Jump to content
norseman

What if the PGF did not exist?

Recommended Posts

norseman

How would it affect how you look at the field in general? 

 

Would it change your position a little, a lot, or none at all?

 

For me it helps envision what the creature looks like, but would not change my position much. Which is I think it’s out there, I’ve seen proof of something out there but I cannot be sure unless I see one living or dead. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo

No change.

No change.

First of all, I remember the 60's. Before 1967 when I was in the mountains, I had thoughts about the 'Abominable Snowman' and 'Yeti'. Those were the popular names at that time.  I do not recall seeing the PGF in my youth. I saw the PGF projected in 2008. That was the 1st time that I saw the whole movie. That was years after Sasquatch had found me. I don't have any problems with Patty or the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Wouldn't change much, it was reading John's book Apes Among Us in my younger days, that I found extremely compelling. The PGF I found amazing of course, but it was over the years, learnin' about this an that, primates, anatomy etc., that the film became truly incredible for me. The film simply depicts what has been described for a hundred years by hundreds of witnesses.:drinks:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

The PG film doesn't exist. It's a myth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The PGF is to Bigfoot what the Zapruder film is to the JFK event.  If there was no Z film, many would just accept "The President was shot-the end" since other films that day are a miss.  While I lean toward Oswald being the lone killer, the film still haunts us.  The PGF is a powerful controversial thing which just wont go away.  If all we had was some blurry still shots from a 1970's night vision Starscope at 100 yards away, many would move on.  The PGF creates not just the REAL or HOAX sides of the issue.  It creates an uncertain middle ground. I suspect if it did not exist, many in the uncertain middle would end up on the skeptic to hoax side.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

It wouldn't change my thinking. The PGF is the best evidence for existence but even if it didn't exist, it doesn't invalidate or affect the weight of the other evidence we have.

We still have:

Far too many sightings to be all dismissed as misidentifications or made up stories;

Too many tracks too long and wide to be human and showing nonhuman characteristics, and many in remote areas. And some going over private property.

Too many vocalizations that can't be logically attributed to any known animal. Too many have been reported by the witness as something they've never heard before. 

Too many people reporting items such as rocks and parts of tree limbs thrown towards them. And some of the rocks were described as being too large and heavy where a human would struggle to even pick up, much less throw it.   

 

Even without the PGF, there's still a lot of good evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

I don't know.   I've seen what I've seen.   I don't know if the film itself helps me much because of that, but it as drawn other people into the discussion who might not be there, people who have been very helpful to me.    I don't know, lacking the conversations I've had with them , whether it would have piqued my curiosity enough to pursue answers myself or if I'd be trying to unsee what I saw instead so I could fit in better.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

It's tough to downplay the significance of PGF. I well remember catching the blurb, the mention on the evening news. My 13 year-old ears perked right up. My parents and aunt/uncle didn't even remark about it.

 

But I had read my Sanderson, and was instantly focused on the momentary news report.

 

Without PGF, I've doubts I would be here. It's a pretty big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
On 5/3/2019 at 3:51 PM, norseman said:

How would it affect how you look at the field in general? 

 

Would it change your position a little, a lot, or none at all?

 

For me it helps envision what the creature looks like, but would not change my position much. Which is I think it’s out there, I’ve seen proof of something out there but I cannot be sure unless I see one living or dead. 

 

  I don't give two craps about the PGF, it is not even close to as important as what I saw in 2009 or 2015.   It is neat old film that has zero significance to me, if Bob came out today and said it was the greatest long con in history it would do nothing to change my position on the subject.  About 95% of the information we all are familiar with is falsified or simply inaccurate conclusion and so trusting any individual piece of evidence is putting all your eggs in the basket.  You need to model good data and get results to for you to maintain confidence in the pursuit of just about anything.

 

 I feel for the folks that let the PGF be the hinge for the reality of this creatures existence,  it is a very weak position to be in.  No wonder why most people in this subject go off the depend or simply lose interest,  a lot of work on a little bit of hope for not a whole lot. The prime reason there is almost no exterior money spent pursuing/ researching this subject.

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

The PGF was what made me go looking for these creatures as a kid when I first saw the film back on Insearch off with Leonard nimoy.  If it was not for that program I would not have seen the film of this creature. I would never have had my encounters unless it was fate that I was meant to see them with out watching this film. Whether this film is real or not it does not matter to me since I have already found the truth on my own.

12 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

Would it change your position a little, a lot, or none at all?

 I truly believe that it would have change my position a lot and that if some one was to come up to me about seeing one of these creatures ? Well I would say that they are full of _____________ .. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
11 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

The PGF was what made me go looking for these creatures as a kid when I first saw the film back on Insearch off with Leonard nimoy.  If it was not for that program I would not have seen the film of this creature. I would never have had my encounters unless it was fate that I was meant to see them with out watching this film. Whether this film is real or not it does not matter to me since I have already found the truth on my own.

 I truly believe that it would have change my position a lot and that if some one was to come up to me about seeing one of these creatures ? Well I would say that they are full of _____________ .. 

 

 I quoted that section, I did not write it.   I was answering the same question, just an FYI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

Nathan

I know that you did not write it. I was just to lazy to go up on the page and quote it. So I grabbed it from yours . Credit goes to Norseman . Sorry ! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
On 5/5/2019 at 8:25 AM, NathanFooter said:

 

  I don't give two craps about the PGF, it is not even close to as important as what I saw in 2009 or 2015.   It is neat old film that has zero significance to me, if Bob came out today and said it was the greatest long con in history it would do nothing to change my position on the subject.  About 95% of the information we all are familiar with is falsified or simply inaccurate conclusion and so trusting any individual piece of evidence is putting all your eggs in the basket.  You need to model good data and get results to for you to maintain confidence in the pursuit of just about anything.

 

 I feel for the folks that let the PGF be the hinge for the reality of this creatures existence,  it is a very weak position to be in.  No wonder why most people in this subject go off the depend or simply lose interest,  a lot of work on a little bit of hope for not a whole lot. The prime reason there is almost no exterior money spent pursuing/ researching this subject.

 

While I understand the nostalgia of the film? It’s amazing. But I agree with you. It’s been 50 years..... If a person is seeking proof that trail has long gone cold.

 

I feel as if the debate of the film’s authenticity is more about creating believers and skeptics than anything else. The film will never prove or disprove the existence of Sasquatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The PGf is inarguably the most important evidence for the existence of Bigfoot to date for the vast majority of all people interested in the subject, by far.  So, I really don't get the idea that the PGf doesn't really matter.  It is 102 feet of 1967 film showing an apparently very powerful animal in fairly decent resolution that matches many described characteristics of Bigfoot and which walks very naturally in an inhuman fashion.  The more qualified and honest study is applied to the PGf subject, the more undeniable it becomes.  It would be great to have seen one but, stories without supporting, concrete evidence (such as the PGf includes) are frankly, to the general public, just stories .    

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
27 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

The PGf is inarguably the most important evidence for the existence of Bigfoot to date for the vast majority of all people interested in the subject, by far.  So, I really don't get the idea that the PGf doesn't really matter.  It is 102 feet of 1967 film showing an apparently very powerful animal in fairly decent resolution that matches many described characteristics of Bigfoot and which walks very naturally in an inhuman fashion.  The more qualified and honest study is applied to the PGf subject, the more undeniable it becomes.  It would be great to have seen one but, stories without supporting, concrete evidence (such as the PGf includes) are frankly, to the general public, just stories .    

 

Science DOES NOT view it as evidence. Nor does it view plaster casts evidence. It may be evidence to us. But I think it’s important to clarify the difference. But we are never going to move the goal posts by convincing enough people that the PGF is real. It’s not a popularity contest. And it’s an old film. People look at Nat Geo wildlife docs and ask why can’t we get quality HD footage now? Should be easy right? Not that it would impress science either....

 

We need blood, hair, scat, bone, skin, an arm, a leg, a body, etc. Physical evidence. This will move the goal posts. Nothing else will.

 

Question. If the PGF did not exist would it sway your opinion about the subject?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...