Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Luminous]

Yes, skeptics are sad, tricksey and false beings because they don't yet know The Truth about Bigfoot. You said that you were leaving but you didn't leave. It's because a force greater than you is keeping you here to try to show THE PATH. You do know the way to Mordor don't you, Lummi?

[qimg]http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2004/features/20040324/gollum_2.jpg[/qimg]

Hmmm, If annoys you for me to be here, maybe I'll just stick around.

 

[kitakaze]

Hmmm, If annoys you for me to be here, maybe I'll just stick around.

Mr. Charity. That's fine, you said you'd like to meet others who believe as you do even after I gave you directions on where to find them so you're obviously being a little more honest now. Keep it up.

 

[Luminous]

Dang!

 

[Luminous]

Do you know what data mining is ?

You pick out the stuff you like and throw away the rest .. You don't like this picture, so you pretend it doesn't exist ..

[qimg]http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/hernia2.gif[/qimg]

In order for muscles to work, they have to be shaped a certain way and attached to the bone a certain way .

However with padding is doesn't matter..

I already told you. It appears to be piloerection. But as I've said before it's the clear closeups that tell the story. Why don't you post some of those? Actually, I think I can now. I'll see what I can round up from my archives. Doubt it will do any good with a gaggle of squawking skeptics, but I'll try anyway.

 

[kitakaze]

(snip)...being a skeptic dosen't make you right. Knowing the truth does. It seems you forsook one at the expense of the other.

mmhmm...

You seem to act as if you've got the inside scoop.

oh...

May I introduce you to...

A handsome pair.

 

[Luminous]

Mr. Charity. That's fine, you said you'd like to meet others who believe as you do even after I gave you directions on where to find them so you're obviously being a little more honest now. Keep it up.

Are you talking about the links you posted to different bigfoot groups?

Mr Charity, I like that.

I think you don't like the fact that I said it is intellectually dishonest to look at a clearly muscle-clad figure and say, "I can't see it." The more honest response would be, "I see them, but I think they were sculpted by Roger Patterson out of foam." I would have to disagree with you of course, but at least you're integrity would be intact.

 

[kitakaze]

I already told you. It appears to be piloerection.

Yes, the hair's sticking up, then. Maybe a cowlick, even. How'd you arrive at that conclusion? Sounds like your trying to make anomalies fit your assumptions. It's a no-no, believers do it a lot.

Doubt it will do any good with a gaggle of squawking skeptics, but I'll try anyway.

Off to a fine start. Sweaty'd be proud.

 

[Luminous]

mmhmm...

oh...

[qimg]http://botanical.com/products/tea_tool/tea_pot_iron.jpg[/qimg]

May I introduce you to...

[qimg]http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/21qAQv+lqCL.jpg[/qimg]

A handsome pair.

Spot of tea anyone?

 

[kitakaze]

I think you don't like the fact that I said it is intellectually dishonest to look at a clearly muscle-clad figure and say, "I can't see it." The more honest response would be, "I see them, but I think they were sculpted by Roger Patterson out of foam." I would have to disagree with you of course, but at least you're integrity would be intact.

I think it's a pretty dumb thing to say and I demonstrated why. You're free to go ahead and show that the figure is clearly muscle-clad now. The real sneaky part is that I haven't even said whether or not there appears to be muscles.

 

[Luminous]

Yes, the hair's sticking up, then. Maybe a cowlick, even. How'd you arrive at that conclusion? Sounds like your trying to make anomalies fit your assumptions. It's a no-no, believers do it a lot.

Doubt it will do any good with a gaggle of squawking skeptics, but I'll try anyway.[/QUOTE=Luminous;2741634]Off to a fine start. Sweaty'd be proud.

How did I arrive at such a conclusion? By using two eyeballs and a brain. You have those yourself, right? At least I hope you do. I'd feel terrible about saying this if you didn't. But even with one eyeball and a brain it's not that difficult to reach the same conclusion I did. The animal was obviously flustered by the presence of the two intruders, hence the hair standing on end. Oh but I forgot, it's just a costume, and the hair can't bristle on its own. It had to be that way through the whole film.

 

[Luminous]

I think it's a pretty dumb thing to say and I demonstrated why. You're free to go ahead and show that the figure is clearly muscle-clad now. The real sneaky part is that I haven't even said whether or not there appears to be muscles.

Well say on Mr. skeptic... Say on... Or are you really a proponent in disguise?

 

[RayG]

Are you talking about the links you posted to different bigfoot groups?

Hmmmmm... either you're being willfully ignorant, your observational skills are woefully underdeveloped, or you're just plain lazy. At least three different people have pointed you in the direction of the people you seek. Just to refresh:

What would be the point in finding someone who agrees with you ?

Maybe LU will come back and give you a hug ..

Where's Lyndon/carcharodon ?

SweatyYeti/Coolfoot ?

You mean you haven't bothered to read the threads you're participating in? If you had, you'd know that LAL*, carcharodon, and SweatyYeti have been the main proponents here (that post a lot anyway)...None of them seem truly interested in debate... Other supporters here actually consider the evidence and can engage in thoughtful debate, like Melissa, Hairy Man and Teresa.Hall.

Luminous, let me introduce you to some of your fellow believers:

mythusmage on the PGF. Went on about snarling. Got a little scarce. Specialty: MK Davis-style observations, general weirdness.

SweatyYeti on the PGF. Never dodges questions. So, if the fingers bend, what must we pretend? Didn't like that one. Got a little scarce. Specialty: Semantics, evasion, mimicry.

carcharodon on the PGF. AKA Lyndon, AKA Mr. Furious has a little trouble with PGF 101. Got a little scarce.* Specialty: Breakdowns, meltdowns, B.L.T.'s. (big, loud Tourette's)

*LAL is by far the most prolific, with 2.692 posts, though not all of them pertain to bigfoot, the vast majority do. If you have read and support Krantz and Meldrum you'll get along fabulously with LAL.

RayG

 

[Luminous]

Self-deception is to ignore that the costumes shown at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2736205&postcount=5480
contain all the "evidence-Patty-is-a-real-animal" pointed by PGF advocates. ome are even better.

Insults will not advance anyone's cause. reliable evidence and solid reasoning can work wonders. In bigfoot's case, any one is available?

Wow, those costumes were pretty intricate. Before 67? I'd like to see some proof of that. Even so, costumes like that still can't touch the musculature seen on Patty. If Patty is a costume as you say, then Patterson's skills far exceeded the best of his day. Unlikely. Not to mention the cost of building such a suit was far out of his financial reach.

 

[kitakaze]

How did I arrive at such a conclusion? By using two eyeballs and a brain.

And a lot of belief. Let's see why:

The animal was obviously flustered by the presence of the two intruders, hence the hair standing on end.

You see a feature- a bulge on the lower leg the acts as no muscle should and what do we get? Piloerection, of course. The animal was flustered so that wonky looking bulge is piloerection. Hmm... Maybe that sagittal crest is piloerection, too. That would be one way of seeing it. But if Meldrum says it's perfectly fine to have a sagittal crest than you can pick and choose your piloerections where it suits you. The most obvious thing to see here is a footer trying to tailor explanations to his/her beliefs. Par for the bigfootery course.

 

[kitakaze]

Spot of tea anyone?

Shall we have it while we discuss your failure to recognize your blatant double standards? At the same time you can make the case for intellectual dishonesty without resorting to a lame 'I used my eyes' cop-out. Cheerio.

 

[kitakaze]

Too small a rendering. It's the closeups that tell the whole story.

What a story it is. Shall we turn to the chapter on hair braid and bone clasp? Or maybe turd stuck to hair? Shotgun blast mark? Teeth?

*cough* tube, list, if you please.

 

[kitakaze]

Well say on Mr. skeptic... Say on...

No, no. I'm not giving you a hand with your piloerection. You don't get it, saying means nothing. Clearly demonstrating that there are working muscles is what shuts us up. Go right ahead.

Or are you really a proponent in disguise?

Muahaha... Wooorse. Much, much worse. I'm one of those life-long ardent, active proponents turned... skeptic.

I'll spare you the story and cut your footy silliness down.

 

[Correa Neto]

Wow, those costumes were pretty intricate. Before 67? I'd like to see some proof of that.

Proof?
Here it is:
http://www.gorillamen.com/
At the galleries, you will find these and much more pics, with the film they belong to and the movie's year. Most of them are from the 40s and 30s.

Even so, costumes like that still can't touch the musculature seen on Patty. If Patty is a costume as you say, then Patterson's skills far exceeded the best of his day. Unlikely. Not to mention the cost of building such a suit was far out of his financial reach.

Muscles? Want to see muscles?

Way better than Patty's eh? Much more defined.

You say costumes like that are no match for Patty´s muscles. Have you seen those costumes in action? Can you prove such claim? Please expose your arguments.

Have I said Patterson built the Patty suit? Couldn't he have bought, rented or modified a costume? How much skills would one need to increase an arm's lenght?

You said building such costume would be beyond P&G financial reach. What are the evidence you have to back such claim? Do you know how much it would cost to build, buy or rent one back then?

Where are the reliable evidence for bigfeet as real critters?

 

[kitakaze]

Muscles? Want to see muscles?

Why, that appears to be a muscle-clad figure!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I already told you. It appears to be piloerection. But as I've said before it's the clear closeups that tell the story. Why don't you post some of those? Actually, I think I can now. I'll see what I can round up from my archives. Doubt it will do any good with a gaggle of squawking skeptics, but I'll try anyway.

There are no ' clear close ups ' ..

Anatomy/physiology expert that you are, why would you say the piloerection is only being manifest on the back of the left leg ? Why in a globular pattern ?

Can you show that such a pattern is typical of a piloerection ?

You sound like the rationalizers over at BFF, who, when they can't explain why Patty's humongous boobs don't bounce around like they should; declare that Bigfoot breast tissue, must be like no other tissue yet analyzed..


When you make stuff up, no one can show you are wrong until a specimen is acquired... And since that is unlikely to happen, you have little to fear ...