Guest Navuri Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I've been following the topics here for a few weeks, watched many documentaries about Bigfoot / Sasquatch and have been interested since I was a little kid. After a few weeks of gathering information, reading topics and watching videos about Bigfoot I have made up my mind: it is all in our heads and Bigfoot's don't exist. Now I am not trying to disrespect anyone's opinion or anything like that. Let me be clear about that. It is my opinion (you could say believe) that it's all fakery. Let me expand on my theory / opinion: 1. We all know the PGF like the back of our hand(s). All coincidences aside; why if the PGF was made in October 1967 hasn't there been anyone in almost 45 years that has shot actual quality images of a Bigfoot? Most of us have better camera's in our phones then Patterson had in his movie. We live in the HD era, where 720p and 1080p Full HD videos are the standard. DSLR photo camera's have at least 7-10 MegaPixel if you buy one today. So where is the actual proof? I just browsed through the photo/video topics on this forum and every picture of a Bigfoot is either blurry, the creature is 1000 meters away from the camera or the creature isn't seen at all except 10% of it's so called face. I mean, come on guys. I really would love it if it were true, but why hasn't anyone ever in the last 45 years made one clear picture of a creature that is 200cm in height? 2. Just weighing the odds here: if a person goes to Africa to see a lion in real life, the odds are pretty high that the person will actually see a lion right? Now let's go back to October 20th of 1967. Patterson and Gimlin are looking for a Bigfoot and happen so stumble across a Bigfoot and actually film it. Odds seem to decrease in this example I would say. Now imagine the following odds: how big are the chances that nobody, in 45 years after the PGF, has seen or captured what P and G have captured on film? I would say that the odds of anyone doing the same in 45 years must be higher that the actual PG encounter. I know it's not math or anything like that, but if you think about it, there has to be a reason behind it. Either Bigfoots don't exist, or they might even be extinct (maybe Patty was the last of her kind) or these huge creature are so reclusive and smart that nobody has actually gotten close to accomplishing what Patterson and Gimlin have done. 3. In all of the documentaries and hours of footage I've watched about people going into the woods to find Bigfoot, I've always asked myself this one question: Why doesn't anyone actually find a Bigfoot? They put up camera's, go away for a month, come back and all they see is deer, elk, bunnies and squirrels. I mean, not one documentary about Bigfoot actually shows us a bigfoot. It's all Blair With Project but with a Bigfoot touch, without the actual Bigfoot. 4. Patterson is dead. Gimlin is making money of his short story about the encounter. Why would he ruin the fun and his wallet and admit it's fake? There's no need to. Even if he would say it was a fake, I doubt if he were able to prove it. So we have a kind of prisoner's dilemma on our hands here. 5. People are easily deceived and tricked into believing something. People love to believe in something because it gives them hope. We have been hoping for 45 years now to know the actual truth about the Patterson Gimlin movie, and they have always said it wasn't faked. That it was the real thing. I think that Patterson and Gimlin have shot an amazing short movie, and the hoax has been a great one, but I think it's time that we call it a day and admit to ourselves that the chances are slim that we'll ever know the truth. Here we are, living in 2012, and we can't spot a whole population of enormous creatures in the woods? I don't buy it. 6. Don't you guys (and girls of course) get tired of all these so called claims of sightings? It's the same with ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, reincarnation, heaven, UFO's, Elvis not being dead and the Boogy Man in the closet. All of those things are made up by man. Of course it would be great if the creature in the PG movie is real, but think about it. How likely is it? A few years ago I was a firm believer in the existence of the Bigfoot(s). After reading and seeing all 'evidence' and 'sightings' and other lousy sources I have come to my conclusion. I don't want to be a puppet on a string who believes everything 'they' say about Bigfoot and the so called sightings. I have outlined my thoughts about the subject in this topic and I hope people here can appreciate that. I don't think we, as intelligent beings, should be deceived and conned any longer by the Bigfoot business (read: money train). I've seen bookstores, museums, whole expeditions and countless episodes of Bigfoot searches and researches in my own quest for the truth, and I all boils down to one thing: keeping the public drugged with the idea that there might be Bigfoots living in the woods. Are there people here who agree with my statement? I'm interested in seeing people's reaction to my thoughts about the subject. Navuri PS: English is not my main language, so please forgive me if you see weird sentences and typos. Edited July 11, 2012 by Navuri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Welcome to the forum Navuri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Hi Navuri, I'm only a relative newbie to the bigfoot phenomenon so my opinion may not count very much, but this is my take on it: I had almost the opposite reaction to yours. First, I never believed (and still don't) in the PGF. When I first saw it as a teenager it struck me as fake and it still does nothing for me. The creatures in witness descriptions sound much more impressive to me, the females too. Second: because of that I was never interested in anything Bigfoot, until I saw an episode of Finding Bigfoot. Stupid as hell, but it got me looking up hundreds of witness reports, research groups, sound files etc. This led me to believe that Bigfoot is probably real. Also, accounts from longstanding members of this board made me think that. I don't care about the youtube hoaxes, etc. I guess 99 % of what's out there is fake anyway. I also don't necessarily expect Bigfoot to be proven, even with the Ketchum/Oxford studies. I don't even know if it would be beneficial for this creature, with human nature being the way it is. Of course I could be wrong and everything is a hoax and everyone (even on this board) is a hoaxer. The world wouldn't end if it was though and I'm sure people wouldn't stop looking for Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spasticskeptic Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I have taken the liberty of truncating the original post down to a paraphrased list of short questions. I have done some editing that I believe is entirely fair to the original post. This list is alpha vs numeric to distinguish these questions from the OP. Hope it helps. Corrections welcome. A) Why if the PGF was made in October 1967 hasn't there been anyone in almost 45 years that has shot actual quality images of a Bigfoot? B ) Why hasn't anyone ever in the last 45 years made one clear picture of a creature that is 200cm in height? C) What are the chances that nobody in the 45 years since the PGF has seen or captured what P and G have captured on film? D) Why doesn't anyone actually find a Bigfoot? E) Gimlin is making money off of his short story about the encounter. Why would he ruin the fun and his wallet and admit it's fake? F) Don't [bigfoot/Sasquatch believers/enthusiasts] get tired of all these so called claims of sightings? G) How likely is it that the creature in the PG movie is real? H) The Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon boils down to keeping the public drugged with the idea that there might be Bigfoots living in the woods. Are there people here who agree with my statement? Edited July 11, 2012 by MikeG ....removed errant smiley :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 If the PGF is a fake, it should be simple to produce a near-duplicate, right? Have at it. Get back to us then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Navuri Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 If the PGF is a fake, it should be simple to produce a near-duplicate, right? Have at it. Get back to us then. Same goes for proving it to be real right? So have at it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Hey, it's your thread. It should be simple to provide a period costume that reveals underlying musculature, have a mime walk the Patty compliant gait with 41" strides, and simply film it. Again, get back to us after doing that simple task. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I see chains being yanked around here. I also don't believe it can be decided that BF doesn't exist in just several weeks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Same goes for proving it to be real right? So have at it yourself. It doesn't work that way *Navuri* but welcome to the forum. I'm not too sure you are really that well established to de-bunk the PGF with only 2 posts and admitting you have only been following things around here for a couple of weeks. Having said the obvious, I will say that your opinion is just as welcome as mine or anyone elses is. Lots of promises have been made in the past to debunk the PGF, but their subsantiation remains at a big fat 0 in relation to doing so. Until they do so and provide *the* suit constructed of available materials from 1967 then the PGF will stand and the burden of disproving it resides on those attempting to do so. The PGF has withstood over 40 years of scrutiny, and despite the repeated claims to provide *the* suit, and debunk the footage, that have been taking place for years, nothing of any real measure of substance to do so has been provided. The PGF is out there for public viewing and commentary. If you can de-bunk it then do so. Good luck with that. Some have devoted a bunch of time, money, and effort to do so for years and thus far have *squat* of posted/substantiated/repeated evidence to dis-prove it. But do not try to shift the burden of proof. I-1 is right IMHO. If the PGF is fake it should be rather easy to duplicate. There is a reason why it has never been. I assume it isn't that easy to do so. Skepticism is cool and I am fairly skeptical of much that I see as well. But an awful lot more work needs to be done for those who think the PGF is fake than just saying it is. The PGF is there for all of us to see. Dis-prove it if you can. The burden regarding the PGF, and attempts to dis-prove it lies with the skeptics of the film after 40+ years of it withstanding skeptical scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Smissen Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Wasn't the Bigfoot seen in the PGF proved to be a expensive (gorilla-like) suit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Um, no. The PGF hasn't been proven a suit, expensive or other. Fishing seems rather good, today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Smissen, you need to do some reading in our PGF section. Come back in a couple of weeks when you've digested the tens of thousands of posts, and give us your considered opinion. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 The quality of Rogers camera isn't as bad as you might think. In fact the resolution is very high by Digital standards http://thedavisreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/352-highest-quality-2.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Navuri Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I-1 is right IMHO. If the PGF is fake it should be rather easy to duplicate. There is a reason why it has never been. I assume it isn't that easy to do so. Well, that of course is a misunderstanding. You're assumption is right of course. The PGF movie isn't easy to duplicate, but it's the single thing Bigfoot believers keep saying "Well if it's fake it should be easy" and that is simply a misconception. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a movie about evolution, space, man's place in the universe etc. Of course it's all fake and we all know that. But it is easy to duplicate? Not a chance. I'm afraid my topic has gone from a few simple questions and simple reasoning towards "Navuri needs to prove it or shut up" and I don't intend to respond to those kind of reactions. Let's say for the sake of argument I could replicate the PG movie. That wouldn't prove anything actually, just that I can make a movie. Not that there is an unknown creature living in the woods. Edited July 11, 2012 by MikeG .....Edited to bring post into compliance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 OK folks, enough already! Let's just take the heat out of this one a bit........back away from your keyboards. We have a specific rule about "flaming" newcomers. Don't do it! Please everyone leave the moderation to the moderators, and let's just return to normal levels of breathing and pulse rate!! I'm dealing with this thread at the moment, so don't post anything you might have cause to regret. Navuri, you have a PM. Top right hand corner of your screen, near your name. Envelope symbol with a red number underneath. Thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts