Spin-off thread: Your Favorite Conspiracy Theories

I've already answered this. You won't answer my questions.

 

Don't be obtuse, it goes to the credibility of the filmmaker and is entirely relevant to that, since it is widely considered to be a hoax.

Well, this is nonsense. You have to do better than that. The original film is critical. It's disappearance is highly suspicious.

Can you document any of this? Nope.

I guess that is why you ignored my objection and just repeated yourself. So I repeat. He changed his story, made conflicting statements about his beliefs, and indicated that a smart person like him could fake it. Believe him if you want, but he has shown me zero evidence.

I know quite a few prominent scientists. There are some delusional people among them and there are a few liars among them, just in case you wondered why colleagues sometimes have little respect for their work. And prominent scientists also make mistakes. It's why journals are so strict in what they accept. If it doesn't pass muster by peer review it won't get published.

They might be, if any of them could be confirmed. Not one has. There are so many authoritatively debunked forgeries among them that it boggles the mind. Why no DNA evidence? Some of these tracks are so fresh that almost certainly DNA could be gotten from them--hair or sweat or blood. But nada.

Horseshit. Where did Meldrum get his prints? The Pacific Northwest is not 19th century equatorial Africa. The place is awash with universities and scientists.

 

So what?

As for the circle, you can't turn a large plane that tightly without losing a lot of altitude and he was already flying low. He had to turn at a rate that he could maintain speed and altitude and spiral himself onto the target

 

Pay attention. The conflicting colloquial evidence is a wash in that it has no value in determining the authenticity of the film, which is what you said. But these reports do have value in assessing the credibility of the filmmaker. Just because some people never saw him involved in a con, doesn't mean that others have not.

Incorrect. It is possible that a first generation copy might show splicing marks. But these marks can be concealed by fairly simple photographic opaquing techniques. An original film cannot possibly cover up any splices. The cuts in the film would be there as well as the adhesive tape.

So what? He offers no evidence to support his claims, either. The blogger is at least offering tangible critiques of the film. I can post a lot more, but I can see that you believe in this myth so deeply as to preclude acceptance of any critique.

I will happily go on to directly quote anybody. You go on to ignore for the third time that he changed his story, made conflicting statements about his beliefs, and indicated that a smart person like him could fake it.

So you claim. It is indisputable that it was never published in a scientific journal. That is the salient fact. It cannot be accepted without peer review.

You are just repeating old claims now. Got anything new? Do you seriously believe in Sasquatch based on this?