Leaderboard

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

Went scouting for morels today on my "new" ATV (traded my evil posessed 2022 KLR650 for a 2018 Honda Foreman 500 Rubicon EPS straight across). Found a bunch of mushrooms but had to do some hiking deep off the trail. Still too small for my liking, so left them alone. Woods were again, strangely quiet and my Belgian Malinois mix, who normally ranges out around 30 to 50 yards from me, but keeps me in sight, came in close and wouldn't stray more than a few feet away. I soon found a really odd area. On a hillside, with no draw or creek nearby, there was an area trampled and completely devoid of vegetation, behind a log. It looked like an area had been dug down into, like an animal was trying to reach something in the earth. My dog was very curious about the hole and also started sniffing and pawing at it... The area reminded me of where we set a salt block on our property at the lake. When the salt block is gone, the deer will paw at the ground and lick it to get the salt. But this spot had tree limbs and sticks clearly organized next to it, which was really strange. Again, middle of nowhere and area was completely inaccessible by vehicle just a week or so before due to the wind damage to all the roads and trails. http://blob:https://www.facebook.com/8e94a9a9-7391-4fad-bfac-1b647b9524d0

No chance at all according to Munn's who examined the new film and determined it to be Kodachrome II stock manufactured in 1966. I despise AI and have stopped trusting anything...

I've learned that I don't care to ever watch another minute of the smug Hairy Man Road. His 15 seconds of fame were more than enough.

( some people are touchy these days ) I mention having enough “proof of a hoax” but that’s specifically in relation to this Trial Run hyped film on this thread. If this film somehow was Iron Clad ( and I mean iron clad) proof of a hoax then I would accept that. I want to believe I will give the film a fair chance. If I was honest though, I’m already very unlikely to be actually neutral about it. I’ve predetermined this video will be a nothing burger. I agree with you the “Patterson documentary” is the most likely explanation of this hyped film. (I share your cynical feeling. I imagine the planet is a better place with you).

Definitely looks like a bait site to me. Maybe Bear? We used to use boughs to cover bait so it makes it harder for the birds to pack it off. Its amazing once they find it how ravenous camp robbers, crows, ravens, etc are.

This is the best example I can think of to explain these "smoking gun" claims. It could be a suit in a glass case. It could be claims of multiple confessions that are said to be recorded. Same thing. I don't know the content of tihs new smoking gun video. Yet, I will suspect this time next year we will have long moved off it it as one more nothing burger in the long line of notihng burgers. Funny thing Morris and Kitkaze being mentioned in the same post. Kit has mention many times about the Morris suit as an attempt to throw hair in the soup. The idea was if he could poison the meal with one thing we wouldn't want to eat it. He would promote Morris and even gladly posted a still pic to prove the fact he had in fact interviewed Morris personally. Years ago on the forums I asked him words to this effect: Do you beleive any suit used at bluff creek was in any way a Morris suit? You intereviewed the guy. Tell us, what do you think? Like so many isuses, when you ask Kit a direct Q he flops aournd and changed the subject often. Then finally he did admit any Patty suit was not a Morris suit. He had posted words to this effect as I recall: I think Morris is really good person who is just mistaken No, I dont think the PGF suit is any morris suit. As far as the Morris recration (walking ewok Bob Heironimus) If you have to hide it there is probably a reason.

Kitakaze supposedly nailed down the where about of the suit years ago….. and then nothing.🤷‍♂️ I know that the Morris recreation suit was an abomination. If the skeptics had something? They would produce it by now.

While I haven't seen Capturing Bigfoot, I've heard enough about it to be frustrated with the Bigfoot "skeptics" who are already calling the documentary definitive proof the PGF is a hoax. Frustrated enough to write a post about the double-standard in evaluating evidence... using direct quotes from skeptics like Nickell, Radford, Loxton & Prothero, Wasson, Napier (though he was open to Bigfoot but not Yeti), and Daegling. So for anyone interested in a little satire: https://open.substack.com/pub/thesocialbigfoot/p/in-praise-of-bigfoot-skeptics

Nice bunker! PNW, the trees sound like what some would say is BF sign.

Found this in the woods today!

The only thing that's been proven in this thread is that you are a fool.

I don't understand your concern about someone "gutting" the PGF. It stood the test of time here on BFF under an electron-microscope type analysis and it is entirely irrelevant who Patterson and Gimlin were personally. Go ahead and try to destroy their reputation. It doesn't change the fact that a video is out there every aspect of which has been analyzed here at BFF over the many years. In my opinion, anyone who wishes to claim the PGF was a hoax has to specifically disprove Gigantofootecus' ASH ratio calculations and Patty's forearm ratio. Not knowing those two issues intimately, much less at all, tells me everything I need to know about someone's ability to intelligently discuss the PGF. Moreover, have they read Bill's Munn's works, which, in my opinion, are a veritable treatise on the PGF, or even know who he is? There are many people who have opinions about a lot of things they possess little or no knowledge. Let them come here and debate both critical, and tangential, issues of the PGF itself.

(I did upvote you, and yes, I might be a bit touchy...........it has been a horrible winter, and I'm still waiting for spring up here in the sub-arctic)

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.

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.