Jump to content
xspider1

Zero Reasons To Consider The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

xspider1

If the PG film had depicted a mime in a costume then, by now, should there not be at least one good reason to believe that such a mime-costume combination was even possible?  There are apparently no such reasons, no replication attempts that pass the laugh test, no confession and no PGf costume ever seen (by anyone except kitakaze 8 )-.   Looks like it was the real deal folks:

 

post-131-0-78224300-1448946094_thumb.jpg

 

-thx to SweatyYeti for parts of the image comparison above-  :declare:

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Maxtag

I do agree that there is little too nothing that has been shown that pgf is faked. It is the "holy grail" no question.

My personal issue I am struggling with (more so since joining BFF) there is nothing whatsoever since that comes even close. not a single other video. Picture or evidence. Everything else has been faked or mistaken.

40 plus years? So wouldn't that be THE EVIDENCE that it could really be fake? Somehow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WV FOOTER

I do agree that there is little too nothing that has been shown that pgf is faked. It is the "holy grail" no question.

My personal issue I am struggling with (more so since joining BFF) there is nothing whatsoever since that comes even close. not a single other video. Picture or evidence. Everything else has been faked or mistaken.

40 plus years? So wouldn't that be THE EVIDENCE that it could really be fake? Somehow?

 

Also, all of the hundreds of reported sightings can't be discounted as fabrications or overly active imaginations.  I have held casts from Patty in my hands, as well as discuss them with Dr. Meldrum, while I was holding them.   He is an expert, and he firmly believes Patty is the real deal. Upon close examination of the casts, you can see that they are not Human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

I sure hope I'm not the only person that repeats themselves on here; I know I've said this before.  ;)

 

 My thinking is if the PGF was really a hoax, after all the analysis it has undergone, it would have been proven to be hoax long before now. If it was a man in a suit, how did he acquire the knowledge in 1967 that the shin rise for a Bigfoot when walking was more than a human? Was this widely known back then in pre PGF days? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teegunn

None of the replica Patty suit attempts are even close.  Combine that with many things about Patty that are hard, if not impossible, to explain how they would have been possible to do now, let alone in 1967, and it points to a good possibility the creature in the film was not a dude in a suit.  And there are no real red flags that really scream or even mildly say hoax.  So no red flags, nothing that anyone can really point to and say "that right there is a suit on a dude", LOTS of things that are all but impossible to achieve with a dude in a suit, especially in 1967, and it seems like this is likely to be a real creature.  That is taking all the evidence we have with the film and looking at it fairly and trying to come up to the most likely conclusion IMHO.   Still doesn't prove anything, but then that would be all but impossible to prove from an almost 50 year old film IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Good idea for a thread, xspider... :thumbsup:

 

I think it's worth summarizing the deficiencies in the 'hoax' scenario, at the 48-year mark:

 

No - Suit wearer

 

No - Suit supplier/designer

 

No - Patty suit

 

No - Replication of "Patty suit"....(either in full, or even just one of it's realistic features.)

 

No - Confessions

 

No - Nuthin'

 

 

Other than those deficiencies....the Hoax Scenario is doing just fine. :haha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Nice list you have there, Sweety. Allow me to add to it.

 

 

No - type specimen

 

No - taxonomy classification

 

No - DNA

 

No - physical remains

 

No - 'creature' photograped in Bluff Creek before or since 1967

 

No - follow up by Patterson in the Bluff Creek from pgf to the time of his death

 

No - camera original to examine

 

No - record of the film processing

 

No - BF

 

No - nuthin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Your are blowing it out your backside IMO.

 

These are moot issues. The others were just nonsense.

 

SM:   No - 'creature' photograped in Bluff Creek before or since 1967

Are you saying that if another film comes out of Bluff Creek, then Patty is real?

 

SM:   No - follow up by Patterson in the Bluff Creek from pgf to the time of his death

I do not think you are qualified to know what Patterson did or didn't do following the PGF. Regardless, Roger focused on the film he had. He even paid to have someone run down a Sasquatch lead in hoping the information Roger had gotten was legit. And you obviously do not have a clue what having Cancer does to a person and how it effects their stamina to do the things they used to.

 

SM:   No - camera original to examine

The camera original was examined and shown following the film being taken.

 

SM:   No - record of the film processing

There was a record made available and it was present at the original showing. John Green also had the original PGF in his possession at a later time. So where and when the film was developed was not something that was kept from anyone .... its that the people involved didn't think to make a record of that particular aspect of the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Nice list you have there, Sweety. Allow me to add to it.

 

 

No - type specimen

 

No - taxonomy classification

 

No - DNA

 

No - physical remains

 

No - 'creature' photograped in Bluff Creek before or since 1967

 

No - follow up by Patterson in the Bluff Creek from pgf to the time of his death

 

No - camera original to examine

 

No - record of the film processing

 

No - BF

 

No - nuthin'

 

 

 

Corrections:

 

 

No - type specimen

 

 

No - taxonomy classification

 

A duplication of your first entry. (If there was a specimen...there would be a classification.)

 

 

No - DNA

 

No - physical remains

 

No - 'creature' photograped in Bluff Creek before or since 1967

 

 

No - follow up by Patterson in the Bluff Creek from pgf to the time of his death

 

Irrelevant...it was Roger's choice to search wherever he felt like.

 

 

No - camera original to examine

 

The Original Reel was around for copying/analyzing, for many years. 

 

 

No - record of the film processing

 

 

No - BF

 

A duplication of your first entry... "No - type specimen'.

 

 

No - nuthin'

 

Wrong - the Patterson Film.

 

 
 
 
Here is your corrected list, Squatchy... :) ...
 
No -type specimen
 
No - DNA
 
No - 'creature' photograped in Bluff Creek before or since 1967
 
No -record of the film processing.
 
 
 
Btw, I haven't seen your answer yet...what website did you get the manipulated image of Heironimus from? 
Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

The official status of Bigfoot's existence and existence of other pieces of evidence is irrelevant to the authenticity of the PGF. Same thing with the backstory; what Roger did or didn't do has nothing to do with whether Patty is real or not. A legitimate reason to consider the PGF a hoax would be something like seeing a zipper or a baggy costume in the actual film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Maxtag

How can this be the only indisputable video evidence 40 plus years later? It DOES in my mind weigh heavily on whether its a hoax or not, it cant be discarded as irrelevant on the PGF authenticity. 

 

Technology has advanced 10K fold as has the amount of "Hunters, Trackers, Researchers" etc all over the WORLD, but even just in NOR-CAL, not to mention more people in remote areas biking, camping, fishing bla bla bla.  

 

To me that's the smoking gun.....

 

for the record ,when I look at PGF, I don't see hoax in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

I think it's important to stick to logic and not feelings. Logically, the existence of other evidence with similar quality wouldn't magically make Patty real and absence of them doesn't make her a costume. They just aren't connected. There are reasons for why the PGF is the only clear film or video that's available today and that can be discussed in another thread, but like I said it has nothing to do with the PGF as a singular piece of evidence. 

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Maxtag

I feel I am being logical haha. But ok....sure.

As a single piece of evidence I will agree and DO that PGF doesn't appear nor has any evidence shown it to be a hoax.

But logic says...:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ thanks for the input, folks! 

 

I too have never seen any other piece of footage that compares favorably with the PGf in terms of convincing Bigfoot evidence.  That used to bother me more in the past than it does now because I came to realize that there will only be 1 gold-standard piece of Bigfoot evidence until the day when mainstream science finally has enough to classify them for good.  Also, I don't think that the image capturing technology in the hands of the general public today would necessarily be any better at capturing moving images of Patty than the camera Roger used in 1967.  For instance, it takes over 10 seconds for me just to get my iPhone out and start recording a movie and most of the 'action shots' I take are blurry.  And that is with the subject matter generally being by dog who is much closer to me than Patty ever let Roger get and who is not elusive in any way. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I feel I am being logical haha. But ok....sure.

As a single piece of evidence I will agree and DO that PGF doesn't appear nor has any evidence shown it to be a hoax.

But logic says... :)

What OS meant was that 48 years "feels" like a long time because it's a relative number. Since 1/2 a century is nearly a human's life span we think it's a long time but it really is a drop in the time bucket for humans to have captured another bigfoot on HD video with their Smartphone. IOW, the average Joe in the woods hasn't had the capability + the opportunity to match the quality of the PGF until HD video entered the scene. Before that only 16mm film cameras could capture high definition imagery and there weren't too many folks out in bigfoot country trying to film one with a 16mm camera, especially back in 1967.

So who else was even in the running to win the bigfoot lottery back then? Roger was in the right place at the right time and he was prepared. No one else can claim that even if the PGF was a hoax. It's too bad about Roger's rep, otherwise, the softics would have nuthin to chew on. Not that it matters mind you. There is still zero evidence that the PGF was a hoax and 48 years IS a significant amount of time for this hoax not to have been exposed by now, especially considering the backstory. But in spite of the attempts from many professionals (and plenty of amateurs) to debunk the PGF all have failed. That should tell you the PGF is unprecedented in the annals of hoaxery. And that's just based on the hearsay evidence. Studying the film itself is where it gets really, really, real interesting.

ps. good thread xspider1

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...