This is beginning to sound like the arguments made against the authenticity of the moon landing. "Why was the flag waving?" Jeeze. Death by nitpicking. The problem with nitpickers is that they aren't deterred by refutations of their assertions; they just find other nits to pick. And when you're all exhausted they reintroduced the nits you thought you had originally scourged. Believers in Creationism are masters of this. Interesting article in the present Skeptical Inquirer about the relationship (nonexistent) between autism and mercury based preservatives in vaccines. A prominent believer in the autism inducing properties of these preservatives told the author that if autism continued to rise after the elimination of those preservatives in vaccines, that would serve as a refutation of his thesis. That's exactly what happened. When informed of this, the naysayer insisted that doctors' shelves were still stocked with old vaccines containing the mercury. When this was refuted (careful records are kept of the vaccines actually administered), he..... But you get the point. Nitpicking and ad hoc arguments. The rhetorical tools of the deranged. I just have no patience with rippling muscles and waving hands. If we get involved in those sort of arguments, we have truly gone over to the dark side. You bring me a Sasquatch carcass. In the meantime, I have a life. Dan Fingerman wrote: > > On Sun, October 28, 2007 2:48 pm, Dr. Chris Whittier wrote: > > > > Dan- 1) can you direct me to the approx time of the previous > > discussion you referred to so that I can try to find it in > > the archives? > > You're asking the wrong guy to recall a date like this. A google search > didn't find the particular thread I was thinking of, but it did find these > two: > > http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/7b62a2d7c673003c/b105eadf9ed8961a > > http://groups.google.com/group/ab.arnet/browse_thread/thread/8d7744c50a96eb9a/562a58625ffdb08a > > There is also some discussion of this issue in the Wikipedia article: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film > > > And 2) The moving hand evidence that I've seen is fairly > > convincing but no slam dunk. That movement could be easily > > duplicated with the right props but it very much > > complicates the figure's physical proportions and indices. > > I'm not sure I follow this. Is it your conclusion that the opening and > closing of the hand is substantial evidence that the subject of PGF is not a > costumed person? > > -- > DTM :<| > DanFingerman.com > > _______________________________________________ > Skeptix mailing list > Skeptix@lists.opn.org > http://www.lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/org.opn.lists.skeptix -- _________________________________________________________________ Censorship is a juggernaut that cannot be fine-tuned Jet Foncannon 4516 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19139

INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS FROM THE WIKEPEDIA ARTICLE: In 2002, Philip Morris of Morris Costumes (a North Carolina-based company offering costumes, props and stage products) claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film. Morris says he discussed his role in the hoax privately in the 1980s but first admitted it publicly on August 16, 2002, on Charlotte, North Carolina, radio station WBT-AM. (Long, 444) Morris claims he was reluctant to expose the hoax earlier for fear of harming his business: Giving away a performer's secrets, he said, would be widely regarded as disreputable. (Long, 453) Morris said that he sold an ape suit to Patterson via mail-order in 1967, thinking it was going to be used in what Patterson described as a "prank" (Long, 446). (Ordinarily the gorilla suits he sold were used for a popular side-show routine that depicted an attractive woman changing into a gorilla.) After the initial sale, Morris said that Patterson telephoned him asking how to make the "shoulders more massive" (Long, 448) and the "arms longer" (Long, 447). Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear wide football-type shoulder pads and hold sticks in his hands within the suit. His assertion was also printed in the Charlotte Observer.[8] So much for the long arms argument. BillK wrote: > > On 10/29/07, Dr. Chris Whittier wrote: > > And Barbara's subsequent explanation simply doesn't wash with the caveats I > > stated above. In my opinion, after hundreds of hours of study, there is > > enough detail in the film to see a.) a moving hand; b.) an arm that > > articulates and moves at the shoulder, elbow, and possibly wrist at the > > expected places/in the expected proportions, and c.) those resultant, > > apparently real, arms and the similarly measureable legs reveal a figure > > with disproportionately long arms compared to the normal human range > > (including relatively long-armed pygmies). Curiously, it actually falls > > right smack in the middle of the gap between extant humans and other apes. > > Again, there is little way I can convince any of you of the above without > > illustration so I am not going to try. > > > > I don't think there is any point in wasting time discussing the > Patterson film with one of the few people in the world who refuse to > accept that it was a hoax film of a man in an ape suit. > > Google on 'patterson bigfoot film hoax' and you get 37,600 results for > your reading pleasure. > Find Articles has a detailed description of how the hoax was done, > with witness testimonies. > <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_28/ai_n6145280> > > And, of course, Wikipedia has an article about the hoax and the believers. > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film> > > Even Bigfoot Central agrees the film is a hoax. > <http://www.angelfire.com/biz/bigfootcentral/> > > The fact that Dr Whittier has wasted hundreds of hours studying a hoax > film doesn't mean that we have to waste our time as well. > > And he has no right to ask us to prove the impossibility of Bigfoot. > You can't prove a negative. Whether UFOs, Nessie, alien abductions, or whatever. > It is down to the Bigfoot believers to produce the evidence. > (Grainy, shaky, poor-quality film that they don't even know the > correct speed to run at, does not count as evidence). > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > Skeptix mailing list > Skeptix@lists.opn.org > http://www.lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/org.opn.lists.skeptix -- _________________________________________________________________ Censorship is a juggernaut that cannot be fine-tuned Jet Foncannon 4516 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19139