Jump to content
norseman

What if the PGF did not exist?

Recommended Posts

xspider1
BFF Donor

Again, evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."  

 

You said:  "Not to science it is not evidence."  I said that the PGf, by definition, is evidence, regardless of what anybody thinks.   

Is the PGf part of a body of facts or information?  yes

does it indicate something about Bigfoot, one way or the other?  yes

 

"It’s not a belief. It’s a fact."   

 

It's great to have good facts, albeit those facts may only be known to one person (such as facts often are).  So, Bigfoot is not yet a fact, nor a fiction to a lot of people.  They (we) are just not 100% sure.  I can't speak for anyone else (especially those who know already), I can just imagine how awesome that would be to really know, one way or the other.  8  )

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


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

Again, evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."  

 

You said:  "Not to science it is not evidence."  I said that the PGf, by definition, is evidence, regardless of what anybody thinks.   

Is the PGf part of a body of facts or information?  yes

does it indicate something about Bigfoot, one way or the other?  yes

 

"It’s not a belief. It’s a fact."   

 

It's great to have good facts, albeit those facts may only be known to one person (such as facts often are).  So, Bigfoot is not yet a fact, nor a fiction to a lot of people.  They (we) are just not 100% sure.  I can't speak for anyone else (especially those who know already), I can just imagine how awesome that would be to know, one way or the other.  8  )

 

Sigh.

 

It could be a HOAX! Three cowboys and a rubber/horse hide/football helmet/ suit! No cryptid animal necessary! That is their position! So to them it’s evidence of the gullibility of human nature and nothing nothing to do with a VALID animal. No Bigfoot! Not in any biological existence.

 

Hello? I cannot believe that it’s beyond your capabilities to consider their point of view. I also hate that your forcing me to play the devil’s advocate.

 

Semantics aside, I guess some people simply refuse to see reality. If science saw the PGF as evidence? Wouldn’t they be out looking? Last time I checked the Bigfoot field was filled with amateur cryptid hunters. Not fully funded university expeditions.

 

Now If a pinkie bone showed up that yielded DNA? Science would be killing each other to get out there and go look.

 

And that is the key difference.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

  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....

 

Poor Smithsonians….they're missing a good show... ;) ...

 

Patty-Calf-AG2.gif

 

F61-F307-Finger-Bend-Rotated-AG3.gif

 

 

 

Quote

Again your not trying to convince me, your trying to convince scientists.

 

You're right, norse….I'm not trying to convince you.  And, you're wrong....I'm not trying to convince scientists. 

 

The evidence....(contracting muscles, etc)…..is simply put out there for those who have open eyes/minds. :) 

 

I must say, this thread is great for those who like to argue. :popcorn: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

Travis 

Maybe you mistook the creature for a bigfoot but it was actually a bear which is possible. Just seeing what Norseman posted resembles a bear and at a distance it is possible that you might have misjudge what you saw. Just do not take what I say wrong  since I was not there but what you are describing seems to be that of a bear standing.

 

I am not discounting the PGF and it is very possible  that the creature in the film is real and not a hoax. Where is the proof that it is a hoax . Like I have said there are things that this creature did that fits right in with it's behavior in other sightings that Roger and Bob did not have knowledge at the time of their event. 

Share this post


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

 

 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.

According to you the creatures exist and yet not one single specimen to support it. 

I look at all the charts of bears and their commonality with same food source areas 

Bears are documented, dead bodies have been found and not one apeman. 

 

The comparisons to mountain gorillas not being discovered until recent times. 

Simply does not hold up. That was an isolated area. Theses creatures supposedly reside on several continents. 

 

Now having explained all of that. The only other possibility other than non existence is government cover up.

Share this post


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

 

You mean like this?

 

 

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

Dogmen, slothmen, paranormal creatures. I liked this subject a lot better when it was only man apes :huh:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
11 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Dogmen, slothmen, paranormal creatures. I liked this subject a lot better when it was only man apes :huh:

 

 

I do find it interesting that some “knowers” either find the PGF hookey or simply irrelevant. And the “non knowers” generally put more value in it.

 

I guess I’m the latter. But with the caveat that there is no gas left in the tank to move the goal posts scientifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I want to add that if something like the PGF showed up today? What an amazing lead to follow up on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I look at all the charts of bears and their commonality with same food source areas

 

BFF members have put time into the 'bear' necessities of food source maps / charts.  Looking at bears is limiting.  I could care less about Florida.  Washington State has a large underestimated black bear population. We also have deer, elk, small moose population,  and small mammals to snack on. Seasonal availability happens for salmon and vegetation such as their favs in berries. Washington  has a good cornucopia of food sources for wild animals.  I am in a 4 season state. Seasonal availability is an important consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Norse 

I  wonder why they feel that way. 

 

I agree and perhaps it already exists. 

We are just not aware of it. 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
3 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Norse 

I  wonder why they feel that way. 

 

I agree and perhaps it already exists. 

We are just not aware of it. 

 

Because no video can replicate a face to face encounter seared into your brain I guess.

 

Imagine watching a 1960’s Grizzly bear video in your living room vs. being on a hike in the Bob Marshall recently and being charged by one. Which one would leave the biggest impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

That makes perfect sense. I doubt there is such a thing as a knower  but they believe it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
23 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

That makes perfect sense. I doubt there is such a thing as a knower  but they believe it. 

 

Well you do not believe they exist so that’s what you have to tell yourself to make everything line up in your mind. I’ve never seen one, but I’ve seen enough to sway my thought process enough to go look for proof.

 

Also look at stuff like this. Start at 1:00 minute in. How does a boat captain in SE AK fool lie detector experts? Nobody is running a scam in grizzly infested remote Alaska islands.... Pretty hard to square in your mind. I disagree with you that there is nothing to run on other than the PGF. But we do agree that we need physical evidence. It’s the only cotton pickin way forward.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
4 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Well you do not believe they exist so that’s what you have to tell yourself to make everything line up in your mind. I’ve never seen one, but I’ve seen enough to sway my thought process enough to go look for proof.

 

Also look at stuff like this. Start at 1:00 minute in. How does a boat captain in SE AK fool lie detector experts? Nobody is running a scam in grizzly infested remote Alaska islands.... Pretty hard to square in your mind. I disagree with you that there is nothing to run on other than the PGF. But we do agree that we need physical evidence. It’s the only cotton pickin way forward.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing. I Have seen this before.  It is quite compelling. I am not convinced they didn't see a dominant bear. 

Of course he would pass a polygraph if he believes he saw a large man ape. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

Of course you doubt that there are knowers, P-G.  Dis-belief in Bigfoot requires that point-of-view, does it not?

 

Now If a pinkie bone showed up that yielded DNA? Science would be killing each other to get out there and go look.  really?  Or, would they say it's contaminated or inconclusive to save a lot of additional work and potential ridicule?

 

Norse:

 

Scientists have been wrong about more things than either of us can count ever since the word Scientist has existed.  Evidence is very different from proof, that's all I'm going to say about that.  There are definitely Scientists who believe that the PGf subject is real and who are also not out there looking for Bigfoot.   Whatever Bigfoot are, Patty is one of them.  Of that I am close to 100% sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×