Jump to content
ShadowBorn

Has this been asked about the PGF before

Recommended Posts

OldMort
6 hours ago, hiflier said:

This "suit" isn't bad at all:

 

Moneymaker sez its fake.

 

Moneymaker sez "Wally" is real though.

 

Don't know what the back story is on this one but if we just"stick to what's on the film" it looks fairly convincing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
1 hour ago, OldMort said:

Moneymaker sez its fake.

 

Moneymaker sez "Wally" is real though.

 

Personally? I never listen to the man. He's had ample opportunity to prove this creature in the past 23 years, more than most. Got himself a database and access to all the "hot" spots and the money to pull it off and yet.......

 

As far as I'm concerned he's nothing.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

I totally agree. Nothing but ego and arrogance.

 

What's your personal assessment of the Hoffman footage?

Share this post


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

 

Moneymaker sez its fake.

 

Moneymaker sez "Wally" is real though.

 

Don't know what the back story is on this one but if we just"stick to what's on the film" it looks fairly convincing...

 

I would not even begin to believe any photo or video unless they took me out to the film location. X marks the spot. Is there trace evidence? How big are the rocks, trees and logs? Can we extrapolate how big the creature is? Is anyone else local in the area collaborating the sighting?

 

And even after all of that? It’s still just a film. It’s not a physical piece of the creature.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

I would not even begin to believe any photo or video unless they took me out to the film location. X marks the spot. Is there trace evidence? How big are the rocks, trees and logs? Can we extrapolate how big the creature is? Is anyone else local in the area collaborating the sighting?

 

And even after all of that? It’s still just a film. It’s not a physical piece of the creature.

 

All true, Norseman, but to address Old Mort I would have to say two things stood out, upper body bulk and the light reflection on the hair of the coat which does seem to show some musculature. So there is some apparent physical definition there. Beyond that I have to agree with Norseman- it would never have a chance of translating into anything near proof. Do professional primate people really even study such things? Or is the default always that it's a hoax? Probably the latter.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

And even after all of that? It’s still just a film. It’s not a physical piece of the creature.

 

 

 

 

"Nothing to see here, folks....let's move it along."  ;) 

 

 

18 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

 Or is the default always that it's a hoax? Probably the latter.

 

The 'default' position is irrelevant, hiflier….if one wants to use their brain

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
50 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

The 'default' position is irrelevant, hiflier….if one wants to use their brain.

 

To see someone NOT "use their brain" is a frustrating thing to witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

To see someone NOT "use their brain" is a frustrating thing to witness.

 

It sure is, hiflier. ;) 

 

I've seen plenty of examples of it...from the skeptics/scoftics....to the entire field of accredited scientists, who don't want anything to do with scientific analysis....(but instead, just wanna say...."Bring me a body....then I will know.")  

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 

"Nothing to see here, folks....let's move it along."  ;) 

 

 

Gee..... I wonder why?!! 

C028F7A3-ABBD-4FA2-8D2A-AE655F8486F8.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

The difficulty for me lies with the point that there are things, especially about the PGF, and maybe the Hoffman thing as well, that can only occur in very narrow parameters. Get enough of those parameters together and ruling out a hoax becomes a no-brainer. Sometimes it only takes looking at one thing that cannot be duplicated and all other debates become meaningless. You have that with your Patty's upper arm explanation. I have it with shoulder span. I can't imaging the cost of the "suit" in the Hoffman footage (2001) that was built well enough to show what it shows. If it's a hoax it's the best one I've ever seen. It borders on amazing.

 

Point well made, Norseman. Don't need the reminder but it never hurts. The thing is we ALL know we need a body. But since we don't have one is there a next best thing? Logic and brainpower would suggest that yes, there is a next best thing. And that would be determining the impossibility of a Human inside a suit. Until we have a physical specimen that's really all that is left to us. So getting to the "impossible" part is a very important thing to do even if it only keeps the door open for motivating field work. An irrefutable argument is what gets you and everyone else into the woods so deep investigative debate does have merit. 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
6 hours ago, hiflier said:

The difficulty for me lies with the point that there are things, especially about the PGF, and maybe the Hoffman thing as well, that can only occur in very narrow parameters. Get enough of those parameters together and ruling out a hoax becomes a no-brainer. Sometimes it only takes looking at one thing that cannot be duplicated and all other debates become meaningless. You have that with your Patty's upper arm explanation. I have it with shoulder span.

 

 

That is absolutely correct, hiflier…...ONE irreplicable detail is all it takes, to make a definitive determination that what is being seen on a film is not a 'man in a suit'.  And, in Patty's case...there are multiple such details. 

 

 

Quote

Point well made, Norseman. Don't need the reminder but it never hurts. The thing is we ALL know we need a body.

 

Correction....Mr. Official Lazy-Brained Scientist needs a body. I don't. And, many other people don't need a physical specimen, either....to know what the film subject is/was.

 

In fact, in the case of the PGF....it isn't even a difficult thing, to be sure of what the film subject was.....because of the huge gulf between Patty's appearance....and all 'men in suits'. The difference is massive. 'Men in suits'...(when seen under conditions comparable to Patty)....have one common trait....they all look obvious/unambiguous. 

 

You put a costume on a person...and it looks like a person wearing a costume....without any question.

 

Just one aspect in which suits are obvious, is with regards to 'body contour'...(in this example....leg contour)...

 

Suito-Science3.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
12 hours ago, hiflier said:

The difficulty for me lies with the point that there are things, especially about the PGF, and maybe the Hoffman thing as well, that can only occur in very narrow parameters. Get enough of those parameters together and ruling out a hoax becomes a no-brainer. Sometimes it only takes looking at one thing that cannot be duplicated and all other debates become meaningless. You have that with your Patty's upper arm explanation. I have it with shoulder span. I can't imaging the cost of the "suit" in the Hoffman footage (2001) that was built well enough to show what it shows. If it's a hoax it's the best one I've ever seen. It borders on amazing.

 

Point well made, Norseman. Don't need the reminder but it never hurts. The thing is we ALL know we need a body. But since we don't have one is there a next best thing? Logic and brainpower would suggest that yes, there is a next best thing. And that would be determining the impossibility of a Human inside a suit. Until we have a physical specimen that's really all that is left to us. So getting to the "impossible" part is a very important thing to do even if it only keeps the door open for motivating field work. An irrefutable argument is what gets you and everyone else into the woods so deep investigative debate does have merit. 

 

Sorry about being a broken record. But until the Bigfoot community puts down the camera and stops blaming scientists for asking for PHYSICAL proof? Nothing will ever change. We will just keep chasing our own tail for another 50 years.

 

Need to put down that camera and pick up a rifle. If that makes one squeamish then the next best thing is a air gun with a biopsy dart.

Share this post


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

Sorry about being a broken record. But until the Bigfoot community puts down the camera and stops blaming scientists for asking for PHYSICAL proof? Nothing will ever change.......

 

..........Need to put down that camera and pick up a rifle..........

 

Sorry for also being a broken record on this, but why am I responsible for dragging a dead sasquatch in for the science industry? Those guys don't even like me. A good percentage of them don't even want me hunting moose, caribou, and bear anymore.

 

Let them eat cake.

Share this post


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

 

Sorry for also being a broken record on this, but why am I responsible for dragging a dead sasquatch in for the science industry? Those guys don't even like me. A good percentage of them don't even want me hunting moose, caribou, and bear anymore.

 

Let them eat cake.

 

Your not doing it for science then. Your doing it for proponents who are ridiculed, and unsuspecting public and to see the JREFers eat crow?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

LOL.........if I do it, which I strongly doubt, it would only be in self defense. After living in big time bear country for nearly half a century and never having to shoot a bear in self defense (close a few times........ :o ), I would think I'm pretty good at staying out of that kind of trouble. 

 

And considering how many sasquatch carcasses that have been dragged in, they seem to be pretty good at staying out of that kind of trouble, too..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...