Finally clear evidence that the PG film is a hoax!

originally posted by: tiger_tts
Actually, I was sincerely worried that you had an unstated handicap and, if so, I did not want to be unkind. But since this is a “software” issue, you should know that dumb statements do not equal sarcasm. You made another dumb statement in the IMAX post where you wrote “. . .(yes it's obviously a person). . .” This was similarly structured phrase but your intended meaning was exactly the opposite of the intended meaning here. It’s just a poor writing FAIL.

You should take a writing class, I am sure that when you are done your brilliance will become apparent to someone other than yourself. (See what I did there -

)

Moving on . . .

Your previous mention of “evidence” showed a lack of understanding of what evidence is. This time you came back with “Anything can be called evidence.” Wrong again.

Care to give it another shot? You do? Ok then, “genuine evidence” you say!?! Nope, wrong again. All you did was stick an adjective in front of the word “evidence”. (Although I might have given it to you if you had said “most excellent” evidence or “dead on, balls accurate” evidence.)

But don’t get down on yourself, this is a wonderful example of another one of your “strawman” arguments. If “Anything can be called evidence” then it can all be summarily dismissed. So in a strange, warped way, you have brought us back on point.

A little tip for you tiger. If you (personally) are going to criticise other peoples' use of the English language, you might want to get someone to look over your own post first, before you hit enter.

Also, if you are going to resort to the "you must be handicapped" spiel, it might be worth pondering something. Namely, that you believe in what is simply a hairy, adult version of the boogyman. Try to comprehend that. If that doesn't give you pause, nothing will.

There is no bigfoot evidence that can't be fabricated or misinterpreted in exactly the same way, to support the existence of fairies. Unlike real creatures which leave real, logically consistent evidence.

If you have some, please, stop the babble and present it.

Every single piece of bigfoot evidence that has had this possibility of genuinely indicating an unknown large creature inhabits NA, when scrutinized, has given 0 plausible scientific reasons to consider that such a creature might exist. Hence scientists either have no interest, some of them actually laugh at what has been offered by bigfooters. The entirety of it has either been fake, non conclusive, or mundane (as in the Sykes study where people were claiming racoons were bigfoot).

Lots of noise about bigfoot, yet nary anything that might lead to a bigfoot itself.

Bigfoot is not relevant to science as yet. It is only relevant to the "performing arts/folk art/storytelling".

Sorry, OP. This is not "clear evidence." Not by a long shot.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: Maverick7

I swear I'm not being a wise guy but did we really need any type of closure on this..don't think there are many on here who believed this to be true...but it is ATS

Why not?
I dont see any major big deal about a yet to be discovered primate class. its not like other primates are simply unheard of unicorns in the wild. Plenty of people have said they have eye witness accounts of these primates..sure..why not. its semi interesting, like hearing about a giant boar sub species.

Agreed! People that say there simply cannot be something that big existing, have not spent any amount of time in the true wilderness.

Probably okay to assume that they haven't heard of this either. There still remains a lot to be discovered out there, and I'm not willing to close my mind to anything.

This! I suspect the debunkers spend more time indoors than out, or in cities, suburb or farm land type of places.

There are thousands of acres of nothingness twenty mi!es from me, in the Rocky Mountains. I can totally appreciate the rare sightings, now that I live in such a wild place.

Also, I just need to add that the title of this thread irks me.

It is TOTAL click bait.

Some more interesting claims re the "Patty" supposed conical head shape. What is interesting is that it was originally put forth by someone who believes this is a real bigfoot. So it looks like believers themselves can't agree on Patty's characteristics, which is understandable. It requires so much enlargement, manipulation and enhancing to try to see anything, that no one really knows what Patty looks like (in any detail). The quality simply isn't in the original to allow anything beyond the most basic observations. There are also no proportions or other measurements really possible.

It also every bit as convincing (not very) and has about as much chance of being sufficiently demonstrated, or debunked, as anything else believers have claimed about Patty.

"Some in research believe this to be a conical head. Clearly it is not - it moves...she does NOT have a conical head."

www.bigfootencounters.com...

"She has no conical head, she has no sagittal crest & she has no sloped forehead as previously thought."

www.bigfootencounters.com...

Does anyone know where there are any faithful high res still images of the pg film? By that I mean images that have have some sort of provenance as to what they are, the software or other method used to scale/enlarge etc? Basically of what is on the film, as is, of the actual pgf frames? I have been assured that good quality scans exist, never been able to find them.

I have been told the library of congress copy of the film is quite clear with vivd colour (though Patty only takes up a very small amount of the frames). All of the ones floating around seem to have either been heavily cropped and filtered or enhanced.

a reply to: Maverick7 This website are for people with open minds, who accept the possibility of the unknown existing. Go join a skeptic website and leave us alone.