Leaderboard

^^^ The problem is love is blind. We need checks to make sure what we think we know is in fact what we actually know. Too often overconfidence can lead to self deception. I think the PGF is extremely impressive and holds up well for half a century. It comes down to: replicate the PGF in a same or similar way limited to 1967 era materials. If the result looks like the PGF it suggest it could be a hoax. If it can’t be done it suggest Patty is a real ‘something’ and not a man in a suit. The fact this hasn’t been done yet still only means it hasn’t been replicated yet. You say what’s on the film is paramount. I agree it’s very important and extremely convincing. Yet, if Gimlin today admitted the film was a hoax and showed how it was hoaxed wouldn’t that destroy the film-is-paramount premise? If a suit maker replicated the film in a home- run way doesn’t that suggest what’s on the film could very well be a hoax? Back to the development timeline … This is why the PGF timeline is important. It’s an objective set of tasks which forces us to make sure what Roger claims was done could be done. That is, we say if the suit can’t be replicated it should mean it’s a real creature . But equally, if the PGF development timeline cannot be achieved it should equally suggest a hoax ( or at least they are being deceptive on the development timeline and pathway.) Gimlin said that night there was a full moon. Sure enough records show there was a 99% full moon that night before it rained. The timeline and other issues cannot be ignored just because they don’t involve what’s on the film. They are ancillary support to the film and supportive issues allowing us to double check what we think we are sure about. No diff than Gimlin saying there was a full moon or it rained later. I can think a guy murdered his wife. Later when I find out he was verified to be overseas in Afghanistan at the time it makes it virtually impossible he was the killer. ——————— > I have no problem with this formula: 1 What’s on the film 2 Ancillary facts related to the film 3 Eyewitness testimony and claims I don’t want to see: 1 what’s on the film 2 eyewitness testimony and claims. 3 Ancillary facts that Might Not support the film so completely disregard them

I was there, for both days! After the Sat. session, I had a good one on one with Dr. Meldrum

I probably need to immerse myself in the full timeline thread to get my head around the criticality of the issues to the robustness of the story - and this may be an unpopular opinion - but I currently find myself in the following camp (although this can and probably will change over time): The film comes first - in that if you attain the point where you realize to all intents and purposes it's practically impossible for the film to be hoaxed, the intricacies of the story points around it are somewhat secondary. It's clear that we would all have liked the right questions to have been asked at the time, and we may never get the whole story straight - but if it's virtually impossible that these question and gaps are anything to do with a hoax, they probably don't materially change the fact that Patty was real.

My little Hairyman journey started when I was 6 years old, now almost 64 years ago, and it's been quite a wild ride for sure. The majority of these pics are coming from a few particular areas near my home, and I keep it simple.....no technology, print casting, or anything they might consider 'rude', if that makes sense, and of course IMO. They are well aware of game cameras, their purpose, and I haven't put any out there in many years. I have posted these 2 pics before but it was a long while back, this was the last time I put game cams out in my fav areas, and it shows what looks like a right arm coming around the tree from behind to knock the camera down, and the next pic in motion on its way down....very cool sequence, but my local Urbanfoots were upset with this intrusion for about 2 years. If you have a similar situation, give them some respect, eliminate technology, and you will see more:)

I believe that my buddy saw one at the very top of the Appalachian chain in the southern tier of NY about 10 years ago. Why do I believe him? Because he was 100% a skeptic. Had been in the woods for, not exaggerating, 65 years hunting and hiking and swore he had never seen anything that wasn't totally expected, he used to tease me when I would talk about my interest in them, scoff at the very idea. Then one day, he flipped 180 degrees. Describing his encounter, he was clearly impressed with the experience and not capable of fabricating the story this detailed and yet so fleeting, with such certainty that the thing he saw walk away was not a human in a suit. Unfortunately he only lived a few more years, but those last years his eyes and ears were wide open in the woods. So yeah, I was a hopeful skeptic before, but his sighting sealed the deal.

I would believe that they believe they saw one. I have had enough class "B" encounters and my brother has seen one behind my parent's house and 3 in a field in the High Cascades of Oregon. So, I am fairly confident they do exist, however, until I see one in the wild long enough to identify it, I cannot say with 100% confidence they exist. There are people on here that have said they have seen one and I have no reason to doubt it. So, I am 98.99% sure it may exist. I still have to see one for it to be 100%.