Jump to content

Why Are The Pgf Detractors So Persistent?


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ See what I mean about the persistence?  There is supporting evidence to go along with the thousands of siting reports, dmaker (whether you like it or not).  I.e., when someone claims to have seen a Bigfoot, we can consider the other evidence of Bigfoot (other reports, images, footprints, corroborating witnesses, etc. etc.)  When kitakaze claims to have received a skype call which revealed to him (without any doubt) that there is a 'Patty suit', we have absolutely nothing else to go on.  And, since kit has made other similar claims such as having 3 confessions and there being a morris/kaze suit in the works, his credibility is further diminished.  If you see that as not being distinctly different then we'll just have to agree to disagree.    

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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?

I understand that. :)

 

I stand behind my previous post.

^ See what I mean about the persistence?  There is supporting evidence to go along with the thousands of siting reports, dmaker (whether you like it or not).  I.e., when someone claims to have seen a Bigfoot, we can consider the other evidence of Bigfoot (other reports, images, footprints, corroborating witnesses, etc. etc.)  When kitakaze claims to have received a skype call which revealed to him (without any doubt) that there is a 'Patty suit', we have absolutely nothing else to go on.  And, since kit has made other similar claims such as having 3 confessions and there being a morris/kaze suit in the works, his credibility is further diminished.  If you see that as not being distinctly different then we'll just have to agree to disagree.    

 

 

I see a distinct difference there, x... ;)

 

It's kinda hard not to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

A track may contain information about what made the track and it can even contain biological evidence left behind. Heck, they can get DNA out of polar bear tracks now. But the track itself is not biological evidence. This really should not be that difficult to understand.

 

 

Thank-you for the spell checker tip. I always assumed it was the forum software. 

 

You're right, it probably should not be that difficult to understand, but that's me. I just not going to understand how a track can't be considered biological evidence, so long as its legit. It has to be made by a biological entity, and each track is connected in a way to the creature at the other end of the trackway from you. You'll just have to excuse me on that, I think tracks are very much biological, and we simply disagree on that and no worries. I'll try not to aggravate you with that particular nuance.

 

I saw the BF I saw a long time ago- in 1990. Since then I've taken a bunch of tracking classes for entirely different reasons (I've been fascinated by primitive survival skills since I was a little kid), which is how I know that tracks are pretty serious evidence. Trackers get used to find convicts and lost people, hunters use them to find quarry. I'm sure a good tracker could use them to find a BF too. But there is a different problem! Do you really want to do that? I've seen them- and while I am obviously fascinated with the idea of seeing one again, at the same time I'm not certain that I really want to. Especially if I am tracking one. They're really BIG. That might not be the best way to have an encounter, if you know what I am saying. Its this aspect of BF that must be really frustrating for those on the fence over existence- those that have had encounters are often not sure they want to have one again, and/or are pretty sure they don't want to reveal too much about what they know (like, where to find them for example).

 

So its my opinion that with that going on to complicate things we won't make any serious progress with discovery or existence anytime soon. Its also why I hold the PGF in such high regard. We can see the PGF, and its very clear that whatever is on the film isn't a person in a suit. All you have to do is look at Patty's proportions (carefully) and you know something's up.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

^Since every track line (except the possible one in the snow in Minnesota) has been discredited a bigfoot track line will likely lead you to where the hoaxer parked the SUV.  Bigfoot are really big?  Patty wasn't to tuff and wasn't so big.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^ Then why can't tracks be used to find bigfoot?

 

 

I think I have the answer....maybe we've just been following them in the wrong direction! :cool:

Since every track line (except the possible one in the snow in Minnesota) has been discredited a bigfoot track line will likely lead you to where the hoaxer parked the SUV.  Bigfoot are really big?  Patty wasn't to tuff and wasn't so big.

 

 

I am absolutely astounded at how many false statements you have been making lately, Crow.  It's just plain... :wacko: 

 

Since when was the PGF trackway discredited??? 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Biological evidence is tissue,saliva,scat,etc.

Patty may be obvious to you, but not for everyone.

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

 

^ Then why can't tracks be used to find bigfoot?

 

 

I think I have the answer....maybe we've just been following them in the wrong direction! :cool:

Since every track line (except the possible one in the snow in Minnesota) has been discredited a bigfoot track line will likely lead you to where the hoaxer parked the SUV.  Bigfoot are really big?  Patty wasn't to tuff and wasn't so big.

 

 

I am absolutely astounded at how many false statements you have been making lately, Crow.  It's just plain... :wacko:

 

Since when was the PGF trackway discredited??? 

 

It is as questionable as the film and the film is not accepted by real science. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Gee, no kidding, Crow....the Film is questionable. 

 

Now, tell me when the trackway was discredited. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
dis·cred·it
verb
harm the good reputation of (someone or something)
 
Everything Bigfoot related has probably been 'discredited' by some random detractor somewhere.  That doesn't mean squat.
 

I'm sure a good tracker could use them to find a BF too. But there is a different problem! Do you really want to do that?

 
^ This is a very good point that many over-look, imo.  Even Patty (evidently an older female Bigfoot) looks like she could easily crush almost any person on the planet.  And some wonder why Roger and Bob didn't continue to pursue her... 
 
 
post-131-0-51420600-1458263382_thumb.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
clubbedfoot

^^^

 

This has already been covered. But thanks for playing.

 

 

my bad... I missed your post proving you do know everything....I'll carry on :dance:

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

 

dis·cred·it
verb
harm the good reputation of (someone or something)
 
Everything Bigfoot related has probably been 'discredited' by some random detractor somewhere.  That doesn't mean squat.
 

I'm sure a good tracker could use them to find a BF too. But there is a different problem! Do you really want to do that?

 
^ This is a very good point that many over-look, imo.  Even Patty (evidently an older female Bigfoot) looks like she could easily crush almost any person on the planet.  And some wonder why Roger and Bob didn't continue to pursue her... 
 
 

 

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.

^

 

Gee, no kidding, Crow....the Film is questionable. 

 

Now, tell me when the trackway was discredited. 

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!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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". 

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