Guest Sallaranda Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I totally agree with you. But I also have very good friends that look at the PGF and immediately say "..that's soooooo just a guy in a gorilla suit!" This can easily be explained by the self-fulfilling prophecy affect. A skeptic who has never seen the footage before, but knows it is going to be proclaimed footage of a Bigfoot will begin trying to come up with explanations for dismissal before even viewing the footage. This thinking process inhibits the natural and instinctive efforts by the brain to try and identify the creature. Instead, the brain sees and depicts only what it wants to - that the figure is merely another human. It's simply not a controlled test. Some people clearly see an unidentified bipedal creature and some see a guy in a suit. You make a pretty darn good point in that last sentence (my bolding). We all see an unidentified bipedal creature. Whether or not everyone wants to admit it. No part of the PGF in any way shows that it is merely "a guy in a suit." Some people express that opinion because that is what they choose to believe. I'm not saying it is, for certain, a Bigfoot. I'm merely saying there's no part of that footage that suggests it is another human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I'm merely saying there's no part of that footage that suggests it is another human being. To you. Your implication that the only way someone else could perceive a person in a costume is through some form of dishonesty or confirmation bias is . . . an adjective or two that could get me in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Yes. "Patty" has always looked to me like a guy in a gorilla suit of some kind, and not a living, breathing something else. That's the brutal truth for people who hold up the PGF as some great piece of photographic bigfoot evidence: the majority of people who've seen it don't find it at all convincing. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great looking suit - no obvious seams or zippers showing for example - but it has always looked to me like a guy in a suit. Still does. Forget Bob H. and Roger's background and the impossible timeline and all that: to me, Patty just isn't convincing as a real animal. "the majority of people who've seen it don't find it at all convincing." Do you have a source for that? Millions have seen the film and I don't remember seeing where they have all been polled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) This can easily be explained by the self-fulfilling prophecy affect. A skeptic who has never seen the footage before, but knows it is going to be proclaimed footage of a Bigfoot will begin trying to come up with explanations for dismissal before even viewing the footage. This thinking process inhibits the natural and instinctive efforts by the brain to try and identify the creature. Instead, the brain sees and depicts only what it wants to - that the figure is merely another human. It's simply not a controlled test. We all see an unidentified bipedal creature. Whether or not everyone wants to admit it. No part of the PGF in any way shows that it is merely "a guy in a suit." Some people express that opinion because that is what they choose to believe. What about those skeptics that once it believed it was a bigoot? I'm not saying it is, for certain, a Bigfoot. I'm merely saying there's no part of that footage that suggests it is another human being. If it's not necessarily a bigfoot and it definitely isn't a human being what other possibilities exist? "the majority of people who've seen it don't find it at all convincing." Do you have a source for that?Millions have seen the film and I don't remember seeing where they have all been polled. Do you believe that the majority of the people that have seen the film believe it's a bigfoot? Edited February 26, 2011 by Blackdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 What about those skeptics that once it believed it was a bigoot? I can guarantee you those skeptics did not change their mind because they sat and watched the PGF film over and over again and determined it to be a human in a suit. They decided Bigfoot was too phenomenal and remarkable to believe in, so they had to readjust their interpretation of the film to align with their new views. If it's not necessarily a bigfoot and it definitely isn't a human being what other possibilities exist? I never said it's definitely not a human being. I just said the film definitely doesn't show that it's a man in a gorilla costume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 I can guarantee you those skeptics did not change their mind because they sat and watched the PGF film over and over again and determined it to be a human in a suit. They decided Bigfoot was too phenomenal and remarkable to believe in, so they had to readjust their interpretation of the film to align with their new views. I can guarantee you that you are wrong. I never said it's definitely not a human being. I just said the film definitely doesn't show that it's a man in a gorilla costume. Yeah, you kind of did.... I'm merely saying there's no part of that footage that suggests it is another human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Are you saying that there is evidence for BF to be homo sapiens sapiens? (Sorry if I'm derailing this thread mods, you can split if it becomes necessary) I'm saying that every bit of the evidence collected can be attributed to a human or humanlike creature. Whether that translates into sapiens sapiens I couldn't tell you with certainty. I think the DNA is going to show that something is "off" about them, but for the most part , DNA has pointed to the human lineage whenever sequencing has been successful. Yes, I think they are from the Genus Homo, but when they are fully described I would expect a name like Homo something robustus (wildman). The fact that no obvious ape samples have turned up in any field biology study, my hypothesis is that BF evidence has been mistaken for human (sapiens sapiens) all these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Do you believe that the majority of the people that have seen the film believe it's a bigfoot? Don't know, haven't asked them. Maybe the majority of the people that have seen the film are undecided, but then again I wouldn't know, for the same reason as above. Saskeptic made his statement as a fact and I was asking where he came up with the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Saskeptic made his statement as a fact and I was asking where he came up with the data. The "data" to corroborate that statement are paraded daily here on the BFF: Remember all those scientists and wildlife biologists who refused to "act" on the film back in 1967? The reason is that they weren't fooled by Patterson's hoaxed bigfoot film. They saw it, thought it looked like a guy in a furry suit, and moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 The reason is that they weren't fooled by Patterson's hoaxed bigfoot film. They saw it, thought it looked like a guy in a furry suit, and moved on. The scientists at the time, I doubt had any idea of the back story and were judging mostly what they could see without modern enhancements. It might easily look hoaxable under those circumstances. So much for their "open" minds and their dogged pursuit of new discoveries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 The "data" to corroborate that statement are paraded daily here on the BFF: Remember all those scientists and wildlife biologists who refused to "act" on the film back in 1967? The reason is that they weren't fooled by Patterson's hoaxed bigfoot film. They saw it, thought it looked like a guy in a furry suit, and moved on. Not quite. It was reportedly well received at Yerkes. The scientists at the BC Museum didn't think there was enough to name a new species. The reasons for rejection seem rather lame (saggital crest, hairy breasts) and have been countered by other scientists. Assume for the moment the film is real. It was shown first in Yakima and then within days to scientists in BC. What should Roger have done differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Not quite. It was reportedly well received at Yerkes. I'm talking about the majority of relevant scientists (e.g., biologists, anthropologists, etc.) who've seen the film ("enhanced" or otherwise) over the past 40-odd years* at Earth. Assume for the moment the film is real. It was shown first in Yakima and then within days to scientists in BC. What should Roger have done differently? Two things: (1) Nothing. If he shared his film with biologists and they weren't moved to do anything then that's it. Just because proponents of the film's authenticity see things in the film they find compelling doesn't mean the rest of us do. (2) I don't know much about the lore surrounding the film, but isn't there supposed to be a whole lot more film from the roll(s) that has(ve) not been made available for analysis? If the film is authentic, then there isn't any reason not to share all the film related to the event, right? *For a tiny bit of perspective on how long ago this was, I caught some of Terminator 2: Judgment Day on the tube last night. That film came out in 1991. This was 20 years ago. I believe they said that the year SkyNet achieves AI and takes over is . . . 1997. That's right - in this incredibly slick, hyper-modern, futuristic production chock full of the latest eye-popping CGI wizardry (yet not a single flat screen computer monitor) - they saw 1997 as plausibly far enough into the future that the computers would take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Patterson shouldn't have done anything differently. He got excellent clear film footage of something. If you have film, unless it's of better quality than Patterson's, don't bother to release it. And if it is better, make sure you don't have any unpaid parking tickets or unpaid bills or the skeptics will throw out your evidence because of these "character flaws" Funny how that works. "Here's a video of Bigfoot!" "No, it's not because you owed someone money." Chris B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Patterson shouldn't have done anything differently. He got excellent clear film footage of something. If you have film, unless it's of better quality than Patterson's, don't bother to release it. And if it is better, make sure you don't have any unpaid parking tickets or unpaid bills or the skeptics will throw out your evidence because of these "character flaws" Funny how that works. "Here's a video of Bigfoot!" "No, it's not because you owed someone money." Chris B. Right, and never mind the casts; bring the animal. Showing a faked film to scientists seems like an odd thing for a hoaxer to do. Why not just do the tour, collect the money and run? Ivan T. Sanderson's take on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts