Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kitakaze

Pgf For Skeptics - Believers Welcome, Too.

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

This is a thread for only people who think the PGF is a fake, or strongly suspect it.

Please, PGF believers, understand, this is not a discussion for any PGF believer. Kerchak made one for you. Please allow BFF skeptics a place to talk amongst ourselves on the BFF. You have a place, and now so do we. Thank you.

This is an open thread, for skeptics and believers to post their thoughts.

Thanks, the MODS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

How is it possible that Al DeAtley wanted nothing to do with Roger and was too busy for him, yet he knew Bob Heironimus through Roger and confirmed what BH said when he met him at the Saddle Tree 1970 Waylon Jennings & Jessi Colter concert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

I get a Lyndon-ey vibe from Kerchak.

It's only the last couple weeks. When he first showed up here, I thought he was rather pleasant.

If humans didn't evolve from apes, what did Patty evolve from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
If humans didn't evolve from apes, what did Patty evolve from?

Oops. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

For PGF skeptics:

What do you consider the most incriminating indicator(s) of a hoax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

For PGF skeptics:

What do you consider the most incriminating indicator(s) of a hoax?

The most incriminating indicator, is that there is no Bigfoot. It's not like they hoaxed a mountain gorilla in No-Cal.

But the fact that Bigfoot remains undiscovered despite complete environmental evaluation of the locales that Bigfoot purportedly exists, is critical when looking at the footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The only thing that leaves a shred of doubt that it may not be a sasquatch is that sometimes simple, ridiculous looking things can look suprisingly believable on film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In the other thread, Kitakaze posted a large still from the PGF and I thought I noticed something oddly square-shaped on the breast. Here is a close-up of the area and then the same area "embossed" and framed to highlight the shape. Is this real or an artifact of the way the original still was processed? I apologize if this has been previously pointed out and discussed.

For the record (since this is my first post), I'm a non-believer. The PGF appears to me to be someone in a suit, and I think it's confirmation bias that have believers seeing otherwise.

post-492-021325800 1287585668_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

For PGF skeptics:

What do you consider the most incriminating indicator(s) of a hoax?

other than the examination of the body, it would be the credibility of the perpetrator; Roger Patterson himself said it: He was the worst person in the world to have filmed bigfoot, from a credibility standpoint. Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

I get a Lyndon-ey vibe from Kerchak.

It's only the last couple weeks. When he first showed up here, I thought he was rather pleasant.

If humans didn't evolve from apes, what did Patty evolve from?

well, from the gigantic floppy feet, I'd say perhaps an amphibian. or perhaps this hairy thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

It quite irritates me when you guys argue your case against BF using Patty. What if Patty is a fake, but BF is real? How does that change your arguments?

And yes, I lean to the Patterson film being a hoax. Just enough, anyway. Something about how the substrate moves reminds me of fabric. And the resemblance to the fellow is uncanny. It moves like a man not a woman. That is if female sasquatches have altered hip bones like we do. Perhaps they don't, after all. How would we know unless we have a body or even a sasquatch female in the flesh to watch.

Regarding the question of foot morphology, consider that most of the year montane environments are covered in that squishy unstable stuff, snow, and much of any level ground when not snowy becomes muskeg or swampy. In the older forests around here the ground is often softened by masses of moss. Last week while out in it I sank into a hole hidden by that moss, up to my upper thigh. Just the same experience as you might have in a swamp, where reeds/grasses appear to be solid ground but underneath is just muddy goo. Maybe having large feet is not such a bad idea after all.

In addition there seems to be several ideas of what a BF foot is like. In the smaller ones they are wider versions of our own feet, with an arch. In medium-tall, thin ones the foot is long and slender. And in the big, fat ones, the foot is large and flat. Plus there seems to be some evidence that they are able to pick up the back of the foot and walk on the ball of the foot combined with using the front appendages. Really a very efficient way to move in areas of high slope and even while doing tree climbing. Couple that with strength comparable to other animals (say, for example, a chimp's) and they would have no problems at all.

Need I remind you also that large male orangs become bipedal ground dwellers after spending most of their lives in trees. The weight issue brings them down to earth. Maybe it happens similarly in BF, but earlier in their growth stages as they mature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

It quite irritates me when you guys argue your case against BF using Patty. What if Patty is a fake, but BF is real? How does that change your arguments?

And yes, I lean to the Patterson film being a hoax. Just enough, anyway. Something about how the substrate moves reminds me of fabric. And the resemblance to the fellow is uncanny. It moves like a man not a woman. That is if female sasquatches have altered hip bones like we do. Perhaps they don't, after all. How would we know unless we have a body or even a sasquatch female in the flesh to watch.

Regarding the question of foot morphology, consider that most of the year montane environments are covered in that squishy unstable stuff, snow, and much of any level ground when not snowy becomes muskeg or swampy. In the older forests around here the ground is often softened by masses of moss. Last week while out in it I sank into a hole hidden by that moss, up to my upper thigh. Just the same experience as you might have in a swamp, where reeds/grasses appear to be solid ground but underneath is just muddy goo. Maybe having large feet is not such a bad idea after all.

In addition there seems to be several ideas of what a BF foot is like. In the smaller ones they are wider versions of our own feet, with an arch. In medium-tall, thin ones the foot is long and slender. And in the big, fat ones, the foot is large and flat. Plus there seems to be some evidence that they are able to pick up the back of the foot and walk on the ball of the foot combined with using the front appendages. Really a very efficient way to move in areas of high slope and even while doing tree climbing. Couple that with strength comparable to other animals (say, for example, a chimp's) and they would have no problems at all.

Need I remind you also that large male orangs become bipedal ground dwellers after spending most of their lives in trees. The weight issue brings them down to earth. Maybe it happens similarly in BF, but earlier in their growth stages as they mature?

vil, you hybrid rascal:

my argument about feet relates directly to the PGF and it's not morphology, it's size and flexibility.

Getting a little off topic but after 400 years of recorded history in NA, bigfoot could be, by the evidence, anywhere, do anything, and be anything. Does that not say something about the concept of bigfoot as a real animal? And I will notice that you are suggesting bigfoot in an aquatic or semi aquatic environment; I would actually agree with that if bigfoot were a swimmer as a primary mode of travel; which is pretty unusual in the "montane" setting that Meldrum is suggesting. As far as snowfields are concerned, I have actually looked at that question and the surface area/weight ratio wouldn't be comparable to snowshoes. In the usual up and down environment of the mountains, them big ole flappin gunboats are just stumbling blocks. Take your swimfins into the Cascades and see how you like em. Be sure and get a video.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

vil, you hybrid rascal:

my argument about feet relates directly to the PGF and it's not morphology, it's size and flexibility.

After 400 years of recorded history in NA, bigfoot could be anywhere, do anything, and be anything. Does that not say something about the concept of bigfoot as a real animal?

Of course it does. Clearly it is a shape shifter. Isn't that obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

So what's next? Is somebody going to start a topic called: 'The PGF - for me only. A unique place where I can argue amongst myself' ? I just did a quick check and the domain name: pgfskepticsoapbox.com is available! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

If sasquatches are descended from Asian H. erectus, then they are already proven to have been able to get around the world, in diverse environments, just fine including swimming or rafting out to Indonesia etc. Around here in the PNW there happens to be a lot of water. Besides the Pacific, most of the mountains have a lake or two, and that would be a good place for a Homo species to hang out for food (ducks, fish, cattails, water lilies, etc.) and to avoid the summer heat. Also it will be a place that game animals come to for water in summer months, so a great place to lie in wait if you happen to be a hungry sasquatch.

Aw, c'mon, what would you guys do without me. No one to argue with. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×