Jump to content
ShadowBorn

Has this been asked about the PGF before

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

I don't know enough about the backstory here. I just look at the video and esp the still image and to me I feel like I am looking at one of the first- very bad- Star Wars (Jar jar binx) prequels here.  No doubt I would want to see the entire story, backstory, and esp hear any talk by the person with the camera and now just take my flash judgement only.

 

As far as Patty, I can see why those viewers think she is real or fake.  Patty appears for a long time on the video.  By looking at more than just a glance I think it becomes more convincing not less.  The less of see of Patty such as a still shot, the more she looks fake. The more I see of her, like a motion of walking and turning, the more she seems real.

 

I think a Video can work.  I would say if Roger had a video like we have now that day at Bluff Creek it would settle this once and for all for most of us.    I would prefer the see a live specimen in a zoo for proof and the once verified, have it returned to the wild.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
16 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

I don't know enough about the backstory here. I just look at the video and esp the still image and to me I feel like I am looking at one of the first- very bad- Star Wars (Jar jar binx) prequels here.  No doubt I would want to see the entire story, backstory, and esp hear any talk by the person with the camera and now just take my flash judgement only.

 

As far as Patty, I can see why those viewers think she is real or fake.  Patty appears for a long time on the video.  By looking at more than just a glance I think it becomes more convincing not less.  The less of see of Patty such as a still shot, the more she looks fake. The more I see of her, like a motion of walking and turning, the more she seems real.

 

I think a Video can work.  I would say if Roger had a video like we have now that day at Bluff Creek it would settle this once and for all for most of us.    I would prefer the see a live specimen in a zoo for proof and the once verified, have it returned to the wild.

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately you just cannot go hoofing it out there with a butterfly net. A live specimen would be problematic to catch and probably deadly to those attempting it. I guess if you stumbled upon a baby and scooped it up and made it out alive without mom coming for it? It would work.

 

Back to Standing.... I think the muppet heads are more cartoonish or Sesame Street than any of his later “work”.

3EF6C3C8-27C2-4951-81B0-5231DF9D691F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
2 hours ago, Twist said:

You know as well as anyone Norse, when discussing things with Sweaty, it’s his ball, his game, and he’ll place the goalposts where ever he pleases. 😭😭

 

Those are pretty mild rules in a very mild game. It's sure a lot easier than discussing biology with a transexual. Interesting that biologists are so quiet on that issue, too, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

M

3 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Those are pretty mild rules in a very mild game. It's sure a lot easier than discussing biology with a transexual. Interesting that biologists are so quiet on that issue, too, isn't it?

 

I have no point of reference to discuss a biologists take on transsexuals since that topic is of no concern to me.   Other than you bringing it up from time to time on here the topic doesn’t matter or really exist to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
4 minutes ago, Twist said:

.......... the topic doesn’t matter or really exist to me.  

 

Interesting term to use on a sasquatch forum. Existence. 

 

Can you try to define the term "existence"?

 

Does Proxima Centauri b exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Perhaps a more accurate way to describe your lack of attention to the issue of transsexualism is that you ignore it.........like most biologists ignore both transsexualism and sasquatchery. You are in a state of intended ignorance. You don't want to get involved. 

 

Because it most certainly exists, no?

 

In a way, we can understand the position of biologists with it. The biology is established. Biologically, it's a joke. It has been left for another science to deal with; psychology........and they are performing an interesting dance to the tune of the lawyers and politicians. And they are in complete and utter failure. So much for "science".........yet again.

 

Is that more accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
22 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Interesting term to use on a sasquatch forum. Existence. 

 

Can you try to define the term "existence"?

 

Does Proxima Centauri b exist?

 

I think we all know the actual definition of existence. Are we looking to start a discussion on semantics?  

 

A biologists take on transsexuals as a topic does not exist to me because the topic is of no concern to me personally.   Make more sense?  I’m sure the issue “exists” with others, possibly yourself since you brought it up.  

3 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Perhaps a more accurate way to describe your lack of attention to the issue of transsexualism is that you ignore it.........like most biologists ignore both transsexualism and sasquatchery. You are in a state of intended ignorance. You don't want to get involved. 

 

Because it most certainly exists, no?

 

In a way, we can understand the position of biologists with it. The biology is established. Biologically, it's a joke. It has been left for another science to deal with; psychology........and they are performing an interesting dance to the tune of the lawyers and politicians. And they are in complete and utter failure. So much for "science".........yet again.

 

Is that more accurate?

 

Yes, that is accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
50 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Those are pretty mild rules in a very mild game. It's sure a lot easier than discussing biology with a transexual. Interesting that biologists are so quiet on that issue, too, isn't it?

 

A Y chromosome is a Y chromosome. Agreed. But biologists are enslaved to the same PC culture, because they are brainwashed at the same universities as political and social justice warriors are. They cannot allow science to hurt other people’s “feelings”.

 

That still doesn’t mean that Sweaty Yeti isnt a complete oxymoron. If proof isn’t important to him then why fly the drone in the face of Bigfoot? Ummm.... it must be of some importance to him then? Probably so he can talk about another bunch of pixels for another 50 years.

 

A drone should represent a means to an end. Versus simply perpetuating the mystery further. IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
11 minutes ago, Twist said:

......Are we looking to start a discussion on semantics?.........

 

Nope. Just setting goalposts. Chalking lines. Checking air pressure in your balls (are you related to Tom Brady?.......they're a bit flat.......)

 

.........

A biologists take on transsexuals as a topic does not exist to me because the topic is of no concern to me personally.   Make more sense?........

 

Made perfect sense to me the first time. Lots of folks like you around, just like there is no shortage of biologists willfully ignorant of sasquatchery. I'm sure the biologists are already talking to each other behind curtains (no more emails after the climate guys soiled their diapers at East Anglia) setting the anthropologists up for this one like they dumped transsexualism on the psychologists.

 

Besides, fear is a really good reason to ignore uncomfortable truths.......of any kind:

 

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/report_on_the_film_of_a_suppos.html

 

.........

My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film.........

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

.......... If proof isn’t important to him then why fly the drone in the face of Bigfoot? Ummm.... it must be of some importance to him then? Probably so he can talk about another bunch of pixels for another 50 years.........

 

Maybe. Why climb Denali, especially in winter?

 

I completely understand losing all faith in the religion of scientism. They are in near complete failure on just about every font there is, save weapons manufacture.........and even you just posted an excellent article by Bob Scales on that failure, too. So why not just chase the human hominin yourself with a drone and get good pics for the coffee table album? Or to argue with people over? Or just have a goal to fly a drone for?

 

Why argue about sasquatchery on ISF? Now there's a complete waste of time........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
12 minutes ago, norseman said:

A Y chromosome is a Y chromosome. Agreed. But biologists are enslaved to the same PC culture, because they are brainwashed at the same universities as political and social justice warriors are. They cannot allow science to hurt other people’s “feelings”.........

 

Like I wrote, it's not biology. It's not anthropology. It's not psychology. It's not science. At all.

 

It's ideology.

 

And emotion. 

 

All the way, Baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
6 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Nope. Just setting goalposts. Chalking lines. Checking air pressure in your balls (are you related to Tom Brady?.......they're a bit flat.......)

 

I am a Michigander.......😗

 

6 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

 

 

Made perfect sense to me the first time. Lots of folks like you around, just like there is no shortage of biologists willfully ignorant of sasquatchery. I'm sure the biologists are already talking to each other behind curtains (no more emails after the climate guys soiled their diapers at East Anglia) setting the anthropologists up for this one like they dumped transsexualism on the psychologists.

 

Besides, fear is a really good reason to ignore uncomfortable truths.......of any kind:

 

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/report_on_the_film_of_a_suppos.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot concern myself with every “topic” of the times.  Unless you have copious amounts of free time I’m sure we can find plenty of other topics you would be considered “willfully ignorant” of.   I certainly have no fear of transsexuals or any persons of questionable gender or sexuality.   Can you say the same?   

 

IB Yosemite “Huntster” Sam reply !! 🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

A general consensus leads to a general rule of thumb if not a governing rule.  The more educated those forming the consensus usually the more accurate.  Not always but usually.  

 

I would say right now science would say they 'doubt' Bigfoot exists.  This is not based on some hatred of Bigfoot but on some pretty sound reasons.  We need to be honest and accept the fact the evidence for Bigfoot is not as solid of a case as we would like. The most solid is a body.  Without that, we have to take varying degrees of less than a body.  That might mean eye witness accounts and occasional photography.  DNA would be helpful but is problematic.  Add to the fact -if Bigfoot exists-it clearly a shy and uncommon creature if not near- extinct.  

 

Anyone in that fraternity of various disciplines of science deviating from that consensus would be looked at in an unfavorable way.  Those in the consensus might feel they are operating on a sound /solid ground.   It would be natural for those on that solid ground to be skeptical as a method of self preservation of their ego.  That is, far better to be in the position to say something doesn't exist and find out it does.  Then they are glad to be wrong, "But we had good reason up until now to be skeptical".   The easy next move is to say, "wow great" and make a now proven bigfoot part of the new consensus.  The fear is for a scientist so inclined to say and feel, "It is real" only to find out it is not.  They are then viewed as being taken in by some con or bit of information which, "should have been obvious if they were a good scientist".  In this way, being skeptical is a method of ego self preservation.

 

Each development we now accept as proven at one time was thought to be false.  Worse yet, it was ridiculed, folklore, dismissed and so on.  One anthropologist on one of these shows (wearing red shirt to those who might have seen it) declared, "Mr. Meldrum is brave" to study this subject and "There have been times in science" where someone was ridiculed for some idea or position, "only to be proven correct later"    The guy (whose name escapes me) stated he is not saying necessarily Meldrum will be proven right.  He did credit him with at least apply some solid methods and knowledge to the issue.

 

'science' or the world in general will need a body or a very good new PGF type video to state Bigfoot probably or does exist.  Until then, it is a hypothetical to many in the public.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
2 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

I am a Michigander.......😗

 

 

A troll, no doubt.

 

..........I cannot concern myself with every “topic” of the times.  Unless you have copious amounts of free time I’m sure we can find plenty of other topics you would be considered “willfully ignorant” of........

 

I'm a exponential multi-tasker with nothing but free time. Nothing escapes my attention, unless my attention quickly ascertains that it doesn't deserve any more of my attention.

 

........ I certainly have no fear of transsexuals or any persons of questionable gender or sexuality.   Can you say the same?.......

 

No, I can't. I greatly fear what they are contributing to the devolvement of civilization, so they get my attention, just like a potential viper motionless under the scrub brush. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Maybe. Why climb Denali, especially in winter?

 

I completely understand losing all faith in the religion of scientism. They are in near complete failure on just about every font there is, save weapons manufacture.........and even you just posted an excellent article by Bob Scales on that failure, too. So why not just chase the human hominin yourself with a drone and get good pics for the coffee table album? Or to argue with people over? Or just have a goal to fly a drone for?

 

Why argue about sasquatchery on ISF? Now there's a complete waste of time........

 

I have complete faith in science. I do not have any faith in the people who have hijacked it to achieve their own social, political and economic objectives.

 

An old school Biologist, heck Teddy Roosevelt who was an amateur naturalist had no qualms about stacking up type specimens..... and secondaries and tertiaries and so forth and so on. Human knowledge of the natural world was built on the back of harvesting species....in the name of science.

 

And no lily livered person is gonna guilt me into laying down the rifle and accepting another grainy debatable film for another 50 years. Sweaty Yeti can call me a dumb knuckle dragging gun slinging Neanderthal all he likes.... he is right. I am one. I smack mules around and make them pack my crap up into the mountains where they don’t wanna go. They like tall grass in the valley bottoms. 

 

If I ever get the good fortune of ever stumbling across one? It’s DEAD. I have one foot in the grave anyhow. What do I have to lose? I will probably fail. I’m just one guy. But I will not flinch IF the time comes. Close ups of Bigfeet faces? I’ll freakin drop it in their laps..... How is that?

Maybe SY would like to throw a leg over?

849375A0-5D4A-4001-A172-19CCEC83E8C3.jpeg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
13 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

.........We need to be honest and accept the fact the evidence for Bigfoot is not as solid of a case as we would like. The most solid is a body.  Without that, we have to take varying degrees of less than a body.  That might mean eye witness accounts and occasional photography.  DNA would be helpful but is problematic.  Add to the fact -if Bigfoot exists-it clearly a shy and uncommon creature if not near- extinct........

 

Legitimate skepticism and doubt granted, the potential extinction of a bipedal ape or hominin is such a huge potential disaster that if they can afford $50 million to look for an extinct woodpecker in a single swamp for several years, they can afford double that for 10 years putting this question to rest.

 

........"But we had good reason up until now to be skeptical"........

 

That works for many, but not official biologists in government, especially those publicly responsible for the management of wildlife and public lands. They aren't even collecting report data, even from their own personnel, or if they are, they deny it. Their complete invisibility after the Patterson film was published goes beyond suspicion. 

 

Sorry. No pass........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×