Jump to content
norseman

What if the PGF did not exist?

Recommended Posts

Travis

Absolutely no bearing imo. They don’t actually look like patty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

Answer: yes, that would sway my opinion somewhat since I have not seen one.  However, I would still believe that they exist based on watching and reading many first-hand reports and seeing other evidence which seems credible to me, personally.

 

Having said that, I would also have to say that yes, I get it, only a slab body would satisfy the masses.  I'm fairly sure that hair, scat and random bone pieces won't get it because lots of that is already 'in captivity' and keeps testing to be human or, close enough to human to be considered human or inconclusive by most mainstream scientists.  No big surprise.  That is the easy way out and I would not expect much else.  Very few Scientists are going out on a limb to publicly support the existence of Bigfoot based on the evidence we have today because Scientists are most often accountable to the average public opinion which is not very open-minded and never has been.

 

And, the PGf is evidence.  It doesn't particularly matter to me who believes (good word, imo) that and who doesn't.   I'm not even sure that Bigfoot discovery to the world would be a good thing...

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


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

Answer: yes, that would sway my opinion somewhat since I have not seen one.  However, I would still believe that they exist based on watching and reading many first-hand reports and seeing other evidence which seems credible to me, personally.

 

Having said that, I would also have to say that yes, I get it, only a slab body would satisfy the masses.  I'm fairly sure that hair, scat and random bone pieces won't get it because lots of that is already 'in captivity' and keeps testing to be human or, close enough to human to be considered human or inconclusive by most mainstream scientists.  No big surprise.  That is the easy way out and I would not expect much else.  Very few Scientists are going out on a limb to publicly support the existence of Bigfoot based on the evidence we have today because Scientists are most often accountable to the average public opinion which is not very open-minded and never has been.

 

And, the PGf is evidence.  It doesn't particularly matter to me who believes (good word, imo) that and who doesn't.   I'm not even sure that Bigfoot discovery to the world would be a good thing...

 

Not to science it is not evidence. It’s not a belief. It’s a fact. But I don’t make the rules. And I personally think the PGF is a very compelling film. Even if academia does not. For them only physical evidence is evidence.

 

And I think discovery would be a very good thing in terms of habitat protection. They seem to be pretty elusive already so I don’t think that will change. We could save a multitude of things in their name like salmon runs and forests, etc.

 

I think the “human” test results are because of contamination. If we can decipher Homo Sapien, Homo Neanderthal and Homo Denisovan DNA from each other? We should be able to decipher Homo Sapien DNA from Sasquatch DNA.

 

Lastly I had a track way discovery as a kid with my father. That gave me a greater sense of “what if” than anything else I’ve seen or read about since. Pretty crazy.

1 hour ago, Travis said:

Absolutely no bearing imo. They don’t actually look like patty.

 

What do they actually look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

No interest at all. Seeing the film in the local cinema is the key to my fascination. 

 

Since then absolutely nothing convincing. Meaningless reports, footprints that could be faked, mistaken identifications, hoaxers, liars and no body or bones.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

My program hammering on F&W is somewhat stalled. It's been a busy couple of weeks but I still think it a very strong option. I've not too busy to send emails, I've been to busy to allow for  reasonable follow ups should something occur. Don't want it to look like I really want an answer (which I do) and then miss a phone call or not be able to meet with someone. Being serious about correspondence means being professional which means being available when and if an  otherwise busy person contacts me.  It would be sending  a mixed message and that 'someone' may never reach out again if no one's at the other end.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
13 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

No interest at all. Seeing the film in the local cinema is the key to my fascination. 

 

Since then absolutely nothing convincing. Meaningless reports, footprints that could be faked, mistaken identifications, hoaxers, liars and no body or bones.

 

 

 

 Sorry, you are off base here.  

 

There is a load of data that continues to follow biological patterns ( it does not pair up with a phenomenon  born out of psychology or Miss-ID's ) that have been recorded for hundreds of years.

 

 You need to look deeper and really distill the information available before you can honestly make that statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Sorry I am not. 

No specimen No proof 

Every extant animal has a specimen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
41 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Sorry I am not. 

No specimen No proof 

Every extant animal has a specimen 

 

 Every extant animal ( on the books today ) has a specimen, that animal did in fact exist long before it was discovered ( by a person who was looking in many cases ).    The scientific method does wonderful things when it is used by those who look deeper.

 

 I was not saying it was any form of proof ( we are not there yet ), I was pointing out that there is more than some funny foot prints and campfire stories.  The Patterson film is not the end-all/be-all for the subjects legitimacy, you have either completely ignored the congruence in the report data or you have never really bothered to look.  You can't solve the for X in this equation by using deception, miss-ID and body absence arguments as they don't cover the all the ground and certainly don't answer why we see yearly shifts by area.  Look deeper and use the scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Travis
19 hours ago, norseman said:

What do they actually look like?

 

Furry upright giant slothlike head is the best  I can describe them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

'Science' does not get to decide what the word evidence means.  Word definitions are the product of majority opinion and most people are not Scientists.

ev·i·dence

/ˈevədəns/
noun  1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
 
So, by definition, the PGf is evidence of Bigfoot, whether one chooses to believe it or not.
 
And, for instance, Mountain gorilla populations are on the rise now (some 117 years after their classification), but I don't think that Human "discovery" of new animals is very often beneficial to the species, or sub-species overall.  
 
gorilla.gif.60a5ac2d3e89188a486cf2252192d7e9.gif
 
^  Population of the Virunga Mountain Gorillas from 1950 to 1995.  ^
 
"Survival of the Mountain gorillas in the Virunga mountains has been a battle ever since the influence of human intrusion in 1902. The foreign influence of the scientific community caused serious harm to the Mountain gorilla population in the collection of specimens for study in museums and zoos; the foreign influence of tourism caused harm by exposing the gorilla population to infectious diseases; the foreign influence of economic viability caused significant deforestation of natural habitat; and ultimately human warfare significantly disrupted the delicate balance. Human interference with the Mountain gorillas of the Virungas serves well as a model to illustrate what humankind is capable of doing to its' own planetary habitat and race."
 
http://www.geocities.ws/RainForest/Vines/4301/gorilla.html    Good topic by the way, norseman.  👍
 
Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
57 minutes ago, Travis said:

 

Furry upright giant slothlike head is the best  I can describe them.

 

You mean like this?

 

 

11395F75-8D5A-4003-8BAC-F5D282AA30C6.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
35 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

'Science' does not get to decide what the word evidence means.  Word definitions are the product of majority opinion and most people are not Scientists.

ev·i·dence

/ˈevədəns/
noun  1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
 
So, by definition, the PGf is evidence of Bigfoot, whether one chooses to believe it or not.
 
And, for instance, Mountain gorilla populations are on the rise now (some 117 years after their classification), but I don't think that Human "discovery" of new animals is very often beneficial to the species, or sub-species overall.  
 
gorilla.gif.60a5ac2d3e89188a486cf2252192d7e9.gif
 
^  Population of the Virunga Mountain Gorillas from 1950 to 1995.  ^
 
"Survival of the Mountain gorillas in the Virunga mountains has been a battle ever since the influence of human intrusion in 1902. The foreign influence of the scientific community caused serious harm to the Mountain gorilla population in the collection of specimens for study in museums and zoos; the foreign influence of tourism caused harm by exposing the gorilla population to infectious diseases; the foreign influence of economic viability caused significant deforestation of natural habitat; and ultimately human warfare significantly disrupted the delicate balance. Human interference with the Mountain gorillas of the Virungas serves well as a model to illustrate what humankind is capable of doing to its' own planetary habitat and race."
 
http://www.geocities.ws/RainForest/Vines/4301/gorilla.html    Good topic by the way, norseman.  👍
 

 

You can quote the dictionary all you want. Science has proclaimed the PGF a hoax. And despite people’s best efforts including yours? We cannot prove 100 percent that it’s not a hoax. If Patty had walked in front of a tape measure while packing a elk over her shoulder? We might have a fighting chance. Again your not trying to convince me, your trying to convince scientists. I have a Smithsonian letter in my research section that completely lays it out. They do not want video....they do not want more plaster casts. They do not consider it evidence of a new species in any biological sense....

 

On to the Mountain Gorilla.... without conservancies efforts the mountain gorilla would already be extinct. Gone. No more.  

 

North America? Logging? Road building? Salmon runs destroyed? Dams? Human warfare? Seattle? Portland? Vancouver? Is that all destruction of prime Sasquatch habitat?Over 100 years? I would say so......

 

When did they start logging Bluff creek? The 1950’s? How much time is left?

 

Without official recognition? No conservancy will be formed and no land will be set aside. No measures will be taken to save a cryptid species. They do not exist, therefore they are at mankind’s mercy. And they evidently do not fight well against chainsaws and bulldozers. The landscape is being altered without any consideration for them. Would it have been better for them if Europeans had never came? Absolutely. But that is like worrying about fixing the gate after the cows have gotten out. We cannot go back in time. We can only go forward. And being a myth along the I-5 corridor is a precarious position to be in. I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but would imagine it’s far worse.

 

Human population is growing exponentially, and wild areas are shrinking. I think the trend is pretty clear and it ain’t good for the hairy guy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Travis
39 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

You mean like this?

 

 

11395F75-8D5A-4003-8BAC-F5D282AA30C6.jpeg

Almost but longer human legs and shorter neck. Second sighting two years later in same area was the same but smaller lighter in color

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

"You can quote the dictionary all you want."

Thanks.  Not sure I follow though, do dictionaries not specify the actual meaning of words? (rhetorical question)

 

"They do not exist, therefore they are at mankind’s mercy."  And when they do exist; they are also at mankind's mercy.  Recognition as a species does not equal benefits and protection.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
1 minute ago, xspider1 said:

"You can quote the dictionary all you want."

Thanks.  Not sure I follow though, do dictionaries not specify the actual meaning of words? (rhetorical question)

 

"They do not exist, therefore they are at mankind’s mercy."  And when they do exist; they are also at mankind's mercy.  Recognition as a species does not equal benefits and protection.   

 

Can you prove to me 100% that the PGF is indeed a VALID or TRUE animal? In modern biology that requires DNA. If you can pull DNA from your 110 feet of film? Kudos. Science isn’t disputing the dictionary. They are disputing your interpretation of the facts.....

 

But it does. For example? Montana is talking about delisting Grizzly Bears from being endangered. How has the Wolf reintroduction gone? Spectacular for the Wolf. They are already delisted in many states. Conservation works. And Sasquatch would be the biggest deal ever. 

17 minutes ago, Travis said:

Almost but longer human legs and shorter neck. Second sighting two years later in same area was the same but smaller lighter in color

 

Maybe it had been stung in the face by bees...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×