Jump to content
Bigfoot Gumbo

Where is the original PGF?

Recommended Posts

norseman
13 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

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:  

 

Whatever it takes...

Share this post


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


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?  

 

I'd prefer BF is never conclusively proven by science whereby the government demands that intervention is required.  I'd like things to stay just as they are.

Edited by wiiawiwb
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
8 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.

 

 

 

I should have been more clear. I saw UFOS as I said. I am reasonably convinced that it was experimental air craft. 

 

As far as the creature goes. Lots of anecdotal evidence for continued interest and further study. 

 

Many reasons as to why the creature probably doesn't exist. All for both theories have been stated many times over. 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

I'd prefer BF is never conclusively proven by science whereby the government demands that intervention is required.  I'd like things to stay just as they are.


That is a very common desire among knowers.  I’m not sure if I would hold that belief if I went from believer to knower.   Right now I’m in the 1 body alive or dead needed camp.   

Share this post


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

 

Whatever it takes...

 

Except for that thing called 'scientific analysis'. ;)  

 

Bang-Bang....Shoot 'em up!  

 

 

Btw, Norse....Bill Munns just said...."The film, to a factual certainty, shows a subject figure that is biologically real." So there...we do have Proof! :thumbsu:  

 

 

1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

I'd prefer BF is never conclusively proven by science whereby the government demands that intervention is required.  I'd like things to stay just as they are.

 

 

Personally, I would like to see a specimen brought in, wiiawiwb....via either a capture, or a carcass.  If that ever happens....I think it will confirm, definitively, the PGF to be a legit film....due to the subject's 'arm proportion'.  

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


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

 

Except for that thing called 'scientific analysis'. ;)  

 

Bang-Bang....Shoot 'em up!  

 

 

Btw, Norse....Bill Munns just said...."The film, to a factual certainty, shows a subject figure that is biologically real." So there...we do have Proof! :thumbsu:  

 

 

 

 

Personally, I would like to see a specimen brought in, wiiawiwb....via either a capture, or a carcass.  If that ever happens....I think it will confirm, definitively, the PGF to be a legit film....due to the subject's 'arm proportion'.  

 

As much as I respect Bill’s opinion? I doubt science is going to abscribe a taxonomy label to Patty based on film analysis.

 

Personally I would like to see a carcass brought in that died of natural cause as well. I have no desire to hunt great Apes. Gorillas, Oranges and Chimps are my favorite animals to watch and interact with. But with that said? I think scientific recognition is super important and outweighs any personal feelings I may have. And I have a hard heart. You have to be when your raised on a ranch. When your favorite Horse breaks its leg? Or your dog gets ran over by a car? Or it’s time to butcher the calf you raised? Guess what? You put a bullet in its head. Just a fact of life.

 

Unfortunately for Bigfoot, a type specimen is required by science. I don’t make the rules.

 

But my desire to hunt Game animals is wavering even. When I was young I hunted non stop and felt defeated if the season yielded nothing. Now I can just hunt to enjoy the outdoors. Getting something for the freezer is a plus but not a big deal either way.

 

So I hope that someone stumbles upon a carcass soon. And let’s be real. No one is gonna live capture one. Not only is it hyper dangerous? It’s just as sad as shooting one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
42 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

As much as I respect Bill’s opinion? I doubt science is going to abscribe a taxonomy label to Patty based on film analysis.

 

 

That was not what Bill said, Norse...and was not what I was getting at, either. 

 

Bill's statement had simply to do with "Proof"....not "getting the sasquatch officially classified, by official scientists".

 

This is a distinction which you do not seem to understand. Things can be proven to exist....or propositions proven to be true....long before such things are officially classified....or accepted as being true. 

 

This has happened many times over the years, with new discoveries....and new scientific theories.  Discoveries such as the Sun being at the center of the Solar System, instead of the Earth....is but one example. 

 

'Proof' can exist, in the form of scientific analysis....without it ever going near Mr. Official Scientist, with his Book of Officially Existing Things. 

 

 

 

Quote

Personally I would like to see a carcass brought in that died of natural cause as well. I have no desire to hunt great Apes. Gorillas, Oranges and Chimps are my favorite animals to watch and interact with. But with that said? I think scientific recognition is super important and outweighs any personal feelings I may have. And I have a hard heart. You have to be when your raised on a ranch. When your favorite Horse breaks its leg? Or your dog gets ran over by a car? Or it’s time to butcher the calf you raised? Guess what? You put a bullet in its head. Just a fact of life.

 

 

l understand that that type of lifestyle makes one less sensitive to the death of animals...and the means by which they die, Norse. But, I draw a line between the killing of animals, such as livestock/the occasional (beloved) pet......and a near-human being....i.e....the Sasquatch.

 

I'll admit, every once in a while....I'll kill a mosquito....a fly....or an ant.....or two. But, based on my sense of morality....I couldn't just blast a near-human being, with a shotgun...and kill it, cold-blooded style. 

 

Fortunately...I'm not that hard-hearted. :) 

 

 

Quote

Unfortunately for Bigfoot, a type specimen is required by science. I don’t make the rules.

 

Nope....you just load the rifle.  Heck, someone's gotta do it, right?!  

 

As for myself...despite the "rule" made by Mr. Scientist...to go out and bring him back a body.....I would just as soon sit back, and let drones do the "dirty work".

 

They can catch quite a bit, on video.....and will, I predict, eventually settle the matter of Bigfoot's existence.   

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

So your version of “proof” lays outside the bounds of peer reviewed science? Gotcha.

 

We have no idea what Bigfoot is. Hence the problem with ALL video. Is it closely related to a Gorilla? Human? Orang? We have no idea and never will until a body is laid on a examination table. How it gets there is neither here nor there to science. Your own squeamishness about killing a creature that looks like a human while admirable doesn’t solve the problem. Hopefully a DNA sample solves the question. But it’s foolish to continue looking for a manure pile if you have one looking at you in the face.

 

Right.

 

Drones will do nothing to solve the issue as long as video is the medium by which they choose to solve it by. If the drone is taking a blood sample? Awesome. When that technology gets around to us, the species may well be extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
52 minutes ago, norseman said:

So your version of “proof” lays outside the bounds of peer reviewed science? Gotcha.

 

I was referring to Bill's "Proof", Norse. ;) 

 

But, unfortunately, according to Bill....he is "uniquely qualified" to do such analysis...so his "Proof" may not be peer-reviewable.

 

 

Quote

We have no idea what Bigfoot is. Hence the problem with ALL video. Is it closely related to a Gorilla? Human? Orang? We have no idea and never will until a body is laid on a examination table. How it gets there is neither here nor there to science. Your own squeamishness about killing a creature that looks like a human while admirable doesn’t solve the problem. Hopefully a DNA sample solves the question. But it’s foolish to continue looking for a manure pile if you have one looking at you in the face.

 

It doesn't matter to me which Primate species the sasquatch would be most closely related to. The Great Apes are all very closely related to us Homo Sapiens...and too "near human" to needlessly kill....(for me, anyway).

 

Put very simply.....I wouldn't shoot Lil' Bobby....and neither would I shoot Lil' Blobby. ;) 

 

 

Quote

Drones will do nothing to solve the issue as long as video is the medium by which they choose to solve it by. If the drone is taking a blood sample? Awesome. When that technology gets around to us, the species may well be extinct.

 

There is a pretty good chance that they could capture a video impressive enough to convince the masses, that the creatures exist. 

 

Also, regarding drones...it is not just a video that could provide a 'Proof'....it could be a continued lack of Bigfoot videos, that eventually proves...(or, effectively settles)...the case.......in the negative.

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 2:48 PM, norseman said:

.......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.

 

A truly honest and great statement, Norseman. We have all known your position on securing Bigfoot proof. And my respect for you comes not only from a pro-kill position but also from what you said in the above quote. You have ALWAYS said you would rather find a dead one, or a skeleton or even irrefutable DNA than be forced to shoot one. This is why I respect you across the board. To say the field should focus its efforts on "scat, saliva, bone, tissue, etc" elevates that respect even more.

 

It's why I've been so hot on the nesting site for the last year and a half or so......And everyone gets why. I mean talk about one amazing opportunity and argument for the DNA side of the subject. It's still nearly impossible for me to think that the whole thing failed. It may seem ridiculous, but I have a hefty bit of positive thinking that something truly remarkable will yet come from the discovery. And even though I've heard nothing about it for a long time now, I still have my reasons for holding onto a good outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
18 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

I was referring to Bill's "Proof", Norse. ;) 

 

But, unfortunately, according to Bill....he is "uniquely qualified" to do such analysis...so his "Proof" may not be peer-reviewable.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter to me which Primate species the sasquatch would be most closely related to. The Great Apes are all very closely related to us Homo Sapiens...and too "near human" to needlessly kill....(for me, anyway).

 

Put very simply.....I wouldn't shoot Lil' Bobby....and neither would I shoot Lil' Blobby. ;) 

 

 

 

There is a pretty good chance that they could capture a video impressive enough to convince the masses, that the creatures exist. 

 

Also, regarding drones...it is not just a video that could provide a 'Proof'....it could be a continued lack of Bigfoot videos, that eventually proves...(or, effectively settles)...the case.......in the negative.

 

 

Then it’s not proof. It’s a well formulated opinion. Of which I respect. But I cannot prove the existence of the species with it. This goes back to starchunk’s statement. Every time it’s brought up that the PGF is irrelevant to the discovery of a species? You play the semantics game around the bush. Well proof to me means yadda yadda yadda..... No one cares what proof means to you Kit. Nor what it means to me. With science it’s pretty cut and dried in Biology.

 

Its only a needless killing if we already know the species exists. Until then we need a break badly.

 

Unfortunately the masses convinced or not do not matter one bit. 

 

If its ever proven in the negative? What a waste. Greatest discovery never known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

As I stated previously:

 

"

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

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

3. 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."

 

Item number three is what would be necessary to assign a taxonomic nomenclature , and the note clearly states the film cannot provide that proof. But not satisfying the Number three type of proof does not negate the Number One proof. Simply put and summed up, the film proves that it was not hoaxed and the subject figure seen in the film is a biological entity real as it appears. Whether organized biological science protocols can deal with that proven reality or not is another discussion. If they can, fine. If they can't, it doesn't negate or dismiss the truth of the film and it's subject.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 minute ago, hiflier said:

 

A truly honest and great statement, Norseman. We have all known your position on securing Bigfoot proof. And my respect for you comes not only from a pro-kill position but also from what you said in the above quote. You have ALWAYS said you would rather find a dead one, or a skeleton or even irrefutable DNA than be forced to shoot one. This is why I respect you across the board. To say the field should focus its efforts on "scat, saliva, bone, tissue, etc" elevates that respect even more.

 

It's why I've been so hot on the nesting site for the last year and a half or so......And everyone gets why. I mean talk about one amazing opportunity and argument for the DNA side of the subject. It's still nearly impossible for me to think that the whole thing failed. It may seem ridiculous, but I have a hefty bit of positive thinking that something truly remarkable will yet come from the discovery. And even though I've heard nothing about it for a long time now, I still have my reasons for holding onto a good outcome.

 

If your referring to Ketchum? I do not share your exuberance. With that said I thank you for the compliment. I wish you luck in finding a nesting site!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Nope, not referring to Ketchum in the slightest. My hold out is for maybe some e-DNA processes coming out of the Olympic Peninsula that the public isn't privy too yet. That's all I was getting at. And thank you, I hope I find a nest too even though I don't go off-trail. But there are people that do both in academia as well as F&W. Time to ask them about such things. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that few if any have even heard of the find- even after its discovery 4 1/2 years ago?

 

So either something's really up with that find......or NOTHING is. Either way, why no one seems to know about it is beyond me. My F&W never heard of the discovery when I spoke to them and that was just last Spring- which was four years after the fact. A lot of things about the find still make no sense to me.

 

I hope you find one, too, bud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk

Ketchum is old news and bascially, imo full of it. And the creature isn't just in the PNW either. So...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...