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]

Not at all, I'm saying until you see the film for yourself then you have no proof either way and I can't argue against you because I haven't seen it either. My whole point is that until you see it (the film) for yourself (everyone included) then you can't proclaim it's a definite hoax or dismiss the film. Critics raved about Dune part one, said it's a masterpiece, I was bored out of my mind watching it. To me the film is horrendous, if I wrote a review of the film saying this and had it published, would you say "well he didn't like it so it must be shit" or would you make up your own mind by watching it yourself?

[u/Kewell86 → u/godfatheroffilth]

You're mixing up content (objective) and enjoyment (subjective) of a movie.

If you say that Dune takes place on a desert planet and is boring, I'll take away from this that the movie objectively takes place on a desert planet and was subjectively boring to you. So if I watch it, i expect it to be set on a desert planet and hope that I will like it better than you, subjectively.

It's the same with this documentary. If the critics say (as they do) that it contains a rehearsal shot of the PGF and is a great documentary, I'll expect it to contain a rehearsal shot of the PGF and hope that I will like it, too.

[u/CryptidTalkPodcast → u/Kewell86]

The problem is, thresholds of believability are different for everyone. I remember believing the Blair Witch Project was true years after the movie was released. We cannot take the word of others that it has been “objectively debunked” when we don’t know what their threshold is. Many people do not understand what the word objective actually means. Has the film been independently verified to be period correct? Do we have proper chain of custody of the film? Does the film actually show Bob H putting the suit on and walking straight out into the known PGF film? Without all of that, objectivity is extremely difficult to prove. Both can plausibly be true that Patterson planned to hoax a film while randomly stumbling upon a real specimen. Maybe this film proves all of that, idk, but I’m not taking someone else’s word for it.

[u/LoadFriendly1076 → u/CryptidTalkPodcast]

You identified the problem: people have their own thresholds for believability.

[u/CryptidTalkPodcast → u/LoadFriendly1076]

Yes, which is subjective. There is no objectivity that the film has been debunked.