Jump to content
norseman

What if the PGF did not exist?

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor
17 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

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. 

 

I dont. He describes a running giant man covered in black hair. He is not a tourist from New York. He is a boat captain of 45 years locally.

 

The expert detected no lies when he describes the giant running man covered in black hair. But she detects disgust in his face that no one will believe him.

 

And they had just seen a “11 footer” dominant Grizzly Bear. Pretty easy to compare and contrast. And he had seen the same bear three times before....

Share this post


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

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.

 

On that we can agree.

 

But I’m gonna tell you how it will go.

 

Step 1) We are all crazy.

Step 2) We found a finger bone! It’s probably extinct and we are all still crazy, because it has nothing to do with the PGF.

Step 3) We cannot be wrong so it probably caught a ride on a coconut from Borneo. Because no ape could exist in North America.

Step 4) We could not extract DNA so its inconclusive. And Clovis theory is intact.

Step 5) We need to lose it in some giant underground bone storage facility. Filed under “Orangutan”.

Step 6) Deny ever finding the bone in the first place.

 

Thats why if you shoot one? You go to the press first with plenty of body parts in other safe locations. For whatever the reason science I think now is stone walling us.

Share this post


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

 

I dont. He describes a running giant man covered in black hair. He is not a tourist from New York. He is a boat captain of 45 years locally.

 

The expert detected no lies when he describes the giant running man covered in black hair. But she detects disgust in his face that no one will believe him.

 

And they had just seen a “11 footer” dominant Grizzly Bear. Pretty easy to compare and contrast. And he had seen the same bear three times before....

Fear induced imagination and the powers of the mind can certainly produce monsters from normal local animals 

There is a famous UFO ailen attack on a family in Kentucky that turned out to be owls. 

 

There is a compelling video in February of this year in Provo Utah of an alleged Sasquatch you should look up. I think it was February. Even I was impressed. 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin

Share this post


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

Fear induced imagination and the powers of the mind can certainly produce monsters from normal local animals 

There is a famous UFO ailen attack on a family in Kentucky that turned out to be owls. 

 

There is a compelling video in February of this year in Provo Utah of an alleged Sasquatch you should look up. I think it was February. Even I was impressed. 

 

I don’t think so. 

 

You dont live in Alaska being afraid of owls. This guy is a seasoned AK fishing vet of 45 years. 

Share this post


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

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.

 

  Clarification, I saw a young male Sasquatch at 120 feet in full daylight with nothing between me and it.  I have said this before, I am either a liar, completely insane or I am telling the truth and you can decide for yourself, I am not mistaken or confused or lacking the ability to accurately describe details.  The years prior to that event, bigfoot only existed as a fun and creative way natives told stories to keep children from venturing off. Perspective is the interpretation of information given and many times humans fail to see the full picture ( because they do not examine the details ).  I am not even sure how you started drawing lines between my experience and the argument that you need to do your homework on all the information.  My entire point is you have written off data evaluation and that is fundamentally unscientific, you seem to default into the " could have been a bear " or " those snow prints running three miles at a 5 foot stride through the bush of Minnesota could be a hoax or a moose ".

 

 Have you gone out as a 7 foot tall person and tried to replicate those prints ?  Have you plotted winter track finds, class A reports and recorded vocals on a map and noted the seasonal shifts in elevation after major temp drops or shifts in caloric availability/density ? Have you noted that detailed saquatch reports still happen in the colder winter regions when bears should not be out pretending to be sasquatch ? Why are there historic accounts from woodsman being uncovered every year that align with modern sightings and behaviors of sasquatch ? I have and so have many others actively looking.

 

 Fictitious data never aligns or patterns out in favor of the argument of an unknown,  it rather sides with human habit and expression ( this means that the majority of the quality reports of Sasquatch should be more prevalent in or near areas of higher human population as it would have to be born of this factor if not biology ).  The next option is to say that this effect is augmented by miss-identification of known wildlife, the problem is that even after we sift that out there is still information that excludes known wildlife based on location or time of year or event the prints, audio or level of detail noted/documented.  You assume this position of all or nothing when you point toward the exposure and prevalence of bigfoot type creatures across the globe, it is possible that they do not exist all over the world, it is possible they are nearly extinct ( this is something I currently consider likely ).

 

 Isolation is still real in the US, I have gotten around over the years and spend an enormous amount ( I spend about 160 days a year in the woods ) of time in the remote areas across Washington and Oregon. These things have to be extremely elusive, intelligent and in all likelihood extremely rare. The Bili ape was recognized in 2003 ( or 2007, foggy on that ) in an area that had been under active study by local officials for decades so we can drag that discovery of large apes up even higher than that of the western lowland and mountain gorilla. Ian Redmond and Jane Goodall ( both collect Sasquatch reports to this day as the consistency of the data remains intriguing ) both think the subject is approachable beyond the Patterson film. There are many more scientists that are not willing to be on record that have expressed interest in the subject due to the reports, prints and vocalizations. I personally have spoken to wildlife biologists ( with decades of experience ) that operate in watershed areas conducting fish studies and they have flat out stated that they have seen these creatures up close.

 

To be skeptical is to be critical and objective in the evaluation of all evidence and information available but it also must be done to the point of exhaustion to effectively remove certain outcomes or possibilities from the equation.  Without the PGF, the subject still stands and continues to produce reports and evidence that we can't lump in with known biology or human psychology, that is what makes it different from other legends and myths.

 

 You said " Since then absolutely nothing convincing. Meaningless reports, footprints that could be faked, mistaken identifications, hoaxers, liars and no body or bones. " and I am simply saying that you are throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the available information as you have not effectively explained away all the factors and how they breakdown into known explanations ( this is the problem, no scientist has ). 

 

 My goal in this exchange is not to get you to admit more or less credibility but rather to just provoke more investigation and examination of the factors, if you are a committed scientific mind then you owe this much to the practice. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

Nathanfooter

Your comment was well thought and written extremely well.  I always wished that we could have camped out here in Michigan it some research together. But you are doing fine where you are.  

Share this post


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

 

  Clarification, I saw a young male Sasquatch at 120 feet in full daylight with nothing between me and it.  I have said this before, I am either a liar, completely insane or I am telling the truth and you can decide for yourself, I am not mistaken or confused or lacking the ability to accurately describe details.  The years prior to that event, bigfoot only existed as a fun and creative way natives told stories to keep children from venturing off. Perspective is the interpretation of information given and many times humans fail to see the full picture ( because they do not examine the details ).  I am not even sure how you started drawing lines between my experience and the argument that you need to do your homework on all the information.  My entire point is you have written off data evaluation and that is fundamentally unscientific, you seem to default into the " could have been a bear " or " those snow prints running three miles at a 5 foot stride through the bush of Minnesota could be a hoax or a moose ".

 

 Have you gone out as a 7 foot tall person and tried to replicate those prints ?  Have you plotted winter track finds, class A reports and recorded vocals on a map and noted the seasonal shifts in elevation after major temp drops or shifts in caloric availability/density ? Have you noted that detailed saquatch reports still happen in the colder winter regions when bears should not be out pretending to be sasquatch ? Why are there historic accounts from woodsman being uncovered every year that align with modern sightings and behaviors of sasquatch ? I have and so have many others actively looking.

 

 Fictitious data never aligns or patterns out in favor of the argument of an unknown,  it rather sides with human habit and expression ( this means that the majority of the quality reports of Sasquatch should be more prevalent in or near areas of higher human population as it would have to be born of this factor if not biology ).  The next option is to say that this effect is augmented by miss-identification of known wildlife, the problem is that even after we sift that out there is still information that excludes known wildlife based on location or time of year or event the prints, audio or level of detail noted/documented.  You assume this position of all or nothing when you point toward the exposure and prevalence of bigfoot type creatures across the globe, it is possible that they do not exist all over the world, it is possible they are nearly extinct ( this is something I currently consider likely ).

 

 Isolation is still real in the US, I have gotten around over the years and spend an enormous amount ( I spend about 160 days a year in the woods ) of time in the remote areas across Washington and Oregon. These things have to be extremely elusive, intelligent and in all likelihood extremely rare. The Bili ape was recognized in 2003 ( or 2007, foggy on that ) in an area that had been under active study by local officials for decades so we can drag that discovery of large apes up even higher than that of the western lowland and mountain gorilla. Ian Redmond and Jane Goodall ( both collect Sasquatch reports to this day as the consistency of the data remains intriguing ) both think the subject is approachable beyond the Patterson film. There are many more scientists that are not willing to be on record that have expressed interest in the subject due to the reports, prints and vocalizations. I personally have spoken to wildlife biologists ( with decades of experience ) that operate in watershed areas conducting fish studies and they have flat out stated that they have seen these creatures up close.

 

To be skeptical is to be critical and objective in the evaluation of all evidence and information available but it also must be done to the point of exhaustion to effectively remove certain outcomes or possibilities from the equation.  Without the PGF, the subject still stands and continues to produce reports and evidence that we can't lump in with known biology or human psychology, that is what makes it different from other legends and myths.

 

 You said " Since then absolutely nothing convincing. Meaningless reports, footprints that could be faked, mistaken identifications, hoaxers, liars and no body or bones. " and I am simply saying that you are throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the available information as you have not effectively explained away all the factors and how they breakdown into known explanations ( this is the problem, no scientist has ). 

 

 My goal in this exchange is not to get you to admit more or less credibility but rather to just provoke more investigation and examination of the factors, if you are a committed scientific mind then you owe this much to the practice. 

 

Thank you very much for such a deatailed explanation. 

I have walked and made footprints. Some of the tracks are not like mine with much different strides. Doesn't mean that a Sasquatch made them 

 

I have read books and researched the subject. I am obviously interested in the mystery. 

 

Lots of compelling evidence, but I can't get passed no specimen. Without it. 

The creature remains mythical. 

Perhaps as it should be 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
On 5/8/2019 at 8:03 PM, norseman said:

Science DOES NOT view it as evidence. Nor does it view plaster casts evidence. It may be evidence to us..........

 

The film and footprints are, by definition of the word, evidence. "Science" does not have the authority to redefine the language any more than does the media or lawyers. Scientists can, of course, use adjectives to weaken the evidence in the eyes of others, like "inconclusive", "weak", "hoaxed", etc, just like we can use adjectives to describe them and thus degrade their pronouncements, like "denialist", "uneducated", "Bozo", etc.

 

 

Quote

..........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.......

 

 

Correct, but opponents of sasquatchery are in the same position. They cannot make sasquatches disappear with their words and denials. Their "science" doesn't move the ball. It is perpetual defense, and a weak one to boot. In short, the first score by the offense wins the game. Period. 

 

But some on the offensive side of the ball don't cate about scoring. Indeed, they don't want to score. They only want to crack helmets, bust skulls, elbow throats, and intimidate the defense. Make the game an exercise in punishment. The old style football!

Edited by Huntster
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
7 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

The film and footprints are, by definition of the word, evidence. "Science" does not have the authority to redefine the language any more than does the media or lawyers. Scientists can, of course, use adjectives to weaken the evidence in the eyes of others, like "inconclusive", "weak", "hoaxed", etc, just like we can use adjectives to describe them and thus degrade their pronouncements, like "denialist", "uneducated", "Bozo", etc.

 

 

 

 

Correct, but opponents of sasquatchery are in the same position. They cannot make sasquatches disappear with their words and denials. Their "science" doesn't move the ball. It is perpetual defense, and a weak one to boot. In short, the first score by the offense wins the game. Period. 

 

But some on the offensive side of the ball don't cate about scoring. Indeed, they don't want to score. They only want to crack helmets, bust skulls, elbow throats, and intimidate the defense. Make the game an exercise in punishment. The old style football!

 

Yes. To science it’s evidence of a hoax. Not a large cryptid ape man.

 

And science doesn’t need to move the ball. They have proponents on their own 1 yard line with a minute to go in the fourth quarter. How old is the PGF again? It’s a lot older than many of the researchers here. It may even be older than some of their parents. It’s like watching the Lynn Swann catch from Terry Bradshaw over and over again to the younger crowd. It’s ancient history.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Travis

Science will only recognize a body not a film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

Yes, but not ancient enough since it keeps on moving on and keep the critics on their toes. What I have found is they still cannot recreate the same subject even with the technology we have today. So that says a lot what they saw on that film on that day. No recreation means that it must be real. So how can it be denied if it can not be recreated with the technology we have today. I am talking  technology of 2019. compared to technology of 1967. That is a very big difference in techno people. It cannot be compared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
6 hours ago, norseman said:

........And science doesn’t need to move the ball. They have proponents on their own 1 yard line with a minute to go in the fourth quarter.........

 

This ball game has no clock. It can go forever. And it will until proponents win. That's how it has worked in the past with gorillas, giant squid, and even creatures that weren't cryptids before discovery, like the Hobbit of Flores. Science can't move the ball because they're on defense, and they aren't even any good at that.

 

..........How old is the PGF again? It’s a lot older than many of the researchers here. It may even be older than some of their parents. It’s like watching the Lynn Swann catch from Terry Bradshaw over and over again to the younger crowd. It’s ancient history........

 

The only significance of its age is to show how many years science was in stubborn ignorance of its responsibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

This ball game has no clock. It can go forever. And it will until proponents win. That's how it has worked in the past with gorillas, giant squid, and even creatures that weren't cryptids before discovery, like the Hobbit of Flores. Science can't move the ball because they're on defense, and they aren't even any good at that.

 

 

 

The only significance of its age is to show how many years science was in stubborn ignorance of its responsibility

 

No it cannot go on forever. I think it’s likely they will go extinct before anything is ever “discovered”. 

 

As far as fossils go, they say something like 10 percent of the species that ever lived are represented.

 

 

7 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

Yes, but not ancient enough since it keeps on moving on and keep the critics on their toes. What I have found is they still cannot recreate the same subject even with the technology we have today. So that says a lot what they saw on that film on that day. No recreation means that it must be real. So how can it be denied if it can not be recreated with the technology we have today. I am talking  technology of 2019. compared to technology of 1967. That is a very big difference in techno people. It cannot be compared.

 

Its all subjective. Left to the eye of the beholder. Like art work. It cannot be properly weighed and measured. So without a body? Science proclaims it a fraud. Science meaning the scientific body of biologists and related fields.

 

Im not suggesting Munns or others do not attempt a scientific approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
21 minutes ago, norseman said:

No it cannot go on forever. I think it’s likely they will go extinct before anything is ever “discovered”...........

 

Even if they go extinct, the legend/myth will go on. Consider dragons (big lizards/dinosaurs) and unicorns (wooley rhinos). They cannot kill it. They can only degrade it.

 

..........As far as fossils go, they say something like 10 percent of the species that ever lived are represented.

 

Agreed. As rare as sasquatches clearly are, fossils are a long shot. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Even if they go extinct, the legend/myth will go on. Consider dragons (big lizards/dinosaurs) and unicorns (wooley rhinos). They cannot kill it. They can only degrade it.

 

 

Sure. But Im talking about the struggle for scientific recognition and using football as a metaphor.

 

In some way I feel like if the species went extinct only as a myth? We proponents have failed it in some measure. Sure science has put up stiff opposition. But it would be like we just punted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×