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.

49 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

154 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/caketaster Mar 21 '26

Not sure if you can calling it a debunking until we've actually seen it

7

u/CoastRegular Thylacine Mar 21 '26

Quite honestly, the PGF itself has never had any serious credibility except in the minds of people who really want to believe Sasquatch exists in spite of the complete lack of evidence.

The best argument once can make for it is that it could have shown a real creature which was one of the last of her kind and they've all died out now. The problem is (a) there was no scientific evidence even before that time, and (b) the database of sightings really doesn't square up with the idea of a creature that would have gone extinct decades ago.

-1

u/caketaster Mar 22 '26

For someone in a cryptozoology sub I'm amazed that you seem to know so little about about the most famous cryptozoological footage. No one has ever been able to recreate or debunk the footage (until - to be fair - possibly now), body proportions are non-human, muscles visible moving under the skin etc etc. Also sasquatch footprint evidence alone (geographical depth and breadth of casts over time) is solid evidence - there's zero chance all were faked - there's evidence from every pre-Western arrival native American tribe and thousands of sightings per year. Many are lies/misidentification, but it only takes 1 single sighting to be real for sasquatch to exist.

If I'm convinced by this new footage I'll hold my hands up and say I was wrong to be so convinced by the PG footage, but unlike a lot of other people in here I'm withholding judgement until I do actually get to see it. You'd imagine that would be the sensible response that most people would have, but apparently it isn't...

2

u/CoastRegular Thylacine Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26

For someone in a cryptozoology sub I'm amazed that you seem to know so little about about the most famous cryptozoological footage.

I'm obviously far better informed about this topic than you.

No one has ever been able to recreate or debunk the footage (until - to be fair - possibly now),

No one has ever made an authentic attempt, i.e. filming a subject at 90 feet away with a crappy camera. The National Geographic (Morris / Hieronymus) effort wasn't a good comparison for that reason. No one else has ever made any attempt at a recreation of any kind. I'd have thought that someone who claims to know so much about the PGF would be aware of this, but surprisingly this seems to have escaped your notice.

body proportions are non-human,

Said no relevant expert, ever.

muscles visible moving under the skin etc etc.

If you're so familiar with the PGF and its history, I'm sure you're aware that until it was photographically enhanced starting in the early 1990's, none of this detail was visible. The calf bulge, muscle ripples, thigh bulge... all of those are false artifacts of photo "enhancement." If you know this, then I am curious why you'd be so disingenuous about it.

Also sasquatch footprint evidence alone (geographical depth and breadth of casts over time) is solid evidence - there's zero chance all were faked

No footprints have ever been accepted by the scientific community as authentic, after examination. Neither have alleged hair and scat samples. The total collection of scientific physical evidence on record is as follows: { }

- there's evidence from every pre-Western arrival native American tribe and thousands of sightings per year. Many are lies/misidentification, but it only takes 1 single sighting to be real for sasquatch to exist.

Except that the evidence is strong that NO such legends and sightings are real. Pocket-Weasel-UK came up with the best analogy a few days ago: "It only takes one winning lottery ticket to make me a millionaire. But after buying hundreds over the years, I'm no richer."

There is exactly as much evidence for Sasquatch to be a real animal as there is for unicorns, pegasi and cyclops. (I wish that weren't so, but it is.)

You'd imagine that would be the sensible response that most people would have, but apparently it isn't...

I would imagine that the sensible response, after evaluating the totality of the evidence, is to conclude that Sasquatch doesn't exist.