Hoaxes and hoaxers

[Marty]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

The problem with the Bigfoot community and why it gets no where? Is where it’s sets the bar for Bigfoot evidence. It’s to low….

 

Photos, videos, plaster casts? We have had those for 50 plus years. Stick a fork in it. That sort of evidence will not sway science.

 

My advice is to just guard against everything as a hoax, until a piece of the animal is brought in. The problem with that? Is that most of these celebrity Bigfooters will be the first to tell you they don’t care about proving the existence of this creature.

 

I mean you have to use tools to get to the creature. Hunters use trail camera photos, videos and follow tracks to get the big buck right? But NO ONE makes a plaster cast of a big buck and hangs it over the fire place. Why? Because that’s not where the bar is set to be a successful hunter. 
 

Either buy a rifle and gear or if that makes you feel squeamish? Watch Todd Disotell on YouTube on how to collect DNA evidence. Or both!

You are absolutely correct, and it frustrates me to no end. Every time I hear the phrase" I'm not interested in PROVING the creatures exist" from any of those Bigfoot celebs I just roll my eyes, it's one thing to be passionate and not being able to do much but they have all the resources to get this subject going and closer to a resolution.  

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

.......Many of the celebrity types don’t want discovery for that reason. If discovery happened? An army of primatologists are going to descend on the subject. Most of these celebrities are not primatologists and will be shoved aside.......

 

So we can add the carnival types with government, the environmental industry, and the skeptic industry as those wanting sasquatches remain myths.

[gigantor]

Once discovery happens, we'll take a victory lap for a month or so and then shutdown the BFF for new posts.

 

Maybe leave the Tarpit open.

 

 

 

 

[Wooly Booger]

I'm convinced that the Patterson-Gimlin Footage depicts an unknown species of bipedal primate. The evidence for it being genuine, which we have discussed here countless times over, is too strong IMO for it to have been a hoax. 

 

But here is a question I've wanted to ask other Bigfoot researchers and enthusiasts for some time...

 

If and this is a BIG IF...the Patterson-Gimlin Footage is someday proven to be a hoax, does that mean that Bigfoot itself is most likely fake and that the creature never existed? 

 

Some food for thought I suppose. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

39 minutes ago, gigantor said:

Once discovery happens, we'll take a victory lap for a month or so and then shutdown the BFF for new posts.

 

Maybe leave the Tarpit open.

 

 

 

 

Migrate everything over to the UAP Forums and we can all argue about that.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

19 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

I'm convinced that the Patterson-Gimlin Footage depicts an unknown species of bipedal primate. The evidence for it being genuine, which we have discussed here countless times over, is too strong IMO for it to have been a hoax. 

 

But here is a question I've wanted to ask other Bigfoot researchers and enthusiasts for some time...

 

If and this is a BIG IF...the Patterson-Gimlin Footage is someday proven to be a hoax, does that mean that Bigfoot itself is most likely fake and that the creature never existed? 

 

Some food for thought I suppose. 

I think that there is enough other evidence to still point to the existence of something out there.  It will give the hardcore skeptics a lot more ammo.  I don’t think that it would make a lick of difference to someone who has had an up close sighting.

 

It being proved a fake would rock a lot of worlds, though.  There are people who have spent a good chunk of their lives dissecting that film.  There were some meltdowns over that recent claim that Accord had a confession video by Bob Gimlin.  

[Wooly Booger]

22 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

I think that there is enough other evidence to still point to the existence of something out there.  It will give the hardcore skeptics a lot more ammo.  I don’t think that it would make a lick of difference to someone who has had an up close sighting.

 

It being proved a fake would rock a lot of worlds, though.  There are people who have spent a good chunk of their lives dissecting that film.  There were some meltdowns over that recent claim that Accord had a confession video by Bob Gimlin.  

I'm inclined to agree with you. We have a ton of evidence, going back centuries to the earliest Native American legends. But the PGF, IMO, is probably the single biggest and most convincing evidence we have for Bigfoot's existence. If it is proven fake, we would lost our most reliable evidence and our only solidly reliable video/photographic footage. It would be almost inevitable that every professional skeptic would then start asking "if Bigfoot is real, then why is there no video or photographic evidence."

 

With that being said, if I were a gambling man then I'd wager my savings that the PGF is genuine. I'm highly skeptical of Accord's claims. Seems to me he's nothing more than an opportunist. The technology to fake the PGF didn't exist in 1967. That alone blows any and all arguments against the film's authenticity to dust. 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Wooly Booger said:

I'm convinced that the Patterson-Gimlin Footage depicts an unknown species of bipedal primate. The evidence for it being genuine, which we have discussed here countless times over, is too strong IMO for it to have been a hoax. 

 

But here is a question I've wanted to ask other Bigfoot researchers and enthusiasts for some time...

 

If and this is a BIG IF...the Patterson-Gimlin Footage is someday proven to be a hoax, does that mean that Bigfoot itself is most likely fake and that the creature never existed? 

 

Some food for thought I suppose. 

Well this is the skeptics very argument. If a whole species existence is predicated on one 10 second film clip? Then it’s most likely it doesn’t exist.

[Wooly Booger]

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

Well this is the skeptics very argument. If a whole species existence is predicated on one 10 second film clip? Then it’s most likely it doesn’t exist.

True. But to the skeptics the PGF is the fraud of the 20th century. 

[norseman]

10 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

True. But to the skeptics the PGF is the fraud of the 20th century. 

Like I said earlier? It just doesn’t matter. There are a plethora of films out there. Not one of them will prove it exists. Nor will they even inspire science to go look.
 

A tooth, a finger bone, a bloody corpse, something tangible, something physical is where the bar should be if we are worried about proving the existence of this creature to science.

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

.........If and this is a BIG IF...the Patterson-Gimlin Footage is someday proven to be a hoax, does that mean that Bigfoot itself is most likely fake and that the creature never existed? .........

 

A sasquatch type creature (unlike intelligent extraterrestrial life) is pretty much mostly accepted to have existed......... at least in the past, and in the old world.........

[Wooly Booger]

43 minutes ago, norseman said:

Like I said earlier? It just doesn’t matter. There are a plethora of films out there. Not one of them will prove it exists. Nor will they even inspire science to go look.
 

A tooth, a finger bone, a bloody corpse, something tangible, something physical is where the bar should be if we are worried about proving the existence of this creature to science.

Well, I wish you the best of luck in the field. I hope you someday take a type specimen. There are plenty of means that could draw such a species in. There is a company that sells Sasquatch pheromones. I'm not joking. Made from ape and human pheromones. Combine that scent with a recording of an alpha male gorilla and that has as good chance as any of drawing one in. 

 

I'll see if I can find a link to the product. 

[Catmandoo]

^^^^^^ Go for it Wooly Booger:

 

https://sasquatchpheromone.com/

 

This has been on this forum for awhile.  First of all, there are no 'Sasquatch pheromones' that are commercially available. Zoo animal stink mixed with human stink is available.  The only way to get 'Sasquatch pheromones' is to be point blank. 

 

Using the man made scent for olfactory signaling runs the risk of disappointing the target animal. Bad idea.

[7.62]

17 hours ago, norseman said:

The problem with the Bigfoot community and why it gets no where? Is where it’s sets the bar for Bigfoot evidence. It’s to low….

 

Photos, videos, plaster casts? We have had those for 50 plus years. Stick a fork in it. That sort of evidence will not sway science.

 

My advice is to just guard against everything as a hoax, until a piece of the animal is brought in. The problem with that? Is that most of these celebrity Bigfooters will be the first to tell you they don’t care about proving the existence of this creature.

 

I mean you have to use tools to get to the creature. Hunters use trail camera photos, videos and follow tracks to get the big buck right? But NO ONE makes a plaster cast of a big buck and hangs it over the fire place. Why? Because that’s not where the bar is set to be a successful hunter. 
 

Either buy a rifle and gear or if that makes you feel squeamish? Watch Todd Disotell on YouTube on how to collect DNA evidence. Or both!

It's a good analogy of a deer hunter  and I would like to think I could pull the trigger but I'm pretty sure I would chicken out. I was watching on discovery the Justin Smeja 

show on monster hunters just last night on Discovery plus . This was an old episode before the DNA had come back yet . I'm more in the camp where I believe  him .

Listening to him describe how he felt after reaching the juvenile laying there dying and looking into it's eyes would mess me up. I know it would and I am a hunter.

 

I understand the argument of having a body is really the only way this controversy will only end . No one is going to find a dead one because if that was the case it would have already happened . 

[vinchyfoot]

14 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

So we can add the carnival types with government, the environmental industry, and the skeptic industry as those wanting sasquatches remain myths.

 

It's the "celebrities" of the subject at this point taking a dump on the subject. The hoaxers, the podcasters, the youtubers and the Conventioneers all pushing their narrative, along with the portal/mindspeaker pushers that are in the way. The fantasy crowd to avoid reality, and the Celebrity parasites because then the cash cow runs out of milk. And all your politics implications still come down to something in the way of profits, the pattern is consistent minus the delusional pushing portals and like nonsense.

14 hours ago, gigantor said:

Once discovery happens, we'll take a victory lap for a month or so and then shutdown the BFF for new posts.

 

Maybe leave the Tarpit open.

 

 

 

 

 

IF it happens.

14 hours ago, gigantor said:

Once discovery happens, we'll take a victory lap for a month or so and then shutdown the BFF for new posts.

 

Maybe leave the Tarpit open.

 

 

 

 

 

IF it happens.

14 hours ago, gigantor said:

Once discovery happens, we'll take a victory lap for a month or so and then shutdown the BFF for new posts.

 

Maybe leave the Tarpit open.

 

 

 

 

 

IF it happens.

13 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

I'm convinced that the Patterson-Gimlin Footage depicts an unknown species of bipedal primate. The evidence for it being genuine, which we have discussed here countless times over, is too strong IMO for it to have been a hoax. 

 

But here is a question I've wanted to ask other Bigfoot researchers and enthusiasts for some time...

 

If and this is a BIG IF...the Patterson-Gimlin Footage is someday proven to be a hoax, does that mean that Bigfoot itself is most likely fake and that the creature never existed? 

 

Some food for thought I suppose. 

 

Its still doomed to be an inconclusive source of debate never to be solved.