Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for posting that link, Crowlogic....there are some interesting comments on the thread.


Here's my take on it....

Hiking boots and gear: $100

A trip into the woods, searching for Bigfoot: $200

Having a Stinking Rotten Bigfoot in the freezer, and an attitude to match.....priceless. ;)
 
Astrophotographer said:
This is also the same image that shows a heel sticking out that looks more like somebody where a fake foot than anything that makes sense. I suggest you read "bigfoot exposed" page 144. You can read it here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uJ...X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA144,M1

Remember, this guy is an expert and not a self-proclaimed one like yourself.



Different suit filmed under different conditions and then turned into a low-resolution image that is blocky. An incorrect comparison AGAIN. Your argument fails. I still need my check if you want to make a serious attempt at this. If you were so confident, I think you would have taken me up on my offer. You can still call mythbusters maybe they will do it for the show and prove you wrong. BTW, didn't Penn and Teller fool some bigfoot proponents with a crappy suit filmed under the right conditions?

Oh, this is the same image I used to demonstrate that Bob's arms are not too short. An image comparison you did not refute in anyway other than stating (as I recall) it was wrong to compare Bob in a suit with "patty/bunny" and it was better to compare him outside a suit, which is completely backward if you are trying to test if "patty/bunny" is Bob in a suit.
Click to expand...
Nice link. I think I will add "absurd foot anatomy" to the short list, including thigh pad, wrist band, and diaper butt, of things convincing to the casual observer that this is certainily a guy in a suit. I also don't think the eye treatment looks at all believable, although I haven't seen it discussed here.
 
SweatyYeti said:
There are only 3 basic things to debate concerning Bigfoot's existence....

1) Is Bigfoot's existence even possible?

2) Is Bigfoot's existence likely?

3) Is Bigfoot's existence proven?
Click to expand...

1)Yes

2)No

3)No

Next.

I don't really care about mulling over the likelihood of Bigfoot much these days but if I ever get a chance to post an image of Moneymaker howling at the woods next to his tree whacker... it's kinda my thing.
 
SweatyYeti said:
The Sonoma Video has absolutely NOTHING to do with any analysis of the PG Film, or anything to do with the analysis of any Bigfoot evidence, in general.

The suit in the video has no detectable body contour, no apparant muscle movement, no measurable body proportions, and no detail, whatsoever.
It is a piece of .............NOTHING.
Click to expand...
What do I code my Harley Hoffman video? It's got all that junk Sweaty's talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERdW5IiWHGA

H2, baby, H2.

Hey Sweaty, if you are going to keep yapping about apparent muscle movement then could you at least learn how to spell apparEnt?
 
Thanks for the spelling correction, kitty...:)...I don't make too many of those.....I must say. :cool:
 
kitakaze said:
Laughable Bigfoot enthusiast attempt at sarcasm. Yes, log, I know you didn't make the image, just find it effective. You see what makes that image look so dumb is that everyone, including Munns whom you esteem, finds the moving image of Patty's thigh to show an anomaly highly inconsistent with a natural leg muscle.
Click to expand...

That's about as much as anyone could expect from Samurai Attack dog. Why don't you put youself back on the leash and use your critical thinking skills to better use. I find this photo very effective. Its effective because it demonstrates (on a primate no less) that natural details such as the one's I've lightheartedly pointed out can indeed mimic quite well some of the very details that suitnicks use to point out suit flaws and design. It has been stated here and elsewhere that details such as those on the photos will never be seen on real living animals. Does not make the PGF real but it does force a certain reconsideration about what may or may not be possible on a real animal vs a suit.

The photo is not about the PGF thigh or anything Bill Munns may or may consider on said thigh. The photo is concerning a gorilla ass and the transition into the upper legs and lower back. Now if you want to furnish me with a photo of your ass I'll gladly post it so we can discuss the hind quarters of a horse!

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crowlogic said:
That's about as much as anyone could expect from Samurai Attack dog. Why don't you put youself back on the leash and use your critical thinking skills to better use. I find this photo very effective. Its effective because it demonstrates (on a primate no less) that natural details such as the one's I've lightheartedly pointed out can indeed mimic quite well some of the very details that suitnicks use to point out suit flaws and design. It has been stated here and elsewhere that details such as those on the photos will never be seen on real living animals.
Click to expand...
If you find it appealing to use pseudointellectual Roger Knights' 'suitnik' then you may want to drop the 'c'. Minor Quibble. Main point, show me how clever the image you reposted is. Show me how it rings home. Show me some posts, heck one post will do for now, where Bigfoot skeptics here are pointing out details as highlighted in the image of the gorilla and citing them as evidence of a suit. If it is so clever then you shouldn't have any trouble showing how we quite often do that.

Does not make the PGF real but it does force a certain reconsideration about what may or may not be possible on a real animal vs a suit.
Click to expand...
For ADD Bigfoot enthusiasts trying to be clever and making strawmen, maybe. Here, not so much.

Now if you want to furnish me with a photo of your ass I'll gladly post it so we can discuss the hind quarters of a horse!
Click to expand...
Zing.

It's log. She's better than bad, she's good.
 
Last edited:
Still around, and I read a few posts here and there when I get a chance.

To borrow a phrase, I'm not dead yet.
 
kitakaze said:
If you find it appealing to use pseudointellectual Roger Knights' 'suitnik' then you may want to drop the 'c'. Minor Quibble. Main point, show me how clever the image you reposted is. Show me how it rings home. Show me some posts, heck one post will do for now, where Bigfoot skeptics here are pointing out details as highlighted in the image of the gorilla and citing them as evidence of a suit. If it is so clever then you shouldn't have any trouble showing how we quite often do that.

For ADD Bigfoot enthusiasts trying to be clever and making strawmen, maybe. Here, not so much.

Zing.


It's log. She's better than bad, she's good.
Click to expand...


Show me something other than your usual tired rhetoric.
 
Crowlogic said:
That's about as much as anyone could expect from Samurai Attack dog. Why don't you put youself back on the leash and use your critical thinking skills to better use. I find this photo very effective. Its effective because it demonstrates (on a primate no less) that natural details such as the one's I've lightheartedly pointed out can indeed mimic quite well some of the very details that suitnicks use to point out suit flaws and design. It has been stated here and elsewhere that details such as those on the photos will never be seen on real living animals. Does not make the PGF real but it does force a certain reconsideration about what may or may not be possible on a real animal vs a suit.
Click to expand...

The closest thing I've seen to what you're talking about occurred over at the BFF with Chris Walas, as noted in this thread (which also names the source for your picture). I suppose one could say the same about Dfoot, but I think he's focused on the neck and thighs than the features that you're bringing up. As I recall, the majority of the suit flaw pictures brought up here were done in response to claims that since a feature on the suit matched up to a feature on a real animal, it had to be real.

And whatever happened to the old footer demand for seeing suit flaws in motion? I've noticed that this request rarely (if ever) gets applied to pictures of features on animals.

As an aside, I've found mongabay.com to be a great skeptical resource, especially the pictures of otters.
 
Crowlogic said:
Show me something other than your usual tired rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Typical. Let's review:

Crowlogic said:
Obviously this is a suit.

Click to expand...
Isn't this fantastic? With the text and the arrows pointing and the gorillas even. I have another with this kitten half clinging to a tree branch and it says "hang in there!" It's clever because:

Crowlogic said:
I find this photo very effective. Its effective because it demonstrates (on a primate no less) that natural details such as the one's I've lightheartedly pointed out can indeed mimic quite well some of the very details that suitnicks use to point out suit flaws and design. It has been stated here and elsewhere that details such as those on the photos will never be seen on real living animals.
Click to expand...
You guys totally do that. It's like a thing with you people. Wow, you got burned! What's that?...

kitakaze said:
Show me how it rings home. Show me some posts, heck one post will do for now, where Bigfoot skeptics here are pointing out details as highlighted in the image of the gorilla and citing them as evidence of a suit. If it is so clever then you shouldn't have any trouble showing how we quite often do that.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, come again? You want to see where it is that you people do that? Need some substantiation to show that we're not making strawmen? Well,sir, take this!:

Crowlogic said:
Show me something other than your usual tired rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Now if you'll excuse me. :scarper:
 
Kit you can rant and rave and bash and boom all you want. But the photos show suit like details appearing on living animals. There's nothing you can do about that. Interesting that you decided to take this thing on as if it had been afront to you personally. It wasn't but I do take a certain amount of pleasure in the event that it did. But let it be known that a blanket statements such as real live animals wouldn't show things like waist bands and hip lines are not an accurate statement. Sorry if it makes the task of suit bashing a little harder. I understand that with you its not the pleasure of the suit bash its just the pleasure of the bash itself. I could also post another gorilla photo with a wristband detail but hey this one is fun enough, for now.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom