Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[historian]

Oh, really?

So, could you please show us this scientific research?

"Meet the Sasquatch"

Prove BH is a liar.

"BH is 5'-10', no breasts, no more than 220 lbs, flunked out of high school vs Patty at 7'-3", 400 to 700 lbs, two breasts, cone head, long hair, big feet, never attended high school yet has outsmarted virtually every researcher on the planet except for two.

Oh, really?
So, are you a walking liar detector?
Never been duped?

Oh, really?
I noticed you have dodged the question I presented. Let me present it again:

There are contradictions in the accounts from Paterson and Gimlim. There are contradictions among the versions presented by Hieronimus, Meldrum and Titmus.

"Please, please show us the video of them making those contradiction, otherwise you don't have squat"

How can you know who's the liar? Or who are the liars?

"you for instance, I would suspect to be a liar, because one cannot mine gold all day long and cruise the internet at the same time"

Flawed circular reasoning coupled with dodges. "

circular mind games are the status quo here.  Ignore strong pro bigfoot arguments, come back to smear them later.  Refocus on something else until everyone has forgot the validity of opposing arguments.

"

You Neal, you are the one who's with nothing but fantasies.

You -as well as no other defender of the "PGF shows a real bigfoot" position- can not back your claim. All you have is wishfull thinking coupled with shaky reasoning and weak evidence. "

Quite the opposite the government paid anti-bigfoot clones, like yourself, do not have a leg to stand on"

Your specific position is among the weakest. Your fantasies speak against you.

Have you managed to figure out for, example, how X rays and EMPs can erase DVD data?

"Don't have to.  You can read about it on the internet.  It is public information."

snff, snff I love the smell of DENIAL in the morning.

 

[mangler]

Very nice Dfoot, and I might add, long overdue.


m

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto wrote:


Those are really nice pictures you posted, Correa.....but if you want to make a particular point...please feel free to demonstrate it....by highlighting something.

Pictures of Barney do NOT constitute "scientific analysis", in and of themselves.

Is that not true???

My point was clearly stated. However, since it seems that you are having a couple of problems understanding it, let me try to dumb it down for you.

Choose any of the pictures of my previous post. Or any other pic of some gorilla costume I posted before. Mark the points where you think the articulations are, draw the lines that you feel are the best guesses for limbs or, if possible, bones. Make your measurements. Now see how they compare with human proportions.

Now I will tell you the outcome, in case you have no time to follow the steps: The measurements, if propperly done, will stay outside human range. You will be left with three basic options: (a) Costumes can change human proportions or (b) Those are real animals or (c) Measurements made over pictures can be subject to large errors and may be useless unless the propper calibration is made. Whatever option you choose, the holes in many of the methodologies used and conclusions reached by PGF investigators become clear.

As you see, the excersize I proposed is more scientific than measuring the IM from Patty and claiming it prove or is strong evidece she is not human.

It is more scientific as saying "a human head won't fit" and pasting the silhouette of a human head over Patty's figure without the correct scaling.

 

[Correa Neto]

"Meet the Sasquatch"

I am sorry to tell you this, but Meldrum's book is not a scientific research that proves Patty is not a man in a costume.

"Please, please show us the video of them making those contradiction, otherwise you don't have squat"

As you probably saw at the bigfoot threads, several posters managed to point at contradictions between P & G...

you for instance, I would suspect to be a liar, because one cannot mine gold all day long and cruise the internet at the same time

Who said I have to mine for gold all day long?

Let me show you an example of a lie:
Stephen Hawkin studied a bigfoot specimen.

circular mind games are the status quo here. Ignore strong pro bigfoot arguments, come back to smear them later. Refocus on something else until everyone has forgot the validity of opposing arguments.

Show me a single strong pro bigfoot argument.

"Don't have to. You can read about it on the internet. It is public information."

Oh, you don't have to back your claims! How convenient.
But I searched the internet...
Google for EMP+dvd
http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&safe=off&q=emp&as_q=dvd&btnG=Pesquisar nos resultados
Google for emp+erase+dvd+data
http://www.google.com.br/search?q=dvd+emp+erase+data&hl=pt-BR&safe=off&start=30&sa=N
Google for X ray+erase+dvd+data
http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&safe=off&q=dvd+X+ray+erase+data&btnG=Pesquisar&meta=
The result?
They cant.

You lied.

You've been exposed -again- as a liar or a delusional person.

 

[historian]

I am sorry to tell you this, but Meldrum's book is not a scientific research that proves Patty is not a man in a costume.

I am sorry to tell you that Meldrums book was Legend Meets Science. Chris Muryphy's book was "Meet the Sasquatch" GOTCHA!

As you probably saw at the bigfoot threads, several posters managed to point at contradictions between P & G...


Who said I have to mine for gold all day long?

Let me show you an example of a lie:
Stephen Hawkin studied a bigfoot specimen.

Where did that misrepresentation come from? I never said that Hawking studied a Bigfoot specimen. He studied a poorly kept top secret Bigfoot captivity study that originated from Lawrence Livermore National Labs in the 60's. GOTCHA!

Show me a single strong pro bigfoot argument.

That would be post 9370 GOTCHA!

Oh, you don't have to back your claims! How convenient.
But I searched the internet...
Google for EMP+dvd
http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&safe=off&q=emp&as_q=dvd&btnG=Pesquisar nos resultados
Google for emp+erase+dvd+data
http://www.google.com.br/search?q=dvd+emp+erase+data&hl=pt-BR&safe=off&start=30&sa=N
Google for X ray+erase+dvd+data
http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&safe=off&q=dvd+X+ray+erase+data&btnG=Pesquisar&meta=
The result?
They cant.

You lied.

You've been exposed -again- as a liar or a delusional person.

Oops, Correa Neto won't get his NSA mole paycheck this week. Why? He got caught placing multiple complete falsehoods on the internet. tisk, tisk, tisk, naughty secret agent.

Here is some EMP info:

I’ve heard of Degaussing, but what is it?
Degaussing is erasing information using a very strong magnet designed specifically to erase magnetic tape media with an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). This type of storage media is used by organizations with large data processing operations. If a hard disk is degaussed, it is rendered inoperable, because the power of the EMP destroys the circuitry. Degaussing can also be used on defective or non-spinning drives that cannot be wiped.

http://www.dir.state.tx.us/security/reading/200612cybersec.htm

GOTCHA!

 

[bruto]

Historian, nobody doubts that you can clobber a hard drive with a magnet. I think the issue is DVD's. Care to differentiate?

 

[LTC8K6]

The EMP from a degaussing unit would not be strong enough to erase a hard disk or tape from any distance, Historian. It has to be right on top of the disk or tape, pretty much. I used these devices in the Army for data security.

It's not like the EMP pulse from an EMP weapon or nuke blast.

You need to Google some more.

 

[RayG]

Historian, your constant rambling reminds me of the Chinese proverb -- "He who has seen little marvels much."

RayG

 

[bruto]

Historian, your constant rambling reminds me of the Chinese proverb -- "He who has seen little marvels much."

RayG

funny, I'm more put in mind of Ecclesiastes (5:3):

For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

 

[historian]

Historian, your constant rambling reminds me of the Chinese proverb -- "He who has seen little marvels much."

RayG

Two can play that game.


Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.

Nature is not only all that is visible to the eye — it also includes the inner pictures of the soul.

*"Some will never learn anything because they understand everything too soon." - Thomas Blount

 

[Correa Neto]

I am sorry to tell you that Meldrums book was Legend Meets Science. Chris Muryphy's book was "Meet the Sasquatch" GOTCHA!

You know, despite its name, Meldrum's book is not a scientific work, neither it manages to prove Patty is not a bloke in a suit. The same is valid for Murphy's work.

Where did that misrepresentation come from? I never said that Hawking studied a Bigfoot specimen. He studied a poorly kept top secret Bigfoot captivity study that originated from Lawrence Livermore National Labs in the 60's. GOTCHA!

More lies or more delusions, Neal?

That would be post 9370 GOTCHA!

A zebra and a pic of a man in a gorilla bigfoot costume...
If you consider this sort of thing as strong evidence, I think its time for you to try some major paradigm shift.

Oops, Correa Neto won't get his NSA mole paycheck this week. Why? He got caught placing multiple complete falsehoods on the internet. tisk, tisk, tisk, naughty secret agent.

Here is some EMP info:

I’ve heard of Degaussing, but what is it?
Degaussing is erasing information using a very strong magnet designed specifically to erase magnetic tape media with an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). This type of storage media is used by organizations with large data processing operations. If a hard disk is degaussed, it is rendered inoperable, because the power of the EMP destroys the circuitry. Degaussing can also be used on defective or non-spinning drives that cannot be wiped.

http://www.dir.state.tx.us/security/reading/200612cybersec.htm

GOTCHA!

Neal, you just exposed, again, your ignorance and delusions...

DVDs are not magnetic media, thus they are not vulnerable to magnetic fields, not to mention that DVDs have no circuits! DVDs are rigid, but they are not hard disks. The fact that people like you, with such poor understanding of how a computer works can operate one is a tribute to the skill of software engineers!

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

Yes. And you surely crossed the line...

Nature is not only all that is visible to the eye — it also includes the inner pictures of the soul.

This is the General subforum. For discussions about the soul, please report to the Religion and Philosophy subforum.

 

[kitakaze]

WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE LIVING IN DENIAL! EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST STATED, IS AN OBVIOUS, COMPLETE AND BLATANT FALSEHOOD. HAVE A NICE DAY!

 

[Drewbot]

Correa Neto wrote:

Pictures of Barney do NOT constitute "scientific analysis", in and of themselves.

Is that not true???

Sweaty, do you think that Correa Neto was trying to offer pictures of Barney as truly scientific analysis, or do you think that he was demonstrating the absurdity of the 'scientific' arguments that Patty is indeed a real monster?

I just want to see where you are coming from, then I'll know whether to lump you in with Bergstahaler and Beckjord.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, do you think that Correa Neto was trying to offer pictures of Barney as truly scientific analysis, or do you think that he was demonstrating the absurdity of the 'scientific' arguments that Patty is indeed a real monster?

I just want to see where you are coming from, then I'll know whether to lump you in with Bergstahaler and Beckjord.

I'm coming from a search for the truth....pure and simple. I'm not into the "inter-dimensional Bigfoot" BS.

As for Correa's images of Barney and other costumes....I'm asking him to demonstrate his point.
Demonstrating a point goes beyond simply stating a point.

He took a step towards that, in his reply to me.....but he still hasn't shown exactly why what he's proposing should be believed to be correct.

In his reply, (post#9383) he wrote:

Now I will tell you you the outcome, in case you have no time to follow the steps: The measurements, if properly done, will stay outside human range.

He STATES what the outcome will be, if done properly. But since this is his proposal, or analysis, it's up to him to do the measurements, and up to him to show the results of his measurements....to demonstrate his point.

Is there something wrong with that??

On my part, I know that there are people inside those suits, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm quite sure that a properly-sized, and proportioned, human outline could be drawn inside those suits. It's simply logical.

 

[Thurkon]

Wow...I leave for a few years and nothing has changed. This behemoth is still lumbering along. LAL is replaced by Sweaty Yeti, regurgitating the same lame arguments for the existance of an imaginary ape...and Beckjord has managed to wriggle a finger free from his straitjacket so he can once again post. Who says you can't go home again?

The challenge here is very simple......provide a video which is COMPARABLE to the PG film in the REALISM of the subject. One requirement of that is that the subject be OUT IN THE OPEN so that it's body proportions, body contour, and body flexibility can be seen, and measured, with a COMPARABLE degree of resolution as the PG film.

Why would we take the time to procure a sad, hairy-breasted monkey suit and an old, crappy camera so we could prove what the majority of people already know to be true?

PG Film = Bloke In Suit + Massive Gullibility

Why would we do this to convince the roughly 100 people on the planet who still cling to the delusion that a giant ape can somehow avoid every competent hunter and anyone with a vague idea of how to operate a camera?

This is simple common sense.......but when dealing with skeptics on this board, who are clearly more intent on playing games than searching for the truth..."common sense" is not acceptable.

Common sense? Common sense.

Where, exactly, is Foot? Why is it that societies far more primitive and technologically-challenged than ours can hunt, trap, photograph and kill every other form of primate, great and small...in far more hostile environments...yet we have yet to capture a single Foot dead, alive, or even in decent photographic resolution?

Why does Foot never die and leave a body? Is Foot immortal?

Produce some real evidence at last or stop playing make believe.

 

[kitakaze]

That isn't "moving the goalposts", kitty. You're simply playing games with technicalities.

The challenge here is very simple......provide a video which is COMPARABLE to the PG film in the REALISM of the subject.
One requirement of that is that the subject be OUT IN THE OPEN so that it's body proportions, body contour, and body flexibility can be seen, and measured, with a COMPARABLE degree of resolution as the PG film.


This is simple common sense.......but when dealing with skeptics on this board, who are clearly more intent on playing games than searching for the truth..."common sense" is not acceptable.
One has to deal with "technicality word games" here...discussing an issue with skeptics as if you're in a court of law battling an opposing lawyer.

Sweaty 101- Project personal issues on others.

Sweaty on his semantics fetish:

Precise definitions of words and phrases are critical to any intelligent and thorough debate.

The precise meaning of words and phrases is a very important part of an online discussion.

Now take your fetish and give it a squirt at your description of the PGF subject as 'realistic'. Before you do have a good look at the Hoffman movie I posted and the images DFOOT posted and tell me how that 'realism' is exclusive to the PGF.

The fact of the matter is, kitakaze....you'll EAT the goalposts before we're done debating the realism of Patty compared to the total laughableness of all the other comparable videos.

Get out the salt and pepper, buddy....you'll need them!

Here's your first taste of goalpost......you failed to answer my question, kittysuzie......not surprisingly....

Can you see a difference in the realism of the legs of the 2 subjects pictured above???

If so....what makes one more realistic than the other? Is it simply "personal preference"....or is it because of some objective observation?

Hmmm... Tastes like chicken. Sweaty, get a new routine. This one needs a nap. How do you type stuff like this with out your head exploding? Ironometer... Boom.

OK, for anyone not familiar with Sweaty this is how the routine goes. Sweaty comes with the "You failed to answer my (insert poorly reasoned inane point here) question," as though he's the righteous holder of some shining truth that us subterranean skeptics flee from screaming in horror.

I then explain to Sweaty how his brilliant question has been answered. Like this:

Sweaty, I already answered your question. Here it is again.

Question:

Can you see a difference in the realism of the legs of the 2 subjects pictured above???

Answer:

Legs? So what? You think the perception of musculature in your example is better than mine?

Mr. Analysis doesn't seem to get the point that there's nothing in the image he showed that makes his bigfoot's legs look real that doesn't make my bigfoot look real.

The next step is to demonstrate Sweaty's ridiculous hypocrisy by pointing out some questions of mine he failed to answer.

Like so:

The illusion of long arms is impossible to hoax?

...Tell us, Sweaty, what are Patty's body proportions?

Sweaty, name the regular JREF BF skeptic posters who have said the PGF is pathetically easy to duplicate.

...Hey buddy,

40 years and that's the best you got!?

Truly ROTFLMAO.

Sweaty, don't forget to quibble that when I told you to name the regular JREF BF skeptic posters who have said the PGF is pathetically easy to duplicate, that I didn't pose it as a question while disregarding your complaint about technicalities.

I've gone through the above routine with Sweaty more times than I care to count. He never learns.

OK, Sweaty. Listen close.

You

are

woo.

You're out to lunch. A lost cause. You are no underdog maverick coming with the truth and the light. You are in no way interested in any kind of pursuit of truth. You, Sweaty, are the denialist.Your critical thinking is shot. Your analysis abilities- a morbid joke.

There are no ruins of an ancient civilization on Mars. Your video of some medium height person running across a hill and taking off a mask is not a little momma bigfoot lifting a baby over her head. You are inept at interpreting the images you look at. You see what you want to see.

You

are

woo.

Your PGF is bust. Get over it. Draw all the lines on it you want, it's not reliable evidence of bigfoot. There is nothing in the video that can't be accounted for by a guy in suit. Forty years it hasn't been reliable evidence of bigfoot and it never will be. Not unless someone brings in a bigfoot that exhibits the features that we see in the PGF. And yes, we get that you won't be in need of reliable evidence of bigfoot when someone brings in a specimen. Do you get it? I think not.

On top of that you are an intellectual coward. Complete chicken. You have a serious lack of integrity. You come blazing about thumbs and mock those that question the idea and when someone comes along and demonstrates crystal clear that you were completely wrong do you acknowledge it? No. No, you don't. No "My apologies, mangler. It appears I was mistaken." No "Looks like I was too quick with the attitude." Why? Because you suck. Because you're more interested in trying to score points on dirty skeptics than you are in getting to the truth of anything. The PGF is a bigfoot, that's all you'll have. Heironimus is in the film? Who cares?

Have you seen what happens here when one of us realizes we were wrong about something? We own it. We acknowledge it. We make a point of saying "I blew it." We do this because we are more interested in the truth than some false conflict imagined by footers. We have no vested interest in disbelieving in bigfoot and you turkeypants woos just don't get it. We would love for there to be a bigfoot but you guys don't seem to like to acknowledge that either. You should listen to the ladies and drop bigfoot. You make footers look bad.

Finally, Sweaty, thanks for taking the time to post. It's well past Friday.

 

[kitakaze]

As for Correa's images of Barney and other costumes....I'm asking him to demonstrate his point.
Demonstrating a point goes beyond simply stating a point.

You make demonstrating your BS very easy, Sweaty:

December 2nd

After reading it, I thought of the phrase...(inspired by the Christmas season)....."The Little Dreamer Boy"....to describe Correa. His comparison of the suits with Patty's hide is pure wishful thinking. I'll demonstrate why it is, sometime later today.

December 5th

I will get to that....I just haven't had time to highlight Correa's gorilla suit pictures yet.
I'll get them posted no later than Friday....I promise!

Sweaty knew he was starting a stinker so now he's doing his slippery routine to get out of it.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Why would we take the time to procure a sad, hairy-breasted monkey suit and an old, crappy camera so we could prove what the majority of people already know to be true?

PG Film = Bloke In Suit + Massive Gullibility

Why would we do this to convince the roughly 100 people on the planet who still cling to the delusion that a giant ape can somehow avoid every competent hunter and anyone with a vague idea of how to operate a camera?

The answer is very simple.

There is evidence for this creature's existence. There are discussion board threads where people who take an interest in the evidence discuss and analyse the evidence. Part of 'analysing the evidence' consists of actually doing something which would support one's analysis.

If you, or anyone else, give all the evidence for Bigfoot's existence ZERO weight...then you, and company, have no real reason to be concerned with the discussion and analysis of the evidence...do you?

Common sense? Common sense.

Where, exactly, is Foot? Why is it that societies far more primitive and technologically-challenged than ours can hunt, trap, photograph and kill every other form of primate, great and small...in far more hostile environments...yet we have yet to capture a single Foot dead, alive, or even in decent photographic resolution?

Why does Foot never die and leave a body? Is Foot immortal?

Produce some real evidence at last or stop playing make believe.

I'm not playing anything. I have reason to think there is some probability (the weight of the evidence) for Bigfoot's existence...and therefore, I enjoy analysing the evidence.

I don't tell you what you should think, or believe....and neither should you tell others what they should think.

Someday there may be proof of Bigfoot's existence...but, in the meantime...try not to get too upset if others discuss the evidence.

 

[SweatyYeti]

You make demonstrating your BS very easy, Sweaty:

December 2ndDecember 5thSweaty knew he was starting a stinker so now he's doing his slippery routine to get out of it.

I said I will highlight Correa's images to show how they don't compare to Patty as far as realism. That is something I'm proposing, and I will follow through with it, when I have the time to do so.
I'll try to get to it today, or tomorrow. I'm sorry for the delay.


I asked you a question twice, kitty....can you please answer it?

From your last post...you wrote:

Sweaty, I already answered your question. Here it is again.

Question:
Quote:
Can you see a difference in the realism of the legs of the 2 subjects pictured above???

Answer:
Quote:
Legs? So what? You think the perception of musculature in your example is better than mine?

That is NOT an answer, kitty. Yes or No would be an answer to the question.
Again.......concerning whether or not "realism" is subjective or objective....

Can you see a difference in the realism of the legs of the 2 subjects pictured above???


You are the one who avoids standing behind and supporting your own proposals and statements, not me.

 

[Drewbot]

EVIDENCE?

I think the word you are looking for is 'BELIEVIDENCE', you believe that Bigfoot has dermal ridges, you believe that a foot shaped impression in the woods is caused by a giant biped, covered with hair, you believe that the PGF represents a mysterious north American primate, you believe that certain hoots and howls and woodknocks are perpetrated by a babysitting beast, you believe that bigfoot is an omnivore, you believe that bigfoot swims, you believe that bigfoot has a mid-tarsal break, you believe that bigfoot is curious, but shy, you believe that bigfoot is hairy, you believe that trackways are the path of a shy, curious, stealthy foot-ape, you believe that bigfoot is migratory.

But you don't have any verifiable evidence of this, you have the word of some witnesses, and a few scientists, who themselves have no evidence of it's existence, just Believidence by the boatload.

By the way, Sweaty, just so you know, I could insert all those things above with one of Beckjord's beliefs, and you would be on the same level as him as far as evidence.