Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

Thanks, guys!...or, should I say...Robo-Skeptic #27 and Robo-Skeptic #8006?!

The model JR-1 Robo-skeptic will always say that the evidence for Bigfoot is "nothing"....and will keep repeating this until it's batteries are completely drained.

JR-1 Robo-skeptic #1 would like to know what the strong evidence is.

 

[Astrophotographer]

JR-1 Robo-skeptic #1 would like to know what the strong evidence is.

I think I agree with Drewbot that the discussion should return to the PGF which is what this thread is all about. That being said, I am curious is to how sweaty critically analyzes the PGF and then weighs this piece of evidence towards the liklihood that bigfoot exists as a real creature. So far, all I have seen from briefly reading the thread was a demand for skeptics to produce a suit and accurately reproduce the PGF with said suit (and I am criticized for asking to see something tangible like a body) and a lot of images which supposedly indicates that it is not a man in a suit and is a real creature.

 

[tsig]

Astro wroto:


LTC8K6 wrote:



Thanks, guys!...or, should I say...Robo-Skeptic #27 and Robo-Skeptic #8006?!

The model JR-1 Robo-skeptic will always say that the evidence for Bigfoot is "nothing"....and will keep repeating this until it's batteries are completely drained.

Sweaty, why aren't you in the woods with a camera? If you spent as much time actually looking for bigfoot as you have on just this thread you might have real proof in your hands.

One thing I'm sure of is that bigfoot is not posting on the internet so it seems a poor place to look. (no true bigfoot that is)

 

[carcharodon]

carcharodon wrote:
Hey Lyndon...my buddy, how you doin'?! Nice to see you back here!

Hey Sweat. Doing great thanks, mate. Don't come here much. Can't stand most of the twats here.

Yeah, I've been having some fun with the skeptic's here...did you see my debate with LTC, about their beloved "default position"? The 'default position' which means absolutely nothing!

Do not insult other posters

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: brodski

Going beyond just saying "Bigfoot doesn't exist", they keep saying "there is no evidence for Bigfoot's existence"....yet they'll spend countless hours debating the existence of a creature, for which, there...supposedly...is not a shred of evidence.

Sad, twisted bastards mate. They are bloody whacked.

That just doesn't make any sense.

Course it doesn't make sense....................but then , nor do THEY! They are weirdos.

I, personally, would never debate the existence of Unicorns...because...you guessed it....there is no evidence for their existence.

LO, me neither mate, no way. Personally, I would'nt bother to 'debate' ANYTHING I thought was crap. Got better things to do with my time.............and life. Obviously, these wankers haven't. Hmmmmmmm.

But that just goes to show the sad, sad circumsances of the pricks who post here and try to argue it.

Ah well.

 

[RayG]

The model JR-1 Robo-skeptic will always say that the evidence for Bigfoot is "nothing"....and will keep repeating this until it's batteries are completely drained.

No, no, no, there's a pile of 'evidence for bigfoot'. Time to match this mountain of evidence up with a real squatch. Got one?

Carch, if you could somehow get past your meltdowns it would be nice to see you present a valid argument. You do have one, right?

Yes, yes, we're all a bunch of twits, wangs, duotangs, etc. etc. Get over it. Stamping your feet and shaking your fists is unlikely to change anyone's attitude toward squatch. Why not present what you think is the single best piece of recent evidence that supports the bigfoot hypothesis? I'm getting kinda tired of the 40-year-old unresolved stuff.

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Let's have a boo at Sweaty's 'strong evidence' (bolded comments obviously mine.)

There is, though, very strong evidence for it's existence, in the way of sighting reports (unreliable - aliens, chupacabra, Dog Man, hello.) footprints (people fake these. We know that. There's not one alledged footprint that can't be attributed to hoax or misidentification), the PG film (far, far more likely to be a person a suit, the MD Video(Dude, that's one messed up joke. MABRC, your music rocks!), hair samples (Well, we've got some bison, some bear, some indistinguishable from human, some inconclusive. Last time I checked 'inconclusive' was a bad result.), and vocal and wood-knocking sounds at night.(Dude! How creduloid can you be? Wood-knocking is strong evidence? Holy crap, that's messed up. Vocal recordings? Like the ones that turned out to be coyotes? Vocal recordings or strong evidence. OMG! It's bigfoot! Oh, it's just a horny elk. Or was it bigfoot geeks messing with eachother.)

JR-1 Robo-skeptic #1 says:

"Bleep! Blop! Does not compute!"

 

[kitakaze]

Hey Sweat. Doing great thanks, mate. Don't come here much. Can't stand most of the twats here.

LTK? Is that the twat who thinks that Patterson meant the 'forest' when he mentioned the trees behind him....meaning the trees in the treepile logjam? Oh, him! Mr Dopey Bollocks??

Sad, twisted bastards mate. They are bloody whacked.

Course it doesn't make sense....................but then , nor do THEY! They are weirdos.

LO, me neither mate, no way. Personally, I would'nt bother to 'debate' ANYTHING I thought was crap. Got better things to do with my time.............and life. Obviously, these wankers haven't. Hmmmmmmm.

But that just goes to show the sad, sad circumsances of the pricks who post here and try to argue it.

Ah well.

Nice Tourette's fit, Mr. Personality.

Lyndon, you keep saying skeptics discussing bigfootery is weird. We think bigfootery is weird. I think you have anger management issues.

 

[kitakaze]

Does anyone else want a different thread regarding 'Bigfoot-Levels of Evidence' or something like that? Maybe this falls into the PGF discussion, but it seems that it is a philosophical/emotional argument regarding personal standards, and not regarding the PGF in itself.

I think I agree with Drewbot that the discussion should return to the PGF which is what this thread is all about. That being said, I am curious is to how sweaty critically analyzes the PGF and then weighs this piece of evidence towards the liklihood that bigfoot exists as a real creature. So far, all I have seen from briefly reading the thread was a demand for skeptics to produce a suit and accurately reproduce the PGF with said suit (and I am criticized for asking to see something tangible like a body) and a lot of images which supposedly indicates that it is not a man in a suit and is a real creature.

My apologies to anyone who finds the discussion with Sweaty distracting. I think having a separate thread for Sweaty's levels of evidence stuff is a good idea. The only problem with that is that it would be a thread specifically devoted to Sweaty's erroneous arguments on bigfoot and IMO Sweaty will be reluctant to participate. I think this was the case when I started a thread for his Martian civilization nonsense. But to be fair to Sweaty, he may have simply had neither the time or the desire to debate here his beliefs outside of bigfoot here at our 'sewer'.

He is an eclectic believer, indeed.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Nice Tourette's fit, Mr. Personality.

Lyndon, you keep saying skeptics discussing bigfootery is weird. We think bigfootery is weird. I think you have anger management issues.

Actually, I thought Lyndon's post was quite funny...I got a good laugh out of it!

Nice to hear from you again, Lyndon!

Can you do me a favor...and drag me the hell out of here, I've been spending waaaaay too much time here lately!


Carcharodon wrote:

But that just goes to show the sad, sad circumstances of the pricks who post here and try to argue it.

Absolutely, Lyndon...the skeptics seem to think that there's a "belief war" going on, and they're out to stop people from thinking that Bigfoot might actually exist.
It's a strange thing, indeed, to put so much time and effort into nothing more than trying to stop someone from having certain thoughts floating around in their head.

So, how's the weather over there, mate....is Spring springing?!

It is where I am!

 

[kitakaze]

Actually, I thought Lyndon's post was quite funny...I got a good laugh out of it!

Nice to hear from you again, Lyndon!

Lyndon makes many people laugh. As I've said before, he reminds me of a drunk Michael Cain. He currently seems to be engaged in a bout of suicide by mod.

Can you do me a favor...and drag me the hell out of here, I've been spending waaaaay too much time here lately!

But I know you'll be getting to the questions I asked you.

Absolutely, Lyndon...the skeptics seem to think that there's a "belief war" going on, and they're out to stop people from thinking that Bigfoot might actually exist.
It's a strange thing, indeed, to put so much time and effort into nothing more than trying to stop someone from having certain thoughts floating around in their head.

I'm not so sure if in your heart you actually believe bigfoot exists and neither do I really care. That said, as long as you misrepresent things like science, reason, and logic, I'll gladly take the time to illustrate it.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I think this was the case when I started a thread for his Martian civilization nonsense. But to be fair to Sweaty, he may have simply had neither the time or the desire to debate here his beliefs outside of bigfoot here at our 'sewer'.

Actually, I haven't even read that thread...as well as the other Bigfoot threads. I barely have enough time to keep up with reading this one, and deciding which posts to respond to.
But, at this point, I think I'll get back to posting mainly at the Mid-America Board.

I would like to post on that Mars thread, though....someday.

 

[Drewbot]

Sweaty, I'm curious if Bill Munns view that Patty is within human proportions, has changed your wording of this claim? What about the clear demonstration that there is no evidence of finger movement?

If Patty's IM index is higher than a human's index....then it's very strong evidence that Patty is a real Bigfoot...because we can very clearly see her fingers bending in one part of the film.

Basically...if the arm is too long to be a human arm...and the fingers actually move....then it's a Bigfoot. Simple as that.

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.p...&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&hl=&st=150


Also here is the link to the Mars Civilization thread, if you want to partake.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88189&highlight=mars+civilization

 

[kitakaze]

But, at this point, I think I'll get back to posting mainly at the Mid-America Board.

So you won't be answering the questions I pointed out to you? That's understandable. You've been debating very poorly here. I can see how you'd like to forget about it.

I would like to post on that Mars thread....someday.

I'm sure you would.

 

[Astrophotographer]

But that just goes to show the sad, sad circumsances of the ***** who post here and try to argue it.

I served in the USN for many years and had a Commanding officer, who once stated, "The use of profanity is the sign of a limited vocabulary". When he said that I sort of laughed but as I got older, and perhaps wiser, I began to understand what he was saying. People who populate forums and use such language just demonstrate they don't have any self control or an exceptionally limited vocabulary (because you have to think about what you are going to type).

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, I'm curious if Bill Munns view that Patty is within human proportions, has changed your wording of this claim?

Good question, Drew. I'd like to know, too.

Munns definitely doesn't think a human head can't fit into Patty's.

 

[LTC8K6]

Patty appears to be back against the trees to me in the opening frames of the PGF.
She's nowhere near the creek or the log pile as far as I can see.

Anyway, what's the big deal over a disagreement about what Roger meant here:

On the other side of the creek, back up against the trees, there was a sort of man-creature

Does anyone else think there's no room for interpretation there?
I get called names because I think Roger meant "back up against the trees" when he said "back up against the trees" and not "back up against the pile of logs"...

Besides, we know from Titmus that the pile of logs was actually just one tree that had fallen across the creek, which he drew on his map, right? So how could Roger call being near a single tree across the creek "back up against the trees"?

 

[LTC8K6]

Did you ever hear a more obvious pair of liars? They have no idea what to say to explain why they didn't shoot bigfoot. The idea that these con-men would turn down the wads of money they'd get for a bigfoot carcass is ludicrous.

Roger wanted to put a bigfoot in a cage and parade it around and charge admission to see it, for crying out loud!

Roger didn't give a darn about anything but profiting from bigfoot any way he could.

If Patty were real, these two would have filmed her and then shot her to pieces and then grinned all the way to the bank with the film and the bloody carcass.

W: Now before we finish the chase . you had your rifle out of the scabbard, what kind of rifle was it?

B: Thirty ought six (30.06) rifle.

W: You can use a rifle, obviously.

B: Yes, I can, I've grown up ..

W: It would be worth a hundred thousand dollars cash to you if you had raised that rifle and shot this creature. You must have known that.

B: I don't believe I could do it.

W: Even if you just wounded it.

B: Well, I, like Roger said .

R: That would be a mess.

W: A mess?

R: A mess. . Both Bob and I, we had agreed that we will not shoot one of these creatures, and if she would attack us, whether we would be protecting our lives, I think that we would have to fear for our own lives if we were to wound one and, and make a total mess out of something like .

First Gimlin says "anything moving with fur on it is liable to get shot", then he says "there just aren't any hunters way up there, twenty miles beyond the only road".

So would someone in a sasquatch suit at bluff creek get shot? Gimlin doesn't really think so in 1967.

'Okay', I said, 'Tell me this, Roger--the hunting season was on, wasn't it?'

'You're darned-shooting-right it was,' Bob Gimlin chimed in. 'And out that way, anything moving with fur on it is liable to get shot. But actually, there just aren't any hunters way up there, twenty miles beyond the only road.

 

[kitakaze]

4. Fur surface capable of the anatomical motions of walking and head turning, with no apparent cloth fold artifacts. Undecided at present

Thank you for your clarification. BTW, wouldn't the upper thigh represent apparent cloth fold artifacts?

 

[Bill Munns]

Kitakaze:

"Good question, Drew. I'd like to know, too.

Munns definitely doesn't think a human head can't fit into Patty's."

Huh? Double negatives get a bit confusing.

A human head could apparently fit in Patty's head, as much as I have determined thus far. So it is an option.

"Thank you for your clarification. BTW, wouldn't the upper thigh represent apparent cloth fold artifacts? "

yes, thet weird thing on the upper thigh could be a cloth fold artifact, one possible option. No conclusion yet, on my part, but the cloth thing is a viable option in my mind right now.

Bill

 

[kitakaze]

Huh? Double negatives get a bit confusing.

I'll help. What I said there equals what you said here:

A human head could apparently fit in Patty's head,

As you have seen, Sweaty does not think so. A protractor and MS paint may have been involved.

"Thank you for your clarification. BTW, wouldn't the upper thigh represent apparent cloth fold artifacts? "

yes, thet weird thing on the upper thigh could be a cloth fold artifact, one possible option. No conclusion yet, on my part, but the cloth thing is a viable option in my mind right now.

Bill

So, that would change this...

For various issues of the figure in the PG Film, with regard to whether or not they could have been done with 1967 suit technology:

4. Fur surface capable of the anatomical motions of walking and head turning, with no apparent cloth fold artifacts. Undecided at present

...to a 'yes'. Correct?