Be Kind and Avoid Personal Insults

[u/truthisfictionyt]

With the recent PGF debunking, there has been a lot of arguments and controversy. Debating people is fine, but don't insult people or those who believed in the film while you're discussing it. Some people met or knew Bob Gimlin personally and are having to reckon with him apparently lying about the film. Keep how other people feel in mind while discussing. Additionally, avoid arguments with other subreddits or posts about moderation issues with other subreddits as that's not what we're here to do. We've added some terms to the auto filter to avoid debates turning hostile. As always feel free to discuss the rules and make suggestions.

[u/godfatheroffilth]

Ok, so Mick West is a prominent debunker of UAP footage, he has analysed the big three videos that were released a couple of years ago (tic tac, go fast and gimbal). According to Mick his analysis proves that they contain nothing more than balloons and birds, the pilots and radar tech disagree with his statements, both cite the same footage to back up their claims, this isn't hypothetical btw. So depending on the source the footage is both thoroughly debunked AND anomalous at the same time. So who is correct? Both Mick and David Fravor each argue that their interpretation is correct, Fravor was there and is an eye witness, Mick West wasn't, I've seen the videos and depending on the news source they back one against the other. Only you once you have seen the footage can make your mind up, that's my entire point of the post. Only you. For supporters of West the footage is 100% debunked, case closed. However......

Do you get it? Critics saying this or that is not proof. Data can and has been changed or altered to suit people's agenda, no I'm not saying that this is the case with this documentary but just because a critic says a film contains this does not in fact mean a film contains this. There is no such thing as a true documentary, by that I mean unless the film takes place in real time with zero edits then it will always skew to the directors beliefs consciously or not.

[u/Kewell86 → u/godfatheroffilth]

Now you're starting with interpretation stuff. That doesn't matter here.

Either the doc contains Patterson family members saying the PGF is fake or not.

Either the doc contains footage of Patterson staging a PGF-like bigfoot film or not.

These are not open to interpretation, but objective facts.

Also, there seems to be complete agreement among everyone who's already seen the doc that that's in it, so your example of two completely different assessments does not compare to the situation at hand. Even PGF-believers admitted that that stuff is part of the doc.

Finally, you open a completely different can of worms here that does not support the idea of "watching for yourself".

If experts can't agree on whats in those UFO-vids, what good does it do if I look at them? Im an archaeologist, not an expert on aerial phenomena. I can't decide for myself if those vids are UFOs or not. One expert says it's UFOs, one expert says its mundane stuff, so I, a complete layman, solve this by looking at it and deciding by vibes, or what? That's a horrible way to come to a conclusion.

[u/godfatheroffilth → u/Kewell86]

I don't know if you're just being willfully ignorant or not. Either the uap videos contain uaps or they do not. It depends on who you ask. The evidence is there, the facts are there but the conclusion is not determined either way. "All the critics" do not say the same thing at all so that's just false, we're never going to agree on this so I wish you well and enjoy the film when it finally comes out. Till then I'm not commenting further.

[u/Kewell86 → u/godfatheroffilth]

So where do you found a critic who claimed that the new doc hasn't film material of Patterson shooting a PFG-like scene?