Jump to content
xspider1

Zero Reasons To Consider The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

Twist

Wow, looks like I better get something going threadwise because CM is ready to go! I will try to get something up tonight, hope to hear some more great ideas.

 

 

Over in the 'darting Patty' thread many of us got yelled at because we expressed an opinion that neither lassoing nor successfully darting a Bigfoot would be equivalent to lassoing or successfully darting 'any other animal'.  They keep telling us that Bigfoot is no different (even though, to them, Bigfoot do not exist).  Too funny!  8 )

 

 

It does seem that way Woodslore.  This thread was here first so nah nah nah to that other thread.  I have been trying to 'steer' this away from a roping/darting Bigfoot discussion (no pun intended) because I think that both of those ideas are very impractical.  The question I asked here which started all that in the first place was:

 

"Who would be in favor of trying to capture one carefully and temporarily in order to prove they exist?"   And, I could add to that: If in favor then, got any ideas for doing that (ideas which would need to at least pass the laugh test).

 

 

Ironic since you seemed to have brought the roping/darting discussion to this very thread.  Ohiobill decided to start a new topic and you brought it here after the fact. Just saying......

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Right you are, Twist!  Sorry, I really didn't mean to bring that other stuff back over here.  I see the idea of darting a Bigfoot  impractical and the idea of roping one virtually impossible so, I'd be glad to leave that to the experts.  Got any more than zero reasons to consider the PGf a hoax?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I got one.....the freakin PGF is dang near 50 years old. What has happened since that was meaningful? Advanced the football to the goal line?

Lets talk about that....

Was it a hoax? Is the species extinct? Or are we dumber than our forefathers and we cannot sneak up on one and film it?

Whats our problem?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

I think Roger was very lucky to have encountered her out in the open. Sightings almost always happen in a wooded area and the witness usually isn't prepared (mentally or equipment wise) to take a video. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Right you are, Twist!  Sorry, I really didn't mean to bring that other stuff back over here.  I see the idea of darting a Bigfoot  impractical and the idea of roping one virtually impossible so, I'd be glad to leave that to the experts.  Got any more than zero reasons to consider the PGf a hoax?    

 

The Irony continues, as you attempt to reinforce your desire to not "bring that other stuff back here" you use this exact post to try and once again state and thus "bring that other stuff back here" by stating your opinion. I'll highlight again, for the records,

 

" I see the idea of darting a Bigfoot  impractical and the idea of roping one virtually impossible so, I'd be glad to leave that to the experts."

 

I have pointed out possible discrepancy in proponents defense of the PGF film but do not, to date, recall ever having posted reason to consider the PGF film a hoax.  I find the film to be very interesting but do not believe I have nor recall ever flat out claiming it a hoax.  There are things I question about it for sure, but to flat out say its a hoax, I do not believe I have made that assertion.  I would welcome you to point out where I have and I would be happy to clarify or correct that statement.  

Edited by TWlST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Ummm, 1 Bigfoot on film means that more and more Bigfoot on film must follow?  sorry, I don't get the logic there Norseman.  It is estimated that  25 to 150 types of animals go extinct everyday.  http://www.columbiatribune.com/editorial_archive/q-how-many-animals-go-extinct-every-day/article_47bd1390-867e-11e2-8447-10604b9f6eda.html  So maybe Bigfoot are more scarce (or more cautious and hidden) than they were before?  I don't know but impatience won't solve it.

 

 

 I would welcome you to point out where I have and I would be happy to clarify or correct that statement.  

 

 

guess I got off on the wrong foot again.  : /  dang it, i really am trying to be nice.  didn't mean to imply that you posted a reason to doubt the PGf.  i was just re-iterating the topic.  carry on

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Depends on your school of thought Xspider.  I agree with you in one sense, that is that BF could easily avoid more film due to the fact I believe them to exist but in very few numbers and limited to a very limited range in the general PNW area.  I agree with statements that Norseman has made in the past, it could possibly be extinct since the PGF film.  

 

I do not believe that this creature is as widespread as reports would believe it to be, it does not exist in essentially for lack of getting to specific, the entire N.A continent.  

Edited by TWlST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I think impatience will solve it.....if there is anything left to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^^  I try to be careful about knowing things which are unknown.  Is that a 'yes' on Bigfoot and a 'maybe' on the PGf, Twist? 

 

If there is no Bigfoot as a real animal mystery to solve, Norse, then I'd have to say that there is something far weirder going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

^^  I try to be careful about knowing things which are unknown.  Is that a 'yes' on Bigfoot and a 'maybe' on the PGf, Twist? 

 

If there is no Bigfoot as a real animal mystery to solve, Norse, then I'd have to say that there is something far weirder going on.

 

If you are asking me directly, Xspider, yes I will say, "yes" on BF ( and thats by a margin of 49.9% / 50.1% )  because while I believe strongly I have had a class B experience I never saw anything to confirm what I "experienced"  regarding the PGF, I'm 50/50. 

 

I know I spend most of my time here contending against proponents but thats only because I feel many spend to much time trying to explain BF by special pleading and relying on ideas/beliefs vs. science.  In lue of what I posted above, I believe BF to be a flesh and blood animal that only evades exposure due to its lack of numbers and enviroment ( deep forests of PNW ) vs. special abilities and paranormal abilities.  

Edited by TWlST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Some of what you just said sounds reasonable, Twist.  I guess some Proponents do rely too much on special pleading and ideas/beliefs vs. science, but to be honest, I see that more with the detractors.  In many cases its someone who has no idea what they are talking about trying to ridicule someone who has actually lived it and/or looked into it extensively.  It gets silly sometimes for sure but, the PGf proponents win every time.  8  B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

We need physical proof.....a hair, a toe nail, a tooth, a head or a complete body alive or dead....something tangible.

Until that day come there is no victory.....none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Some of what you just said sounds reasonable, Twist.  I guess some Proponents do rely too much on special pleading and ideas/beliefs vs. science, but to be honest, I see that more with the detractors.  In many cases its someone who has no idea what they are talking about trying to ridicule someone who has actually lived it and/or looked into it extensively.  It gets silly sometimes for sure but, the PGf proponents win every time.  8  B

 

The part bold'd Xpsider I feel is the first time we have agreed on something. That's actually nice for a change.  The part after that I can partially agree with, I think it goes both ways in trying to defend or deny bigfoot.  Both side will and do use special pleading to present their case.  The difference is, and this touches on Norsemans next post in this topic, we are still needing physical evidence to prove this thing actually exists.  As has been stated by many skeptics and myself, the biggest pile of anecdotal evidence will never equal unequivocal proof that BF exists.  The detractors in my opinion ( and yes its my opinion, not science ) have the higher ground in the fact that proponents of BF have the burden of proof when claiming the creature exists.  You can prove a creature exists when believed it does not with proof, to prove a creature does not exist by lack of proof, well that always leaves the door open to future proof.  Sorry if that is a simple way of explaining it but its the best I got on the fly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I'm pretty sure those things are in bags already, Norse.  Not sure what victory would mean in this case but; I'd have to say that the big hairy folks are probably better off hidden from most people anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

My only argument to that Xspider, and one i have stated before, but I believe it was many years ago on BFRO, as it stands now, BF cannot be found by people, what if any protection would they need?  They seem to stay hidden well enough on their own that the general public ( read BFRO, NAWAC and various other groups ) cant find them when hardcore looking, what protection can the government really offer them, lol.  

Edited by TWlST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...