Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[devnull]

this whole thread is like a bad dream I cant wake up from.

 

[historian]

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

The only good evidence is best obtained on an individual basis in the field, at night, with no gun in your pocket, with no flashlight in your hand, but with night vision to verify that the source of loud bipedal footsteps in the darkened forest, is not a deer, elk, bear or cougar.

No skeptic in his right mind, would ever admit to being caught in such a situation.

Myself, on my very first night of calling in Bigfoot with alleged Bigfoot calls,
1. I called in two likely Bigfoot that ran at me through thick brush, single file, at night, performed a dimension change at about 35 yards out, with one eventually getting as close at 10 feet, but likely in a dimension twice removed from ours.
2. Then, I triggered a Bigfoot to charge me for 600 yards from across a clear cut, whereupon it broke off the charge at about 50-70 yards out when I flipped on my camcorder, as it then changed from the dimension once removed from ours, to a dimension twice removed from ours. It was invisible the entire way, but was tearing up everything in the clear cut.
3. Then I called in 3 Bigfoot for the night shift tribal officer on an Indian Reservation, where they were first heard perhaps 200 yards out in a dimension once removed from ours, running at us single file through dense brush, then they climbed a near verticle dirt bank at night in a dimension twice removed from ours, then fanned out in front of us at 20 feet away in dense brush without moving a single branch or twig. This was ultimately observed with 3rd generation night vision, to verify that no movement occurred to the branches most likely to move. We also called in and scared off a 4th Bigfoot, and last heard it running away going downhill. That Bigfoot had taken up an observation post from a fully exposed tree trunk mound, at 35 yards away and absolutely nothing could be seen from that location while he was observing us. I have found and cast Bigfoot casts nearby, at a later date.

So all that skeptics need to do to turn them into believers, is obtain adequate field experience. Except they will not be caught dead in the conditions conducive to loud Bigfoot coming to within a few feet.

So we have a standoff. Photographic evidence will never be accepted. Audio evidence is not good enough. Anecdotal evedience is not good enough. And actual field experience will never happen because the skeptics don't have the rocks for it. Which is a good old fashioned Mexican Standoff! But the fact is, we do have an unclassified but discovered species. Society is however living in denial of the existence of that species, as well as dozens of others.

 

[SweatyYeti]

To show just how much padding would have been required in Patty's upper leg....here is Jim McClarin, at 6'5" in height, next to Patty....

As a sidenote....Jim McClarin is taller than Bob Heironimus....and comparisons of Bob and Patty, in which an image of Bob is sized so that he's equal in height to Patty, are bogus comparisons...in terms of comparing their body masses.

Bob would have required a LOT of (stiff) padding to fill out Patty's massive body.

And remember, folks, stiff padding doesn't like to do this...

It really doesn't!

 

[historian]

Because in 1970 physicists never stated that Bigfoot is both real and inter-dimensional...Oh, kids are pretty aware of the differences between reality and fantasy! More aware than you, apparently.

Lets see if Correa is living in a fantasy world or living in reality. In order for Correa to be able to positively have knowledge that his statement is correct, he would have had to been both at all places and at all times during 1970. Since this is a physical impossibility by a mere mortal that was not Santa Claus, his statement is therefore blatantly false. Yet he stated it as being true. Correa is therefore providing written evidence here of both being caught in a falsehood (tell me it isn't so) and being caught living in a fantasy world. A pro-bigfooter double bagger. Posters are tired of reading that same old ,same old from Correa all right, but Correa apparently cannot figure that out.

 

[Dfoot]

Hey Sweaty, still sweat'in to the oldies, eh?

The McClarin argument was shot down long ago.

Green shows McClarin walking a path in which he's further from the camera than Patty. How do we know this? By looking at the rest of the footage from... JOHN GREEN.

Taken on the same day, it shows McClarin and company carefully trace Patty's steps. With McClarin actually following Patty's true steps close to the log we can see the version most people cling to for comparison might not be an accurate guide.


Use your photoshop and overlay the stump. When you match perfectly to Green's footage of McClarin actually walking in Patty's real path you'll get this result. (*Obtain this footage from Sasquatch Odyssey if you like)


And here's Jim McClarin VS. Jim McClarin! Yes, he looks like a tiny child next to himself. Yet BOTH bits of film were shot the same day from the same position by Green. All the McClarin on the right has to do is take a few sidesteps to his right and he can match the height of... himself.


So... if you can't comprehend the earlier pics that demonstrate and describe what you are seeing with Patty's leg, then there is nothing anyone can do for you. You'll continue to see with your imagination and block out what you don't want to know.

The type of foam padding we are talking about is not stiff - btw - but I've already show you that in earlier posts.

The hair bouncing with the bending foam/wrinkling skin as the foot stomps down is all that you are looking at. It's not real.

I just thank God Patterson didn't film a Unicorn or my horse would really hate me about now.

 

[LTC8K6]

Should we really entertain Historian's dementia?

That's a serious question.

Are we harming historian?

 

[LTC8K6]

No human can fake a 41 INCH STRIDE WITH 2000 LBS PLUS WEIGHT FOR DEPTH.

Cannot be done for more than 2 steps even with 500 lbs.

Monstro, I bet that even Jon Beckjord knows that just about anyone can imitate that with a couple of wooden feet, a hammer, and some burlap to wrap around their own shoes.

Only a fool would think it was difficult to do, and Beckjord is not a fool.

 

[kitakaze]

...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.

Got nothing, huh? Why should I do the research to substantiate your claims?

 

[kitakaze]

Do you suggest that maybe it was the raven?

Woosh! Right over your head. Apparently the point eludes you. No, I do not suggest Thunderbird was the raven. I suggest *gasp* Thunderbird was the Thunderbird. As in a mythological creature for which a living animal is not necessary.

See, the other guy said this:

One tribe dresses as animals and all the animals are known creatures except the sasquatch or buk'wus as they call them. They just consider it another primate and think nothing strange about its existence.

Snuau was referring to the Kwakwaka'wakw (also known as the Kwaikutl). The implication is that they don't have mythological creatures and dress only as animals they knew, including bigfoots. That is why I mentioned the mythological Thunderbird. Here's some information for you (bolding mine):

The thunderbird's name comes from that common supposition that the beating of its enormous wings causes thunder and stirs the wind. The Lakota name for the Thunderbird is "Wakį́yą," a word formed from "kįyą́," meaning "winged," and "wakhą́," "sacred." The Kwakwaka'wakw (Kwakiutl) called him "Jojo," and the Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) called him "Kw-Uhnx-Wa." The Ojibwa word for a thunderbird that is closely associated with thunder is "animikii", while large thunderous birds are "binesi." It is described as being two canoe-lengths from wingtip to wingtip, and it creates storms as it flies. Clouds are pulled together by its wingbeats, the sound of thunder is its wings clapping, sheet lightning is the light flashing from its eyes when it blinks, and individual lightning bolts are glowing snakes that it carries with it. In masks, it is depicted as many-colored, with two curling horns, and sometimes with teeth within its beak.

Depending on the people telling the story, the Thunderbird is either a singular entity or a species. In both cases, it is intelligent, powerful, and wrathful. All agree that one should go out of one's way to keep from getting thunderbirds angry.

The singular Thunderbird (as the Nuu-chah-nulth believed) was said to reside on the top of a mountain, and was the servant of the Great Spirit. The Thunderbird only flew about to carry messages from one spirit to another.[citation needed] It was also told that the thunderbird controlled rainfall.

The plural thunderbirds (as the Kwakwaka'wakw and Cowichan tribes believed) could shapeshift to human form by tilting back their beak as if it were only a mask, and by removing their feathers as if it were a feather-covered blanket. There are stories of thunderbirds in human form marrying into human families; some families may trace their lineage to such an event. Families of thunderbirds who kept to themselves but wore human form were said to have lived along the northern tip of Vancouver Island. The story goes that other tribes soon forgot the nature of one of these thunderbird families, and when one tribe tried to take them as slaves the thunderbirds put on their feather blankets and transformed to take vengeance upon their foolish captors.

And as for the Buk'wus mythical creature that is being hijacked by footers to support there fantasies:

From the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture:

Like the Dzoonokwa, Bukwus is a wild creature of the woods. Described as a "chief of the ghosts", he tempts travellers to eat his food, which transforms them into wild spirits like himself. The Bukwus dance is performed during the Tlasula.

https://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/ethnology/collections/display.php?ID=93120

From northwestcoastnativeartists.com:

Bukwus, the wild man of the woods, is a supernatural ghost like figure. He is associated with the spirits of people who have drowned. He lives in an invisible house in the forest and attracts the spirits of those who have drowned to his home.

Bukwus also tries to persuade humans to eat ghost food so that they will become like him. The Bukwus was a significant character for the Kwakiutl people.

http://www.northwestcoastnativeartists.com/artists/symbolsdetail.php?recordIDSymbolsDetail=008

So much for just another primate of whom's existence nothing strange is thought. See, here's the problem. Footers like to toss crap like this out there as though it's established fact. Time and again it's left to skeptics to rid them of their misconceptions and false assumptions. Usually it's all for naught as the bigfoot fans have no intention of abandoning their preconceived notions and beliefs. And yet they fail to see the irony in telling us non-believers that we are naive, ignorant, or in denial.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Thanks for the info about the McClarin footage, Dfoot. I'll have to get the Sasquatch Odyssey dvd, and check that out.


As for these statements by you....

... if you can't comprehend the earlier pics that demonstrate and describe what you are seeing with Patty's leg, then there is nothing anyone can do for you. You'll continue to see with your imagination and block out what you don't want to know.

Actually, Dfoot...I have no trouble comprehending things...but I am having a little trouble seeing your animated gif....

I had a look at it with my binoculars....but still wasn't able to get any useful DATA, or useful measurements out of it.

How about we do this, Dfoot...... first you present some actual data, and then you can insult my intelligence, if I'm not able to accept or understand the data.

The type of foam padding we are talking about is not stiff - btw - but I've already show you that in earlier posts.

The hair bouncing with the bending foam/wrinkling skin as the foot stomps down is all that you are looking at. It's not real.

Can you demonstrate that, with an animated gif which clearly shows that? (Preferably something not requiring binoculars. )

 

[Drewbot]

Can you demonstrate that, with an animated gif which clearly shows that? (Preferably something not requiring binoculars. )

Dfoot, would you say that you qualify as an expert in the field of Costumes, Costume design, or any other related field?

If the answer is 'yes', Then we should be able to take your word for it as an expert.

We are expected to accept dermal ridge speak from a fingerprint expert, and MTBreak speak from a primate foot expert, why don't isn't your opinion as a costume expert accepted by the PGF Elite?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Drewbot wrote:

If the answer is 'yes', Then we should be able to take your word for it as an expert.

The way discussion boards work, Drewbot....is that people who register as members of a board, and then post on the board, making claims on the board....should SUPPORT their arguments on the board, with something more than "take my word for it".


If Dfoot can post insults...then he should also be able to post something of SUBSTANCE (As I do). Something more than microscopic animated gifs which demonstrate nothing.

 

[kitakaze]

Correa is therefore providing written evidence here of both being caught in a falsehood (tell me it isn't so) and being caught living in a fantasy world. A pro-bigfooter double bagger.

I got a slam dunk:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...78#post3268878

(It's like he's begging for it.)

 

[manofthesea]

Much Ado About....

Woosh! Right over your head. Apparently the point eludes you. No, I do not suggest Thunderbird was the raven. I suggest *gasp* Thunderbird was the Thunderbird. As in a mythological creature for which a living animal is not necessary.

See, the other guy said this:

Snuau was referring to the Kwakwaka'wakw (also known as the Kwaikutl). The implication is that they don't have mythological creatures and dress only as animals they knew, including bigfoots. That is why I mentioned the mythological Thunderbird. Here's some information for you (bolding mine):



And as for the Buk'wus mythical creature that is being hijacked by footers to support there fantasies:

From the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture:

https://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/ethnology/collections/display.php?ID=93120

From northwestcoastnativeartists.com:



http://www.northwestcoastnativeartists.com/artists/symbolsdetail.php?recordIDSymbolsDetail=008

So much for just another primate of whom's existence nothing strange is thought. See, here's the problem. Footers like to toss crap like this out there as though it's established fact. Time and again it's left to skeptics to rid them of their misconceptions and false assumptions. Usually it's all for naught as the bigfoot fans have no intention of abandoning their preconceived notions and beliefs. And yet they fail to see the irony in telling us non-believers that we are naive, ignorant, or in denial.

Silly argument. Are you saying that you believe in all of the myths literally?

 

[kitakaze]

The way discussion boards work, Drewbot....is that people who register as members of a board, and then post on the board, making claims on the board....should SUPPORT their arguments on the board, with something more than "take my word for it".

A statement regarding the protocols of a discussion board... very interesting. Any thoughts on evasion?

Maybe you can provide us with something more than the "take my word for it" you've provided thus far when being asked to define the 'realism' that you apply to Patty.

Maybe you can offer something beyond an expression of amusement and wow us with an explanation of why my 'no' answer regarding the leg question is so wrong.

Otherwise, when you make posts like the above it just looks like more of your hypocrisy.

 

[kitakaze]

Silly argument. Are you saying that you believe in all of the myths literally?

...? I'm having serious doubts about your comprehension abilities, MOTS. Please explain how you derived me believing in myths literally from that post.

 

[Drewbot]

Drewbot wrote:

The way discussion boards work, Drewbot....is that people who register as members of a board, and then post on the board, making claims on the board....should SUPPORT their arguments on the board, with something more than "take my word for it".

If Dfoot can post insults...then he should also be able to post something of SUBSTANCE (As I do). Something more than microscopic animated gifs which demonstrate nothing.

You have not shown one item that makes the idea that Patty is real, seem more likely. Dfoot has shown padding that creates the same effect, he has spent money to recreate it, and time to tape it and download it, it seems like heap-more effort and results than you have shown.

 

[kitakaze]

Something else for Sweaty to dodge:

The fact remains, Greg.......no comparable films, videos, or photos anywhere near as convincing, or as ambiguous as what's on the PG film.

All the others are instantly recognizable as a man-in-a-(shaggy) suit.

Why is my Harley Hoffman video easily recognizable as a man in a shaggy suit?

 

[SweatyYeti]

You have not shown one item that makes the idea that Patty is real, seem more likely.

I've shown specific, scientific analysis of Patty's leg and Dfoot's padded leg.

Your opinion of whether or not it makes Bigfoot "more likely to exist" is absolutely 100% irrelevant.....as is my opinion, and everyone else's.

If you think there is a flaw or a mistake in my analysis.....feel free to point it out.....with SPECIFICS.

If you can't do that.....then your comments mean nothing to me, Drewbot.

Dfoot has shown padding that creates the same effect, he has spent money to recreate it, and time to tape it and download it, it seems like heap-more effort and results than you have shown.

I've presented analysis....with measurements. That is what scientific analysis is composed of.
Dfoot's little microscopic pictures and animated gifs do not qualify as 'scientific analysis', unless and until they're backed-up with either clear, unambigouous comparisons, and/or measurable data.

So far...it's mostly Dfoot's personal take on his images.....and that is not scientific analysis...it's simply his personal opinion on what the images show.

Example of analysis NOT consisiting of personal opinion....

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....

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

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.

 

[Drewbot]

For Starters, you drew your line on the right hand photo to intersect lower on the knee than you did on the patty photo. I drew the yellow line in, where I see you drawing your line on the photo of Patty.

Where does that angle fit?