Science needs facts before so called animals like bigfoot are considered to be real or simply proven to exist.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, night912 said:

No, the footprint casts can't be used as evidence to support the PGF.........

 

They can in my opinion, which is impervious to yours. Yours is fully valid for you, but it cannot control mine.

[Backdoc]

On 4/27/2026 at 5:57 AM, night912 said:

No, the footprint casts can't be used as evidence to support the PGF because there is no continuous film showing that those footprints were made by Patty.

 

 

Why not?  If the tracks were clumsy obvious fakes, you probably would say we CAN use those tracks to make a conclusion. That is, assume the tracks were horrible and a poorly done hoax.  By what you are saying even if the tracks were some obvious fake we cannot consider these for ONLY because the tracks produced cannot be seen directly being made by the figure filming walking in the PGF. 

 

The idea the track "can't be used as evidence" is wrong.  To my thinking, the tracks BY THEMSELVES should not be solely considered as evidence.

 

Here is why:

 

We have many ancillary components to consider about the PGF incident.  The tracks are just one component.  Even then the tracks have many links.  Those links make the tracks so much more than just tracks.  The tracks were photographs the next day By Lyle Laverty.  We have those photos.

 

 

We have his impressions any anyone with him that day if/when they were willing to talk.   We have the PGF film whose exact landmarks match exactly to those who arrived the next day, the next week and the next spring.  We have the casting done on that trackway.  We have the residual ring of plaster left and observed by others on those same tracks and trackway. 

 

The tracks are a dynamic impression recording dynamically what the maker of the track was doing.

 

 

 

There is nothing about the track impressions which conflicts with anything we see on the film.  There hasn't been a single think coming forward which suggests anything other than the PGF figure/walker (Real or hoax) made the resulting tracks found at bluff creek.

 

There is also no evidence at all ever suggesting there was a mulligan (second attempt) effort to erase some original tracks and then place tracks somehow over the same trackway.

 

 

 

No credible well-credentialed scientists have ever appeared on these Discovery Channel -level shows ever suggesting this on camera

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 4/27/2026 at 5:57 AM, night912 said:

Even if those footprints were genuine(made by an actual bigfoot), that doesn't necessarily mean that they were made by Patty.

 

 

Only one something left the footprints at Bluff Creek that day.  The walking figure.  That figure is either a man in a suit (leaving those tracks) or a unknown creature leaving those tracks.   

 

See point below...

 

On 4/27/2026 at 5:57 AM, night912 said:

It could be that Patty was actually just a person in a costume, but those tracks were made by an actual bigfoot.

 

 

No, it couldn't.   That's the stretchiest stretch of all the stretches I have ever seen.   I would say it is true the PGF could be a hoax, yet Bigfoot separately could exist. 

But... to follow what your logic we would have to believe:

-Roger and Bob arrived at Bluff Creek to hoax/fake a film with a suit. 

-Then they faked and filmed of a man in a suit somehow hovering above a recent, previous trackway in that exact spot left by a real actual living bigfoot.  

 

 

IN SUMMARY:

 

The tracks are not Just the tracks.  The are not the sole evidence piece but an important component to the PGF event.  IF Patty is a hoax that walking hoaxer in a suit left those tracks.  IF Patty is real, that walking creature left those tracks.  

 

 

Edited April 28 by Backdoc

[Silverback Sax]

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.

[Backdoc]

1 hour ago, Silverback Sax said:

Simple question.  How many eye witnesses are required to convict an American of a crime? 

 

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.   

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Silverback Sax said:

 

 

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.

 

 

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.