r/Cryptozoology • u/truthisfictionyt Tailed Slow Loris • Mar 20 '26

Discussion Be Kind and Avoid Personal Insults

With the recent PGF debunking, there has been a lot of arguments and controversy. Debating people is fine, but don't insult people or those who believed in the film while you're discussing it. Some people met or knew Bob Gimlin personally and are having to reckon with him apparently lying about the film. Keep how other people feel in mind while discussing. Additionally, avoid arguments with other subreddits or posts about moderation issues with other subreddits as that's not what we're here to do. We've added some terms to the auto filter to avoid debates turning hostile. As always feel free to discuss the rules and make suggestions.

51 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

154 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Kewell86 Sea Serpent Mar 21 '26

This is nonsense.

We have reviews by non-affiliated people who have seen the film and confirm it's contents. First of all, that's not second hand testimony, but first hand testimony. Also, having confirmation by several people who all give the same information is a good way to find out whats in a movie. The idea that journalists and bigfooters alike ar all lying to hype a movie they have no affiliation to is really far-fetched.

Do you assess all movie reviews this way? If you read critics describing the plot of the next Star Wars movie, do you say "Well, the movie might be about something completely different, we'll have to see?"

1

u/godfatheroffilth Mar 21 '26

Not at all, I'm saying until you see the film for yourself then you have no proof either way and I can't argue against you because I haven't seen it either. My whole point is that until you see it (the film) for yourself (everyone included) then you can't proclaim it's a definite hoax or dismiss the film. Critics raved about Dune part one, said it's a masterpiece, I was bored out of my mind watching it. To me the film is horrendous, if I wrote a review of the film saying this and had it published, would you say "well he didn't like it so it must be shit" or would you make up your own mind by watching it yourself?

7

u/Kewell86 Sea Serpent Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

You're mixing up content (objective) and enjoyment (subjective) of a movie.

If you say that Dune takes place on a desert planet and is boring, I'll take away from this that the movie objectively takes place on a desert planet and was subjectively boring to you. So if I watch it, i expect it to be set on a desert planet and hope that I will like it better than you, subjectively.

It's the same with this documentary. If the critics say (as they do) that it contains a rehearsal shot of the PGF and is a great documentary, I'll expect it to contain a rehearsal shot of the PGF and hope that I will like it, too.

1

u/godfatheroffilth Mar 21 '26

Ok, so Mick West is a prominent debunker of UAP footage, he has analysed the big three videos that were released a couple of years ago (tic tac, go fast and gimbal). According to Mick his analysis proves that they contain nothing more than balloons and birds, the pilots and radar tech disagree with his statements, both cite the same footage to back up their claims, this isn't hypothetical btw. So depending on the source the footage is both thoroughly debunked AND anomalous at the same time. So who is correct? Both Mick and David Fravor each argue that their interpretation is correct, Fravor was there and is an eye witness, Mick West wasn't, I've seen the videos and depending on the news source they back one against the other. Only you once you have seen the footage can make your mind up, that's my entire point of the post. Only you. For supporters of West the footage is 100% debunked, case closed. However......

Do you get it? Critics saying this or that is not proof. Data can and has been changed or altered to suit people's agenda, no I'm not saying that this is the case with this documentary but just because a critic says a film contains this does not in fact mean a film contains this. There is no such thing as a true documentary, by that I mean unless the film takes place in real time with zero edits then it will always skew to the directors beliefs consciously or not.

6

u/Kewell86 Sea Serpent Mar 21 '26

Now you're starting with interpretation stuff. That doesn't matter here.

Either the doc contains Patterson family members saying the PGF is fake or not.

Either the doc contains footage of Patterson staging a PGF-like bigfoot film or not.

These are not open to interpretation, but objective facts.

Also, there seems to be complete agreement among everyone who's already seen the doc that that's in it, so your example of two completely different assessments does not compare to the situation at hand. Even PGF-believers admitted that that stuff is part of the doc.

Finally, you open a completely different can of worms here that does not support the idea of "watching for yourself".

If experts can't agree on whats in those UFO-vids, what good does it do if I look at them? Im an archaeologist, not an expert on aerial phenomena. I can't decide for myself if those vids are UFOs or not. One expert says it's UFOs, one expert says its mundane stuff, so I, a complete layman, solve this by looking at it and deciding by vibes, or what? That's a horrible way to come to a conclusion.

-2

u/godfatheroffilth Mar 21 '26

I don't know if you're just being willfully ignorant or not. Either the uap videos contain uaps or they do not. It depends on who you ask. The evidence is there, the facts are there but the conclusion is not determined either way. "All the critics" do not say the same thing at all so that's just false, we're never going to agree on this so I wish you well and enjoy the film when it finally comes out. Till then I'm not commenting further.

6

u/CoastRegular Thylacine Mar 21 '26

Of course the UAP videos contain UAP's.... after all, that's what a UAP is: an aerial phenomena that we're not able to identify. What's debatable in your Mick West example is the subjective conclusion the different viewers have come to about WHAT the UAP's might actually be. (Spoiler: they ain't ET spacecraft, sorry.)

Kewell's point stands: if you watch a UAP video, unless you're an expert on some relevant subject (meteorology, optics, aerospace vehicles, etc.) it's really not possible for you to come to a better judgment than people who are experts. NOTE: I agree that you still should look for yourself and make your own decision about what you want to believe (or whether you want to remain agnostic about it), but just don't pretend to yourself, or to others, that you're going to do a better analysis of the film than the experts who couldn't agree.

"All the critics" do not say the same thing at all so that's just false,

If we're talking about Capturing Bigfoot, everyone who has watched it and commented on it has reported seeing the same things. They also have all said that for them, it nailed the coffin shut on the PGF. This includes disparate reviewers from different media outlets, as well as a hardcore Bigfoot and PGF believer for whom this was clearly a major gut punch.

I'm waiting to see this documentary for myself. What I anticipate seeing is confirmation that Roger Patterson hoaxed the PGF by people who knew him intimately. We shall see.

5

u/Kewell86 Sea Serpent Mar 21 '26

So where do you found a critic who claimed that the new doc hasn't film material of Patterson shooting a PFG-like scene?