Jump to content

Why Are The Pgf Detractors So Persistent?


Recommended Posts

Guest Crowlogic

^Of course the show was edited, these things always are.  Bigfoot documentaries are not designed to disprove bigfoot .  They are designed to leave the door open for............. you guessed it more bigfoot documentaries.  So you get to see what the producers want you to see.  A bunch of experts in a picturesque cabin examining tired bigfoot stuff.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Way back in the 1970s I saw a film in the theatre that had the PGF in it. About the only thing I remember from the film was that they had a Hollywood guy looking at the film who seemed to know apes; his comment was, paraphrasing, 'if that's a fake I'd love to learn how he did it'. Thus the enigma that's been non-stop to this day.

 

Just a FWIW, Crow: the statement in your signature line is a common logical fallacy known as 'Guilt by Association'. Logical fallacies are called that because when they are used they state something that is not true.

 

So my suggestion is you might want to use a different signature that avoids the use of a Logical Fallacy. Maybe something like: The total lack of credible bigfoot evidence since the 1967 Patterson Gimlin Film suggests that the film could be a hoax.

 

That way it would not be outright false. Just say'n'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

^That was Janos Prohaska you saw in that film.   When we get credible bigfoot evidence that mainstream science endorses then I'll consider changes to my signature line. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

For your delectation...

Includes the latest Thinker Thunker with a comparison between the walk of the guy saying he wore the Patty suit (imitating the walk he said he did) and Patty herself

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
Link to post
Share on other sites
DannySpanks

For your delectation...

Includes the latest Thinker Thunker with a comparison between the walk of the guy saying he wore the Patty suit (imitating the walk he said he did) and Patty herself

Haven't watched the video yet, but for the record, in my opinion, I find his observations quite comical.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Thinker Thunker is no joke.  His youtube videos make a lot of sense and he gets millions of views there.  In fact, very little Bigfoot video analysis gets anywhere near as much positive response as his does so, Bigfoot detractors will need to do a lot better if TT is ever to be debunked.    

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

When you take films of apes on Wild Kingdom from the 1960's how is the detail of the ape vs Patty also filmed then?

 

If Marlin Perkins filmed an ape at 102 ft (or whatever the assumed distance is on the PGF) what would that Ape look like. How much detail could we see?  This should give us an idea of what we could reasonably squeeze out of Patty relative to a 1960's ape video as a reference point.

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Thinker Thunker is no joke.  His youtube videos make a lot of sense and he gets millions of views there.  In fact, very little Bigfoot video analysis gets anywhere near as much positive response as his does so, Bigfoot detractors will need to do a lot better if TT is ever to be debunked.    

 

Thinker Thunker is looking for an easy ride begging for subscriptions so he doesn't have to work no more.  The Bison tripe has been cut to ribbons elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bison video is a fake as far as I'm concerned.


 

 

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

 

Here is the link to the first part, the other parts are in the menu to the right on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR7KvDVZkz8

 

I can't watch that in Canada. We have odd international streaming laws. 

 

 

Ok, to quote yourself:  "I don't believe you".

 

That was gratifying.....


 

Thinker Thunker is no joke.  His youtube videos make a lot of sense and he gets millions of views there.  In fact, very little Bigfoot video analysis gets anywhere near as much positive response as his does so, Bigfoot detractors will need to do a lot better if TT is ever to be debunked.    

 

Thinker Thunker is looking for an easy ride begging for subscriptions so he doesn't have to work no more.  The Bison tripe has been cut to ribbons elsewhere.

 

 

Agreed, there were several things in that video that indicated it was a fake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ Thanks, I tried.  So, tell me, why would the author of that commentary not know that objects in the background must be enlarged to maintain scale when those same objects are brought into the foreground?  I mean that's not even imaging 101, it's just common sense.  too funny

 

post-131-0-01138600-1458436053_thumb.jpg

 

Thinker Thinker is a fool and a laughing stock.

 

To you maybe, but, he has apparently made 10's of thousands of dollars posting his honest appraisals of Bigfoot videos.  How much money have you made scoffing?

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

^Of course Yellowstone is a bigfoot hotspot  Roger had to flip a coin whether to stake out Bluff Creek or Yellowstone to get his film.   We don't usually hear about the Yellowstone bigfoot because it's part of the government cover up.  It'll scare away the tourists and hurt revenue.  However there's lots of wolves and cats in Yellow and they let those tourists in even with those blood thirsty killers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^ Thanks, I tried.  So, tell me, why would the author of that commentary not know that objects in the background must be enlarged to maintain scale when those same objects are brought into the foreground?  I mean that's not even imaging 101, it's just common sense.  too funny

 

attachicon.gifwhat...jpg

 

Thinker Thinker is a fool and a laughing stock.

 

To you maybe, but, he has apparently made 10's of thousands of dollars posting his honest appraisals of Bigfoot videos.  How much money have you made scoffing?

Honest? I doubt that. So, because he's made money, he must be legit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

No.  Let's go back <again> and figure out what we were talking about in the first place, ok?  CM posted a ThinkerThunker video link.  Spanks says he hasn't seen that video and then you guys start saying TT is a joke, a fool and a laughing stock.  Then, I either inform or remind you that TT apparently makes good money analyzing Bigfoot related videos as he sees them.  Others are online for free scoffing hour after hour so, who's the joke on again?

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