Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

Sure it's called PGF no need to reproduce it ...it's been done already :) sorry B that was a high fast one!

Please cite your source that has already addressed my question?

 

"Can anyone produce an example of someone wearing clown shoes and trying to get around like Patty that actually could do as she did, not to mention getting the same results as she did when leaving her tracks behind?"

Oh wait, someones going to post a picture of an ape with a shadow in the same area, proving yet again, that the lengths to which people who believe in something will go is beyond limit, and common sense. 

 

 

The above sounded like a confession. As far as 'kit' goes ... you must be talking about a different one than the one I observed. Feel free to pick a specific point that Kit ever made and run with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

The PGF is a hoax, plain and simple. It has been almost 50 years and not a single decent sequence of footage has been captured showing the same thing. The back story, as Kit showed, is full of holes, and then the dude who made the film, who just happened to be out to capture BF footage, never went back to the area to try and replicate the successful filming, or to maybe gather more evidence?!

 

Kit's backstory is full of holes, that's why it never stood on it's own. Roger not going back doesn't make much difference since there is ample evidence that he made the plans and the attempt. I really don't think he planned his death as some sort of convenient excuse.

 

It is a guy in a suit. The whole theory that the technology wasn't there to make a suit is beyond ridiculous, as Tontar showed many many times.

 

Tontar showed something? Where? 

 

I've been asking him to back up his claims for years. Both Kit and Tontar made a lot of claims but never produced. You bash Bigfooters for believing and the Ketchum Report on the exact same issues, but at the same time you stand behind these guys purely on blind faith. You don't see the irony in that?

 

The bottom line is that the PGF is full of events that people have tried to debunk but failed. That's why it always comes back to the same old reserve argument- the condescending "Bigfoot isn't real' rant.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Its been over 50 years and not a single decent piece of evidence has surfaced that would lead anyone to seriously consider it a hoax. Instead as technology advances, we just see more clearly that any area's that had anyone thinking it was a costume, turned out to be wrong. The glass eye, and the tuft of hair on her belly are good examples of that. There have been many examples of footage taken since then, and the better ones are always labeled as "not definitive enough". It will be interesting to see, how many of these turn out to be the real McCoy in the long run.

 You have every right to your opinion Summit. I just disagree. I think there is something out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

The PGF is a hoax, plain and simple. 

 

I don't know about the PGF, but I know the Elbe trackway certainly was :drinks:

Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePhaige

Flame away...

You sure do spend a lot of time here in fantasy island don't ya... lol (sarcasm obviously)

So you must frequent the elf, faerie and dragon forums also huh.

 

I will say where SSq is concerned you frankly don't know of what you speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

 

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?

 

 

Yep, it's almost like her knees are on a swivel or rotate first before hip action according to one LMS dvd analysis as I remember. 

 

 

 

Well I asked the question of Hajicek re: the gait and he stated there is a knock-kneed leg/hip splay that causes the inline gait.....he referred to the Peruvian horse in terms of the way the knee operates:

 

At about one minute in I think you can see on the front legs of the horse the odd movements of the knees, this is what he refers to I think.   

 

 

and the first walk sequence or two in this one (and maybe at 7 minutes with the female equestrian) also:

 

Edited by bipedalist
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Nope, unless you can show the complete body of a Bigfoot or another primate which evolved in the exact same way then, no dice ;).

 

There must be an opposite, bizarro universe somewhere in which Kit and Tontar proved something in regard to a PGf hoax because, I was in this universe the whole time and, that never happened.

 

BizarroApril0309.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

My take on PG film:


A psychic may claim to bend spoons with their mind.  Skeptic James Randi , a magician, doubts the psychic and is able to do same exact spoon bending and show how it was done.  That is, he can reproduce exactly the same bending of the spoons.  Yet, when so many are so dismissive of the PG film they don't show me they can even come close to the exact same thing.  Reproduce it and show us how it was done. 


 


They can't, they won't, and they won't even do it with 2013 tech.


 


Backdoc

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.

 

It's been 45-plus years now.  If the standard skeptical attack is to demonstrate how it was done, and therefore it isn't x as the proponents claim, the inability to even come close to the embryonic beginnings of the ghost of the flavor of a hint of a taste of how the Patterson film was faked is as telling as anything else in this field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Maybe not all, but my experience with people who are skeptical of the existence of the Sasquatch is that they don't know enough of the facts and often time are relying on what someone else told them. I mean with Kerry, he relied on articles by skeptics and when he dug a littler deeper, he admitted that he had not been given all the facts through these articles. He went on to say that they left portions of the data out of the article so to slant ones opinion.

 

Just recently we had summitwalker claiming gigantopithecus went extinct a half million years ago when the fossil record shows such fossils being much newer than that. Kit once said that the straight toe line and ridge seen in some of the BCM tracks could not have been made by a real foot and yet when I tested it with my own foot - it was clear to see that Kit was pushing a point that he could not have even tested himself. I often wonder why its so important to them that they are willing to post things as fact when they knew or should had known what they were saying was inaccurate had they tested their claims first. And in some cases, I even suspect a few of them knew their information was in error when they posted it.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Grasping at straws," some of us call that.

 

When anyone comes up with a skeptical argument against the sasquatch evidence, give a yell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

To the skeptics.    Just show me how it was done. That is not too much to ask.  If you can then you 'had me at hello'     I will be the first to move my thinking  to your side if the new facts take me there.   Until then, you and all of the best costumers in the world have been schooled by two cowboys.

 

Skeptic: "That is a man in a suit"

ME:   "I challenge you to show me how it was done"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------  50 yeas go by

 

New Skeptic: "That is a man in a suit"

Older ME:   "I challenge you to show me how it was done"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   We are waiting...

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't really hard.

 

I've said it elsewhere and I say it again:  I am moved by one thing and one thing only.

 

Evidence. 

 

Period.

 

The deniers on this topic are motivated by things like religion, superstition, a priori belief and incredulity.

 

Which don't constitute skepticism, by a long shot.

 

There is no proposition easier to prove than that a human being did something.

 

The existence of sasquatch may be on the proponents to push until the mainstream gets interested as it should.

 

This one?

 

Burden of proof is on YOU, skeptics.  Just because you misunderstand that doesn't make it less true.

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