Jump to content

Why Are The Pgf Detractors So Persistent?


Recommended Posts

PBeaton

^

Or it could be your mind generating the false perceptions you need it to be to fit the hoax in your mind !  How many hallucinations have you had that left footprints ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

^However we have not one singe bigfoot seen in the act of making a foot print.  We have one possible bigfoot where the feet are seen.  Every cast and photo of the so called bigfoot's prints are after the fact and could have been manufactured.  Virtually all of the track lines have been determined to be fakes.  London was the latest to fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^ I find his abbreviated posts much easier to bear !

 

Thanks SweatyYeti !

:drinks:

 

 

You're welcome, Pat. :)

 

My favorite posts of Crow's are the ones that don't have any words...(or images)...in them.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Not your "truth", Crow.  Your off-the-deep-end rantings are full of false, unsupported, ridiculous, off-category...and just plain irritating statements.

 

So, I find the posts that you don't write....to be your best... :drinks:

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Crowlogic,

 

Just because you don't accept the PGF, doesn't negate it as evidence. As it still remains as evidence that hasn't been proven a hoax, plain an simple ! There are multiple witnesses who have seen them, then gone to look an found thier tracks.

 

The primate anatomical features in the PGF subject an tracks cast an photographed went unrecognized for years. I've yet to hear you come up with a remotely possible explanation, an you've had 49 years !

 

Pat...    

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^

 

Not your "truth", Crow.  Your off-the-deep-end rantings are full of false, unsupported, ridiculous, off-category...and just plain irritating statements.

 

So, I find the posts that you don't write....to be your best... :drinks:

 

Too much 'Morning Morphine' is my guess.

Crowlogic,

 

Just because you don't accept the PGF, doesn't negate it as evidence. As it still remains as evidence that hasn't been proven a hoax, plain an simple ! There are multiple witnesses who have seen them, then gone to look an found thier tracks.

 

The primate anatomical features in the PGF subject an tracks cast an photographed went unrecognized for years. I've yet to hear you come up with a remotely possible explanation, an you've had 49 years !

 

Pat...    

 

Crowlogic accepted the evidence when he didn't misstate it. Now he misstates it a lot and doesn't accept the evidence. He is the poster-boy for showing how its easy to not accept the evidence when you can't recite it correctly.       smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-013

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Pat Indeed the PGF is evidence.  It is evidence that human beings can fabricate movies that portray an uncatalogued primate.  It is evidence that people are willing to apply layer upon layer of excuses to allow the myth to continue in the total absence of proof.  So you got it half right at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

That is one of more silliest things you have said. As I recall, your level proof of the film being a hoax was based on an altered photo and a milti-generation foot cast that you claimed had shown a boot-heel print.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

It is evidence that people are willing to apply layer upon layer of excuses to allow the myth to continue in the total absence of proof.

 

Crow -  The phrase you keep saying: 'total absence of proof', doesn't make any sense.  Either we have proof, or we don't.  That can vary from one individual to another, such as the fact that most Bigfoot witnesses have their proof and many PGf proponents have their proof while PGf detractors generally do not.  The thing is, there seem to be zero PGf detractors who have proof that the film could even possibly have been hoaxed so...

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

The lack of a bigfoot is pretty convincing as to the hoaxed origins of the film. How can the film depict an animal that does not exist? There is no proof that bigfoot even exists. The case for existence is extremely weak. Given that, the conclusion that the PGF is a hoax is the only reasonable conclusion. That or the film depicts the only bigfoot in existence ever? That is, of course, absurd nonsense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

How can the film depict an animal that does not exist?

 

 

That's a good point, it can't and it doesn't.  How can the film depict a costume that cannot be replicated?  Again, it can't and it doesn't. There is the only one logical conclusion that can be derived from those two facts: she is real.

Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

What could possibly constitute proof of non-existence?

 

You have to weigh the evidence available. When you do that, does the evidence support existence, or social construct? The evidence available--including the stunning absence of evidence that should be present and is not--does not support the existence of bigfoot. 

 

There is not one single shred of objective biological evidence. Not one. Name one other extant large North American megafauna that you can say that about.

 

 

Anecdotes are useless. 

 

A footprint is biological evidence. So is the PGF. What you can see from the PGF is that its not biologically possible for a person to be in a suit in that film.

 

You could of course, try to prove me wrong on that. But don't look now, in some 4-5 years of challenging 'skeptics' on this very issue, none have stepped up to the plate. If the PGF could be disproved, it might make for a very compelling argument for non-existence. But despite that carrot within such easy reach, skeptics seem to avoid that; usual excuses include 'looks like a bloke in a suit, why should I bother', stuff like that, which anyone can see is not compelling.

 

 

^^You can't see something that does not exist.  That is true.  But you can see things that you mistake for something else and you can see things that are generated by the mind.  Lastly you can say you saw something and be fabricating it.  But when we discuss bigfoot honestly without excuses we must do so with the common knowledge that there is no evidence that has ever been accepted by the real scientific community as credible.  So when I say bigfoot does not exist I say so having waded through the swamp of bigfoot evidence that has become available to mere mortals.

 

Hm. So what do you think I saw?? Because I would really like to know, if it was not what it looked like, what was it??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

^Without knowing the details of your sighting nobody can say exactly what and why you saw it.  But time of day, your own medical/mental state, location, time of year, why you where where you were, how long the sighting was and how far were you from it and what pre sighting bigfoot interest and influences you may have had.

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A footprint is biological evidence. So is the PGF. What you can see from the PGF is that its not biologically possible for a person to be in a suit in that film.

 

You could of course, try to prove me wrong on that. But don't look now, in some 4-5 years of challenging 'skeptics' on this very issue, none have stepped up to the plate. If the PGF could be disproved, it might make for a very compelling argument for non-existence. But despite that carrot within such easy reach, skeptics seem to avoid that; usual excuses include 'looks like a bloke in a suit, why should I bother', stuff like that, which anyone can see is not compelling.

 

 

 

Yeah, well a footprint does nothing as far as creating a species.  As Dr. Ron Pine pointed out with regard to Dr. Meldrum's Ichnotaxon paper:

 

It appears that since 1931, according to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, names for tracks and traces that are not fossils simply have no status whatsoever. Also, casts, other than "natural casts," have no standing as holotypes. Of course, as I knew all along, names for mythical animals (and presumably, hoaxed tracks) have no standing anyway, so for those who don't accept the reality of bigfoots, the names would have no legitimacy in any event. According to the first point I mentioned, though, the names would be invalid even if bigfoots could be shown to exist and it could be shown that the tracks from which the casts were made were made by a bigfoot.

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