Let us all be profoundly grateful to BillK: 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). Maybe this current discussion, fraught with begging the question, ad hoc hypotheses, nitpicking, will finally end. That is, until someone else resurrects the same shameless rhetorical devices about the Shroud of Turin , Ancient Astronauts, you name it. Dr. Whittier's professional appellation doesn't cause me to cower. In fact, I am a double doctor (PhD, DSc) but don't feel the need to use titles to procure respect for my arguments. (Add argument from authority to the list above.) 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