New PGF Research

[larryzed]

50 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

The PGF isn't AI. I, for one, appreciate the daylights out of Mr. Munns' ongoing research efforts.

AI doesn't enter the picture.

Not yet. Was referring to Norseman's reference "No film ever will." Just embellishing my agreement.

[Backdoc]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

 case for the PGF being real.
 

But science has never wavered on its requirement for a type specimen. 

 

 

 

 

The pressure is always on the Roger Patterson's of the world to prove something.  

 

Why isn't there any requirement to make a case for the PGF being a man in a suit.  It seems those who believe the PGF is real need to make the challenge to prove it is fake.   If they prove it is that is fine by me.  But why is the skeptic class constantly let off the hook?  Even on these bigfoot shows why aren't the Stan Winston's of the world and their snarky arrogance challenged.   

 

 

 

Stan Winston:  "It's a man in a bad fur suit- sorry.   If someone made a suit that bad, they wouldn't be hired.  It could be done today for a couple hundred dollars."

 

TV SHOW person:  "Stan, why don't you show us.?  Take any 1967 material you need and go to it.  Shut these guys up once and for all." (Really a put up or shut up to Stan Winston and his like)   

 

 

 

Yes, I know Stan has passed.   You get the idea.   TV show people need to put the 'monkey' on the skeptics back.   Dare them to show us all. 

[wiiawiwb]

7 hours ago, larryzed said:

The idea of new research on a decades old film is funny to me. Neither camp has made their case and those were actually there are now old enough that memory is in doubt in terms of accuracy due to their age. It is inconclusive and will remain so, sadly.

 

Bill Munn's work is a veritable thesus on the PGF. Gigantofootecus and Sweaty Yeti have also done groundbreaking work. Have you reviewed their work here on BFF especially those related to Patty's proportions? Look for ASH ratio and arm proportions. Some of GF's work dates back to ~ November 2005, in BFF 1.0 archives, which is about when he began posting here, if memory serves me.

 

I'd say a very strong case has been made by all three. Can you name me anyone who has successfully explained Patty's inhuman ASH ratio and Gigantofootecus' photogrammetric analysis?

[norseman]

43 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

The pressure is always on the Roger Patterson's of the world to prove something.  

 

Why isn't there any requirement to make a case for the PGF being a man in a suit.  It seems those who believe the PGF is real need to make the challenge to prove it is fake.   If they prove it is that is fine by me.  But why is the skeptic class constantly let off the hook?  Even on these bigfoot shows why aren't the Stan Winston's of the world and their snarky arrogance challenged.   

 

 

 

Stan Winston:  "It's a man in a bad fur suit- sorry.   If someone made a suit that bad, they wouldn't be hired.  It could be done today for a couple hundred dollars."

 

TV SHOW person:  "Stan, why don't you show us.?  Take any 1967 material you need and go to it.  Shut these guys up once and for all." (Really a put up or shut up to Stan Winston and his like)   

 

 

 

Yes, I know Stan has passed.   You get the idea.   TV show people need to put the 'monkey' on the skeptics back.   Dare them to show us all. 

It’s simple. We lack physical evidence. It we found a fossil of a large primate in North America? And the fossil was relatively young? That would change the narrative IMHO. (Barring any ulterior motives)

 

The skeptics retreat behind this lack of evidence. It’s their sanctuary. So Patty HAS TO BE a man in a suit, right? Because if there was something out there or was there? They would have found evidence by now, right? I watch people like Michael Shermer….. and the subject could be any cryptozoology creature. His argument is almost always identical. Attack the character of witnesses, point to natural explanations or point to hoaxes.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

The pressure is always on the Roger Patterson's of the world to prove something.  

 

Why isn't there any requirement to make a case for the PGF being a man in a suit.........

 

It's the same principle as legal court, but in reverse. The state must prove its case beyond. reasonable doubt, but the defense only needs to inject doubt. 

 

But I'm not a lawyer or scientist, and I'm not on a jury being used as a player in their game. I can use my own judgement, even to the point of "hunting" a sasquatch. As long as I don't harm it, there is no way I can be accused of wrongdoing.They can only ridicule, which has no power over me.