norseman Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Well glad he was vetted out. Thanks Norse. Yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 It's the ultimate irony that this community has such hatred for hoaxers, yet the most celebrated event in bigfoot lore (PGF) is a hoax (in my opinion of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 But that cuts both ways.... The Bigfoot community is a pretty rough bunch when it comes to hoaxers, just ask Todd Standing. And yet the PGF still stands....it has passed our scrutiny. So it is either a very good hoax or not a hoax at all. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 17, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 17, 2016 I have to agree with that. If it is a hoax, it is a very, very good one. Those claiming hoax have failed to provide proof of a hoax, in fact, failed so badly that their attempts do more to substantiate the validity of the PGF than to undermine it. Instead they must resort to special pleading and fabrication of evidence. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I'm absolutely convinced that the PGF isn't a hoax. I know there are others on this forum who are just as convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 ^However the total lack of credible evidence before or since is enough to consider the case hoax. It isn't like some lucky UFO enthusiasts got the one and only film of a one and only visit aliens made to earth. It is a case where this is an animal that is living essentially along side of us and yet nothing has been forthcoming. Nothing about it and nothing about bigfoot ever adds up to a real world animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Not necessarily.....Crow. If the creature is rare, shy and elusive? The proof may still elude us. If the creature is intelligent as some claim then that could make it that much more elusive. To the point of actively hiding from humans. Add to that some very remote terrain in north America? I think you cannot rule out something like this, it remains plausible. Do we still need proof? Absolutely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) Even if you believe in Bigfoot or sasquatch or whatever, you must realise that a negative can't be proven. I would like nothing better than to be wholly convinced (by real, tangible evidence) that sasquatch exists but it does rest upon the proponents to provide evidence of what they propose not the other way round. see Dawkins: Flying Spaghetti monster For some people the evidence currently provided is sufficient, some people claim to have direct experience and know, but for most people, the evidence currently provided simply isn't conclusive enough to be certain. The evidence may not be conclusive, but in science that is not required! All that is required is evidence compelling toward a conclusion. The evidence makes a clear and compelling proposal that can be clearly followed to a clear conclusion. The mainstream just doesn't want to do this. I have encountered no one with anywhere near my grasp of the evidence who does not agree with me that the evidence points clearly to existence. False positives are so few and so obvious as to not be taken seriously by anyone serious. Skeptics have nothing...but the need to sit on their hands and be quiet, unless they choose the high road, which is cheerleading the drive for long overdue mainstream consideration of the evidence. Edited March 17, 2016 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 But then the skeptic becomes irrelevant. What about the ego gratification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 (edited) Well...in this field the skeptic *is* irrelevant. Unless one is talking about the true skeptics, which would be the scientific proponents, skeptical indeed about the evidence-free assumption that this isn't a real animal. Child-like trust of a premise backed by nothing is not skepticism. Edited March 17, 2016 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 If the creature is rare, shy and elusive? The proof may still elude us. If the creature is intelligent as some claim then that could make it that much more elusive. To the point of actively hiding from humans. Add to that some very remote terrain in north America? Not if it's 8 feet tall, visits dumpsters, throws rocks at people, visits habituaters and walks in to campsites. Doesn't sound like an elusive critter that can remain undetected to me. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 ^^^ I will be the first to admit that there are inconsistencies in the reports. But for example throwing rocks is a dang good way of scaring off a human while remaining undetected. Compare that with how a Griz defends its territory? Either a mock or full charge? I think many of the supposed Sasquatch traits are better at non confrontational avoidance. And when do they reportedly enter campsites? At night right? Does a Griz care about day or night time? No, they follow their nose around. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 You can throw rocks and visit dumpsters without getting a picture or video taken of you. If they were completely undetectable, then we wouldn't have any legitimate reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 ^Well we don't actually have legitimate reports. We have reports, some better than others. However reports can only carry so much weight. This is why for many like myself the bar has been raised past reports and past casts of tracks and now rides at Nat Geo quality photographs and video and or tissue samples barring of course the type specimen alive or dead. ^^^^^^Norse part of the problem is the contradiction induced by a lower 48 state reported range compared to a small inaccessible range as was postulated in Patterson's time. Somewhere something is going to have to be re thought or thrown out in order to satisfy the context of a rare and elusive animal. This of course is going to put a lot of people out of the game perhaps 2/3rd to 3/4ths of them and I'm sure they won't be happy. If the PNW is the true center then what do you tell Ohio, New Jersey? Pennsylvania etc. In a way championing a small range is more or less admitting that the thing was allowed to get out of hand and perhaps it would have been prudent to dismiss the great influx of claims back in the 70's when the thing exploded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 ^^^^ Why dont we have legitimate reports? And instead of pissing people off its easier to hold everyone to the same standard, which is provide PROOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts