• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
You cannot use the IM index on Patty, Lu.

You already know you cannot use it, so drop it, please.
Click to expand...

Why can't I use it? Am I breaking some rule?

The IM index is important. There's no simple extension of arms as per Morris' instructions.
 
And so the final tactic Is revealed... Thank you for revealing your motives and tactics. I think my time here was not in vain after all.

:)
 
LAL - WRT the IM index. As others have noted, to calculate an accurate IM index you’d need measurements from an actual specimen/bones. The IM index of the “Bigfoot” in the Patterson film is only speculation and based on a single data source/set; there is no other credible evidence to compare it against.

As far as comparisons with other primates, you’ll note I argued against it. Again, without an actual specimen/bones or other credible physical evidence drawing parallels only interjects speculation and clouds the discussion.

“Sightings” are frequently reported in the news….for example from “Bigfoot Sightings” (http://bigfootsightings.org/bigfoot-research/bigfoot-sightings/)31 MAR 07 a woman alone in the woods encountered a “Bigfoot” (no location given…though as she was walking and not hiking, this would suggest a non-remote area); [date not provided], sighting at Ft Bragg Calif (not a remote area), [date not provided] Highway 96, aka “Bigfoot Scenic Byway” multiple sightings.

Or say the ~2,947 reported sightings in the US and the ~ 207 in Canada, as taken from the BFRO Geographical Database of Bigfoot Sightings (http://www.bfro.net/GDB/).

US and Canada alone…all those sightings (most between 2000 – 2007) ranging from remote to populated areas, and no credible evidence; no additional footage, no still shots, no bodies or bones, etc. This simply seems inconceivable.
 
LAL said:
I've also mentioned Steindorf, and the fact that his digital skeleton had an IM index of 88, quite close to Meldrum's 80-90.
Click to expand...

LAL said:
Why can't I use it [IM index]?
Click to expand...

Because you're being scientifically and intellectually dishonest every time you refer to an IM index, or present as FACT an IM index from an invented digital skeleton.

Wishful-thinking won't change the FACT that no actual IM index has been conducted/determined, and cartoon bones from an assumed skeleton never replace real ones.

RayG
 
You can't use the IM index because you don't have Patty's bones, Lu.
You can't use the IM index approximations because there's still a chance that Patty is a guy in a suit. Even if you think the chance is tiny, it's still there.

Diogenes is typing at you to correct you, of course.
 
SweatyYeti said:
I considered answering your questions LTC....but decided against it.
Click to expand...
Belz said it best:

Dodge_logo.png
 
Luminous said:
And so the final tactic Is revealed... Thank you for revealing your motives and tactics. I think my time here was not in vain after all.

:)
Click to expand...

Thanks for catching that. It's one of the better tactics.
 
Ah, digital skeletons...

As we all know, if you can draw its skeleton, the animal must be real.

Thomas the cat
A09.jpg


Bugs Bunny
arario1.jpg


Marvin the Martian
Marvin_the_Martian_001.jpg


Blossom, the Power Puff Girl
Blossom_001.jpg


IM measurements anyone?
 
The PGF has been around for forty years and had some technical analyses done. Glickman and Steindorf were paid crazy amounts of money (presumably by Pattycakes) and the results present us with a mess. Patty is 7'3" and weighs 1,957 pounds. No, she's 5'7" and additionally walks like a Rube Goldberg contraption.

Forty years have gone by and nobody can produce acceptable and convincing scientific evidence that the film does not show a human in a costume. At the same time, nobody has been able to show that Bigfoot actually exists, which could offer at least some tangental support that Patty might be real.

But no, the Pattycakes proudly contend that the PGF has withstood all skeptical scrutiny in its forty years. They do not acknowledge that the hoax hypothesis (proposed early on by many authorities as soon as they saw the film) has withstood all attempts to demonstrate otherwise. The hypothesis that Bigfoot is a myth is a strong one, and gets stronger as every day passes without any acceptable scientific evidence or confirmation.

It is another summer, and lots of people will be driving around and visiting wilderness areas. If this season passes without a confirmation, as have all past times, it should become even more difficult to defend the belief. But Bigfootery seems to have some standardized arguments that are used against skepticism, and these do not seem to be time-sensitive. It already looks like strong belief will always be around regardless of any amount of elapsed time without confirmation.
 
Last edited:
Correa Neto - Leave my girl Blossom out of this; we are to be married as soon as she excapes the evil cluthes of MoJo Jo Jo. :)

On a more related note; I think it wrong to flately deny the IM index...but it should be considered for what it is - speculation based on a single data source and a digital recreation (of the same single data source).

Hardly concrete evidence.
 
How does this very tall biped traverse the "super-dense" PNW forests during the day, or even at night? The foliage at that height must be a terrible obstacle to living. It can't see much and must constantly be ducking and dodging branches and whatnot. The described morphology (upright and humanish, but with a short neck and bulky shoulders) would force Bigfoot to mostly have to bend at the waist to avoid getting clobbered in the face. It seems strange that bipedal gigantism would be supported in the proposed PNW environment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom