Jump to content

Why Are The Pgf Detractors So Persistent?


Recommended Posts

^^ They can, as I pointed out. The question is, you really sure you want to do that?

Please point it out again because I missed the part about how tracks can be used to find bigfoot?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the vast majority of bigfoot reports there is no supporting evidence, of any type. What about that does not make sense to you, Sweaty?

 

And all of the points proffered to the effect that the PGF is a fake are nothing more than anecdotal and supposition, yet you steadfastly maintain that it is a fake in the absence of proof. 

 

There is no evidence that it is a fake.  No one has brought in a dead suit (type specimen) to prove that it is a fake.  No one has recreated it using only materials available in 1967 to prove that it could be faked.

 

The PGF remains evidence that no one has been able to credibly refute, and that objective scientists, including those assembled by National Geographic to forensically examine the film with modern equipment and techniques, have concluded depicts a non-human subject.

 

You can't call it a fake if you can't prove it is a fake, especially when forensic analysis indicates that it is not a fake.

 

Can you not see the double (if not hypocritical) standard you apply?  You demand proof, are provided with proof in the form of the PGF, then declare the proof to be fake without proof that it is a fake.  It's right there to see and analyze if you will take the time to objectively do so.  If you choose not to, then produce the "suit", or at least convincingly recreate it using only technology and materials that were available 49 years ago.  This is a discrete and finite task.  If you believe it to be achievable based on your conviction that the PGF is a fake, then achieve it.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Well said, JDL.  It seems that, for some, 'proof' is a one-way street headed in the wrong direction.

 

Actually Patty looks a little bit like a rug in that photo.  But Gimlin was locked and loaded with 30 grain 30.06 rounds.  She would have never stood a chance against that.

 

This is a rug, Crow:

 

post-131-0-98797400-1458270617.jpg

 

it's sad that you can't tell the difference : /.  Why do you think Gimlin didn't shoot her?  Do you think the fact that he described her as: "a big hairy human" had anything to do with that?  Also, one might want to reconsider the notion that having a gun is always the deciding factor. 

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

In the vast majority of bigfoot reports there is no supporting evidence, of any type. What about that does not make sense to you, Sweaty?

 

And all of the points proffered to the effect that the PGF is a fake are nothing more than anecdotal and supposition, yet you steadfastly maintain that it is a fake in the absence of proof. 

 

There is no evidence that it is a fake.  No one has brought in a dead suit (type specimen) to prove that it is a fake.  No one has recreated it using only materials available in 1967 to prove that it could be faked.

 

The PGF remains evidence that no one has been able to credibly refute, and that objective scientists, including those assembled by National Geographic to forensically examine the film with modern equipment and techniques, have concluded depicts a non-human subject.

 

You can't call it a fake if you can't prove it is a fake, especially when forensic analysis indicates that it is not a fake.

 

Can you not see the double (if not hypocritical) standard you apply?  You demand proof, are provided with proof in the form of the PGF, then declare the proof to be fake without proof that it is a fake.  It's right there to see and analyze if you will take the time to objectively do so.  If you choose not to, then produce the "suit", or at least convincingly recreate it using only technology and materials that were available 49 years ago.  This is a discrete and finite task.  If you believe it to be achievable based on your conviction that the PGF is a fake, then achieve it.

 

But I can see it, just like you can. It looks fake to me. The backstory and the characters involved are sketchy. The absolute absence of verifiable evidence for the existence of bigfoot anywhere also undermines the legitimacy of the PGF. The list goes on and on..

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

But I can see it, just like you can. It looks fake to me. 

 

 

 

So, in this highlighted area on the backside of Patty's leg.....what prevents the "pant leg" from pulling away from the "actor's" leg....as the muscles/"pads" bulge outwards??...

 

 

BackofLeg%20AG1_zpsunpp5ngy.gif

 

 

 

Any idea at all, dmaker? :popcorn:

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

If the hip waders story is true, then there be no pulling pant leg explanation. Hip waders have all sorts of odd contours when you walk that could easily have created what you are highlighting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Sure, dmaker.....that likeness to a real human leg is a clear sign of 'hip waders'... :lol:

 

 

You say a 'hip wader' can "easily" produce that effect.....well, then let's see you, or anyone else.....easily replicate it.

 

 

 

But, since it is quite clear that Heironimus wasn't in the film....and hence...no 'hip waders'....what would be your 2nd lame guess...as to what prevented that section of the "pant leg" from pulling away from the "actor's" leg?? :popcorn:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In the vast majority of bigfoot reports there is no supporting evidence, of any type. What about that does not make sense to you, Sweaty?

 

And all of the points proffered to the effect that the PGF is a fake are nothing more than anecdotal and supposition, yet you steadfastly maintain that it is a fake in the absence of proof. 

 

There is no evidence that it is a fake.  No one has brought in a dead suit (type specimen) to prove that it is a fake.  No one has recreated it using only materials available in 1967 to prove that it could be faked.

 

The PGF remains evidence that no one has been able to credibly refute, and that objective scientists, including those assembled by National Geographic to forensically examine the film with modern equipment and techniques, have concluded depicts a non-human subject.

 

You can't call it a fake if you can't prove it is a fake, especially when forensic analysis indicates that it is not a fake.

 

Can you not see the double (if not hypocritical) standard you apply?  You demand proof, are provided with proof in the form of the PGF, then declare the proof to be fake without proof that it is a fake.  It's right there to see and analyze if you will take the time to objectively do so.  If you choose not to, then produce the "suit", or at least convincingly recreate it using only technology and materials that were available 49 years ago.  This is a discrete and finite task.  If you believe it to be achievable based on your conviction that the PGF is a fake, then achieve it.

 

But I can see it, just like you can. It looks fake to me. The backstory and the characters involved are sketchy. The absolute absence of verifiable evidence for the existence of bigfoot anywhere also undermines the legitimacy of the PGF. The list goes on and on..

 

 

If a "sketchy" crew provided an acknowledged type specimen their "sketchiness" wouldn't matter.  The evidence would stand on its own.

 

The PGF has been forensically analyzed and determined to document a non-human subject by the NatGeo team.  It stands on its own regardless of its provenance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Another detail, regarding the 'hip wader' theory, dmaker....do they generally produce this degree of resemblance to a real calf muscle?...

 

 

PattyHumanCalfComp2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

With some padding and some film artefacting and a dash of pareidolia, absolutely.  That left foot isn't looking so natural.

 

 

JDL, could you please provide a reference for the NatGeo conclusion?  Thanks

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

You didn't answer the question, dmaker. :)

 

Again...."do 'hip waders' generally produce this degree of resemblance to a real calf muscle?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

No, you didn't.

 

I asked you specifically about 'hip waders'.  Do 'hip waders'...on their own...generally produce this degree of resemblance to a real calf muscle?"

 

 

Edited to add....a visual aid...

 

 

HipWaders1_zpsdleca2id.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Crowlogic wrote:

 

 

Since the film has never been certified real by serious science that track way which is purportedly to have been made by the creature is uncertified by default.  Have you ever heard a scientist that questions the film say that the tracks are real?  Think!  

 

Great...the trackway is "uncertified".

 

Now tell us when it was "discredited". 

Obviously you are unable to connect the dots that the trackway and the film are for all intents and purposes one in the same.  The film has been discredited from the very beginning and to this day it is not recognized  as genuine by the overwhelming majority of scientists.  Yes we have the footer scientists but they are counted on one hand so to speak.  Now if Roger filmed tracks and said they didn't come from his film creature then there is a separate case to be made for them.  But no tracks and Patty, first and second reel bigfoot material are lumped together.

 

^Well now cover those hip puppies in fur and incorporate em into an upper section and you've got some Pattyesque contours indeed yessir.  When Bill Munns began his work I sent him a clip of a strange anomaly that looks like hip wader line bulging to the side.  He agreed it looked odd but to the best of my knowledge didn't pursue it.  If I can still find the clip I'll post it.

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Sweaty, why would you insist on waders on their own? Obviously, if waders were used, they were not used on their own. Your stipulation is nonsensical.

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