Jump to content
xspider1

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Kitakaze, I have offered my opinion, nobody is gonna force you to believe one way or the other. My opinion of why I think the P/G film looks real and why the Harley H. film doesn't carries as much weight as your opinion that Patty is a suit with shoulder pads. I don't ask you to qualify your opinion, that's just silly. Do you crave conflict or something? And your opinion is fine by me. I'm certainly not an expert on filming and never claimed as much. You are also right about me not making any specific claims here on the new BFF, it's nice to know there are those that are ready and watching for when or if I do.

1) I don't think it is silly to ask someone to use a qualifier when offering an opinion. I would hope you understand that I am constantly asked by Bigfoot-is-a-real-animal proponents to qualify my opinions and I agree with the importance in doing this. When people state things as fact that they don't actually know to be a fact, it can be confusing for people that aren't as critically minded as I and others here are. You are critically minded of my skepticism of the PGF. The implication is that you saw one in Kentucky and it looked similar. I must assume you are basing this on your memory of the event, rather than I clear video of good provenance of the event. The human memory is not a digital camera. It is a physical thing that is subject to change and is also quite fallible. This, I assure you, is an imperical scientific fact.

When Chris in Kentucky says the shoulders on the Harley Hoffman video are wrong, and the crazy projecting sternum on Patty is OK, I immediately want evidence of this as a skeptic, and for any person young or old reading, I encourage them to have the same skepticism and same request for the qualification of opinions or provision of evidence that I make. I think this is how we become better thinkers, and we don't fall prey to specious claims. That doesn't mean a claim is necessarily a lie or attempt to deceive, just that it is not what it purports itself to be.

2) Unfortunately, I think you greatly overestimate you and your activities to me. I don't mean it to be unkind, but the simple fact of the matter is that a rectangle on a screen called "ChrisBFRPKY" is really of little consequence to me beyond being a fellow human involved in the same discussion as me. I just used copypaste to get your handle right because memorizing the capital letters in the last part is more than I care to do. I have so much on my plate that I can not even properly give attention to the three main threads I participate in: my PGF thread, a DNA thread, and one about Bigfoot being in Native American traditional beliefs and traditions. Those are three specific claims and they are of far, far greater interest to me than the possibility of some person making a thread about an alleged Bigfoot sighting in Kentucky.

It's not in anyway meant as a slight to you. It's just I'm telling you that if you were to go somewhere on the BFF and claim to see Bigfoot in Kentucky, I promise you, I would almost certainly never, ever even see it. I would absolutely not seek it out. If you doubt that in any way, I welcome you to look at my posts and see what threads they are in. it will be just as I say. I suspect that I am not important enough to you for you to do that, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

3) I do not at all crave conflict in any way. I find squabbling to be repellent. I think some people love to fight. I can think of some specifically that I sometimes interact with now. I appreciate the rules. Following them makes us better and makes our discussions better, as well. I do certainly enjoy debate. It's right there in my interests on my profile. I think you'll take my word for it.

What I do crave is clarity, and I do not think it is ridiculous of me to ask for it. So many people ask it of me, and I ask for it in return. Would you say your fellow Bigfoot-is-a-real-animal-that-for-some-reason-we-have-been-unable-to-catalogue proponents were being unreasonable? Please understand, if you are posting anywhere I am posting, and you make what I consider as a specific claim that is not qualified as an opinion, for the sake of preventing confusion in people who are more impressionable, I will ask for clarity in the form of a qualifier or evidence of the thing that looks like a fact.

You can go somewhere and claim to have seen Bigfoot in Kentucky and that is quite cool with me. I say go for it and enjoy. People also claim to see Dogman in Kentucky and get yoinked by aliens, so unless you have some reliable evidence or claim to, I will not be very interested...

http://monsterusa.blogspot.com/2007/11/hunt-dogman.html

http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/stanford.htm

I think maybe you misunderstand what a forum about Bigfoot is about. It's a discussion of the subject. I personally like to compare findings with other researchers, discuss ideas and try to better understand these creatures. Qualify, qualify, qualify. Ridiculous. Unless you're trolling for information to place in a new book for publication, there should be no need to "qualify" statements or posts. As you have pointed out these creatures have not been proven to exist so from that point of view any discussion should be considered an opinion.

1) As I said, I disagree about qualifying opinions. Not only regular members, but staff of forums have asked me to use qualifiers, as well, and I agree with them. The request is really quite reasonable.

2) I understand intrinsically what a forum about Bigfoot or Dogman or UFO's are about. On this forum there was never any sign or message that said I had to believe Bigfoot was a real animal when I joined. Is that something you want? I think you can handle my skepticism, so I would guess not. I enjoy Bigfoot, skepticism, debate and many other stimulating things. I enjoy Bigfoot as a myth. You enjoy it as something physically real. I don't for a second believe you ever saw one, but you have not made any specific claims to that effect, only a general implication. If you make it here, I might address it. I don't think you will. If you make it somewhere else, I am not like to see it. I think that would be agreeable to us both. I'm too busy for the individual claims of strong believers that are obscure to me, and I suspect you have better things to do than debate with doubters about your claims. If you come up with some clear footage of good provenance, some matching DNA samples, or preferably a Bigfoot, whole or a chunk of one, please let me know.

I will actually go out and order crow meat, cook it with the "So good you'll want to slap your mother-in-law" recipe and change my avatar to "I was wrong about Bigfoot" for a year. I will film my cooking and eating of crow for my documentary. If you find Bigfoot, we all win. I think there are definitely no Bigfoots in Kentucky rummaging around for pancakes or who knows what, but I won't insult you for looking for it. Best of luck with that - I mean it.

3) I am not a troll or trolling. My interest in Bigfoot is sincere. It's just different than yours. I welcome you to go about your business discussing research techniques and conversing with other searchers of Bigfoot. You can expect to never see me in the section you do it. I'm just not interested. I will offer you a good technique for discovering Bigfoot, though. Take a bunch of people from Europe and Asia and Africa and other places to show up on a continent. Have that continent already populated with people who can smote everything from polar bears to mammoths to whales. Have the people from the boats start up a few modern industrial nations on the continent where the species of giant monkey is supposed to be spread across. Sit back and wait for dead Bigfoots to pile up. Voilà! You may then discuss your newly catalogued ape species and I can eat my crow.

Doesn't this look delicious?

The "So good you'll want to slap your mother-in-law" Recipe submitted by Jim Anderson

Ingredients

16 pieces of crow breast meat (no bones) (8 crows)

16 pieces of jalapeno peppers (or banana peppers)

16 strips of bacon

1 1/2 cups of Teriyaki sauce

Preparation

Place breast meat in a covered bowl with the Teriyaki sauce over night.

Cook the breasts in boiling water for about five minutes. Cut up fresh

jalapeno peppers into circles (or use the store bought kind that come in

jars). Place one jalapeno pepper in the center of each breast and wrap with

bacon. Secure the bacon with a round toothpick. Cook on the grill until

bacon is crisp (not burned). Flip the breasts constantly to avoid the fat

catching on fire. Use banana peppers for people that don't like their food

quite so hot.

Serves four adults

http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm

Are you kidding me? Bacon and jalapenos with black bandit? Will somebody please hurry up and find Bigfoot so I can eat this? The Bigfoot finding technique I suggested was not my idea. It was my friend William Parcher's. I think it's a very good one. If it doesn't work, I suggest you have also a good technique for finding social constructs like Dogman, ghosts, etc.

I think the P/G film may be your reason for living but to me it's not. I really don't care if it's real footage or not. It's my opinion that it's right on, oh but, you've already prepared for my response by saying you don't think I've had a sighting, so again, It's my opinion Patty's real. It seems to be your very passionate opinion that Patty is not, ok, again fine by me. I stick with my statement that Patty is right on, don't believe me, (but mark it down somewhere I said it.)

This is unnecessarily personal and incivil. I welcome you to your opinion and I don't think you're a fool for having it. Please don't insinuate the PGF is my reason for living. I think it is a comment meant to belittle me and my investigation of the PGF. If my arguments are disagreeable to you, please disagree with them, but please don't be personal with me. My reason for living was my mother and father having sex which caused me to be conceived. My most important things in my life I can count on two fingers...

1) My four year old son.

2) My music.

Clacking away about Bigfoot and investigating specific claims is something I enjoy doing, but I can live without it. I can not bear to be without my son and I can not bear to not make and perform music. Please understand mutual respect is important to me. I want to feel like I am in debate with interesting people like Scott Herriott. His claimed Bigfoot sighting sounds nothing like the Kentucky Patty-like Bigfoot sighting you have implied. It has grey Bigfoots, glowing red eyes, the whole nine yards. It sounds utterly wonky to me, but I have listened to him personally tell me the story and did so without the slightest disrespect or feeling of derision. Does Bigfoot exist and is sometimes grey with glowing, not reflecting, red eyes? Who do I believe? I believe the person with proof or reliable evidence. Scott knows that, and yet he is confident in himself to tell me the story and knows I won't belittle him. That gets big, fat respect in my book.

As far as anyone from KY trying to hoodwink you, Not me. I don't care if you believe or not. It is kinda funny though. I think you really want to know if these creatures exist or not. I know they do, but you can never know they don't. It's not fair for you and I really do feel for you but that's the way it is until a body is brought forth. I respect your opinions and others opinions as well but, never tell me what I saw or what I didn't see, unless you were present. Let's respect each other and not call anyone a liar even if we start it with "I think". Those kind of statements lead to face to face encounters for explanations of meaning. Chris B.

1) Again, this is unnecessarily personal. Where have I called anyone a liar? I keenly understand the rules of this forum. I have not called you a liar. I have specifically written that there are other alternatives to lying. I could never make a judgement without seeing you claim, and I doubt it will come to my attention. I am just not that interested. People claim to see all sorts of wonky stuff. Patty is completely wonky to me.

2) You can never know Dogman doesn't exist, so we're even.

3) I have never told you what you saw. That would be impossible for me to do. I have said I don't for a second believe you ever saw Bigfoot for real in Kentucky. I am allowed to have such an opinion. I would immediately alter it if you offered proof or reliable evidence. That is how skepticism works, and I don't think that should ever be changed. We've been doing it this way since Linnaeus, and I think that way rocks.

Let's agree to disgree. Fair enough?

If, after some consideration, you find my manner of thinking disagreeable and you don't want to see it, I welcome you to make use of the ignore feature, or simply check out which threads I routinely post in and avoid them. I don't even post in many of the PGF threads, so it wouldn't be hard at all.

Cheers and thank you for the stimulating debate. I enjoy it.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Kit - I didn't read all of your Autobiography above but; I hope you understand what the fair and wise HRP said. Can we please get back to the discussion?

That is the essence of being a skeptic and I'm good with that. It means I am much less likely to be duped or hoodwinked.

Or, it might mean that you are more likely to think that something is fake when it is real. It works both ways (I think.)

post-131-096043600 1287293165_thumb.jpg

post-131-001887200 1287293130_thumb.jpg

I looked through the clip above for the Bigfoot costumes that are supposed to make me think that Patty is fake. The silhouette Bigfoots don't look real at all to me, sorry. I like the second image where we learn that each Bigfoot has it's own unique and funky shaped head that is completely different of every other Bigfoot in their family.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

That's it. I give up. Another thread I'm walking from.

This thread has been completely taken over by an obsessive man with Japanese buddies being completely ridiculous, going off on tangents and showing pathetic videos claiming Robot Monster looks like Patty. I can't stand this rubbish anymore.

Mods.

THIS thread is supposed to be discussing reasons NOT to consider the PGF a hoax, not yet another platform for him to seek attention.

I hope I not breaking any rules by appealing for something to be done.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

If Patty is realistic, why do so many informed people think she is very unrealistic?

There are many informed people on both sides of the fence. IMO I think it's just like any other topic left open to conspiracy and mystery.

There are informed people that don't believe we landed on the moon, informed people that think 9/11 was an inside job, informed people that think there were multiple assassins at the JFK shooting. Just as we have people that 'want to believe' there are also those that 'don't want to believe' and will go to great lengths to build their case.

There is always someone that feels they have the surefire evidence to crack the case wide open, but they always fail to convince because there is still a degree of reasonable doubt left in their argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit - I didn't read all of your Autobiography above but; I hope you understand what the fair and wise HRP said. Can we please get back to the discussion?

That is the wonderful thing about freedom, liberty, and the civilized way - you are free to never have to read a post of mine if you don't want to. You can skip right over it, or half-read it, or whatever. I am then also free to point out what I think are the failures to understand something that arises from it.

I am on topic, and will discuss the topic at hand with you gladly. If you feel something is off-topic, there is certainly nothing to prevent you from reporting my post that you think is OT. You read what you want, you don't what you don't. Works for me. Does that work for you?

Or, it might mean that you are more likely to think that something is fake when it is real. It works both ways (I think.)

Then when Bigfoot is proven real, or at least gets some reliable evidence, I ask you to tell me about it. I want that "So good you'll want to slap your mother-in-law" crow meat dish so bad I can taste it. Bigfoot being real would be pretty rad, too, though I think the jalapenos and bacon might make me forget about it, if only for a little while.

I looked through the clip above for the Bigfoot costumes that are supposed to make me think that Patty is fake. The silhouette Bigfoots don't really impress me. I like the image on the right where we learn that each Bigfoot has it's own unique and funky shaped head that is completely different of every other Bigfoot in their family. :B

1) More accurately, the idea is that some of the images I posted look more real than Patty. If you would dismiss the Manbeast Bigfoots based on their silhouette's, I would suggest you haven't watched enough. Look from 4:42 here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp-bD_Kjor8&feature=related

Those creature effects are just awesome to me and other people have agreed with me. Check them in the full light like Patty is seen, but clear and in close-up.

2) Patty's silhouette isn't inspiring any confidence in me. It looks like a bean bag with some of air let out of it and an assortment of sporting goods placed inside.

3) The head shape is from the hair, not the skull. If you watched something other than just the beginning with the silhouettes of the Bigfoot clan, or myth of Bigfoots, if you will, you would have seen that. BTW, any arguments about Patty Conehead being just a bad hair day with be met with some cibachromes.

I think this is an example of not paying proper attention to what I post coming back and causing a problem in your arguments. I was reading through Bill's PGF on Trial proposal, and sometimes I wanted to go make some Techno or play Bionic Commando, but dagnabit, I stuck to it. There's just no way I am going to get caught with my pants down on October 20. How about you? Would you like to face me in a PGF on Trial formal debate? I would welcome your participation, and I believe I would do very well. The best part about it is that how well I do will never be determined by me other than formulating my arguments. It will all be in the hands of someone proven time and again to be completely neutral.

Does every PGF proponent appreciate neutrality? I think there are some that have had it up to their eyebrows with neutrality. You have struck me thus far as never being such a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I think this is an example of not paying proper attention to what I post coming back and causing a problem in your arguments.

(this isn't about you)

Does anybody else see any moving pictures of a costume Bigfoot that looks as realistic as Patty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

There are many informed people on both sides of the fence. IMO I think it's just like any other topic left open to conspiracy and mystery.

There are informed people that don't believe we landed on the moon, informed people that think 9/11 was an inside job, informed people that think there were multiple assassins at the JFK shooting. Just as we have people that 'want to believe' there are also those that 'don't want to believe' and will go to great lengths to build their case.

There is always someone that feels they have the surefire evidence to crack the case wide open, but they always fail to convince because there is still a degree of reasonable doubt left in their argument.

Well said and I'm sorry, I've already tapped my green button for the day. If I remember tomorrow, I may come back and give this a plonk for respect.

I aim to never do what people like Greg Long or Dfoot did, and leave the door open. My plan is to shut the door tight on the PGF controversy, bolt it up tight, and stick a couple of bouncers in front of it. That means proof is proof, and I think that is what gets some PGF believers very uppity.

Coincidentally, I just happened to come across a somewhat well-known Bigfooter and PGF proponent posting on a JFK assasination board while looking for some Dogman threads. It made sense to me in that it was perfectly natural for the person to be interested in conspiracies. When I was much younger and far more credulous, I pored over Graham Hancock's The Mars Mystery with care and wonder. I look back now and wonder how I could have not seen the pseudoscience for what it was. It's OK, though. We all evolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

(this isn't about you)

Does anybody else see any moving pictures of a costume Bigfoot that looks as realistic as Patty?

Sure, I understand. I think my posts can be boring for some people. It would not be realistic to think otherwise. (Anyone who wants to chime in with agreement, feel free, but I don't know if that would be cool with the rules).

I ask you this...

The BFF v.1 had multiple threads on the Harley Hoffman video with lots of people who thought it looked very much like Patty, only wishing they could see more of the film subject. I feel the exact same way about Patty. Let's see her close up and from more than two angles. Let's see a clear image of her from the front and behind. I think that would resolve a lot of things.

Do you accept that there were numerous Bigfoot believer people who felt the Hoffman video was realistic and bore similarities to Patty? Obviously I would understand you asking to see the proof. I simply want to know if you think this is a specious claim the way PastorTim suggested.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Kit - I can't really say how many 'Bigfoot believer people' liked the Harley Hoffman costume. I thought it was very good myself but, it did not keep us wondering about it for decades. Tell ya what: I will admit that the PGF is 'somewhat' subjective if you will admit that you do not know if Bigfoot exists. How's that? :wacko:

Kerchak - I don't blame you at all for being sick of the soap box soliloquies. I hope those don't keep you from participating on any thread cuz you seem cool.

Chris - what you said seems very fair to both doubters and proponents alike and it made a lot of sense to me. Thank-you.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit - I can't really say how many 'Bigfoot believer people' liked the Harley Hoffman costume. I thought it was very good myself but, it did not keep us wondering about it for decades. Tell ya what: I will admit that the PGF is 'somewhat' subjective if you will admit that you do not know if Bigfoot exists. How's that?

I have a better idea. How about acknowledging that a scenario in which informed people such as Bill Munns and Chris Walas reach polar opposite conclusions is sufficient evidence to render a judgement of "totally subjective" and I won't bring into it all the throngs of other people that are similarly split?

Is that for any reason to you unfair? Also, I will give you right now what you ask for.

I heartily admit that I do not know imperically that Bigfoot does without a doubt not exist. I also heartily admit that I can think of no scientific method or test I could design realistically to achieve proving that Bigfoot does not exist. That is the entire reason I deal with specific claims, such as the PGF, native traditions, and DNA. Trying to prove a negative is utterly unscientific, IMO. Claims are examined and tested. How do you test for no Bigfoot?

I do not know imperically that Dogman or Reptoids do not exist, and yet despite many alleged sightings, I have personally concluded them to be social construct not quite as popular as Bigfoot. Bigfoot being more popular and having more sightings does not make it more credible to me. Indeed, for me it makes it more likely to be a social construct. Look at the alien abduction phenomenon, and yet never once any proof or reliable evidence for aliens in ships yoinking humans from cars, beds, etc.

The whole, entire philosophy of skepticism is to question claims and not accept them until there is proof or reliable evidence of the claims. That is the only way for me, but I accept that many find belief to be the desirable option. My belief is bought only with the currency of proof and reliable evidence.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

My belief is bought only with the currency of proof and reliable evidence.

And your doubt is absolutely free right? Ok, I get it. I'm glad you admit that you do not know if Bigfoot exists or not and, as per our agreement, I admit that the PGF is somewhat subjective.

You may discover one day that Bigfoot does exist or you may not but, I respect that you can realize that you don't know. Neither do I. So, that makes us bffff's I guess. haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

And your doubt is absolutely free right? Ok, I get it. I'm glad you admit that you do not know if Bigfoot exists or not and, as per our agreement, I admit that the PGF is somewhat subjective.

You may discover one day that Bigfoot does exist or you may not but, I respect that you can realize that you don't know. Neither do I. So, that makes us bffff's I guess. haha

My doubt is not free. It is bought with indications of deceptions, hoaxing, misidentifications, hallucinations, overactive imaginations and all of the other known and proven phenomena that can account for what I suggest is a social structure. If people claim to see things like Dogman and Reptoids, is it not fair for me to consider other fortean claims with skepticism?

Please understand, skepticism is a perfectly valid philosophy in life and there is a huge community of like-minded individuals out there everywhere. I would never force anyone to join that community or think like I do. I very much enjoy diversity and it should be very clear by now, believing in Bigfoot will not warrant discrimination from me. If you like, click on my profile and see my friends list for examples of Bigfoot believers I consider to be friends on the Internet.

You have a good one, xspider. Time for me to hit the hay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Reason #54,539,834

Evidently, the best costume comparison from the 'expert PGF skeptics' in the past 43 years looks something like this:

post-131-028689700 1287309770_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

From that angle I think it is a remarkably good comparison. I think they both look like a man in a suit. Many people do. Their opinions are not less valid than xspider's, right?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Reason #54,539,834

Evidently, the best costume comparison from the 'expert PGF skeptics' in the past 43 years looks something like this:

post-131-028689700 1287309770_thumb.jpg

The Blevins suit is too wide in the butt and the bottom of the foot we're seeing in this frame looks like its been touched up because the edge line of it looks too sharp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...