Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diogenes,

Even if you think it's pads and other such things, at least you're honest enough to admit that the appearance of musculature is there. That's more than most skeptics here will admit. Your wrong, however, to say it's a costume, but I'll give credit where credit is due.

If you've been reading the thread, you know there were individuals saying I don't see it.

Point is: I'm not going to do your work for you. Find your own links.

:cool:
 
Luminous:

If you think you see muscle definition, then show it. Prove it.

Take a short movie clip from the PGF, and go frame-by-frame, highlighting the muscle as the creature moves. That way, you can examine the muscle in motion. ANYONE could have made a costume that showed something appearing to be accurate musculature in a limited range of positions: Show how the muscle contracts and lengthens in time with the movements and then you might have something. Otherwise, all you have is your word and a grainy film.

By the way, I heard you mention "close-ups" several time in reference to the PGF. Apparently you've never seen the original. There were no close-ups; what you're seeing as close-ups are expanded images in the copies. Thus, the close-ups have no more resolution than the other images, and a lot more digital artifacts from the expansion.
 
Luminous, I'll ask you again since you might have missed the question. Do you post on any of the boards that I earlier referred you to?
 
Luminous said:
Your wrong, however, to say it's a costume,
Click to expand...
That's amazing how you speak as though that's been established. How did you do that? Lemme guess, you used your eyes and brain. Yes, very compelling. Don't forget to listen to the winner who sees a 'big house cat' in the Maine mystery cat photo and calls a wonky, messed-up bulge on the leg 'piloerection'.

Stick it to the man, Lummo.
:bigclap
 
Huntsman said:
Luminous:

If you think you see muscle definition, then show it. Prove it.

Take a short movie clip from the PGF, and go frame-by-frame, highlighting the muscle as the creature moves. That way, you can examine the muscle in motion. ANYONE could have made a costume that showed something appearing to be accurate musculature in a limited range of positions: Show how the muscle contracts and lengthens in time with the movements and then you might have something. Otherwise, all you have is your word and a grainy film.

By the way, I heard you mention "close-ups" several time in reference to the PGF. Apparently you've never seen the original. There were no close-ups; what you're seeing as close-ups are expanded images in the copies. Thus, the close-ups have no more resolution than the other images, and a lot more digital artifacts from the expansion.
Click to expand...


I already have pointed out the muscle groupings on the stills I presented, but you skeptics say they aren't there. Flex and jiggle can be seen most clearly on a zoomed in and stabilized version. Do you have a copy of a zoomed in and stabilized version? I've seen one but don't have a copy. Have you seen it? Doubtful.

Anyway, you wouldn't believe me even if I did have a moving copy to show you.

Prove to me that you have seen a zoomed-in and stabilized version. Prove to me that you know what the hell your talking about. You show me the foam and cloth that you so clearly see. I made my point quite clearly already. It's up to you to prove that I'm wrong. Not the other way around. I have presented my evidence and my point has been made. Now you prove me wrong.

;)
 
kitakaze said:
Luminous, I'll ask you again since you might have missed the question. Do you post on any of the boards that I earlier referred you to?
Click to expand...

I missed that post, name them again please...

Also what's your motive for wanting to know?
 
kitakaze said:
That's amazing how you speak as though that's been established. How did you do that? Lemme guess, you used your eyes and brain. Yes, very compelling. Don't forget to listen to the winner who sees a 'big house cat' in the Maine mystery cat photo and calls a wonky, messed-up bulge on the leg 'piloerection'.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but all I hear is noise... Did you mean to say something?
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
Me thinks someone is confused about who needs to prove what ...
Click to expand...

Yes you are confused. Prove I'm wrong. Show what you have as proof that this is BH in a suit tailored specifically for him. Prove those muscle groups do not appear in this so called suit. Prove that there is no flex or jitter in muscles of the creature highlighted in the Patterson film. Prove to me that it is cloth and padding we are seeing and not flesh and blood. Show me how Patterson outdid the greatest costume makers of that time. Prove to me that those quads did not flex and jiggle, how the breasts did not move, how the extra long arms were not connected to digits that move. Prove how those enormous calves were nothing more than foam. Show me that the back did not show complex musculature. Prove that the feet were nothing more than flexible rubber and that they don't match the tracks that were cast.

Me thinks you sound like Yoda when you say me thinks. Come on Obi-Wan, show me what you have. If you've got proof bring it on... If you don't, then stand down.

:boxedin:
 
bruto said:
Your hearing is very discriminating. You hear what you want to hear, don't you, just as you see what you want to see.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Sounds familiar. Playing a little game of "turn the table" are we? You skeptics are far too predictable.

:cool:
 
What Makes Skeptics Tick???

By the time I'm through, I'll be able to write a book on all the evasion tactics skeptics use. It's about time someone put a spotlight on the devious ways skeptics behave. Keep them coming, I already have more than enough to train others to recognize your motives and tactics. I bet you never even noticed the patterns of your behaviors, and I bet you never expected that someone else would recognize them and define them.

So say on... With every response, I learn more and more about what makes skeptics tick. (And why they'll never change...)


Wow, thats a great book title: What Makes Skeptics Tick subtitle: (And why they'll never change...)
 
Last edited:
Luminous said:
By the time I'm through, I'll be able to write a book on all the evasion tactics skeptics use. It's about time someone put a spotlight on the devious ways skeptics behave. Keep them coming, I already have more than enough to train others to recognize your motives and tactics. I bet you never even noticed the patterns of your behaviors, and I bet you never expected that someone else would recognize them and define them.

So say on... With every response, I learn more and more about what makes skeptics tick. (And why they'll never change...)


Wow, thats a great book title: What Makes Skeptics Tick subtitle: (And why they'll never change...)
Click to expand...


Heh, the thing is we can just as easily switch the word "skeptic" with "believer." (Back to lurking.)
 
Minarvia said:
Heh, the thing is we can just as easily switch the word "skeptic" with "believer." (Back to lurking.)
Click to expand...

Yes you can, that's your classic "turn the table" maneuver, once again proving that skeptics are quite predictable.
 
Luminous said:
Hmmm. Sounds familiar. Playing a little game of "turn the table" are we? You skeptics are far too predictable.

:cool:
Click to expand...

But you're wrong. I wish bigfoot were real. Unlike many, I do not dismiss the possibility of hidden and mysterious animals, though I do doubt that they're there. Good evidence that Bigfoot or Champ or whatever exist would delight me. I'd happily accept evidence that I thought convincing, even if it didn't pass every skeptic's muster. But the evidence I've seen is not even close to being convincing. The quality is poor and inconsistent, the sources suspect, the arguments sloppy and tendentious.

Jeering and name calling won't make those muscles any more convincing.
 
Luminous said:
Prove how those enormous calves were nothing more than foam.
Click to expand...

Well I can't prove it, but here is something for you ..

In a real gastrocnemius, a line drawn through the Achilles tendon will bisect
the two lobes of the muscle, as seen here ..

istockphoto_1773499_runner_s_calf_muscle.jpg


However on Patty, such a line falls to the right of the heel ..

Just foam rubber, where muscles should be , but not shaped right or attached correctly ..
 

Attachments

  • patcalf.gif
    patcalf.gif
    36.4 KB · Views: 5
Luminous said:
I'm sorry but all I hear is noise... Did you mean to say something?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Of course all you hear is noise. I made a clear demonstration of how your judgement is flawed and skewed by belief, and all you hear is noise. You are the one who is woefully predictable. Textbook. You don't need to stand down, you've already permanently reserved yourself a chair at the little table. Big house cat and piloerection... uh huh.:rolleyes:
 
bruto said:
But you're wrong. I wish bigfoot were real. Unlike many, I do not dismiss the possibility of hidden and mysterious animals, though I do doubt that they're there. Good evidence that Bigfoot or Champ or whatever exist would delight me. I'd happily accept evidence that I thought convincing, even if it didn't pass every skeptic's muster. But the evidence I've seen is not even close to being convincing. The quality is poor and inconsistent, the sources suspect, the arguments sloppy and tendentious.

Jeering and name calling won't make those muscles any more convincing.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're a poor excuse for a skeptic. I'm not name calling, I'm exposing the tactics of people like you.
 
Kenny 10 Bellys said:
Here's the low-down on the existance of Bigfoot. The evidence is against it. Experience and common sense are against it. Until you come up with a live (or even a dead) yeti very few will take you seriously.
Click to expand...

What evidence is against it? Has some proved they don't exist? Have I missed something?

Experience and common sense tell me the world is flat and experts can be wrong, therefore the world is flat.

There's considerable evidence. Trying to explain it all away as hoaxing misidentification and elk lay doesn't make it go away.

Soarwing, Leo and the inimitable Roger Knights have also been on this board. Did anyone mention Hunster, who held the fort while I took a much needed break after nine months of going it alone here?

I've had supportive e-mails from people who tend to agree but are afraid to post because of the animosity.

I'm surprised Ray G thinks I'm emotionally attached to the subject. I hadn't noticed that and I'm me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom