Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
That plastic toy "robot arm" is perfectly adequate for any finger bending that might be taking place in the PGF (which is still yet to be clearly shown -- so it might not even be there). I'm gonna go out on a limb and say (without any research at all, so I expect to get shouted down on this) that it probably cost a good deal less than $10,000.

So, how is the Patty suit "impossible," again?
 
This is why these threads are so long. There is very little new information provided there is just...

"Look the fingers bend it can't be a suit!"

Sad ain't it. It's like being stuck in a time-loop. Squatches be roaming all over North America, and the best we can do is to rehash a tired old film from 40 years ago.

Very little new information...

RayG
 
And here's what happens with shoulder extensions....you look like you have shoulder extensions.....

Harry's shoulders look as though they have minor extensions...certainly less than 33% wider than his normal shoulder width. Imagine how strange he'd look with even wider shoulders.

I don't expect your comparisons to be functional, because they never are. The Harry costume is not the same as Patterson's Bigfoot, and that fact is not supportive of Patty being a real Bigfoot just because they are different. Because Harry was an active actor, his suit design needed to differ from Patty. All Patterson needed from Patty was to walk upright about 100 feet from his camera. Everything is different when your subject is that far away and does nothing more than walk, swing its arms and turn to look at you. Even with only that, we can see evidence that Patty is a costume. The sudden fold that appears on her right thigh is rather obvious when one has an opportunity to examine clips and still frames. It seems that some of the early reviewers did not see this, probably because they weren't focused on that point as the film rolled through the projector. Even now some people don't notice or pay attention to it unless it is pointed out by others.

You are using a set of arguments that are all red herrings:

  • Patty is real because she does not have the shaggy fur of typical gorilla costumes.
  • Patty is real because she has a more defined outline than typical gorilla costumes.
  • Patty is real because her shoulders are not like a typical gorilla costume or the Harry Bigfoot costume.
  • Patty is real because her hands are alive.
  • Patty is real because a human head cannot fit inside of hers.


Your arguments don't work because you fail to imagine that a creative and capable person (Patterson) could take a Phillip Morris gorilla costume and customize it to look like a Bigfoot when filmed walking at about 100 feet away from the camera. Very few people believe that Patty is convincingly a real Bigfoot and not a custom-made costume. You are one of them. Most of these people are trying to use the same and similar red herring arguments that you are using. These believers continually satisfy each other, but cannot make any sort of headway against those that understand what is being seen in the PGF. The mutual reinforcement of bizarre and unsupportable beliefs is what gives you a feeling of righteousness and propriety. This is typical of cult members. You voluntarily have decided to join that small club. It seems to suit you well.

Given your powers of observation, formation of concepts and argumentative style, I think you would make a rotten Bigfoot skeptic if you ever decided to "switch sides". That goes for Lu and Huntster as well.

I expect you to now just simply hurl back everything I said to you, using your typical semantically-slanted grandiosity.
 
Last edited:
Result....there is no evidence for a 'wrist bulge' and hence, no evidence of a hand inside the arm operating a fake hand.

We're not even sure the hand could move at all. Why would we expect a bulge, anyway ?

Another skeptic tries to post something intelligent in the way of analysis....and fails. :)

Do you have anything to say ? I thought you were leaving. Instead you're just here to troll, it seems.

Looky here. Can you see the fingers bend in THIS picture:

 
In Chris Murphy’s lates Hancock House newsletter:

http://forum.hancockhouse.com/media/nl29final.pdf

he provides Titmus’ tracking map of the PGF site,
overlaid on a photo of the area ..

titmap.gif


I added the ‘ X ‘ to show where Patty supposedly sat and watched the
men below.


This map contradicts Gimlin’s account of the encounter.
Radio interview in November 1967

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

W: How far were you able to follow her?
B: I watched her until she went up the road about 300 yards, and she went around a bend in the road and that was the last I seen of her.

In the 1992 interview with John Green, Gimlin’s story is not even close to the earlier one ..

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

Gimlin: Yeah, it hadn’t disappeared when the film footage…ah, when Roger ran out of film because it traveled on, oh probably not half again the distance of where he…[sic] but another thirty or forty yards. There was some trees down in that area. I suppose from the flood and so forth. There were many fallen trees and different things in that area. Then when the creature did disappear up a little draw, why I wanted to follow it. Of course Roger didn’t want to follow it because he was on foot and he didn’t want to be left there. We thought there was the possibility there were the two others around…we didn’t know at the time whether that was one of the ones that had made the tracks up above the scene or not.

Footers don’t seem to think a factor of 10 is all that significant when it comes to Gimlin
telling his story ..

In any event, neither version jives with Titmus’ tracking info; but just try to suggest Titmus was in error, and see what it gets you …
 
Sad ain't it. It's like being stuck in a time-loop. Squatches be roaming all over North America, and the best we can do is to rehash a tired old film from 40 years ago.

Very little new information...

RayG

I'm telling ya, the future of Bigfootery is NOW, and we see it on the Internet today. I predicted that YouTube videos would become the bread and butter of Bigfootery, and we see it now on Cryptomundo. Loren Coleman and Craig Woolheater are ahead of the curve on this, as we now are beginning to see "embedded" YouTube videos in the Cryptomundo blog.

Bigfoot Forums seems to have lost some of its former luster. I suspect there are multiple reasons for this, but at least partly it's because other web-based message boards have come along. The history of Bigfootery from the beginning is one of social fragmentation, and we see it happening in cyberspace today.

If someone hoaxes tracks, you run the risk of all your work going undiscovered. If you hoax a video, er, I mean, SHOOT a video, then upload it to YouTube you are guaranteed that at least some people will see it. But I guess you could video your own fake tracks, too... It's a given that we will continue to see lots more YouTube Bigfoot content.

There IS new information, but now it's in a different format.

It's Bigfootery for the MySpace and I-pod generation. And get off my lawn!

I'd like to take a moment to bask in my own glory, due to the fact that I got on the "ground floor" of this "Tube" thing. I shall now jump back and kiss myself.
 
tube wrote:
It's a given that we will continue to see lots more YouTube Bigfoot content.
Of course we will....it's just "more of the same". Bigfoot has been entertainment for a long time in the tabloid papers...and now it's entertainment on Youtube.

So what?

The search for Bigfoot continues...and if is out there, eventually it'll be proven.
 
I'm telling ya, the future of Bigfootery is NOW, and we see it on the Internet today.

Yes, the same hoax it always was. The same fake movies, photos, footprints, etc. Now digitized instead of on film. Now immediately available to scrutiny by hundreds of thousands of critics.
 
I'm telling ya, the future of Bigfootery is NOW, and we see it on the Internet today. I predicted that YouTube videos would become the bread and butter of Bigfootery, and we see it now on Cryptomundo.

I tend to agree. As Bigfootery gains public presence, skepticism may become more visible as well. This is only because strong BF belief is insistent on the reality of Bigfoot, and often goes as far as boldly criticizing science, media and the public for not taking it seriously. It appears to be a subculture of belief in something that is unsupportable. Bigfoot is a fantastic creature and belief in its existence is a kind of fantasy that can be acted out in public or in special interest forums.

I'm strongly reminded of "professional wrestling" when I think of Bigfootery. Many people enjoy this and become devoted to the whole fantasy and entertainment package. But virtually nobody truly believes that these "wrestlers" are actually wrestling (in the sense that two people are engaging in a physical battle within the ring). A skeptic of this wrestling would sound rather odd... "I don't believe that those guys are actually wrestling. You are mistaken to cheer them on and establish hero worship amongst them. They are acting."

Bigfootery looks like this to me. Part of the BF fan behavior is to argue against skeptics. That probably happens very little in wrestling because it is so obviously done as entertainment for its fans that the argument never really gets started. The audience participation in Bigfootery is much greater than wrestling and it is virtually open to anyone who wants to join in. Not everyone can be a "pro wrestler" (think Hulk Hogan), but just about anyone who wishes can claim a Bigfoot encounter. The "Bigfoot experts" (think Krantz, Green, Meldrum, etc.) are sort of like the pro wrestlers, but anyone can join-in in their own way. Bigfooters cheer on their experts and each other in a similar way to how wrestling fans cheer on their favorites. There are even characters that they despise for various reasons.

But what about the evidence for Bigfoot as a real creature (tracks, films, etc.)? Well, when I was a kid I remember seeing wrestling magazines that showed streaming blood on the faces of some wrestlers. Some faces were literally covered with blood. That would seem to be evidence of men beating each other bloody in the ring, right? Now you can watch matches and hear the wrestlers scream in pain as an opponent smashes their face into the mat. That's evidence of a real battle with violence, right?

Here's the official website for World Wrestling Entertainment. I think they used to be called World Wrestling Federation.


Further evidence that "pro wrestling" is real wrestling?....

4493564


King Booker received a strained and sprained neck from the vicious Tombstone at the hands of World Heavyweight Champion Undertaker and while he recovers from that, the decision was made to repair damage to his knee. Dr. Rios said, “surgery was successful to the bone fragment stuck in his knee joint.”
 
William Parcher wrote:
I'm strongly reminded of "professional wrestling" when I think of Bigfootery.
And when I think of Bigfootery I'm always reminded of my sweet Aunt Esther. She had hair ALL over her body....including the arm pits. :p


Not everyone can be a "pro wrestler" (think Hulk Hogan), but just about anyone who wishes can claim a Bigfoot encounter.

Cool...you mean anyone?!
 
There are some REAL golden nuggets of observations in your post, William....I'll be busy for quite a while expounding on them.
Thanks! :)

William Parcher wrote:
It appears to be a subculture of belief in something that is unsupportable.
This is quite true....and very interesting indeed. It is a subculture...meaning not everybody is "into it". How very true.

Next..."belief in something that is unsupportable".....WOW....what an insight!
Personally, I believe there is a high "degree of probability" of Bigfoot existing....but HOW in the name of my sweet Aunt Tilly can I support that???

I gave my reasons for giving the evidence a lot of weight...but the skeptics just wouldn't agree with my assessment. :(

My belief is supported in my head...and in other "believer's" minds also....but not in the skeptic's.

Sooo.....are my reasons "supported"? Depends on who you ask, really.

I reckon that means William's little "golden nugget" is more like a nugget of crap. ;)
 
Last edited:
On to the next golden nugget of truth....

William Parcher wrote:
Part of the BF fan behavior is to argue against skeptics.
You are absolutely HALF-right, Will!

I posted that 2-frame animation which clearly shows Patty's fingers change shape....or bend, as it's sometimes called.

The skeptics argued against this simple observation....saying it could ACTUALLY be anything from blobs of background color, to a grand illusion.
I argued my case back....against the skeptics' arguments.

But...since you failed to mention that skeptics' behavior is to argue against "believers".....your 'golden nugget of truth' is only half a nugget, in reality, Will. ;) Nice try, though.


There are even characters that they despise for various reasons.
It's just TOO GOOD, Will! How did you ever discover that similarity?!!!

I know there's one Bigfoot "expert" I despise!!

Holy moly....this guy is good! :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
belz wrote:
He's collapsed into insult mode.

Actually, I wasn't insulting William....I was making FUN :D of his meaningless rant....that's all.

There's a big difference between the two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom