Jump to content
Bigfoot Gumbo

Where is the original PGF?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
10 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

 

wiiawiwb

That is outstanding that you are convinced without real proof. I respect that as I do that there are credible individuals who share your sentiment. 

Especially, those who believe they have seen the creature. Being a man of both Science and faith I understand this. This subject is not about 

faith or belief. It is about a flesh and blood man ape. 

 

I am often ask how I can accept my faith, but not  the creature. It is really quite easy.  Of course I can't go into that. It is not allowed. 

 

The "Man of Faith" also wrote...

 

"If you keep making comments like that then you are going to wind up on THE (Sweaty's) list. You are already part of the signature with your barbaric method for securing  a single type specimen.:D  As you know I fully support."

 

A 'dash of disrespect'....with a bullet 'on the side', for the cute little human-like being. :smoke:  

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thanks for that. I  enjoyed it. Made me laugh. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Down-votes mine, not Patterson-Gimlin.

 

Surely there are better ways to make a point than to so disrespect good forum members.

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk
15 hours ago, norseman said:

 

There is only speculation NOW with witnesses alive.

 

I met Bob Gimlin and talked mule packing with the man. I enjoyed myself immensely. I could go pack in the mountains with Bob for a month and never bring up Bigfoot and enjoy myself immensely....but from a logical standpoint Bob can not snap his fingers and put Patty on a examination table for me. Nor can he do that for science.

 

In order for Bob Gimlin or any witness to be proven right? Is going to take more than a film, any film. 

 

The bottom line is that if these films are going to be taken seriously? We need physical evidence to back them up.Putting my “barbaric” method aside. A fossil find would be enormous. Or solid DNA from scat, saliva, bone, tissue, etc from a living creature would be irrefutable.

 

This is where the field should focus it’s efforts. Leaving cameras and dental resin at home.

 

That may be unpopular with some, but to "prove" it, yes ithat's true. Want it proven, need a body live or dead. Like it or not the PGF years later is NOT the holy grail of Bigfoot, it's inconclusive.

12 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

The PGF isn't "doomed" in any respect, starchunk. It is as relevant...intriguing...popular...unique...fascinating...studied...and realistic...today, as it was 52 years ago.

 

It's some people's brains that are "doomed" to failure....and closed-mindedness.  Enjoy yours.  :haha:

 

I'll take a more intellectual approach to the film. 

 

 

 

 

Read and comprehend please, I didn't say failure, I said Inconclusive, which it is. It is part of the folklore and of the speculation, proof is maybe in the future, the PGF like it or not is the past. If you want to live in the bubble, knock yourself out.

8 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

I do not need a body on the slab nor do I wish it ever to occur.  In my opinion, the proportions of Patty's body speak loudly enough for those who choose to listen.

 

Which still isn't conclusive, it's conjecture.

36 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Down-votes mine, not Patterson-Gimlin.

 

Surely there are better ways to make a point than to so disrespect good forum members.

 

How did we disrespect anything by pointing out the Film isn't going ever be conclusive? Also I didn't specifically reference any member by name or suggestion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
5 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

 

wiiawiwb

That is outstanding that you are convinced without real proof. I respect that as I do that there are credible individuals who share your sentiment. 

Especially, those who believe they have seen the creature. Being a man of both Science and faith I understand this. This subject is not about 

faith or belief. It is about a flesh and blood man ape. 

 

I am often ask how I can accept my faith,but not  the creature. It is really quite easy.  Of course I can't go into that. It is not allowed. 

 

In a different thread, you mentioned you saw a UFO(s) in Florida.  As you already know,  there is no irrefutable proof that UFOs exist. I happen to believe they do.

 

Your conclusion about a UFO being real is no different than my conclusion about sasquatch being real based on your sighting and my accumulation of evidence in the field.  Do either rise to the level of absolute proof?  I don't believe they do BUT as various of items of evidence accumulate, particularly in a small defined area, I think the likelihood of other explanations begin to fade to the point where I'm extremely comfortable with my conclusion they are real and I've been very close to them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
12 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

I do not need a body on the slab nor do I wish it ever to occur.  In my opinion, the proportions of Patty's body speak loudly enough for those who choose to listen.


Would I be correct in assuming you do not care either way if BF is ever proven by science?  You have your answers and are satisfied with them?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
6 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I am often ask how I can accept my faith,but not  the creature. It is really quite easy.  Of course I can't go into that. It is not allowed. 

 

An interesting situation for sure.    In some ways, one I share.  

 

A substantial difference for me, which is truly unpopular in some circles, is that the evidence for the "creature" is stronger, scientifically, than the evidence for "the other."   That is, both rely on testimony of others, but for the "creature", we have purported hair samples, scat samples, tracks, and vocalization recordings we can examine .. none of which are present for "the other."    So, despite my personal faith, the scientific case is stronger for bigfoot.   Uncomfortable, heretical even maybe, but true.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedHawk454

The biggest reason that I've always defended the PGF is that no suit was ever substantiated by the PGF-is-a-hoax advocates 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedHawk454
On 10/11/2019 at 5:47 PM, SackScratch said:

Most PG Film De-Bunkers are very similar to Tom Biscardi, what's Tom Biscardi's mentality? He produces 2 Bigfoot Hoax DVD's, one on the PG Film called "Hoax of the Century" and the other on his Bigfoot in a Freezer that was "Shot by Hunters" Fiasco called "Anatomy of a Bigfoot Hoax"... 

 

In "Hoax of the Century" you really get the feel that Biscardi has a grudge against that film... Why would he?? Biscardi also markets his mentors Bigfoot Videos of his wife running around in a Bigfoot suit that looks really silly! Biscardi admits that Ivan Marx was his mentor and he embraces Marx's Bigfoot Footage as his own so if you criticize Marx's wife running around in a silly Bigfoot suit it's like you're criticizing Biscardi personally!  He'll look you in the face and say it's real! 

 

I've found the same mentality in the UFO Field of Research!  For example: The Ed Walters Gulf Breeze UFO Footage and Photos was deemed authentic by the UFO Group "MUFON" so of course the other main UFO Group "CUFOS" deemed it as a Hoax!!! There was a grudge there, previously CUFOS had spent lots of time and money investigating the Billy Meier case in Switzerland confirming it as Real so MUFON came out and labelled it as a Hoax!!! 

 

Bigfooter's have "Sasquatch Odyssey" to show the feuding between Bigfooter's from the beginning as a historical dvd visual to show what not to do in the future... Someone should make a UFO Documentary called "UFO Odyssey" showing the much bigger worldwide feuding that's been going on between UFO Groups and Researchers for many decades now.

 

MUFON is likely a .gov disinformation org

who owns the Intellectual property of the PGF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
2 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

In a different thread, you mentioned you saw a UFO(s) in Florida.  As you already know,  there is no irrefutable proof that UFOs exist. I happen to believe they do.

 

Your conclusion about a UFO being real is no different than my conclusion about sasquatch being real based on your sighting and my accumulation of evidence in the field.  Do either rise to the level of absolute proof?  I don't believe they do BUT as various of items of evidence accumulate, particularly in a small defined area, I think the likelihood of other explanations begin to fade to the point where I'm extremely comfortable with my conclusion they are real and I've been very close to them.

 

 

 

Im not knocking you or your experiences.

 

But the US government came right out and said UFO’s are real recently.

 

This of course would be a huge step if this happened in the Bigfoot community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SackScratch
22 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Im not knocking you or your experiences.

 

But the US government came right out and said UFO’s are real recently.

 

This of course would be a huge step if this happened in the Bigfoot community.

 

A few Bigfoot Documentaries going back to 1975 all the way to new ones show the Government Forestry Handbook showing the creatures of Washington State and Bigfoot is one of them!  They've already admitted it's real but just won't confirm it on the record with a TV camera on them or a recorded phone call.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedHawk454
28 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Im not knocking you or your experiences.

 

But the US government came right out and said UFO’s are real recently.

 

This of course would be a huge step if this happened in the Bigfoot community.

 

 

the government only says ufos are real to distract the masses from more mundane matters 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SackScratch
1 hour ago, RedHawk454 said:

 

MUFON is likely a .gov disinformation org

who owns the Intellectual property of the PGF?

 

It was René Dahinden and Pat Patterson, I heard René Dahinden's PG Film rights went to his son after his death.  He begged, borrowed and stole his way to 51% ownership of the PG Film I've read and seen in Documentaries and TV Shows.  Didn't he buy out Gimlin's share for 10 lousy bucks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Yes, Rene bought out Gimlin's 51% for a nominal sum, and that share of ownership conveyed to Rene's son's, Eric and another son, when Rene died. But Eric alone manages the asset. Apparently the other brother has no interest.

 

As to the film evidence ever being able to prove something conclusive, it depends (as all evidence does) on the following factors:

 

1. Is the evidence of good enough quality to lead to determinations? (Yes, it is)

 

2. Is the evidence determined to be pure or uncorrupted or otherwise not compromised by human interference?  (yes, it is)

 

3. Is the evidence available to an analyst who has the appropriate expertise to properly analyze it?  (Yes, it is)

 

4. Are the methodology processes of analysis appropriate to make a conclusive determination?  Yes, they are)

 

5. Once a conclusion is determined by the evidence, are alternative options falsified or excluded for cause?  (Yes, they have been)

 

If so, then the film is sufficient to prove a conclusion to a factual certainty.

 

The film, to a factual certainty, shows a subject figure that is biologically real, as it appears, and is not a human in a costume.

 

But an often made mistake is to project the conclusion beyond what the film proves.

 

The films proves one such biological individual existed in 1967. It does not prove any exist today. 

The film proves one such individual existed but does not prove more than one such species existed.

The film does not prove where this individual fits in the hominid family tree. Is it a human deformed and subject to hypertrichosis, or a mutation of another primate species, or a common representative of an unknown hominid species with a larger population? The film cannot determine which.

People who want to make up their own mind, and who lack either the full access to the evidence, or lack the specialized knowledge to properly evaluate the evidence,or lack the proper equipment to conduct the proper analysis, may be undecided about what the film proves. But their indecision is not the truth of the film. Their indecision is derived from their not being qualified or prepared to conduct a proper proof. 

The film is real, to a certainty that rivals the certainty that the earth is round, gravity exists, and Appollo astronauts actually went to the moon. But in this modern world, people still have doubts. Their doubts don't negate the conclusive truth.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
6 hours ago, MIB said:

 

An interesting situation for sure.    In some ways, one I share.  

 

A substantial difference for me, which is truly unpopular in some circles, is that the evidence for the "creature" is stronger, scientifically, than the evidence for "the other."   That is, both rely on testimony of others, but for the "creature", we have purported hair samples, scat samples, tracks, and vocalization recordings we can examine .. none of which are present for "the other."    So, despite my personal faith, the scientific case is stronger for bigfoot.   Uncomfortable, heretical even maybe, but true.

 

MIB

Nice to hear your point of view always.

I understand what you are saying. 

Doesn't change my views, but thanks for replying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...