last edited:
stickyicky77
Well-Known Member
It was Big Foot.