Jump to content
Squatchy McSquatch

What Sparked Your Interest in the PGF?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

The Q of the thread might be tweaked a bit from What sparked your interest in the PGF to Why would a skeptic who is convinced Patty is a hoax and Bigfoot could not exist spending a single second on the BFF?

 

I think they hang around because the point of their existence is to more or less say, "Don't you know how stupid you guys are?"   I spend no time in the Flat Earth Society Forums if they exist.  I know the world is not flat with 100% certainty so there is no need to even dwell on it let alone go to some forum and debate the issue.

 

As far as the Hardline Convinced Skeptics, they really should treat the BFF as the same thing.  That is, "I know there is NO bigfoot and the PGF is a hoax.  Why think about it further, I am moving on to watch Love Boat reruns, or mow the grass."

Instead they hang around.   Interesting isn't it.

 

 

 

People are certainly free to discuss why those scoffers continue to hang around, and pass-out insults......but I personally don't think they are worth discussing. I think they are more worth Ignoring. ;) 

 

 

Quote

On the point about "nothing to be gained" from these type of skeptics, I disagree a tiny bit on that.  For the most part there is nothing to be gain.  However, I do believe that Conflicts do Clarify.   An idea tends to become stronger when it is attacked by opposition.  We would prefer reasonable well thought out opposition which we don't always get. 

 

 

That concept is true, Backdoc......but it doesn't apply to 'scoffers/scofticism'. It does apply to reason, and rationale put forward by skeptics...but there is a distinct difference between a skeptic's reasoned argument....(and/or comparison images and animations)......and simpleton-type Dictates.....and condescending/insulting language. 

 

True, legitimate skeptics do have a place on a Bigfoot Discussion Forum......scoftics do not.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
2 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

True, legitimate skeptics do have a place on a Bigfoot Discussion Forum......scoftics do not.

 

That is the crux of the matter.   Scoftics operate from a form of religion ... dogma.   Skepticism, on the other hand, is a legitimate and necessary scientific process.    Honest truth here is we have more scientific skepticism coming from the proponents' side where they lean towards existence but question specific evidence' legitimacy than we do from all of the scoftics .. and, unfortunately, the very very few true skeptics ... combined.    The scoftics offer nothing but their own ego.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
12 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

The Q of the thread might be tweaked a bit from What sparked your interest in the PGF to Why would a skeptic who is convinced Patty is a hoax and Bigfoot could not exist spending a single second on the BFF?

 

I think they hang around because the point of their existence is to more or less say, "Don't you know how stupid you guys are?"   I spend no time in the Flat Earth Society Forums if they exist.  I know the world is not flat with 100% certainty so there is no need to even dwell on it let alone go to some forum and debate the issue.

 

As far as the Hardline Convinced Skeptics, they really should treat the BFF as the same thing.  That is, "I know there is NO bigfoot and the PGF is a hoax.  Why think about it further, I am moving on to watch Love Boat reruns, or mow the grass."

Instead they hang around.   Interesting isn't it.

 

On the point about "nothing to be gained" from these type of skeptics, I disagree a tiny bit on that.  For the most part there is nothing to be gain.  However, I do believe that Conflicts do Clarify.   An idea tends to become stronger when it is attacked by opposition.  We would prefer reasonable well thought out opposition which we don't always get.   Roger and the film has been attacked in about every way one can.  Interesting the one attack that actually would be worthwhile is never really offered by the skeptics.  That is, making a suit in a same or similar way with materials from 1967 and show us how it was done.

 

For me there is a value of knowing the PGF has been attacked.  This is something we can only get from an opposition. That opposition happens to have various make-up or people which include hard line skeptics (and we all know the usual suspects here)   Clearly the PGF can take a punch.  

 

Certain people are here for the sole purpose of "I'm smart, you're dumb"    It is some, and maybe many, but it is not all.

 

 

 

 

 

Me saying your film analysis is faulty because of X,Y or Z? Or your Bigfoot picture is a large bush? If that is my true opinion? Is me being skeptical of your work. Thats healthy.

 

Thats not what is taking place here. A person who has two accounts on two seperate forums. One of which is its only purpose is to laugh and make fun of the other forums and its members? And their only purpose for participation on the forum being made fun of is to stir the pot and create “comedy gold”?

 

Is a very sick individual and is an internet troll. 

 

I dont believe in Pixies and I certainly dont go find pixie forums and poke sticks in their cage. And I sure as frick dont go back to the International Forum of Skeptics and brag about it!!!?? 

 

Its almost like a group of teenagers in a spooky house playing on a ouija board, and some bumps and creaks are going off and they huddle together and laugh it off because everyone knows ghosts dont exist.........right? I mean right? Your sure right? If ghosts were real somebody would have like told us right? And of course!!! If asked......the never play with ouija boards because thats only for illogical retards that believe in ghosts.

 

They laugh....they make fun.....they brag themselves up. But yanno what? They keep coming back for more. And if you go over there and read their posts its mostly ONLY in the Bigfoot section. It aint in Chubacabra or Mothman threads or magic threads or telekinesis threads....plenty of more skeptical comedy gold mines right? Wrong! They are hooked in Bigfoot, many of them ex proponents all trying to talk themselves out of it like a AA meeting.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ yep!  There are definitely some PGf scofftics who are absolutely hooked on the subject.  I have contended for some time that this is because, despite their belittling of PGf proponents, they have not even convinced themselves that the PGf subject isn't real.  So they condescend, they argue incessantly, they post unrelated information and, sometimes they even lie outright in an attempt to sway opinions their way.  In my experience those tactics only fool the casual observers with an inclination towards not really looking into things and not thinking for themselves.

 

All that being said, shouldn't we either get back on topic or abandon this thread entirely?  McSquatch has certainly been unjust to some participants here (and elsewhere) and that has hindered an honest appraisal of the facts, but in light of the spirit and the purpose of these forums, there really isn't any point in using this particular topic to berate the scofftics.  After all, they do a good job of destroying their credibility all by themselves.  :thumbsup:

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

The PGF was a hoax.  Clearly, plain and simple it was a calculated effort on [at least] Roger's part.

 

It is a very interesting and enduring hoax. That's why it's still a topic of discussion.

 

But it was hoax, and not a real occurrence. A Creature by Design :)

 

An interesting footnote in American folklore, but at the very least... the PGF... launched and docked BigFooterY in one swift moment.

 

1967 called, PGF was a hoax. 

 

And I'm the bad guy ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

You being a bad guy? Has nothing to do with a film.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch
25 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

And I'm the bad guy ;)

 

Perhaps so, but not for expressing your opinion that it’s a hoax.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

"The PGF was a hoax.  Clearly, plain and simple it was a calculated effort on [at least] Roger's part."  -_-  zzzzzzz

 

If that was the case then, wouldn't a "bad guy" PGf detractor such as yourself have at least some sort of convincing evidence to indicate a hoax?  After 6 years and 2000+ posts here, we haven't seen anything from you that would lead any intelligent person towards the hoax conclusion that you desperately cling to.   I thought that just maybe you actually cared 'what Sparked interest in the PGf', but it's more obvious that, just as many have indicated, you are only here to scoff.  That isn't getting you anywhere McSquatch.  You can't see how ridiculous it is for a Bigfoot scofftic to argue incessantly with Bigfoot believers, witnesses and proponents of the PGf, but anyone with any sense can see that you are wasting your time and ours.  If you ever get close to having anything meaningful to indicate a PGf hoax (and if your garage doesn't collapse on that again), I think almost all of us here would be very surprised.  Of course, I think we all know that will never happen.  :rolleyes: 

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
3 hours ago, xspider1 said:

  That isn't getting you anywhere McSquatch.  You can't see how ridiculous it is for a Bigfoot scofftic to argue incessantly with Bigfoot believers, witnesses and proponents of the PGf, but anyone with any sense can see that you are wasting your time and ours. 

 

It is no more ridiculous for a Bigfoot scoftic to argue with a proponent, xspider....than it is for a Bigfoot proponent to argue with a scoftic.  They are equally ridiculous....(since it takes two to argue.)

 

 

Quote

....but anyone with any sense can see that you are wasting your time and ours. 

 

True....but, you are wasting your own time...yourself....when you choose to argue with skeptics/scoftics and trolls. 

 

As for the reason that some proponents have used to defend/justify responding to the scoftics...(i.e....to prevent the 'newbies' from being mis-lead, and misinformed regarding the PGF)....there is a way to prevent that, without responding to all of their garbage posts. It is to simply, on occasion....re-post the analysis which indicates Patty is/was a real creature. 

 

Problem solved. :) 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
12 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

The PGF was a hoax.  Clearly, plain and simple it was a calculated effort on [at least] Roger's part.

 

It is a very interesting and enduring hoax. That's why it's still a topic of discussion.

 

 

 I don't invest much time advocating for the PGF, it is a waste of time as it will not never hold enough water to tip the scales.

 

 I prefer advocating for operating under scientific principles such as the following. 

 

 1: Study all available information of a topic ( this should take a while ).

 2: Take a stance/make a claim.

 3: Present evidence supporting your claim.

 4: Absorb counter evidence.

 5: Present against the counter evidence ( test the metal ) OR head back to the drawing board.

 

  I see a claim up there and it also clear your are open to discussion, perhaps a different thread would be a better place for you to present your evidence.

 

  Back to the real topic at hand.    I watched the Sasquatch Legend Meets Science doc when I was a kid and thought the PG film was interesting but nothing about it grabbed me at the time.   

 

  The film gained more of my attention after my sighting in 2009 and in more recent years my interest in the film has dropped off.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
58 minutes ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 I don't invest much time advocating for the PGF, it is a waste of time as it will not never hold enough water to tip the scales.

 

 I prefer advocating for operating under scientific principles such as the following. 

 

 1: Study all available information of a topic ( this should take a while ).

 2: Take a stance/make a claim.

 3: Present evidence supporting your claim.

 4: Absorb counter evidence.

 5: Present against the counter evidence ( test the metal ) OR head back to the drawing board.

 

  I see a claim up there and it also clear your are open to discussion, perhaps a different thread would be a better place for you to present your evidence.

 

 

If you call...."The PGF was a hoax".....being "open to discussion", Nathan.....then you are sadly mistaken. 

 

That is being "open to scoff-ola", in my book.  :) 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

If you call...."The PGF was a hoax".....being "open to discussion", Nathan.....then you are sadly mistaken. 

 

That is being "open to scoff-ola", in my book.  :) 

 

Well luckily yer book dont mean much......

 

While yer counting pixels on a 50 YEAR OLD film? Nathan is constantly beating the brush looking for animals in the here and now.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

 

4 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

I don't invest much time advocating for the PGF, it is a waste of time as it will not never hold enough water to tip the scales.

 

 

2 hours ago, norseman said:

While yer counting pixels on a 50 YEAR OLD film? Nathan is constantly beating the brush looking for animals in the here and now.

 

Convincing the general scientific community isn’t the same as advancing one’s own understanding. Most here are only interested in the latter, which isn’t suprising seeing as it’s been a lot more fruitful.

Share this post


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

 

Well luckily yer book dont mean much......

 

While yer counting pixels on a 50 YEAR OLD film? Nathan is constantly beating the brush looking for animals in the here and now.

I could not agree more. The film is awesome, but nothing can be settled by it. The scientific approach is the only adequate approach to learn about the creature. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
4 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Well luckily yer book dont mean much......

 

While yer counting pixels on a 50 YEAR OLD film? Nathan is constantly beating the brush looking for animals in the here and now.

 

 

I have done much more than "count pixels" on the PGF, norse.  Here is a clue....just for you....(who could use a clue)....the realistic details that people mention, which most strongly indicate Patty was a real, live creature....are details which I have brought out of the film images. 

 

 

Also, the PGF does not become worth less over time....it only gains value.....since it only becomes more and more clear, over time, that the film subject cannot be replicated via a 'man in a suit'. 

 

As Bill Munns has recently written, in an on-line article...

 

Quote

 That new subject is actually 50 years old, but it is the age of the controversy that actually justifies a new way of thinking about it today. 

 

http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/why-patterson-gimlin-bigfoot-film-should-concern-scholars-human-origins-009178

 

 

Well, luckily, norse....Bill's "book" doesn't mean much either....does it?? ;)   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...