Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're not listening. I said she moves naturally and fluidily, which every 'man in bipedal ape men' suits do not. I didn't say she moves 'like a sasquatch'. I said she moves unlike all the actors in bipedal ape man costumes.
Click to expand...

Ivan Marx made a suit and movie that fooled the best of squatchperts. Nice motion in it, too.

2001:A Space Odyssey - Very nice movement. Very fluid. Natural.
 
LAL,

Did Noll really say that?

"Rick said Roosevelt Elk are further west in the coast ranges. He thinks the elk in Skamania County are a mix of Tule and Rocky Mountain Elk. Sounds like he checked it out. I could well have been misinformed."

Well then, that explains everything to me, it is now crystal clear, I totally understand. Oh, wait a minute, but, there are no Tule Elk in Washington. Mr. Noll may be needing a smaller shovel soon. For someone so "woods savvy" (Lals words, not mine) this is becoming borderline ridiculous.

I'm not sure why I'm even responding to this, maybe I'm simply getting tired of people saying, "If Rick Noll, John Green, Jeff Meldrum . . . say it is, that's good enough for me." When you start adding up all these miss-fires their credibility starts to go down the crapper. I'm not really trouble buy the fact that they are wrong, what bothers me is that they find such difficulty in admitting it.

Tule Elk in Washington, WTF. :bike:


m
 
Parcher said:
In the earliest interviews with P&G (1967/68) they say that the encountered Patty at 1:30pm and (in some interviews, but not all) tracked her for 3.5 miles after she split. Then when Gimlin was interviewed by Green in 1992, he said that they encountered Patty "perhaps a little bit after noon time".
Click to expand...

carcharodon said:
1.30 isn't 'a lot' after noon is it??? Not as if it was 5 hours or so.
Click to expand...

If one has 1:30pm on their mind, they shouldn't be expected to say "a little bit after noon time." We should instead expect something like "a little bit after 1pm." Green had the opportunity to ask for clarification, but he didn't. He could have asked "But soon after the encounter you guys reported that you saw Patty at 1:30pm. Are you now saying it was really a little bit after noon?"

carcharodon said:
Well isn't 3.5 miles "quite a ways"? I would say so.
Click to expand...

That is quite a ways, and it matters. Again, Gimlin had the chance to reaffirm the distance, but didn't. Green had the chance to clarify this, but didn't. He could have asked "But soon after the encounter you guys reported tracking Patty for 3.5 miles. Are you still agreeing with that or what?"

What Gimlin actually said to Green was "Then we tracked on up the creek bed quite a ways." Does that mean that they followed her tracks along the creek for 3.5 miles? We should be able to plot that out on an extended map of the area. It certainly doesn't agree with what Bob Titmus said he found and diagrammed on the PGF map he made.

Where are the contradictions here Parcher??? I mean, it's not like the contradictions about what the suit looked like, what it was built from and how it was put on etc etc.
Click to expand...

The issue comes from trying to understand the timeline and logistics of the event. There are good reasons to be skeptical that P&G did everything they said they did during and after the proposed encounter. There are evidentiary pieces of a puzzle that are supposed to fit together. They have to do everything they said they did, with enough time left to get film footage of Patterson pouring plaster into a footprint with direct sunlight in his face. The 3.5 miles of tracking must be a round trip. Going back to the truck at their camp to get plaster must be a round trip. There are also multiple other described activities (rounding up horses, changing film, examining tracks, testing boot impressions for depth, etc.) that must be factored for time consumed.

These things should matter to a true student (researcher) of the PGF, and the various specific and non-specific things that P&G have said in interviews should be significant. It was a race against time, and sundown was coming quickly. Suddenly, an extra hour or so (bit after noon vs. 1:30) matters when trying to factor a workable timeline. Green blew the chance to get a circa 1992 affirmation from Gimlin of what really went on.

charcharodon said:
None of the above apply to Patterson and Gimlin. They do apply to Bob Hieronimus though......often. Difference is, Gimlin and Patterson's accounts do not differ greatly in all the important aspects of the claim. Bob Heironimus' claims are all over the place. More importantly he's not the right size and shape to have been the man in the suit and he doesn't even walk like 'Patty' when he tries.
Click to expand...

I disagree. P&G made claims that not only contradict each other; they contradict Titmus and a workable timeline. That ought to matter. The Pattycakes apply a kind of scrutinizing skepticism to Heironimus that is not applied to P&G. I can only fault you guys to a certain extent for that, because it's really human nature to do that when arguing against any counter-claim. You firmly believe that Patty is a Bigfoot, so any inconsistencies from P&G cannot count as signs of a hoax. There must be another explanation for those things. They cannot point to a fabrication (hoaxing), and so they must be products of faulty recollection, misquoting, paraphrasing, etc. Right?
 
RayG said:
One could just as easily say, the PG has survived until now and is still believed to be bogus by many, despite the small gaggle of squawkers who have tried to promote it without success.
RayG
Click to expand...

One could say that and be wrong. You have the right to be wrong in America. It's a free country.

:D
 
LTC8K6 said:
Ivan Marx made a suit and movie that fooled the best of squatchperts. Nice motion in it, too.

2001:A Space Odyssey - Very nice movement. Very fluid. Natural.
Click to expand...

That could only be ascertained by wearing ladies spandex. And I assure you-- I've never tried them on!

:cool:
 
It boils down to muscle-tone vs. fabric. Those bulging biceps and triceps and gigantic calves... Costumes of that time didn't make room for these. In fact, BH's current costume doesn't either. Patty's body hair was quite short. Short enough to reveal its perfectly formed musculature. A suit that can rival Patty's intricate musculature has yet to be created.

Point made. It's a slam dunk! The crowd roars in approval! The crowd goes home satisfied they got their money's worth! Score 67 to 0. The proponents win! The skeptics suffer a huge loss. Will they recover? It's doubtful.
 
Luminous said:
It boils down to muscle-tone vs. fabric. Those bulging biceps and triceps and gigantic calves... Costumes of that time didn't make room for these. In fact, BH's current costume doesn't either. Patty's body hair was quite short. Short enough to reveal its perfectly formed musculature. A suit that can rival Patty's intricate musculature has yet to be created.

Point made. It's a slam dunk! The crowd roars in approval! The crowd goes home satisfied they got their money's worth! Score 67 to 0. The proponents win! The skeptics suffer a huge loss. Will they recover? It's doubtful.
Click to expand...

Skeptics rally. Score 67 to 78.

You pay extra for the muscle suit.

This costume is obviously not intended to be a Patty replica, but the hair could be shortened with clippers if you wanted. I'm sure it could be customized in various ways - even a conversion to female. Want black instead of brown? Get creative with some dye.

bigfoot_photo2.jpg


Detailed face, which you will need if you shoot with tight video instead of 16mm film from a distance.

bigfoot_photo1.jpg
 
Luminous said:
It boils down to muscle-tone vs. fabric. Those bulging biceps and triceps and gigantic calves... Costumes of that time didn't make room for these. In fact, BH's current costume doesn't either. Patty's body hair was quite short. Short enough to reveal its perfectly formed musculature. A suit that can rival Patty's intricate musculature has yet to be created.

Point made. It's a slam dunk! The crowd roars in approval! The crowd goes home satisfied they got their money's worth! Score 67 to 0. The proponents win! The skeptics suffer a huge loss. Will they recover? It's doubtful.
Click to expand...

With such compelling evidence as the PGF, it's no wonder that bigfoot proponents are not disconcerted that a body has never been found or captured. Who needs the real thing when we can learn so much from the grainy images on a 16mm film?

I just finished reading Meldrum's book and am impressed by his abilities. Paleontologists use fossil remains to reconstruct dinosaurs and other ancient creatures. Meldrum doesn't even need that. He can reconstruct a bigfoot's bone structure in its foot by just looking at its footprint.

Who needs the real animal?
 
Patty's body hair was quite short. Short enough to reveal its perfectly formed musculature.
Click to expand...

Are you sure?

The creature had what he described as silvery brown hair all over its body except on its face around the nose and cheeks. The hair was two to four inches long and of a light tint on top with a deeper color underneath.
Click to expand...

She was covered with short, shiny, black hair, even her big, droopy breasts.
Click to expand...

"Its head was very human, though considerably more slanted, and with a large forehead and wide nostrils. Its arms hung almost to its knees when it walked. Its hair was two to four inches long, brown underneath, lighter at the top, and covering the entire body except for the face. And it was a female; it had big, pendulous breasts."
Click to expand...

If only Roger were so sure...
 
Hey, maybe someday they'll find a fossil of Sanderson's fifteen-foot penguin. They found one five feet tall.

My favorite quote from Sanderson: “That any man or body of men could know so much about wild animal life as to make the tracks in just the manner that they appear, but that they also should be able to carry this out time and time again at night without anybody seeing them or giving them away… is frankly incredible.”
 
5 days after the event. Patty stood there for half a minute.

"I've been chasing down reports of these creatures for years, and was attracted to the Northern California region by repeated findings of fresh tracks on road projects. Last Friday my companion-Bob Gimlin, a part-Apache fellow who's good at tracking and so on-and I started up an old logging road where a particular lot of big tracks had been seen. Some of the tracks were 17 inches long. We rode horses, and I had a 16-millimetre movie camera in my saddlebag. We both had high-powered rifles, but we agreed that if we found a Sasquatch we wouldn't shoot unless we absolutely had too."

"About 1:30 in the afternoon, as we rounded a bend in the road, we saw the creature. My horse reared, and then fell as I tried to control it. But I got the camera out and yelled to Bob to cover me with his rifle while I tried for pictures. The thing was across the creek beside the road, about 50 yards away. I ran down to the creek and got on a high sandbar to film it. It was obviously a female, for although it was covered with hair you could see it had large breasts. It stood about six feet tall, maybe more, and was very broad. We figured the weight at somewhere between 350 and 400 pounds. She stood there for maybe half a minute and then started walking away, still upright. She crossed the creek, got back on the logging road up ahead and moved out of sight."

"Bob started to follow on his horse, but I called him back. The tracks we'd seen earlier indicated she was part of a family group, and that could be dangerous. I was shaking quite a bit, so the film isn't too steady, but it shows the thing clearly. I've believed they existed for a long time, just from talking to many eye-witnesses. Now there's no doubt at all."
Click to expand...
 
Bigfoot expedition

Moneymaker is apparently organizing an expedition to find big foot Bigfoot on CNN. This must be a slow news day , that THIS even made the front page on the web edition of CNN...

This moneymaker fellow does remind of somebody. Was he not mentionned here in this thread ? A cursory search using the forum function did not give any match...

But then again a cursory glance in this thread gave me the feeling I was running in circle (sorry if it does sound insulting, but I even had the feeling of reading the same chain of post again and again...).
 
William Parcher said:
Skeptics rally. Score 67 to 78.

You pay extra for the muscle suit.

This costume is obviously not intended to be a Patty replica, but the hair could be shortened with clippers if you wanted. I'm sure it could be customized in various ways - even a conversion to female. Want black instead of brown? Get creative with some dye.

[qimg]http://www.mcavenedesigns.com/Bigfoot/bigfoot_photo2.jpg[/qimg]

Detailed face, which you will need if you shoot with tight video instead of 16mm film from a distance.

[qimg]http://www.mcavenedesigns.com/Bigfoot/bigfoot_photo1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Yep, I've seen that. The hair is much too long. You can't even see the padding that is supposed to look like muscle. No biceps or triceps, no bulging calves... In short, no muscle definition. (Except for fake pecs) Sorry, this one dosen't even come close to being a maybe. "Would someone get this walking carpet out of my way?" --Carrie Fisher
 
drapier said:
With such compelling evidence as the PGF, it's no wonder that bigfoot proponents are not disconcerted that a body has never been found or captured. Who needs the real thing when we can learn so much from the grainy images on a 16mm film?

I just finished reading Meldrum's book and am impressed by his abilities. Paleontologists use fossil remains to reconstruct dinosaurs and other ancient creatures. Meldrum doesn't even need that. He can reconstruct a bigfoot's bone structure in its foot by just looking at its footprint.

Who needs the real animal?
Click to expand...

You make it sound like there is no serious research taking place anywhere in the world. These may be an endangered species for all we know. As Krantz said, "Looking for a Sasquatch is like looking for a moving needle in a haystack."
 
Luminous said:
You make it sound like there is no serious research taking place anywhere in the world. These may be an endangered species for all we know. As Krantz said, "Looking for a Sasquatch is like looking for a moving needle in a haystack."
Click to expand...

There is no serious research because serious researchers gave up on this years ago. There's a few dedicated people looking into it but they're not taken seriously by their peers because they're working on faith, not evidence.

A moving needle in a haystack? There'd have to be hundreds, indeed thousands of these Wookies running around to maintain a viable population, and if they're an endangered species dying out we should at least have found som physical evidence by now, be it bodies, hair, bones or even scat.

Moreover if they are being driven into extinction by the actions of man they'd be coming into contact with us more and more, as most animals do when we encroach on them. If they were moving we'd see them, we'd see much more evidence, we see films, we'd find bodies. You have nothing but a few casts of dubious authenticity and a grainy film made by people with questionable motives which you treat as the holy grail.

Dont get bogged down in the details of one particular poor quality film or the ridges on such and such a fake cast, go out and find one of these thousands of 7-foot tall primates and show it to the world. If people can film tiny blind cave-fish found only in one pool in the world, or video extremely rare big cats on the sides of mountains in Nepal then surely your serious research should have turned up something by now? No one buys the 'they're very shy' line of BS, we have the tools and technology to get round that any day. I'm not buying that there are thousands of them either when you cant turn up hair no.1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom