Tontar's been an outspoken advocate for the non-existence of the creature known as BF. Very vocal in several arenas.
I don't believe that's an accurate characterization of what I have said or how I feel. I am not an outspoken advocate for the non-existence of bigfoot. But I believe wholeheartedly that the vast majority of the evidence purported to be from bigfoot is not from bigfoot, but from people. In a different vein, what I have argued most strongly about is that the evidence that proponents believe could not be the product of anything other than a real bigfoot, such as prints, such as the incredible number of prints, such as the PGF, such as the shape, dimensions, motion and appearance of Patty, is not even close to impossible for people to produce.
You seem to think, like many other proponents, that arguing in favor of humans' ability to manufacture bigfoot evidence, such as Patty as the prime example, is equal to arguing that bigfoot does not exist. That's a mistake on your part, as well as anyone else's that makes that jump. It's not at all the same argument. Bigfoot may exist, I don't know either way. But arguing that Patty could very well be a man in a suit is not the same as arguing that bigfoot in general doesn't exist. I really try to choose my arguments the best I can. And I try to leave possibilities open when necessary.
So just to be clear, arguing that Patty could be a man in a suit is not the same as me being an outspoken advocate for the non-existence of bigfoot.
You carry yourself as one who knows a lot about costumes and fake feet. I think it's important for both sides to understand who is out there fabricating evidence.
I know a little bit about a lot of things. Not as much as some people do, and more than maybe some others. My main interest is is the PGF, whether Patty was real or not, which means whether it was a man in a suit or not, whether all of the crazy little details make sense, whether the footprints indicated a giant of a beast made them, or whether they were even made on the same day as the filming. Patty has been held up as the holy grail of bigfoot evidence, from what we see on film, to what we see as the alleged footprints made by "her", and so on. If Patty was a hoax, then who made the prints, and how? Interesting question. If Patty was a hoax, then who made the suit, and why are so many people fooled by it still?
The PGF is where my main interest is. Bigfoot has always been a fascinating subject for me, from the time I was a kid, like it has been for a lot of people. I also like movies, I also like sci-fi movies, "monster movies", and as a fan, I like to learn about special effects, costuming, makeup, the works. Since so many people argue that Patty has to be real because no suit could look like Patty, and since I disagree with that concept, I argue based on what I think, what I can learn about it, and what makes the most sense to me.
I certainly don't know as much about costumes and fake feet as I seem to be credited for! Clearly within this thread there have been huge revelations about fake and real feet, which would behoove anyone interested in bigfoot tracks to absorb and utilize.
As far as finding out who is out there fabricating evidence, I think that's a lot bigger task than you seem to think. Considering how long evidence fabrication has been going on, and I hope that even you will agree that it has been going on a very long time, there's no way to even scratch the surface. Just check the most recent prints that were shown by what's the guy's name, Outdoor Wilderness or something like that? He found them, he reported them, he swears they are real, and he has fake bigfoot feet photos in his collection from well in the past, saying how he'd love to have a set so he could stomp around making fake prints. Now he challenges people that say his are fake by saying they're calling him a liar?
Fact is, people have been faking bigfoot evidence all along. Just for the sake of being neutral, it doesn't matter if bigfoot really exists, most evidence is produced by people. Make a long list of all the bigfoot evidence you can come up with, and honestly question which is real and which is fake. Even allowing for the existence of bigfoot, which is hard to do on a skeptical forum, you still come up with most being faked. So if you want to identify people who hoax evidence, you'll be opening a can of worms so big you might not be prepared for what's inside! Trying to find satisfaction or solace by "outing" one hoaxer is neglecting the unbelievably huge mountain that came before and continues to come after.
