• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Northern Lights: You "think" that you know they exist... Obviously, they don't, which is why in 2013, Footers still love Patty.
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
So are you saying that they cannot be hip waders?
Just because you believe in bigfoot doesn't mean that you must always accept the bigfoot side of the coin. Are you so jaded towards bigfoot that you can't objectively compare the evidence?

Have you seen the comparison between the hip waders and Patty's wrinkles?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying they cannot be waders. I'm saying Bill's explanation is reasonable to me.

Did you watch the entire presentation?
 
Not until you expain which portions you find to be of particular interest so we can discuss the details.
 
Northern Lights said:
It's a matter of perspective. From my perspective, since I know they exist, his explanation is reasonable.
Click to expand...

Just as I knew ghosts existed (I "saw" one) until I realized I suffer from cognitive biases/difficulties just like every other human being on earth. As do you.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
People tend to see what they like in this footage, but one thing you can't miss is the thigh band and the diaper, they're there
Click to expand...

Sorry to quibble, but I do want to point out that critical thinking can (and in my case at least, did) win out over our tendency "to see what [we] like".

I want bigfoot to be real -- very much so! -- and I wanted the PG film to be real (in the sense of depicting a non-human primate). But part of the beauty of this site, and skeptical thinking in general, is that it encourages us to separate those biases from what's in front of us.

Logic can triumph over emotion, IOW.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
IMO, critical thinking should automatically make the PGF null and void. Not one thing about it is believable. Logic says "no."
Click to expand...

I can only agree at this point. But in 2008/early 2009 I would have disagreed. Bigfoot was the last gasp of my paranormal beliefs, and I had read and thoroughly appreciated Sagan's Demon-Haunted World and considered myself an ardent, logical skeptic -- even while accepting the existence of this unclassified primate.

The PG film looked real to me; I was deeply convinced it was a non-human animal. Logic told me "yes"... I had anthropological training that convinced me I was looking at a real (non-human) primate.

But I didn't have the whole story. I had never looked into the backstory of the filming, for one matter. I had an incomplete understanding of the history of make-up effects and monster-suit-making. It wasn't until I came here that my eyes were opened to the obvious fraud. I learned about the Roe account and the Kunzler (sp.?) drawing that so closely resembles the Patty encounter. I learned about muscle-suits such as the Star Trek "Gorn". Closer inspection of the images revealed to me the fabric folds which I had missed because I was focusing on the "muscles". And of course the impossible timeline -- none of which I knew about coming in.

So in my case, while I was convinced I was applying logic and skepticism, I had to be more thoroughly educated about all this stuff before I could bring myself to concede that Patty wasn't a non-human primate. Logic isn't all that's required in this instance, I think: a firm grounding in information is also needed.
 
GT/CS said:
It's blocked at work so I'll view it tonight, until then why are you so impressed with what occurs there?
Click to expand...

OK, just to recap, we are talking specifically about the concave impression that can be seen in the hip region on the film. The claim by Bob H. is hip waders were worn and that was the cause of the impression.

At 34:30, Bill starts discussing whether that type of impression is feasible on a suit or whether it can be a naturally occurring feature on a biological creature. He goes into detail about how the impressions are natural and shows many examples where it occurs in humans. He said for those to show on a suit, it would have to be specifically designed so they were there.

As I indicated previously, I found his explanation to be reasonable.
 
Northern Lights said:
OK, just to recap, we are talking specifically about the concave impression that can be seen in the hip region on the film. The claim by Bob H. is hip waders were worn and that was the cause of the impression.

At 34:30, Bill starts discussing whether that type of impression is feasible on a suit or whether it can be a naturally occurring feature on a biological creature. He goes into detail about how the impressions are natural and shows many examples where it occurs in humans. He said for those to show on a suit, it would have to be specifically designed so they were there.

As I indicated previously, I found his explanation to be reasonable.
Click to expand...

His expanation is reasonable if you just accept everything he says, but he's putting his biased spin on the topic and he isn't going to show you proper evidence that shows the hip waders clearly create the folds. Since you believe in bigfoot don't you think that any time you listen to only one side of an argument for bigfoot's existance you are going to agree with it?

Are you interested in opposing views or are you going to continue looking at only the pro-bigfoot rhetoric

I'll ask again; have you seen the hip wader photo comparison on this site?
 
Northern Lights said:
OK, just to recap, we are talking specifically about the concave impression that can be seen in the hip region on the film. The claim by Bob H. is hip waders were worn and that was the cause of the impression.

At 34:30, Bill starts discussing whether that type of impression is feasible on a suit or whether it can be a naturally occurring feature on a biological creature. He goes into detail about how the impressions are natural and shows many examples where it occurs in humans. He said for those to show on a suit, it would have to be specifically designed so they were there.

As I indicated previously, I found his explanation to be reasonable.
Click to expand...

Why hasn't this analysis convinced the scientific community to have another look see?
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
His expanation is reasonable if you just accept everything he says, but he's putting his biased spin on the topic and he isn't going to show you proper evidence that shows the hip waders clearly create the folds. Since you believe in bigfoot don't you think that any time you listen to only one side of an argument for bigfoot's existance you are going to agree with it?

Are you interested in opposing views or are you going to continue looking at only the pro-bigfoot rhetoric

I'll ask again; have you seen the hip wader photo comparison on this site?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am interested in opposing views and I have not viewed the comparisons and will try and find them if no one is able to post a link.

Regarding the "pro-bigfoot rhetoric", I actually don't walk the party line and am quite critical of the vast majority of the garbage that is out there. I've been out on BFRO expeditions where just about everyone is saying they are seeing "eye shine" and hearing whoops, and attributing every twig snap to squatches and I'm just shaking my head in amusement.

I honestly try to have squatches end up as the last possible explanation, instead of the first. So yes, I'm absolutely open to alternative ideas and explanations. Thanks
NL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom