Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Luminous]

Patty had one fairly pristine foot and one block foot, which are indeed pretty clearly visible in stills that have been posted here recently.

We also have casts attributed to Patty by which we can say her feet were fairly pristine in comparison to feet that have been outdoors for years.

Personally, I think the still with the "perfect" foot is probably doctored.

You're not listening. This is an uncatalogued creature. To use humans as the comparison source of what BFfeet should look like is misleading. Patty is not human, therefore your argument is baseless.

Blockfoot, schmock foot. Ive seen the still you showed. One frame is all you have? Show me an animation where that foot looks square in every frame, and then I'll consider it. If it's only in one or two frames, it's an anomaly.

You have the right to think that the "perfect foot" is doctored. But that doesn't prove that it was. You need evidence to make claims like these. No offense intended, but so far, all you've been doing is blowing hot air. Where's the substance of your arguments? It's more like wishful thinking at this point.

 

[Luminous]

We also have people claiming that these don't match, so don't feel alone Luminous...

[qimg]http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/assets/images/BCMpic.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/assets/images/a1bigfoot05_1204202902.jpg[/qimg]

Another topic entirely. Start a new thead for Wallce. This about the PG film.

 

[carcharodon]

I must have missed where you have shown us some Bigfoot costumes, circa 1967 ....

Can we see those again ?

Hell, forget '67, here are some crap ones from DECADES AFTER, when one would think they should be even better than in '67.

Six Million Dollar Man 1975.

Snowbeast 1977

Bigfoot and The Hendersons 1987.

All far superior to what we see in the P/G footage from 1967.

 

[carcharodon]

Very well written post....you're absolutely correct.

You hit the skeptical nail on the head.

Thanks. I believe I did.

There seems to be a percentage of people who can only see things in terms of "black-and-white"....."all-or-nothing".
These people have trouble understanding the gray area in-between two extremes.
And that's what "evidence" is, most of the time...a gray area. It's measured in terms of "probabilities".....not "absolutes".
Evidence for something doesn't mean that that something is true.... only that there's a reason to think it may be true.

Quite right. You've spent months trying to explain this simple concept...but somehow it goes right over their heads.

But when a skeptic here talks about the evidence for Bigfoot, they always frame it in terms of "proof"...and "knowing" whether or not the evidence was actually left by Bigfoot.

Exactly. This is the whole crux of the argument. I still want to know WTF 'direct evidence' means in the context of bigfoot. Is that another way of saying 'proof'? Methinks it is.

We don't need to know whether or not Bigfoot was responsible for the evidence, for the evidence to indicate a certain "degree of probability" that the creature exists.

Yup. Indeed. There is enough evidence going back centuries to indicate there is a degree of probability or at the very least possibility that the creatures exist.

The way these skeptics think....if you don't have proof of something being true....you have nothing.

You are 100% spot on. This is why we are never going to get anywhere here. Nothing less than a body will suffice, and even then it won't be enough. The scoftics will claim there was only one left and that sightings coming in from Washington can't be accounted for by the dead body they have in California so those witnesses were still drunk, stupid, lying or mistaken.

That's why I've said that it's a waste of time for Bigfoot proponents to discuss and debate the evidence for Bigfoot here....because the "all or nothing" type of mindset simply doesn't grasp the concept of "evidence"...and therefore cannot acknowledge it's "weight".

Yup, they won't discuss the evidence because (to them)there is none. It doesn't exist in their mindset, nevermind the fact that in a court of law it would still be considered as evidence.

This is why the skeptics here continually say the same thing over and over again........"where's the proof....got a body?"
That's all they seem to really understand.....proof.

To see what I mean, quite clearly.....all someone has to do is go look through the posts here by the skeptics and compare how many times they refer to the evidence in terms of "proof"....using words such as "prove", "know", "verify"...to how many times they refer to evidence using other "gray-area" terms, such as....."weight", "probability", "likelihood".

The ratio is probably very high.

I would bet that you are correct sir. As you have pointed out time and time again, all they see is black or white, one or the other, yes or no. There is no 'midway' at all with many/most of these people. You cannot reason with them. Hell, we know for a fact that some of them even equate sasquatch to werewolves, leprechauns and unicorns. This is their mindset.

 

[kitakaze]

Bump

I'm glad you bumped that, it got lost in the currents. BF parallels in mind or no, it's a fascinating story to look at, IMO. Here's a link to the thread I started on it which has all the most important information:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86093

I'm up for a bucket o' crow if that picture turns out to be real, BTW. It's amazing what different people see with that picture. I've heard cougar, dog, big house cat, sabertooth, and jaguar among others. Currently as it stands, we're waiting for the results of a DNA test of fur, skin, and flesh that may or may not be associated. I have said that I believe the photo is a hoax regardless and that hasn't changed. Let me know what you think. Also, I still would really like to know what in the image makes it look like a big house cat to you if you feel like sharing.

 

[kitakaze]

How do you know 2 inch hair is able to hide any clasps or zippers etc.? Have you personaly seen a suit with these specs? Truthfully, it sounds like you're making stuff up as you go. What is the source of your information?

Yes you can clearly see the moving thumb. There is nothing unclear about it. And yes I would have seen it even if you had not pointed it out. It's VERY clear. Your blatant denial of what is clear to see smacks of the dishonesty I warned about. Major Red flag.

Luminous, at what frames of the film is the thumb movement seen? Could you post a gif or some stills that show this? If you can't at least tell me what part. I have the LMS DVD so I can check myself.

 

[kitakaze]

You're not listening. This is an uncatalogued creature. To use humans as the comparison source of what BFfeet should look like is misleading. Patty is not human, therefore your argument is baseless.

We should be careful not to make such statement as fact about the film. I'd say the same thing if William Parcher made a similar statement including Heironimus or Beckjord and orbs.

 

[Lithrael]

Wow, huge thread. And wow, venom.

Look, obviously there are a lot of skeptics here who just scoff at stuff as a default, especially when that stuff is blurry and/or jpeg'd all to hell. When there's good supporting evidence, most of them will accept it, but like every forum there are some pigheaded folks who aren't prepared to back down and one or two people who for whatever reason just won't buy it, like in the case of the exotic big cat photo.

But you are overreaching by a country mile to say that people who don't see detailed realistic anatomy in this film are lying or fooling themselves. This poor beast's fur doesn't even lie naturally enough to see detailed musculature if it had any. The clearest anatomical detail I can see is a v shaped area at the top of the thigh that looks like the end of a suit's torso shell. The butt does not move like a real butt. A real butt, no matter the anatomy or gait, has muscles in it that start way down on the femur.

I'm an animator, I went to college for it and everything, I spent four years studying all kinds of musculatures and the way things move.

Skeptics can be wrong, sure, they can be bandwagoners, yes, but all that smugness comes from usually being right, and when they say it looks a whole lot like a decent suit rented from a good effects artist in the 60's, they are right.

 

[kitakaze]

Another topic entirely. Start a new thead for Wallce. This about the PG film.

Actually, the way things have usually worked around here is that we'll have one main bf thread where the regular members carry on dicussions of all facets of the phenomenom. There's also smaller specific ones such as the bf conservation petition thread that we generally leave for members that aren't deep into the subject. Simple Challenge was our default main thread. When you came you brought out a lot of old bf threads, including this one. Since much of what we've been discussing with you is the PGF this has kinda reverted back to the default thread. Wallace and his claims and his hoaxes have been discussed many times and at great depth in this thread. This is JMHO, but when a guy who's unaware of that and has been here less than a month tells a guy who's been here five years how to post it probably doesn't look so hot. Just a thought.

 

[kitakaze]

Wow, huge thread. And wow, venom.

Look, obviously there are a lot of skeptics here who just scoff at stuff as a default, especially when that stuff is blurry and/or jpeg'd all to hell. When there's good supporting evidence, most of them will accept it, but like every forum there are some pigheaded folks who aren't prepared to back down and one or two people who for whatever reason just won't buy it, like in the case of the exotic big cat photo.

But you are overreaching by a country mile to say that people who don't see detailed realistic anatomy in this film are lying or fooling themselves. This poor beast's fur doesn't even lie naturally enough to see detailed musculature if it had any. The clearest anatomical detail I can see is a v shaped area at the top of the thigh that looks like the end of a suit's torso shell. The butt does not move like a real butt. A real butt, no matter the anatomy or gait, has muscles in it that start way down on the femur.

I'm an animator, I went to college for it and everything, I spent four years studying all kinds of musculatures and the way things move.

Skeptics can be wrong, sure, they can be bandwagoners, yes, but all that smugness comes from usually being right, and when they say it looks a whole lot like a decent suit rented from a good effects artist in the 60's, they are right.

Hi Lithrael, I agree with much of what you said but I have a couple questions/ comments.

I'm not quite sure about there being a lot of people who scoff at stuff as a default but I would agree if you meant it in the sense of the youtube wave.

Also, I'm definitely one of the guilty parties where the exotic cat photo is concerned. I've made no definite statements but I feel strongly that it is a manufactured image. I will certainly admit to being wrong if that is the case. Nevertheless, hoax or not I think it's very interesting. Do you think that it is clearly real? I'm interested in your take on the image.

 

[kitakaze]

The 'spaz' disagrees further Snitch. You know, the 'spaz' who you reported for being rude. LOL.

I fixed your post so as to stick to the facts. Also, don't bother pretending that anyone here has come close to your fantastic Tourette's fits.

 

[LAL]

This 'pathetic faggot' disagrees.

This obtuse wacko credulloid woo thinks you haven't read them all the way back to when I first joined.

Isn't it interesting that the return flaming by two posters has been directed at you?

 

[kitakaze]

There was another thread here that proved the pig headed scoftical stubborness of most of the people posting here.

Lyndon, have you ever read the ABC thread that was started after the one you participated in? It addresses much of the things you're talking about.

I got the number of these folks pretty quickly after I joined. They wouldn't last 5 minutes in the real world using those kind of tactics.

How long do you think you'd last with your behaviour? Seriously think about just how far you've gone here and how some people would react to it in real life. Think about how you've justified your breakdowns in the past. Try to restrain the tough guy complex when you respond.

 

[LAL]

Actually, the way things have usually worked around here is that we'll have one main bf thread where the regular members carry on dicussions of all facets of the phenomenom.

It does make it easier to find the posts when we stay on a topic. I kind of prefer one thread though, since it saves me time getting caught up. When new threads were being started every couple of days it was crazy-making trying to keep up with them all.

You haven't been debated these issues for five years, have you?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Not all "2-4 inch long hair suits" are made equal.

Notice how the front "edge" of Patty's upper arm so closely matches the well-defined look of the gorilla's arm....

...and then notice how the upper arm on these shaggy suits all have that same ill-defined, shaggy, cheap hollywood suit, upper arm outline....

Roger deserved to win a prize for his "creation", at the very least.

 

[kitakaze]

This obtuse wacko credulloid woo thinks you haven't read them all the way back to when I first joined.

Lu, you are treated respectfully here. You know you get more than just respectful treatment from me. I've seen a couple regular members here get very frustrated with you and later apologize. I've been frustrated with you before and have told you so. I've locked horns with some seriously rude skeptics here also. As I said before, it's been a while since we've had some real scoftics here. I have never seen anyone go as far beyond acceptability as Lyndon. In a 9/11 CT thread, yes. In a holocaust denial thread, yes. But in a bigfoot thread? Never.

Isn't it interesting that the return flaming by two posters has been directed at you?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you explain that more specifically? I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to.

 

[Kell]

Lyndon, have you ever read the ABC thread that was started after the one you participated in? It addresses much of the things you're talking about.

Sorry to interupt, but could you post a link to said thread?

 

[kitakaze]

It does make it easier to find the posts when we stay on a topic. I kind of prefer one thread though, since it saves me time getting caught up. When new threads were being started every couple of days it was crazy-making trying to keep up with them all.

You haven't been debated these issues for five years, have you?

No, and as a person who tries to keep track of what I and others say, I agree. I hate things being all over the place.

 

[William Parcher]

Hes already done it. Many many times in the past. He's now given up because unfortunately the blind stubborn died in the wool scoftics like you keep on ignoring it because it isn't the proof you want. You are not interested in evidence, you are only interested in proof. You want the proof before you will consider the evidence.

There is evidence that a large (I wouldn't say enormous. It's not King Kong) hairy bipedal primate is living in the forests of parts of North America. You have been presented with it, time and time again. Is there proof for it though? No, not yet. There is clearly evidence pointing towards it however.

By the way, WTF does 'direct' evidence mean in the context of bigfoot? Evidence is evidence. Is this some half arsed way of demanding proof? In which case be big enough to demand that proof. Don't piss about pretending you are interested in any kind of evidence when you clearly aren't.

I'm talking about evidence that can be directly linked to this primate without the chance for it being a hoax. We ought to have Bigfoot DNA by now, but we don't. There would be a kind of recorded visual evidence that could serve this purpose as well.

 

[kitakaze]

Sorry to interupt, but could you post a link to said thread?

Sure thing, here you go:

Phantom cats in Scotland.