4 ms·

Supposedly exposes the Patterson-Gimlin film as a hoax, which is a big deal in the Bigfoot community.

cogman10 7mo ago
IMO, that was done years ago. If you look up that film stabilized [1], it becomes really apparent that it's just a guy in a ape costume. The shaky camera is the only thing that makes it harder to determine what's going on. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlRr_OfxZI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlRr_OfxZI
- MyHonestOpinon 7mo ago
  It makes me a little bit sad, I knew it was very unlikely, but I still had hopes just because it would be so cool to find that big foot is real.
- adzm 7mo ago
  Read the comments on that video to see how many conclude the opposite!
  - Braxton1980 7mo ago
    Is the number of people high enough to make them right? For example if one doctor says I have cancer but 100 electricians say I don't I'm cancer free
    - dylan604 7mo ago
      9 out of 10 experts agree. It's that last one. That one person is just enough for people to latch on. Then, of the 9, 6 of them get tired of yelling at clouds and quit. The 6 get replaced with those that believe the one so that there's not 7. That goes on for long enough, you get people in charge that do away with vaccinations and measles has a come back.
      - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
        That's not actually how the measles thing happens. What really happens is that the one nutter stands in the town square ranting about lizardmen and 99.99% of people ignore him, or an actual scientist gets bored and challenges him to a debate and then lizardmen guy gets trounced and further discredited, and everything is fine. Until someone with an authoritarian streak gets tired of winning debates with lizardmen guy and instead tries to shut him up, or starts suppressing data that doesn't actually support the crazy theory but is kind of inconvenient or complicated to explain. Then you're screwed because you're letting the conspiracy guy point to an actual conspiracy to suppress his views, which provides evidentiary support for the claim that their crazy theory isn't mainstream because it's being suppressed. Meanwhile you get free speech defenders concerned about a bad precedent coming out to oppose you, and then political lines get drawn over something that never should have been partisan, but now everyone is expected to pick a side. And a lot of people end up on the side of lizardmen guy. But once it's partisan, people are hopeless at being neutral. If you're on lizardmen guy's side then you're giving him the benefit of the doubt and on the lookout for any fault in his critics, which is how you get way too many people actually believing in lizardmen. The problem is fundamentally that censoring something discredits you rather than them.
        aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
        > That's not actually how the measles thing happens. > What really happens is that the one nutter stands in the town square ranting about lizardmen and 99.99% of people ignore him, or an actual scientist gets bored and challenges him to a debate and then lizardmen guy gets trounced and further discredited, and everything is fine. My observation (in Germany) is rather that many antivaxxer (and sceptics of forced measles vaccination) read the scientific literature quite deeply, but come to very different conclusions. Additionally, they often have marked "live and let live" personality traits, which authorities do not like. Because of their deep intellectual investment in this topic, they often have a much deeper knowledge about the whole topic than working doctors. The only people who are real counterparties for them are actual respected scientific experts on the topic. While these are clearly even more knowledgeable, these actual experts fear the well-read antivaxxers because the latter - love to show gaps in the whole theoretical frameworks, - ask really annoying and interesting questions - etc.
    - GJim 7mo ago
      > Is the number of people high enough to make them right? The term you are looking for is 'an argument to popularity'. It's one of many such logical fallacies. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
garciasn 7mo ago
Is it? Because plenty of other hoax-based bullshit, like Flat Earth Conspiracy Theorists and those who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old continue on in their bubbles regardless of how much evidence is provided to the contrary.
- vscode-rest 7mo ago
  There’s no possible evidence against so called “last Thursdayism”, so you are certainly misrepresenting the state of affairs.
  - jfengel 7mo ago
    There's nothing wrong with Last Thursdayism. It's unfalsifiable. You're welcome to hold it. Most people find that it's more complicated to work with, since it requires a vastly more complicated set of initial conditions. But if you find that it works for you it isn't actually wrong.
  - default-kramer 7mo ago
    What's strange is that many people who believe in a Mature Creation (as I've heard it; "Last Thursdayism" is new to me) will readily accept it as the explanation for ancient starlight but then deny evolution and claim that the fossil record is actually evidence of the biblical flood. Which is an unnecessarily weak position to take when you have already accepted a perfectly unfalsifiable cop-out! The truth is that most of them don't want to think too hard about it.
    - foxglacier 7mo ago
      Of course. It's not about being reasonable, it's chasing some emotional need that's unrelated to the truthfulness of the belief. But keep alert for the faith-based beliefs you yourself might find yourself defending with flimsy logic too. It's easy to get sucked into the belief that since all the authorities you respect tell you something is true, then it must be, and you don't have to bother much with how valid your justification is because you already believe the conclusion. A good self-test is asking yourself how you know the Earth isn't flat. Don't do any research, just try to work it out from what you've already observed and think what makes you believe that conclusion.
joenot443 7mo ago
I think the biggest thing in question when the Patterson film is discussed is who actually made the (supposedly) Hollywood-quality ape suit. Sounds like this doc might have a real bombshell though - > “Capturing Bigfoot,” premiering this week at the South By Southwest film festival, builds to a big reveal: freshly surfaced film that appears to show a woodsy dress rehearsal for one of the world’s most enduring hoaxes. In the new footage—from a Kodak reel dating to 1966—Patterson’s camera tracks a man in costume, his brother-in-law, moving in a similar fashion to the figure in the 1967 shoot This would be a pretty nice conclusion, to be honest.

IMO, that was done years ago. If you look up that film stabilized [1], it becomes really apparent that it's just a guy in a ape costume. The shaky camera is the only thing that makes it harder to determine what's going on. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlRr_OfxZI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlRr_OfxZI

MyHonestOpinon 7mo ago
It makes me a little bit sad, I knew it was very unlikely, but I still had hopes just because it would be so cool to find that big foot is real.
adzm 7mo ago
Read the comments on that video to see how many conclude the opposite!
- Braxton1980 7mo ago
  Is the number of people high enough to make them right? For example if one doctor says I have cancer but 100 electricians say I don't I'm cancer free
  - dylan604 7mo ago
    9 out of 10 experts agree. It's that last one. That one person is just enough for people to latch on. Then, of the 9, 6 of them get tired of yelling at clouds and quit. The 6 get replaced with those that believe the one so that there's not 7. That goes on for long enough, you get people in charge that do away with vaccinations and measles has a come back.
    - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
      That's not actually how the measles thing happens. What really happens is that the one nutter stands in the town square ranting about lizardmen and 99.99% of people ignore him, or an actual scientist gets bored and challenges him to a debate and then lizardmen guy gets trounced and further discredited, and everything is fine. Until someone with an authoritarian streak gets tired of winning debates with lizardmen guy and instead tries to shut him up, or starts suppressing data that doesn't actually support the crazy theory but is kind of inconvenient or complicated to explain. Then you're screwed because you're letting the conspiracy guy point to an actual conspiracy to suppress his views, which provides evidentiary support for the claim that their crazy theory isn't mainstream because it's being suppressed. Meanwhile you get free speech defenders concerned about a bad precedent coming out to oppose you, and then political lines get drawn over something that never should have been partisan, but now everyone is expected to pick a side. And a lot of people end up on the side of lizardmen guy. But once it's partisan, people are hopeless at being neutral. If you're on lizardmen guy's side then you're giving him the benefit of the doubt and on the lookout for any fault in his critics, which is how you get way too many people actually believing in lizardmen. The problem is fundamentally that censoring something discredits you rather than them.
      - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
        > That's not actually how the measles thing happens. > What really happens is that the one nutter stands in the town square ranting about lizardmen and 99.99% of people ignore him, or an actual scientist gets bored and challenges him to a debate and then lizardmen guy gets trounced and further discredited, and everything is fine. My observation (in Germany) is rather that many antivaxxer (and sceptics of forced measles vaccination) read the scientific literature quite deeply, but come to very different conclusions. Additionally, they often have marked "live and let live" personality traits, which authorities do not like. Because of their deep intellectual investment in this topic, they often have a much deeper knowledge about the whole topic than working doctors. The only people who are real counterparties for them are actual respected scientific experts on the topic. While these are clearly even more knowledgeable, these actual experts fear the well-read antivaxxers because the latter - love to show gaps in the whole theoretical frameworks, - ask really annoying and interesting questions - etc.
  - GJim 7mo ago
    > Is the number of people high enough to make them right? The term you are looking for is 'an argument to popularity'. It's one of many such logical fallacies. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

garciasn 7mo ago

Is it? Because plenty of other hoax-based bullshit, like Flat Earth Conspiracy Theorists and those who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old continue on in their bubbles regardless of how much evidence is provided to the contrary.

vscode-rest 7mo ago
There’s no possible evidence against so called “last Thursdayism”, so you are certainly misrepresenting the state of affairs.
- jfengel 7mo ago
  There's nothing wrong with Last Thursdayism. It's unfalsifiable. You're welcome to hold it. Most people find that it's more complicated to work with, since it requires a vastly more complicated set of initial conditions. But if you find that it works for you it isn't actually wrong.
- default-kramer 7mo ago
  What's strange is that many people who believe in a Mature Creation (as I've heard it; "Last Thursdayism" is new to me) will readily accept it as the explanation for ancient starlight but then deny evolution and claim that the fossil record is actually evidence of the biblical flood. Which is an unnecessarily weak position to take when you have already accepted a perfectly unfalsifiable cop-out! The truth is that most of them don't want to think too hard about it.
  - foxglacier 7mo ago
    Of course. It's not about being reasonable, it's chasing some emotional need that's unrelated to the truthfulness of the belief. But keep alert for the faith-based beliefs you yourself might find yourself defending with flimsy logic too. It's easy to get sucked into the belief that since all the authorities you respect tell you something is true, then it must be, and you don't have to bother much with how valid your justification is because you already believe the conclusion. A good self-test is asking yourself how you know the Earth isn't flat. Don't do any research, just try to work it out from what you've already observed and think what makes you believe that conclusion.

joenot443 7mo ago

I think the biggest thing in question when the Patterson film is discussed is who actually made the (supposedly) Hollywood-quality ape suit. Sounds like this doc might have a real bombshell though - > “Capturing Bigfoot,” premiering this week at the South By Southwest film festival, builds to a big reveal: freshly surfaced film that appears to show a woodsy dress rehearsal for one of the world’s most enduring hoaxes. In the new footage—from a Kodak reel dating to 1966—Patterson’s camera tracks a man in costume, his brother-in-law, moving in a similar fashion to the figure in the 1967 shoot This would be a pretty nice conclusion, to be honest.