• 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.
Looks like Katakaze drew holliday shift at the NSA. Must not have any seniority yet. Probably no window seat either. Has to make his own coffee. Uses the hand me down computers and office equipment. Must buy his own firearm and bullets. No air conditioning. They probably stuffed him in a broom closet, told him that it was his own private office, gave him an empty coffee can in leau of the key to the men's toilet, but left the brooms. For a chair, they let him sit on an upside down garbage can. For a desk, they threw some boards on the janitors sink.
 
Snuau, that's a big pile of statements and accusations for a single paragraph. Why don't you pick out the ONE, most-compelling item of evidence for Bigfoot's existance and we can discuss that?

Is it because the Patterson film looks real? Or is there something better?
 
kitakaze said:
Thunderbirds are known creatures?
.
Click to expand...

Reaching. What's next, obake stories?
Anyway, large raptor type birds do exist in North America. Ever heard of the bald eagle? Unless, of course you want a supernatural bald eagle. You'll have to get in line. They're still trying to catch that tricky coyote.
 
Last edited:
Count Each Grain?

historian said:
Looks like Katakaze drew holliday shift at the NSA.
Must buy his own firearm and bullets.
.
Click to expand...

Some guys prepare their own bullets. I worked with a guy who did that, and guess what? Shortly after, he quit, then threatened to kill everyone.
But, my bullets aren't silver, but they're the next best thing. A friend of mine was cleaning out his old house when he came upon a box of old .38 bullets. When he gave them to me he stated that they were his uncle's, who happened to be the real life cop who was the inspiration for Charlie Chan, here in Honolulu.
 
historian said:
Looks like Katakaze drew holliday shift at the NSA. Must not have any seniority yet. Probably no window seat either. Has to make his own coffee. Uses the hand me down computers and office equipment. Must buy his own firearm and bullets. No air conditioning. They probably stuffed him in a broom closet, told him that it was his own private office, gave him an empty coffee can in leau of the key to the men's toilet, but left the brooms. For a chair, they let him sit on an upside down garbage can. For a desk, they threw some boards on the janitors sink.
Click to expand...

histo, do you ever provide anything that isn't deep-fried in speculation?

You do realize the NSA works 24/7, 365 days a year, right? Ah well, not surprisingly you're as well informed about the NSA as you are about bigfoot. :boggled:

Btw, I got the afternoon shift. :cool:

RayG
 
Snafu, snuau,


Accurate decisions/opinions have to be made based on objective, not subjective evidence. Subjective evidence might include, unsubstantiated sightings of bigfoot, unclassified evidence, or an inability to replicate evidence. Not one piece of evidence that I know of is incontrovertible. I think everyone here would love to hear/see this objective evidence you speak of. BTW all of Meldrums evidence is subjective. It is simply how he interprets the information that makes him different.

Bigfoot research is poor science, if science at all.

So you believe we have an unknown or unclassified species that roams the earth. Would I be correct in assuming that you see it as an unclassified primate? Which order would this primate have come from? Do you have any evidence that is not speculative or subjective? The fact is we don’t have an unclassified or unknown species; the fact is at this point in time we have no species at all.

Is this non-existent species nocturnal, diurnal or crepuscular? Do you have any objective evidence to prove your hypothisis, or, is this also simply speculation? Could you please explain how a nocturnal animal could have diurnal traits and how these traits would pertain to this non-existent species? Is it not true that apes are sight-oriented, that facial expressions play an important role in their social lifestyle, how do you incorporated this trait into a nocturnal lifestyle? How many nocturnal primates are there? Do you believe that this non-existent species is going nocturnal (recently) like the owl monkey, or do you believe that this nocturnal lifestyle came to be lets say 250,000 years ago? What are your thoughts on its olfactory system? Objective evidence please?

Could you please explain their social structure, are they nomads, do they live in family units, do you have any objective evidence in regards to these questions?

What about these nests I keep hearing about? These nests must be built somewhat like the great apes, would this be correct? Now, if this non-existent species has a home range of say 5000 sq. miles in which it forages there would be nests in this home range, correct? Actually there would be many, many nests, if they are at all like the great apes, is this not correct? I mean if we were comparing this non-existent species to great apes there would be thousands of these nests, right? Wouldn’t a family unit of five, say one male, three females and a juvenal build maybe between 40-80 nests a month, I mean if we were somewhat comparing them to great apes? We are still somewhat comparing them to great apes, right? BTW, what is the average size of these nests?

Is there any objective evidence what-so-ever in regards to food sources of this non-existent species?

Do you have any objective evidence in regards to these films and/or videos that keep popping up on the internet? We have to agree on this one, that they certainly are not definitive proof of this non-existent species existence, correct? In yet you believe this Patterson film is of a real live bigfoot, correct? You realize that these calculations and the analysis that was made on the PGF is pure speculation, right? Are you saying that there is absolutely no way that this could be a man in a suit? Could you please explain how the baseline data for this analysis was obtained?


Unfortunately people are accidentally as well as deliberately misled all the time in this arena. There are many that want to screw with you and many that are, for lack of a better term, eagerly awaiting it. It’s a perfect match.


m :bike:
 
historian said:
The BIG QUESTIONS

Why did physicists in 1970 readily state that Bigfoot is both real and inter-dimensional, whereas today, physicists will not even acknowledge their existence?
Click to expand...
Because in 1970 physicists never stated that Bigfoot is both real and inter-dimensional.

historian said:
Why do physicists claim that the higher dimensions are "tiny", instead of say, the exact same size as the dimensions that mankind is stuck in?
Click to expand...
Because they are correct and they have the maths to back their position.

historian said:
Why do posters on this board relentlessly seek to deny the obvious, in order to influence readers that Bigfoot is a hoaxe?
Click to expand...
Because these posters are tired of reading the crap that is being presented over and over again by some footers as being good stuff. Yeah, NSA money helps, but its not the main drive.

BTW, these posters don't claim bigfoot is a hoax. These posters claim that the phenomena can be explained by a combination of hoaxes and misidentifications. These posters are open to the possibility that bigfeet are
real. These posters are not, however, aware of the existence of a single piece of reliable evidence that could back the claim "bigfeet are real".

historian said:
Why can't kids handle the teachings about people actually living in parallel dimensions, when their video games and cartoon characters often do?
Click to expand...
Oh, kids are pretty aware of the differences between reality and fantasy! More aware than you, apparently.

historian said:
Why can't kitakaze, GT/CS, drapier, Correa, Diogenes and dozens of others deal with the existence of people living right along side of us in parallel dimensions?
Click to expand...
For us to "deal with it", all it takes is a proponent show us the (reliable) evidences and (sound) reasonings. And so far, nothing has been presented that could be taken as being slightly close to it.

PS.:
Ray, the afternoon shift, after spending the night piloting a black helicopter chasing Santa Claus around the globe can be a pain... Yeah, I know, you'll say I should have used the Apache. But I'll stick to my KA 50. Why? The looks, just the looks. Aniway, mission acomplished. No reliable pro-bigfoot data delivered to Sweaty's socks last night. As soon as my shift is over, I'll eat a piece of Santa's reindeer cooked in bigfoot blood sauce!
 
Steak and Burger Guy

Correa Neto said:
Because in 1970 physicists never stated that Bigfoot is both real and inter-dimensional.

As soon as my shift is over, I'll eat a piece of Santa's reindeer cooked in bigfoot blood sauce!
Click to expand...

Well, which one did they state then? And please provide evidence.

You wouldn't have a bigfoot barbecue recipe, would you?

Mele Kalikimaka ia 'oukou!
 
manofthesea said:
Reaching. What's next, obake stories?
Anyway, large raptor type birds do exist in North America. Ever heard of the bald eagle? Unless, of course you want a supernatural bald eagle. You'll have to get in line. They're still trying to catch that tricky coyote.
Click to expand...
Hold tight that Japanese/English dictionary, MOTS. This is the part where you provide evidence that native tribes equated bald eagles with thunderbirds. Anticipation...
 
Thank you for the very enlightening criticism of my post as well as Meldrum's book. Sorry about my repetitive points but I have no time to read through 245 pages of posts that all sound the same. The criticisms on Meldrum's book is the same thing you'll hear about any book written in a Pro existence point of view. I correct myself for calling it scientific and not pseudoscientific but the fact remains that the evidence I've seen on both sides strongly supports its existence regardless of the level of expertise of the researcher. The fact is most people with expertise in a certain area won't look at the data with an open mind so it would be useless anyway. The fact that these creatures have been sited in areas outside the rural northwest does raise question marks for me as well. Being from the south myself I refuse to believe that any species of sasquatch resides outside of high elevation locations. The theory that the gigantopithacus, which presumably went extinct about 30,000 years ago, could have crossed over the land bridge from asia and evolved into the smaller form sited today seems a viable explanation yet certainly only theory. This would explain the reason why indians in BC claim it's existence. I don't understand why so many people discount what the indians believe as just a mythical creature used for religious ceremonies. These people to me are the best resource for proving its existence or at least rationally admitting they probably exist which is where I stand. Whats the explanation for how hundreds of sitings occur a year? Perceptual hallucinations, simple appeal for attention(even though they're typically seen as possibly crazy), crazy people not diagnosed yet, mis-identification(how can you mis-identify a creature like a sasquatch?), hoaxes? All of these seem like grasping for straws if using any one of them to explain most or all of these sightings. Could it be a combination of these and not one sighting is legitimate? Unlikely. If you can't prove its existence then can you prove it doesn't exist? no not at all. Again sorry for covering topics all you bigfoot experts on here already know. Next time simply ignore if its old info rather than looking like a dick. And for the links you requested you sound like a smart fellow so I'll let you do your own research. I don't have time to spoon feed you close-minded people.
 
Last edited:
snuau said:
Thank you for the very enlightening criticism of my post as well as Meldrum's book. Sorry about my repetitive points but I have no time to read through 245 pages of posts that all sound the same. The criticisms on Meldrum's book is the same thing you'll hear about any book written in a Pro existence point of view. I correct myself for calling it scientific and not pseudoscientific but the fact remains that the evidence I've seen on both sides strongly supports its existence regardless of the level of expertise of the researcher. The fact is most people with expertise in a certain area won't look at the data with an open mind so it would be useless anyway. The fact that these creatures have been sited in areas outside the rural northwest does raise question marks for me as well. Being from the south myself I refuse to believe that any species of sasquatch resides outside of high elevation locations. The theory that the gigantopithacus, which presumably went extinct about 30,000 years ago, could have crossed over the land bridge from asia and evolved into the smaller form sited today seems a viable explanation yet certainly only theory. This would explain the reason why indians in BC claim it's existence. I don't understand why so many people discount what the indians believe as just a mythical creature used for religious ceremonies. These people to me are the best resource for proving its existence or at least rationally admitting they probably exist which is where I stand. Whats the explanation for how hundreds of sitings occur a year? Perceptual hallucinations, simple appeal for attention(even though they're typically seen as possibly crazy), crazy people not diagnosed yet, mis-identification(how can you mis-identify a creature like a sasquatch?), hoaxes? All of these seem like grasping for straws if using any one of them to explain most or all of these sightings. Could it be a combination of these and not one sighting is legitimate? Unlikely. If you can't prove its existence then can you prove it doesn't exist? no not at all. Again sorry for covering topics all you bigfoot experts on here already know. Next time simply ignore if its old info rather than looking like a dick. And for the links you requested you sound like a smart fellow so I'll let you do your own research. I don't have time to spoon feed you close-minded people.
Click to expand...

One word of advice; PARAGRAPHS!!!

You don't know a guy who goes by the name of Creek Freak do you?
 
Geno said:
Fun story about Dahinden who was quite skepitcal about tree breaks. Seems he heard of broken tree tops at Bluff Creek that were reported as BF activity so he went back in 94 to see the film site again. He took some video of these broken tops on trees that were about 6 feet tall or so. Then he found some 30 to 40 foot tall trees that had broken tops, "must have been a 40 foot tall sasquatch" he mused. I miss that guy.
Click to expand...

The 20 foot plus tree break is easily overcome, as I found out in the Tree Break thread over at Searchforbigfoot.com. When asked why would tree breaks from an 8 or 9 foot BF, occur 20 feet in the air, the response from one of the respondants was something to the effect of; The Bigfoot starts a the 10 foot mark, and bends the tree down until it reaches the 20 foot point, then breaks the tree and releases it, which makes the tree break 20 feet high vertically into the air.
 
Dfoot said:
Well...
Click to expand...

Fantastic work Dfoot. Basically unimpeachable counter to the Woo claim, which says 'present a 60's era costume that would look the same', and also, explanations for the line in the thigh, the hernia, and the butt causing people to extend their estimate of the the femur when doing IM measurements.

Of course, it's also just good enough, that no one at any BF-Support Group, would ever give it the time of day.
 
Dfoot posted this image....

Legs1.gif



...and failed to present any data along with it.

Well, here's some data.
First, the angle between the front and back side of Patty's thigh, when the leg is off the ground, is approx. 25 degrees....

PatLeg1lined.jpg



The angle of the padded leg, in the same position, is only about 10 degrees...the lines are much closer to parallel....

PadLegs1crop1.jpg



I extended the lines on both legs just to make it easier to see the significant difference in the angles....so readers don't have to dig out a protractor and measure them.

The reason for the smaller angle on the padded leg is because padding is stiffer than flesh, and doesn't flex, or change, as much as real live flesh does. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom