Jump to content

The 50th Anniversary of the amazing Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film has arrived and there is no debunk in sight! 8 )


Recommended Posts

norseman
39 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

I will never accept that a Bigfoot must be killed in order to prove that they exist.  So, no I will not be contacting anyone to shoot a Bigfoot and pack it out on a mule.  That just seems very wrong to me, unless of course a person is defending themselves or someone else.  And again, where does this idea keep coming from that all proponents are trying to prove bigfoot to "science", skeptics and to the general public?  We really should take a poll to see how many PGf proponents really care what PGf detractors think.  As I understand it, this Bigfoot forum is intended mostly for "like minded people".  When there are those who just laugh, ridicule and turn away from things they don't understand, I just shake my head and walk the other way.  I could honestly care less if they ever know anything.

 

How do you square your own mind away? If you don’t want to prove anything to anyone? Then why are you counting pixels on a screen to come up with THE concrete evidence that the PGF is real!? Or calf comparisons? Why bother? Your obviously trying to convince SOMEBODY the film is REAL. That is apparent. Good for you. Just be honest.

 

And I could care less what you “accept”..... IF I come around a bend in the trail and Patty is standing there? Her day is going to end badly..... that’s just the way it is. Sorry. No offense intended.

 

I didn’t put SY on ignore because we disagree about proof or the PGF or anything else concerning Bigfoot. This forum is here for you to post away your opinions to your or anyone’s hearts content. I just get tired of his passive aggressive crap. I don’t need a BFF coach to tell me how or when or who to talk with. I have people on ignore that suits me fine. I don’t care who SY has on ignore or why. And I darn sure don’t need people lecturing me about a forum I have helped to create. My opinion on this forum is equally as valid as yours or SY’s or Twists. I refuse to toe some imaginary line SY has created for “proponents”. I could care less.

 

As far as skeptics? They are here to stay. Not my call.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I didn't ask if you care what I accept, Norse, I just stated my opinion.  You are perfectly entitled to put anyone you want to on ignore, that's none of my business.  As to your determination to immediately shoot the first thing that you perceive to be a Bigfoot, that may not be just your business.  I think that the act of killing a Bigfoot (even if you were right and it was actually a Bigfoot) would be despised by a lot of people.  Your confidence in the bush is admirable, but I don't think you have indicated ever facing a foe that is comparable to what these things are reported to be.  I also never said that I didn't want to convince anyone of anything.  I'm just not trying to convince "science", skeptics and the general public.  That's a projection that we often see PGf scofftics resort to when, as usual, they have nothing to address the actual topic.   

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

Nearly everyone’s take on Patty is prejudiced by a prior opinion about the existence of sasquatch, but if one can determine beyond doubt that a person in a costume couldn’t have been made to look that way, then one’s prior opinion won’t matter. The problem is that this is quite difficult to do.

 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

@OntarioSquatch

Dare I say IMPOSSIBLE.....after all? It’s been 50 plus years.

 

The film convinces ME there may very well be something out there. I guess that’s enough. I go forth prepared to advance the ball if ever given the opportunity. And if not? That’s fine too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MindSquatch
On 2/1/2018 at 7:41 AM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

sciencecrayons.JPG

My take on the Patterson Footage is to have any sceptics go spend at least one night at the location by themselves. I would imagine this would have a spooky powerful convincing affect and take all the silly sense out of the topic, just one night alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

norseman,

 

If you came across a female with a youngster, would you still shoot it ? 

Myself, if I seen one, I would have my proof, my own evidence, but I understand folks wantin' to obtain that definitive evidence, proof, with it comes immortality in a way, an I'd expect a nice pay day. They'd also solve the mystery for others, myself...I'd be cool with it for myself. If you had a sightin', an knew for yourself...that wouldn't be enough ?

 

xspider1,

I understand an know, what an where you're comin' from, I don't feel the need to prove to skeptics, I argue the evidence. My opinion is it points to a as yet unclassified or undocumented primate(s) still extant. When skeptics toss out a claim, I'll counter it...myself I'd rather address it than ignore it in case new folks come across it an think it legit.  

 

Pat... 

 

ps; I don't have the slightest problem with skeptics, I'm a skeptic pretty much as well, I think we all have to be.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
29 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

norseman,

 

If you came across a female with a youngster, would you still shoot it ? 

Myself, if I seen one, I would have my proof, my own evidence, but I understand folks wantin' to obtain that definitive evidence, proof, with it comes immortality in a way, an I'd expect a nice pay day. They'd also solve the mystery for others, myself...I'd be cool with it for myself. If you had a sightin', an knew for yourself...that wouldn't be enough ?

 

I would. I would shoot a youngster as well. I would be very brutal in securing a single type specimen. After that I would only shoot in self defense. And once the species was accepted I would lobby for protection of them and habitat. I do not seek any glory, I like to be left alone normally and work my ranch in peace. I suppose some of that would change. But their access to me would be nil. 

 

As far as money? I would donate any Bigfoot monies received right back to conservation of the species. I have no interest in blood money and do fine with what I have now.

 

It would never be enough for me that I had a really cool story but nothing else. Skeptics would still laugh but more importantly there would be no scientific effort to conserve the species. The coast of the PacNW continues to be paved under. Where does that stop? How much of it affects Bigfoot? We would not know until we began to study it in a brand new light. So becoming a knower for me? Would be unsatisfactory.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
6 hours ago, MindSquatch said:

My take on the Patterson Footage is to have any sceptics go spend at least one night at the location by themselves. I would imagine this would have a spooky powerful convincing affect and take all the silly sense out of the topic, just one night alone.

 

I doubt the convincing part, but it'd be a great camping trip!!

 

Welcome to the forum MindSquatch

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

norseman,

 

If you came across a female with a youngster, would you still shoot it ? 

Myself, if I seen one, I would have my proof, my own evidence, but I understand folks wantin' to obtain that definitive evidence, proof, with it comes immortality in a way, an I'd expect a nice pay day. They'd also solve the mystery for others, myself...I'd be cool with it for myself. If you had a sightin', an knew for yourself...that wouldn't be enough ?

 

 

The odds of coming across a female with an infant is very small, but if a single Sasquatch was in range - I could see shooting it for hopefully the betterment of the species. It would certainly put a lot of trolls out of business.    :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
10 hours ago, norseman said:

 

How do you square your own mind away? If you don’t want to prove anything to anyone? Then why are you counting pixels on a screen to come up with THE concrete evidence that the PGF is real!? Or calf comparisons? Why bother? Your obviously trying to convince SOMEBODY the film is REAL. That is apparent. Good for you. Just be honest.

 

And I could care less what you “accept”..... IF I come around a bend in the trail and Patty is standing there? Her day is going to end badly..... that’s just the way it is. Sorry. No offense intended.

 

I didn’t put SY on ignore because we disagree about proof or the PGF or anything else concerning Bigfoot. This forum is here for you to post away your opinions to your or anyone’s hearts content. I just get tired of his passive aggressive crap. I don’t need a BFF coach to tell me how or when or who to talk with. I have people on ignore that suits me fine. I don’t care who SY has on ignore or why. And I darn sure don’t need people lecturing me about a forum I have helped to create. My opinion on this forum is equally as valid as yours or SY’s or Twists. I refuse to toe some imaginary line SY has created for “proponents”. I could care less.

 

As far as skeptics? They are here to stay. Not my call.

 

 

i completely agree with your philosophy. If the creature does exist then it is imperative that it becomes documented for conservation purposes. The collection of a specimen seems a small sacrifice for the benefit of many others. 

As far as  the ignore comment. You said what many are thinking  I am sure. I have found both sides are guilty of the same hypocrisy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
8 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I would. I would shoot a youngster as well. I would be very brutal in securing a single type specimen. 

 

Bigfoothunter wrote:

Quote

but if a single Sasquatch was in range - I could see shooting it....

 

 

If the Sasquatch species could be considered 'human'......that would be a crime, called murder. 

 

And, if they are only near-human.....it would still be kinda like the same thing. 

 

My take on it is.....if I was close enough to a Bigfoot creature to be able to know, with certainty, that it was a real creature.....rather than killing it, I would take my newfound knowledge, and take steps towards having the creature/s located, and filmed at very close range....or captured....for the sake of scientific verification. And then released. 

 

Also.....a tranquilizer would be a good alternative to a bullet.

 

I'm not the type of person who murders/kills humans, or a potential near-human....when there are much less heartless alternatives. :) 

 

2 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

The odds of coming across a female with an infant is very small, but if a single Sasquatch was in range - I could see shooting it for hopefully the betterment of the species. It would certainly put a lot of trolls out of business.    :)

 

Putting them on 'Ignore' could do the job, also. No bullets required. ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweaty, you have a point about if it's "human", or "near human". I know that aspect has been discussed on here before and there were mentions of people, (I'm sure they were hunters), that said they saw a Bigfoot and actually had it in their scopes but just couldn't shoot because it looked "too human". I can remember one hunter on TV saying this when he had one in his sights. 

 

You a have a point about tranquilizers. I know there are lots of questions to be answered about this method but it should at least be explored before determining if it should be discarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
15 hours ago, norseman said:

I got a clue, I put you on ignore. Bye.

 

That's a wise move Norse.

 

Within 48 hours your blood pressure will decrease.

 

By 72 hours headaches will become less frequent.

 

Give it a week and food will start to taste better.

 

:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
16 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

Sweaty, you have a point about if it's "human", or "near human". I know that aspect has been discussed on here before and there were mentions of people, (I'm sure they were hunters), that said they saw a Bigfoot and actually had it in their scopes but just couldn't shoot because it looked "too human". I can remember one hunter on TV saying this when he had one in his sights. 

 

You a have a point about tranquilizers. I know there are lots of questions to be answered about this method but it should at least be explored before determining if it should be discarded.

 

The notion of tranquilizing one and the problems with knowing the appropriate dosage has been written about and the data I read convinced me that it is not an option for any layman who may encounter one in the bush.

 

The 'near-human' or 'human' thing is something I would not worry about. The creature is vastly reported to be nocturnal which allows it to display eye-shine. Anthropologist have stated that no human has had nocturnal capabilities and certainly no human emits eye-shine. Animals do.

 

One can even kill another human if he or she is in fear for their life. I think one would be hard pressed if they shot what has been described as a "creature" to then be charged for murder. John Green always addressed this silly issue as saying he would shoot one in the back if he had to and then say it was coming at him while walking backward. And before anyone cast judgment - I have no interest in hunting or killing animals of any kind. I got rid of my guns long ago ... even though I may get my gun permit renewed and purchase a firearm considering all the break-ins that are going on these days and people being being killed over a petty amount of cash due to the drug epidemic.

 

So I am not worried about anyone who is confronted by a Sasquatch in the bush who then decided to shoot it.

outdoorhub-everything-ever-wanted-know-black-bear-eyesight-2015-03-31_16-39-47.jpg

6f6a3d192a23da9c13627146b2af1949.jpg

234292.jpg

5659199162_cf15605496_b.jpg

deer.jpg

images2.jpg

images3.jpg

main-qimg-f76be146f347f6064ed51c870052be6b-c.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
2 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

The odds of coming across a female with an infant is very small, but if a single Sasquatch was in range - I could see shooting it for hopefully the betterment of the species. It would certainly put a lot of trolls out of business.    :)

I wouldn't exactly say out of business. Just move to a different subject. Those that engage in that sort of activity don't suddenly gain high self esteem overnight. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...