Forums

(I did not downvote you.........)   We're over half a century into this game. The Full Monte. We've seen how desperately some want to make it a hoax (although I cannot understand the desperation). That written, after all this time, analysis, and opinion, I've come to the conclusion. that the film is of a sasquatch. Of course, that's an "opinion" or a "belief", so has no scientific credibility..........but, then, I've gone on the record for years now here and elsewhere with my "opinion" that Science has lost much of its credibility................and that isn't just this silly issue. It now runs a large gamut.     There was no secret about the fact that Patterson was trying to create a Bigfoot documentary, of which today we have way, way, way, way too many available to watch. All a devoted skeptic has to do is to transform his silly documentary into a "trial run".   Sorry. I'm pretty cynical about just about everything now. I really need to die and move on. I don't belong on this planet.  

There is no set number.   What it takes is enough evidence of a crime to convict someone.   It would be the jury was just hell bent on the fact they just think the guy is guilty and the evidence is irrelevant no matter how much or how little.                If reports were proof, we would have enough to equal proof.   Reports are just a promising sign of a sighting.  Multiple reports just mean multiple people are reporting something.  If Roger and Bob were two people with no film reporting the event they would just be 2 more names added to any lists of a lot of reports.  With all these reports it seems we have very few films/ videos at least no other PGF-level films.     Until we link some really good video with some of these reports the Bigfoot issue is just in a holding pattern.  

The PGF could be a hoax.  I could accept that conclusion if I had enough proof.   I can imagine someone might do a trail run of a hoax.   They might film it and take a look at the results to make sure it is convincing or make corrective actions if it not.  Then later after such a tweaking they either film the hoax or film a few more attempts at prepping until they get it right.  Maybe they have one rehearsal.  Maybe they have 4 or 5.   Some or all might be filmed.   If filmed, the films would have to be developed somewhere.      If I have followed this saga correctly, we are to think the trial run(s) was developed at Boeing aircraft.   <--- This makes little sense.  If we can come up with a reason why this might make sense, we still have to explain why it seems Boeing had no way to develop this.   <--- That is too much of a deal breaker to the buzz of this new film story.  If it could be shown Boeing could develop the film (and I doubt it) it somewhat helps Roger's cause by providing him help on the controversial PGF development timeline.    Now there could be a trial run but they got the development part of the story wrong.  That is, you could have a film where Roger and Al made a pre-PGF hoax attempt(s), but it was developed somewhere other than Boeing.  Those with the Trail Run film assumed it was developed and Boeing.    The PGF may be real or a hoax as far as I am concerned.  Yet, I seriously doubt 1) any film was able to be developed at Boeing.  2) The hoaxers would be so incompetent to film their effort to commit some fraud/ hoax and leave the major smoking gun evidence around to be discovered.  They would destroy any film like that.  They certainly are not going to film themselves planning on committing the crime and then suddenly forget to get rid of the evidence.     I will await the see this film for myself to reserve any final judgment, but I want to see the entire work product- not some edited portions offered.              

Simple question.  How many eye witnesses are required to convict an American of a crime?  How many eye witness reports of these upright walking undeclared forest creatures are documented on, heck, we can go with just the BFRO.  I don't consider that organization to be terribly transparent or forthcoming, but for sake of argument, let's treat their data based as the God's honest truth.  Are there not thousands of reports by good people from all over this country?  That's enough evidence right there.  Yet, y'all seem very focused on minor details and whether a so called authority will validate your beliefs.  Funny stuff, really.

I'm confident it is and that those skeptics have another hole in their feet.