Backdoc Posted October 1 Posted October 1 The Bigfoot Video world seems to have a bookend: PGF -------------------> normal video world of a few years ago Thats A-Z Now with high tech and AI they can make a video where it looks convincing of about anything. We no longer can believe our eyes when it comes to video. Some tech guys could tell answer this: If a great new video was filmed and smart people had access to it, could they tell if it was faked or manipulated?
norseman Posted October 1 Admin Posted October 1 15 minutes ago, Backdoc said: Great videos! I would say some are better offered here are better than others. These are really good but don't attain the Home Run level for my example. Still, some are excellent. I don't know what I am looking at when that thing is yanking on the bark. WOW Hoax? Real? Thanks for posting these. Your welcome. Your home run examples were a domesticated Deer fawn and a Gorilla in a zoo. Obviously if Sasquatch was domesticated or in a zoo? We would not need a home run video. So we are stuck with amateur photographers in wilderness settings. And yet, the videos too ambiguous are claimed as a misidentification. And the videos like the PGF are a hoax. And now we have a complete gut of AI generated nonsense. All I can say is good luck.
Backdoc Posted October 1 Posted October 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, norseman said: Your home run examples were a domesticated Deer fawn and a Gorilla in a zoo. Unfortunately, if we don't use Hyperbole and extremes in our examples on the BFF someone will pretend to not know what we mean. Worse yet, they may actually not know what we mean. I wish it wasn't so. I'd say whatever standard one will accept... imagine a video so compelling it would be pretty convincing. As you know, that's all I am getting at. Edited October 1 by Backdoc
Huntster Posted October 1 Posted October 1 (edited) 3 hours ago, Backdoc said: .........He fully documents the encounter. This would be a Home Run video. Once the video went international on social media there would be no way to put that genie back in the bottle. A HOME RUN video would move the needle dramatically. More would believe in Bigfoot as a result than do now. More skeptics would soften their position toward either belief or "it might be possible" I do not agree with those who think it would have little to no effect. I think it would be an earthquake. You are describing PGF 2.0. Yes, many more would believe in sasquatchery as a result than do now. No, no skeptics would soften their position because they're skeptics. It's an ideology. They will not budge. No, it would not be a "home run". You are not the umpire. You do not have the authority to call the play. Science does, and they will rule the video as an infield double or triple, at best, regardless of the crowd applause or booing. But I agree that it will have an effect. It will please some, anger others, and be of no matter to many more. Edited October 1 by Huntster
norseman Posted October 1 Admin Posted October 1 30 minutes ago, Backdoc said: Unfortunately, if we don't use Hyperbole and extremes in our examples on the BFF someone will pretend to not know what we mean. Worse yet, they may actually not know what we mean. I wish it wasn't so. I'd say whatever standard one will accept... imagine a video so compelling it would be pretty convincing. As you know, that's all I am getting at. I know what you’re getting at, but unfortunately it’s just wrong. ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome’ This isn't a personal attack, this is an evaluation of our entire community. The only way to get science involved is to give them what they want. They don't want videos, Survivorman or otherwise. They want physical evidence. Where do most pastey white gray haired professors start their search for new species? The bush meat trade and apothecary shops. Bones, teeth, skulls, hides, etc. They see grainy photos of cryptid animals as slimey and dubious.
Backdoc Posted October 1 Posted October 1 2 minutes ago, norseman said: I know what you’re getting at, but unfortunately it’s just wrong. ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome’ This isn't a personal attack, this is an evaluation of our entire community. The only way to get science involved is to give them what they want. They don't want videos, Survivorman or otherwise. They want physical evidence. Where do most pastey white gray haired professors start their search for new species? The bush meat trade and apothecary shops. Bones, teeth, skulls, hides, etc. They see grainy photos of cryptid animals as slimey and dubious. I agree. I am talking about the world we live in which is pre-body (on a slab). Until that happens, we have to use the non-body things at our disposal. Moving the needle is helpful. The bigfoot issue is better with those things than without them. I don't think the public's general requirement is the same as the absolute requirement of the 'science community'
Backdoc Posted October 1 Posted October 1 35 minutes ago, Huntster said: You are describing PGF 2.0. Yes, many more would believe in sasquatchery as a result than do now. Until I get a body, that is enough for me. 35 minutes ago, Huntster said: No, no skeptics would soften their position because they're skeptics. It's an ideology. They will not budge. Hardliners won't change. Maybe just maybe there are some skeptics who are soft skeptics. They might be willing to move from the hardline position based on having a better video to lean on. 35 minutes ago, Huntster said: No, it would not be a "home run". You are not the umpire. You do not have the authority to call the play. Science does, and they will rule the video as an infield double or triple, at best, regardless of the crowd applause or booing. Well today in our society we have the DEATH OF TRUTH where podcasters can throw out conspiracy theories and so on. Some Podcasters are paid to promote positions of their pay masters. In such a world we now have the DEATH OF TRUTH. Because of this, your statement is truer today than it would have been 10 or 20 years ago. The internet has become the enemy of truth and fact. 35 minutes ago, Huntster said: But I agree that it will have an effect. It will please some, anger others, and be of no matter to many more. True 1
norseman Posted October 1 Admin Posted October 1 10 minutes ago, Backdoc said: I agree. I am talking about the world we live in which is pre-body (on a slab). Until that happens, we have to use the non-body things at our disposal. Moving the needle is helpful. The bigfoot issue is better with those things than without them. I don't think the public's general requirement is the same as the absolute requirement of the 'science community' Why is “moving the needle” of public perception helpful? Bigfoot is everywhere. From Jerky commercials to mattress commercials to monster trucks to TV shows. Bigfoot does not lack popularity…. It lacks credibility. And now we are full circle back to the pastey old gray haired men in lab coats.
Huntster Posted October 1 Posted October 1 53 minutes ago, Backdoc said: Until I get a body, that is enough for me......... Yeah, I personally appreciate all good videos and mere witness testimony. As a "believer", I enjoy them all........if they pass my own test of believability. Quote ..........In such a world we now have the DEATH OF TRUTH. Because of this, your statement is truer today than it would have been 10 or 20 years ago. The internet has become the enemy of truth and fact. Thanks for that excellent testimony. I personally call it The Age of the Lie. I also see the internet as a tool of the Liars, but it balances out for me as an incredible tool for my own use in every way. It's like guns, cars, chainsaws, etc; they're tools that reflect the morals of the user.
Backdoc Posted October 1 Posted October 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, norseman said: Why is “moving the needle” of public perception helpful? 1) Funding. 2) Academics who are afraid to come out. "Jeff Meldrum is brave to take on this subject" Dr. Began on one of these Bigfoot shows. -Jane Goodall died today. She was able to safely talk about the possibility of Bigfoot because she was famous by then. -As Grover Kranz said a while back: "My University supports my research in that they haven't fired me" 3) Many more Edited October 1 by Backdoc 1
norseman Posted October 1 Admin Posted October 1 3 minutes ago, Backdoc said: 1) Funding. 2) Academics who are afraid to come out. "Jeff Meldrum is brave to take on this subject" Dr. Began on one of these Bigfoot shows. -Jane Goodall died today. She was able to safely talk about the possibility of Bigfoot because she was famous by then. -As Grover Kranz said a while back: "My University supports my research in that they haven't fired me" 3) Many more Funding? That’s science, not public perception or opinion. Academics? That’s science, not public perception or opinion. Jane Goodall is a scientist…..not the public. Did not hear she had died. RIP.🙏🏻 Grover Krantz was a scientist and his offhand comment tells you everything you need to know about it. If Les Stroud videotapes Bigfoot? Good for him. Good for his show. Good for the public. In the eyes of academia? He will become a charlatan if he isn’t already because he did a show with Todd Standing. Guess what? Todd Standing has many clear videos of alleged Sasquatch. He even sued the Canadian government based on his “evidence.” HE LOST. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45414641
Backdoc Posted October 3 Posted October 3 (edited) On 10/1/2025 at 4:40 PM, norseman said: Funding? That’s science, not public perception or opinion. In the movie The Right Stuff the astronauts told the scientists "You know what makes the capsule go up? FUNDING." I am not saying the government, or the private sector (Hello Tom Slick) would suddenly write a huge check, but they might write a small check. Maybe we go from 1 new animal planet show about bigfoot to 3-4. Bill Munns had proposed a TV Bigfoot show which I will paraphrase as The Munns Challenge. (see Bill for the exact details) There would be teams who would have a challenge to take 1967 era or prior materials and make a PGF Patty suit. The idea has not gone anywhere as I understand it via the BFF. Yet, things like this might actually get the attention and the 'funding' if other interest was generated in my Home Run Bigfoot scenario. Public opinion does help. It just does. It might even generate private efforts to further find or capture a Bigfoot even if it was done for mercenary motives. On 10/1/2025 at 4:40 PM, norseman said: Academics? That’s science, not public perception or opinion. Whatever the number of scientists out there, there has to be some in the closet scientists who at least think Bigfoot might exist or ever think it does exist. A better PGF film (or more) would give them more cover publicly if they so choose to be Jeff Meldrum or even partially Jeff Meldrum. On 10/1/2025 at 4:40 PM, norseman said: Jane Goodall is a scientist…..not the public. Did not hear she had died. RIP.🙏🏻 Grover Krantz was a scientist and his offhand comment tells you everything you need to know about it. Yea I will bet the pressure in academia is high. To be in that world they probably are expected to follow stablished rules, criteria, and positions, and consensus. A home run video would soften this a little bit. The Bigfoot issue is better off with that than without it. How has the Bigfoot issue been helped by the fact we have not really had a Bigfoot encounter on par with the PGF in over 50 years? It hasn't. On 10/1/2025 at 4:40 PM, norseman said: If Les Stroud videotapes Bigfoot? Good for him. Good for his show. Good for the public. In the eyes of academia? He will become a charlatan if he isn’t already because he did a show with Todd Standing. Guess what? Todd Standing has many clear videos of alleged Sasquatch. He even sued the Canadian government based on his “evidence.” HE LOST. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45414641 We have imperfect messengers. We have an imperfect playing field on honestly and fairness. Yet, anything which helps the cause helps the cause. Some things help a little. Some things help a lot. It's Ok to see improvement. It's all we can expect until we have the public body on a slab. Edited October 3 by Backdoc
norseman Posted October 3 Admin Posted October 3 1 hour ago, Backdoc said: In the movie The Right Stuff the astronauts told the scientists "You know what makes the capsule go up? FUNDING." I am not saying the government, or the private sector (Hello Tom Slick) would suddenly write a huge check, but they might write a small check. Maybe we go from 1 new animal planet show about bigfoot to 3-4. Bill Munns had proposed a TV Bigfoot show which I will paraphrase as The Munns Challenge. (see Bill for the exact details) There would be teams who would have a challenge to take 1967 era or prior materials and make a PGF Patty suit. The idea has not gone anywhere as I understand it via the BFF. Yet, things like this might actually get the attention and the 'funding' if other interest was generated in my Home Run Bigfoot scenario. Public opinion does help. It just does. It might even generate private efforts to further find or capture a Bigfoot even if it was done for mercenary motives. Whatever the number of scientists out there, there has to be some in the closet scientists who at least think Bigfoot might exist or ever think it does exist. A better PGF film (or more) would give them more cover publicly if they so choose to be Jeff Meldrum or even partially Jeff Meldrum. Yea I will bet the pressure in academia is high. To be in that world they probably are expected to follow stablished rules, criteria, and positions, and consensus. A home run video would soften this a little bit. The Bigfoot issue is better off with that than without it. How has the Bigfoot issue been helped by the fact we have not really had a Bigfoot encounter on par with the PGF in over 50 years? It hasn't. We have imperfect messengers. We have an imperfect playing field on honestly and fairness. Yet, anything which helps the cause helps the cause. Some things help a little. Some things help a lot. It's Ok to see improvement. It's all we can expect until we have the public body on a slab. You answered your own question. You’re stuck in some feedback loop. We had a home run video in 1967. >You admit it didn’t help one bit concerning science. >But now you think another one will magically change that. This line of reasoning is folly. That’s my statement. If this belief gives you a warm feeling. Great. I very much enjoy watching Bigfoot videos. Some I find very compelling. But I don’t know if I spent more time debating scofftics than you did or what? But I have no illusions about what it’s gonna take to move the needle. And video isn’t it. 1
Backdoc Posted October 3 Posted October 3 1 hour ago, norseman said: We had a home run video in 1967. I do not feel the PGF reaches a home run level. Others do not feel it is even a single or double and many feel it is a swing and a miss. (fake) If I felt it was a home run, I wouldn't say essentially what would we do IF there was a true Home Run video to come out about Bigfoot. Why would I ponder it if I felt we already had one. 1 hour ago, norseman said: This line of reasoning is folly. That’s my statement. If this belief gives you a warm feeling. Great. The only Folly is to take someone unmovable and expect anything would move them short of offering them exactly what they are requiring. There is an additional folly assuming All people have one mindset. There is a group who are unmovable about Bigfoot until they get a body. Sure. It is not the only group. There are several degrees of belief on the bigfoot issues. 100% unmovable believers. 100% unmovable skeptics. Multiple groups with variations in between these two extremes. We don't have the body on a slab. If I get your meaning, we shouldn't even try to do anything else until we have a body to convince that one extreme. It seems -if I get the meaning- catering to those extremes is the only thing that matters. I would think appealing to those movables make the most sense. Regarding a home run video. Keep in mind, a home run video doesn't stop the inquiry. Maybe it's followed by lie detectors, others investigating the site, computerized analysis of walking speed, and so on. An entire wave of things buttressing the claim would either provide ancillary support (if real) or not (if a hoax). Heck, they wouldn't even have to argue where the "film was developed" A home run video is more than just a home run video. It is a home run backstory, verifiable ancillary facts and so on. 1 hour ago, norseman said: I very much enjoy watching Bigfoot videos. Some I find very compelling. But I don’t know if I spent more time debating scofftics than you did or what? But I have no illusions about what it’s gonna take to move the needle. And video isn’t it. If we only had 100% believers or 100% convinced skeptics and nobody else, I would agree. I think most people (not the convinced) are more fluid on the Bigfoot issue than you position suggest. I might be reading you wrong. Finaly point on this: " The only Folly is to take someone unmovable and expect anything would move them short of offering them exactly what they are requiring. " I am Guilty as charged! How so? I ask for those skeptics who say the PGF is a hoax to make a suit in a same or similar way as two cowboys are accused of doing. That is my absolute. Until then, I keep an open mind. Absolutism can not only work both ways, but it can appear issue by issue. What I am asking (a PGF bigfoot suit) is a lot more reasonable to expect to be delivered than a Body on a Slab. There are convincible people out there who are not hardliners. That is who I am asking to appeal to when given the chance. A new home run video (and its parts) will appeal to some if not many. It will move their needle.
Recommended Posts