Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norseman

Produce the suit....

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor

I think it is well within our right as proponents to ask skeptics to back up their claims of the PGF being a hoax by producing the suit.

 

We have had a lot of rumors, speculation, promises, etc concerning the existence of the actual suit used in the PGF. None of it has borne fruit.

 

If a suit was actually produced it would be easy for someone like Bill Munns to verify the age of the suit, the correct materials in the construction of the suit and if the suit could be worn and replicate the film subject in the PGF.

 

If the suit was a close match to the PGF? It would end the debate immediately.

 

If I was a skeptic I would be hunting for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I thought a certain banned member had proof of the suit. I waited and waited and waited. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Instead of a ridiculous expectation like finding the original suit, how about just one proponent find some proof of bigfoot? Just one, out of thousands claimed. How about that?

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

How about YOU do it. Oh, I forgot, you don't believe the creature exists, so why bother. That sound about right? Just sit back and take pot shots at the proponents. Weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I think in terms of BF it’s on the proponents to provide proof, we are the ones making a fantastic claim.

 

In regards to the PGF, the side claiming it’s a BF should provide proof and equally so, if your stance is that it’s a bloke in a suit you should be willing to back that up with proof as well.  

 

My stance on the PGF,  I don’t know what I’m seeing so I’m still undecided.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I see what you are saying Twist, but I don't see them as separate claims like you do. The claim that the PGF is real is obviously dependent upon bigfoot being real. You cannot divorce the two claims. With no decent evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot, I don't see any need to examine the pgf with any rigor. Not while the existence of bigfoot looks extremely unlikely based on current evidence. Besides which, it looks fake to me when I watch it. 

 

The film will never prove the existence of bigfoot. So long as that primary question of existence remains where it is now, what is the point of peeling the pgf onion? None that I can see.

 

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

As far as the PGF goes it obviously depends on what you are looking for as target to demonstrate something outside of Human. I say that because in order to show it was or wasn't a bloke in a suit one needs a suit that can demonstrate that it is a bloke in a suit or not a bloke in a suit. Nailing down whatever the target would be needs to be either far outside a Human possibility for both a proponent and a skeptic or well within Human possibility. After all, that is or should be the critical judgment on which way one leans. Because ALL facets of Patty need to be taken imto consideration. The whole package that is Patty needs to be broken down as well as looked at as combined components. 

 

In a lot of areas of the Patty 'suit' it's simply going to be measurements of which numerous have already been done- some valid, some not. Some measurements have been embellished with graphics that are too short or too long depending on what the skeptic or proponents want us to see and believe. Individual points on the Patty body have been debated nearly infinitum without any thing too solid in the way of resolution because certain body parts can have things skewed by either camp. There needs to be something that rules out debate. Find that and people will be better equipped to make a personal decision on what the PGF is actually showing.

 

Is this post ambiguous enough for everyone? LOL ;) 

 

28 minutes ago, dmaker said:

The claim that the PGF is real is obviously dependent upon bigfoot being real

 

If I may quantify that I would say that the claim that the PGF is real is dependent on Bigfoot being real AT THE TIME the film was shot. Your other points about Bigfoot not being proved to exist currently are certainly valid, dmaker, and they have been for some time now. But regardless of that either a suit in that likeness can be made or it cannot. So far, it apparently cannot. That in and of itself doesn't Patty herself real or not real. It's about Patty herself. No suit that looks very similar to her does make a case, albeit but not a strong, one for her existence as a Bigfoot. What I'm saying is that what is not around today doesn't mean it wasn't around 50 years ago. THAT'S why, as I've said before, the focus should be on the PGF because everything else is simply too subjective to allow into a PGF debate. Does that make any sense coming from someone who is 'incoherent'? ;)

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Norseman's question about producing the suit is perfectly legitimate. It's about the only way to prove the PGF is a hoax because there is no credible evidence that points to it being fake. All analysis so far points to "real".

Let's say there really was a suit:

Is it logical that it was later destroyed? I say no.

Is it logical whoever had it simply lost it? I say no.

Is it logical that whoever has it has kept it a secret for 50 years, never revealing to anyone they have the suit? If the original possessor has passed on, would whoever have inherited the suit have agreed to maintain the secrecy? To me, it seems rather farfetched.

 

Here is something to keep in mind: Imagine what the suit might be worth today dollarwise. It wouldn't quite match the Mona Lisa but for a number of people, I think it would have fairly decent value, though I can't say what that figure might be.

Money has been known to talk. So would the possessor of the suit prefer to keep the suit and pass up the chance to make some money?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
36 minutes ago, dmaker said:

The existence of bigfoot is not subjective. 

 

Interesting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
5 hours ago, dmaker said:

Instead of a ridiculous expectation like finding the original suit, how about just one proponent find some proof of bigfoot? Just one, out of thousands claimed. How about that?

 

 

Well, to your way of thinking the suit exist and bigfoot never did.  So which should be easier to produce?  Since bigfoot can't be produced a suit should be EASY to produce.  Produce a suit, or a close replica.  

 

Now that homework is 50 years overdue.  

 

If you don't find that alarming I don't know what to tell you.

 

you are loosing and I am surprised you don't see it.

 

we don't need the origional.  I'll take an easy to produce copy.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Dog

Why is it that every time a proponent of Bigfoot says they believe the creature in the PGF is real, a skeptic demands proof, but when a skeptic believes it was a suit they claim they don't need to prove their assertion, that the lack of perceived existence is enough?  I'll admit that the claims of the believer are extraordinary, and that they need the extraordinary proof.  However, the claims by the skeptics are just as extraordinary, and as such, demand just as extraordinary proof.  It seems like a quid pro quo situation to me.  If rock solid proof of existence is demanded of the believers in Bigfoot, the rock solid proof of a suit is in order from the skeptics.  If the skeptical camp can't provide a suit that spot on replicates Patty, their point is moot, just as they claim for the believers camp.  One can't have it both ways.  Whomever is making a claim of fact must provide proof of that fact, regardless of which side of the argument that persons claims fall. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

dmaker and others don’t understand that the PGF qualifies as evidence for the existence of Sasquatch, and that a type specimen isn’t going to have any bearing on the physiological reasons for why that film subject could not have been a costume. 

 

A type speciemen isn’t necessarily any more valid than the PGF in terms of qualifying as evidence. One may be easier to evaluate, but that doesn’t change the fact that the latter can qualify as evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

Well, to your way of thinking the suit exist and bigfoot never did.  So which should be easier to produce?  Since bigfoot can't be produced a suit should be EASY to produce.  Produce a suit, or a close replica.  

 

Now that homework is 50 years overdue.  

 

If you don't find that alarming I don't know what to tell you.

 

you are loosing and I am surprised you don't see it.

 

we don't need the origional.  I'll take an easy to produce copy.

 

 

 

Bwah hah hah hah hah ... YOU nailed it.   5 out of 5.  Chewed him up and spit him out.   I'm curious how dmaker will try to deflect / deny / ignore THAT.  

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk
3 hours ago, Old Dog said:

Why is it that every time a proponent of Bigfoot says they believe the creature in the PGF is real, a skeptic demands proof, but when a skeptic believes it was a suit they claim they don't need to prove their assertion, that the lack of perceived existence is enough?  I'll admit that the claims of the believer are extraordinary, and that they need the extraordinary proof.  However, the claims by the skeptics are just as extraordinary, and as such, demand just as extraordinary proof.  It seems like a quid pro quo situation to me.  If rock solid proof of existence is demanded of the believers in Bigfoot, the rock solid proof of a suit is in order from the skeptics.  If the skeptical camp can't provide a suit that spot on replicates Patty, their point is moot, just as they claim for the believers camp.  One can't have it both ways.  Whomever is making a claim of fact must provide proof of that fact, regardless of which side of the argument that persons claims fall. 

 

 

Maybe because given the amount of time gone by, the suit may not have survived. Like it or not folks, PGF is doomed to be inconclusive. Neither side has proof, and  lack of proof doesnt disprove either side.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×