Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Backdoc,

 

I've been lucky to chit chat with Bob over the phone now an then regardin' what they saw that day, wasn't a hoax, it was a sasquatch.

 

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying they should agree with us because we may think we are right. It is just a heck of a convincing fact this toe mvt and so on is a fact they can't ignore. yet the explaination is always 'it is just a man in a suit and I could make a costume to do that in my garage"  it is THIS type of evidence that leads me from leaning skeptic to 98% convinced this is Real.  it is the failure of the skeptics to explain and reproduce this that makes me 100% convinced.

 

Backdoc

 

I've frequently said it:  if a human can do it, a human can duplicate it.

 

I'm not subscribing to any line of thinking that calls something a flat hoax despite not Shred One of evidence in over 45 years that scans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was walking through the bush the other day and it occured to me that our walking style evolved on the plains and not in the bush.  To step over deadfall we first flex at the hip, bringing the knee up and foot over.  This is not efficent at all, it causes kind of a stop and go way of walking through the bush.  I thought if I was a bit taller (8 or 10 feet tall) the forest would look a lot different to me. 

 

The deadfall would be less of an problem but still in my way.  Patty's walk seems to bend at the knee first then follows through with the hip flex.  This walking style would smoothly take her through the bush avoiding the many things waiting to trip her up. 

 

I think Patty's walk could be a result of a tall bipedal creature evolving in the forest.

 

On a side note I wonder if the Sasquatch hight is partially a result of evolving in a habitat where you have to step over things all the time?

 

post-547-0-85310900-1370381918_thumb.jpg

 

 

Of course...we never see Patty step over anything....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Backdoc,

 

I've been lucky to chit chat with Bob over the phone now an then regardin' what they saw that day, wasn't a hoax, it was a sasquatch.

 

Pat...

 

 

I agree 100% and I am on your side on that one. (as well as bob and roger's)

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

^^^  A squatch is what Roger and Bob rode out that day to film.

 

They called it a Bigfoot, but that raises the question again:

 

what IS a sasquatch?

 

Give me a reason to not consider the pgf a hoax, because all I see when I look at it is a guy in a suit and common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

Alright Squatchy, maybe it's time to settle for a guy in a suit then. It's the easiest explanation really, unless there is something about it that tells you differently? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
Give me a reason to not consider the pgf a hoax, because all I see when I look at it is a guy in a suit and common sense.

 

One should consider the P/G creature a hoax while at the same time considering all the evidence if they are to make an informed decision about what the subject on the film is. IMO, to do anything else would not be applying common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^  A squatch is what Roger and Bob rode out that day to film.

 

They called it a Bigfoot, but that raises the question again:

 

what IS a sasquatch?

 

Give me a reason to not consider the pgf a hoax, because all I see when I look at it is a guy in a suit and common sense.

Um....let's seee...um, the scientists who disagree with you...slam.

 

Common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Give me a reason to not consider the pgf a hoax, because all I see when I look at it is a guy in a suit and common sense.

 

 

Here ya' go, Squatchy... :) ...

 

 

 

 

AbbeyRoad9.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Two of the best reasons I know of 'Not to Consider the PGf a Hoax' (out of hundreds of other reasons) are:

 

Comparisons to the attempts to replicate the film, example:

 

 

And, this GEM from SweatyYeti:

 

SweatyYeti-CalfFlexCompAG3_zps1b976714.g

 

 

The above are good reasons not to consider the PGf a hoax.  On the other (hoax side) of the fence all we hear are character aspersions, and rejection based on an unshakable belief that Bigfoot cannot possibly exist.  Really, are there any good reasons at all to consider the PGf a hoax ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is the point.  There isn't a good reason to consder it a hoax.

 

I don't care about character.  All I care about is means and ability.  Because they are all that is relevant to the central question:  What is on that film?  These guys didn't do it; and there is nothing that says anyone else did it to them.

 

If it looked anything like any other ape suit in history that would be one thing.

 

But it doesn't.

 

99.999% of the back and forth on this topic concerns stuff I find irrelevant.

 

What is on the film?

 

In over 45 years:  not a shred of evidence that it's a man in a suit.

 

[edited, as usual, to add stuff that should have gone in the first time]

Edited by DWA
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Two of the best reasons I know of 'Not to Consider the PGf a Hoax' (out of hundreds of other reasons) are:

 

Comparisons to the attempts to replicate the film, example:

 

 

The above are good reasons not to consider the PGf a hoax.  On the other (hoax side) of the fence all we hear are character aspersions, and rejection based on an unshakable belief that Bigfoot cannot possibly exist.  Really, are there any good reasons at all to consider the PGf a hoax ??

 

 

x spider.  Once again some things are so obvious even a skeptic should have to say, "well that makes me think"  The muscle movements just cannot be faked.  A foam suit undergarment over stretch fur costume was not invented in 1967 but even it was-- attempts today to do it are not even close.     Brilliant points.

 

Backdoc

Edited by AaronD
to remove reposted images
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Thx, Backdoc.  To me it boils down to one question: Is it more likely to be real or, more likely to be fake?  I have always been on the real side of that fence although, at times, it was pretty close to a toss up for me. I'm probably about '90-10 real' these days.  The 10 is only because we don't have concrete proof of BF yet and certainly not because of anything the PGf detractors have suggested.  

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...