Jump to content
xspider1

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities?

Recommended Posts

xspider1
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Twist said:

Just because there is an audio recording lends no more credibility than any other reporting that does not have actual evidence to back it up.

 

^ That is how many Bigfoot skeptics explain evidence such as that 911 call, Backdoc.  Only in the world of Bigfoot denialism would eye-witness reports automatically not be considered "actual evidence".  It boggles the mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, Twist said:

My goodness, Patty is in hi def compared to this thing.  I see nothing in that video worth viewing a second time.  

 

I must agree with you on this one 100%.

2 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

 

^ That is how many Bigfoot skeptics explain evidence such as that 911 call, Backdoc.  Only in the world of Bigfoot denialism would eye-witness reports automatically not be considered "actual evidence".  It boggles the mind.

 

And yet if those same skeptics came out of a mall and found their car had been backed into ... they would be canvassing the area for any eye witnesses who may have seen who did it. Then all of a sudden 'eyewitnesses' would become their best friend.   :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

First of all, I am not a BF skeptic, I am a PGF skeptic, contrary to some hardcore PGF proponents belief, that is possible.  I have in fact had my own experience of what I can only explain as a BF yet I expect no one to believe it without evidence or proof. To anyone else it should only be an anecdote as told by myself.  

 

If I came out of a mall and saw my car damaged in a significant way your right I would at least ask if anyone had seen it, if any had an eye witness account of what happened.  Why?  Because I know cars exist, I know car accidents exist, I can also reasonably extrapolate that if my car has substantial, verifiable damage it was most likely caused by another vehicle.  Sure there is a very small unlikely chance this was caused by something other than another vehicle, such as a larger person or animal.  But that is much more unlikely scenario than the very common, well known event such as a vehicle vs. vehicle accident.  To me this is not an apples to apples argument.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

Thank-you for the clarification, Twist.  I can only imagine how not being skeptical of Bigfoot + being skeptical of the PGf + having seen a Bigfoot might add up.  That's an interesting dilemma.  :   )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
3 hours ago, Twist said:

First of all, I am not a BF skeptic, I am a PGF skeptic, contrary to some hardcore PGF proponents belief, that is possible.  I have in fact had my own experience of what I can only explain as a BF yet I expect no one to believe it without evidence or proof. To anyone else it should only be an anecdote as told by myself.  

 

If I came out of a mall and saw my car damaged in a significant way your right I would at least ask if anyone had seen it, if any had an eye witness account of what happened.  Why?  Because I know cars exist, I know car accidents exist, I can also reasonably extrapolate that if my car has substantial, verifiable damage it was most likely caused by another vehicle.  Sure there is a very small unlikely chance this was caused by something other than another vehicle, such as a larger person or animal.  But that is much more unlikely scenario than the very common, well known event such as a vehicle vs. vehicle accident.  To me this is not an apples to apples argument.  

Thank you for sharing that.  We are opposites. I am not convinced the PGF is a fake.  It must be since  I am not convinced  of  any other evidence.  Including yours which is  nothing but  talk.  Just like all other eyewitness reports.   Not meausurable, not examineable,  and certainly not proven. 

 

However,  I like hearing about it.  For that I am grateful. I hope I have not offended you.  That is certainly not my intention.

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Xspider, it is an interesting delema indeed :)

 

PG, no offense at all I do not expect anyone to believe my experience, I have zero to back it up.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

For whatever the truth is about the 911 call, I tend to think it isn't a made up, prank call. It's often said Bigfoot hoaxers are just seeking attention. Is calling a 911 dispatcher really the kind of attention a hoaxer would be seeking?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
11 hours ago, Twist said:

If I came out of a mall and saw my car damaged in a significant way your right I would at least ask if anyone had seen it, if any had an eye witness account of what happened.  Why?  Because I know cars exist, I know car accidents exist, I can also reasonably extrapolate that if my car has substantial, verifiable damage it was most likely caused by another vehicle.

 

And you would want to know that the right vehicle was identified. If someone said a truck had backed into your car  .... I doubt you would challenge him that maybe it wasn't a truck he had seen, but rather it must have been a sports car or a motorcycle he had seen instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

There is still the fact that truck, car, or motorcycle, they are all proven and known to exist.  If I came across an eye witness that said it was a unicorn I would naturally question that eye witness account.  I would start off assuming the incident involved a known subject and only accept the fantastic claim of a unicorn with verifiable proof.  But hey, that's just me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, Twist said:

 

PG, no offense at all I do not expect anyone to believe my experience, I have zero to back it up.  

 

 

You have your 'personal integrity', Twist. That counts for something. :)

 

As one example of the principle....the head of the Northern Sasquatch Research Society...William Brann...has told me that in his field investigations, over the years, he has had 5 occasions where he was sure, or reasonably sure, that he was in the near vicinity of Sasquatch creatures. (He doesn't claim to have ever had a clear sighting of one, though.)

 

Knowing Bill's personality/character/moral integrity....I know with 100% absolute certainty that he feels that way, about those 5 occasions. In short...I KNOW that he is being honest with me.

 

Despite his "having nothing to back it up". ;)

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
2 hours ago, Twist said:

There is still the fact that truck, car, or motorcycle, they are all proven and known to exist.  If I came across an eye witness that said it was a unicorn I would naturally question that eye witness account.  I would start off assuming the incident involved a known subject and only accept the fantastic claim of a unicorn with verifiable proof.  But hey, that's just me. 

 

Not quite the same, but probably as good as an excuse as you will ever produce. However I will go even a step further - had someone filmed that Unicorn, then you'd have a bit more to consider would you not ... of course you would. Like I have said before - no one looks at the PGF and tries to tell it's viewers that there are probably seeing a bear or are even looking at a Unicorn. In the case of the Patterson film there appears to have been verifiable proof that Roger filmed a creature long since reported to exist well before he was ever born. There was not only a film to support what he had encountered, but there was a scene left behind to investigate that also supported a creature unlike any man. The dynamics of the foot is just one such example. Nonsense excuses such as maybe the tracks were hand-dug are almost child-like with no consideration as to the work and tedious effort that would have been needed to even attempt such an endeavor. And then next to a road that was obviously still being used.

 

So once one gets past the absurdity of hand dug tracks, then the question still remains how the subject made tracks so much deeper than the men who walked beside them. I have done countless track test with my own foot and have not been able to do what that subject did.

 

So there is evidence in this case - it just takes more than a scoffing of it to try and come to grips with it. The Unicorn comparison doesn't quite make the grade in my view. As an investigator and someone who has been willing to expose hoaxers in this field when I could ... the PGF has been another matter altogether for me.

Bipedal gorilla _ Laverty photo_human hinge point2.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter
removed a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

You say excuse, I say reasonable line of thinking.  We'll agree to disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
5 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

Not quite the same, but probably as good as an excuse as you will ever produce. However I will go even a step further - had someone filmed that Unicorn, then you'd have a bit more to consider would you not ... of course you would. Like I have said before - no one looks at the PGF and tries to tell it's viewers that there are probably seeing a bear or are even looking at a Unicorn. In the case of the Patterson film there appears to have been verifiable proof that Roger filmed a creature long since reported to exist well before he was ever born. There was not only a film to support what he had encountered, but there was a scene left behind to investigate that also supported a creature unlike any man. The dynamics of the foot is just one such example. Nonsense excuses such as maybe the tracks were hand-dug are almost child-like with no consideration as to the work and tedious effort that would have been needed to even attempt such an endeavor. And then next to a road that was obviously still being used.

 

So once one gets past the absurdity of hand dug tracks, then the question still remains how the subject made tracks so much deeper than the men who walked beside them. I have done countless track test with my own foot and have not been able to do what that subject did.

 

So there is evidence in this case - it just takes more than a scoffing of it to try and come to grips with it. The Unicorn comparison doesn't quite make the grade in my view. As an investigator and someone who has been willing to expose hoaxers in this field when I could ... the PGF has been another matter altogether for me.

Bipedal gorilla _ Laverty photo_human hinge point2.jpg

 

The only excuse is why Patterson's dedication has never been replicated.

 

Twist's opinions are welcome here, and shouldn't be dismissed as excuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
6 hours ago, Twist said:

You say excuse, I say reasonable line of thinking.  We'll agree to disagree. 

 

The difference as I see it is that I lean one way because of the evidence I shared and you scoff at it in silence.

2 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

The only excuse is why Patterson's dedication has never been replicated.

 

Twist's opinions are welcome here, and shouldn't be dismissed as excuses.

 

You would say that. Twist spoke of Unicorns with no other proof of a sighting than what someone claimed. I spoke of a sighting that had film footage and real world evidence that was left behind that could be measured and tested for probabilities. I see a difference between the two whereas you obviously do not.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
additional wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

You say I scoff at it, but that means you take silence as "scoffing".  That is a major fail on your side in my opinion.  A true hardcore skeptic will scoff at your evidence. My silence at such, in my opinion is only a proof of an open mind.

 

If I stay silent and do not openly deny it, does that not lead a bit of credence to accepting or at least reviewing your opinion? 

 

Are you of the idea that your opinion is SO RIGHT and SO OBVIOUS that anyone on the fence has to not only JUMP RIGHT OVER but ANNOUNCE THEIR VIEW being in line with yours?   

 

Silence is never confirmation nor lack there of.  IMO.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×