Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[dafydd]

That's exactly what I'm thinking. Patty (if real) isn't human the way we are, so there are going to be noticable differences in the anatomy. How much will depend on the genetic distance. Expecting her to have the exact same shape as us doesn't make sense to me.

We must try to make observations as unbiasedly as possible. And the reality is, there hasn't been anything in the film itself that suggests she's not a real animal. Pareidolia/nitpicking just doesn't cut it.

There is nothing in the film to suggest that it is a real animal.

 

[The Shrike]

Classic 'footer logic:

footer: "See how the calf muscle bulges when Patty steps? That's exactly what we'd expect from a large bipedal hominid."

skeptic: "But her knee-pit is out of alignment and her thigh shows none of the expected muscles of a bipedal hominid."

footer: "YOU CAN'T KNOW WHAT HER MUSCLES SHOULD LOOK LIKE SINCE YOU HAVEN'T DISSECTED ONE!"


I'd call this mind-boggling but it's obvious that minds from which gems like this originate come pre-boggled.

 

[dmaker]

It's funny how someone can blindly state "Patty's calf muscle should not look like so and so" How many Sasquatch have you dissected exactly? And what major differences are there in the muscle connections to the foot bone structure? Bone structure of the foot?......

So all the Footers who chant the party line of how Patty looks so anatomically correct, they are mistaken also because they have never laid scalpel to a squatch?

Perhaps you should inform Mr.Munns...

 

[dmaker]

ETA: Dang, Shrike beat me to it..

 

[Monza]

Classic 'footer logic:

footer: "See how the calf muscle bulges when Patty steps? That's exactly what we'd expect from a large bipedal hominid."

skeptic: "But her knee-pit is out of alignment and her thigh shows none of the expected muscles of a bipedal hominid."

footer: "YOU CAN'T KNOW WHAT HER MUSCLES SHOULD LOOK LIKE SINCE YOU HAVEN'T DISSECTED ONE!"


I'd call this mind-boggling but it's obvious that minds from which gems like this originate come pre-boggled.

I agree.

It's asinine to state that no comments can be about the anatomy of an unknown animal. All mammals have common anatomical traits, more so when we limit the discussion to primates. If Patty was a real creature it should follow the basic structure of bones and muscles seen on all primates. If Patty is just a guy in a suit it should look like... well, just watch the film.

 

[The Shrike]

^Indeed. Comparative Anatomy has been around since Aristotle (at least ), yet the 'footers act like we biologists don't know how limbs work. (Of course some biologists with special knowledge *cough* <Meldrum> *cough* know all about how the gastrocnemius of a walking bigfoot contracts on the foot-plant, opposite how bipedalism works in Homo sapiens . . . )

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Why has no Bigfoot ever been dissected? I know the answer.

I think I know too. It's the same reason no Cross River Gorilla has been dissected either.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

^Indeed. Comparative Anatomy has been around since Aristotle (at least ), yet the 'footers act like we biologists don't know how limbs work. (Of course some biologists with special knowledge *cough* <Meldrum> *cough* know all about how the gastrocnemius of a walking bigfoot contracts on the foot-plant, opposite how bipedalism works in Homo sapiens . . . )

I don't accept Meldrum's theory of foot bone structure for the same reason. He has nothing to base his theory on other than plaster casts. Foot strike and push off, terrain and several other factors make a casting a very poor observation tool for any type of foot bone structure study.

 

[dafydd]

I think I know too. It's the same reason no Cross River Gorilla has been dissected either.

Not many mermaid dissections either.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I've watched the Munns presentation and I think he makes a good case for a Biological creature. As I said on the BFF, I'd like to see a similar presentation made that counters Bill Munns' presentation. The documentaries that have tried to recreate the P/G film so far have failed to convince me that we're looking at a suit.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That's interesting since there is no tangible evidence for a Biological creature, or do you have some you would like to share?

P.S.

What is the significance of ' Biological ' with a capital ' B " ?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Classic 'footer logic:

footer: "See how the calf muscle bulges when Patty steps? That's exactly what we'd expect from a large bipedal hominid."

skeptic: "But her knee-pit is out of alignment and her thigh shows none of the expected muscles of a bipedal hominid."

footer: "YOU CAN'T KNOW WHAT HER MUSCLES SHOULD LOOK LIKE SINCE YOU HAVEN'T DISSECTED ONE!"


I'd call this mind-boggling but it's obvious that minds from which gems like this originate come pre-boggled.

That's not my logic and I've never said what Patty's calf should look like. Please don't try to state "my" logic for me as I'm perfectly capable of taking care of my own business without any help or additions to my statements from anyone else.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think I know too. It's the same reason no Cross River Gorilla has been dissected either.

I would be blushing also...

I don't know why you think that is a meaningful answer when there is an actual Cross River Gorilla available for dissection if the opportunity should arise..

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

I've watched the Munns presentation and I think he makes a good case for a Biological creature. As I said on the BFF, I'd like to see a similar presentation made that counters Bill Munns' presentation. The documentaries that have tried to recreate the P/G film so far have failed to convince me that we're looking at a suit.

What documentaries? BBC X-Creatures?



You know how bad the costume they used is.

Please fast-forward to ~5:40 , and watch a blurry-shaky-taken at distance film of this oh-so-obvious suit.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

That's interesting since there is no tangible evidence for a Biological creature, or do you have some you would like to share?

P.S.

What is the significance of ' Biological ' with a capital ' B " ?

I don't carry around a bigfoot body in my pocket and have no desire to prove or disprove a biological creature for anyone. You say they don't exist, that's cool. I know they do, is that cool with you?

P.S. I didn't realize my typing would be graded. Does that really have anything to do with anything?

 

[mustbeso]

I've watched the Munns presentation and I think he makes a good case for a Biological creature. As I said on the BFF, I'd like to see a similar presentation made that counters Bill Munns' presentation. The documentaries that have tried to recreate the P/G film so far have failed to convince me that we're looking at a suit.

Consider for a moment that the documentaries are made to be intentionally bad. That has been my consistent thouught concerning the BBC piece. It is bad simply to keep the myth alive in order to make more documentaries. As for the PGF, it does a fine job of convincing most folks of what it is and that is a man in a suit. I read somewhere that the figure in the original film is 1.5mm high. Take your vernier caliper and open it .05905 and consider that that is what is being blown up to show us all this muscle movement and whatnot.

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

I don't carry around a bigfoot body in my pocket and have no desire to prove or disprove a biological creature for anyone. You say they don't exist, that's cool. I know they do, is that cool with you?

P.S. I didn't realize my typing would be graded. Does that really have anything to do with anything?

How?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you have a point besides your ' belief ' ?

Perhaps you should start a discussion in the ' Religion and Philosophy ' sub forum..

Not to say we can't continue the discussion here, but you really should discuss the film in this thread, and why you think the subject is a real Bigfoot and not a costume..

We might find we have overlooked something in the previous thousands of posts on the subject..

 

[GT/CS]

I don't carry around a bigfoot body in my pocket and have no desire to prove or disprove a biological creature for anyone. You say they don't exist, that's cool. I know they do, is that cool with you?

P.S. I didn't realize my typing would be graded. Does that really have anything to do with anything?

The question was very polite and straightforward in that it took extra effort for you to make the capital B, and it seems reasonable to think you meant to do so. If you meant to capitalize it we should know why so we can properly understand your statement.

Was "biology" capitalized for a reason? If so, what is that reason.

 

[GT/CS]

I've watched the Munns presentation and I think he makes a good case for a Biological creature. As I said on the BFF, I'd like to see a similar presentation made that counters Bill Munns' presentation. The documentaries that have tried to recreate the P/G film so far have failed to convince me that we're looking at a suit.

Which part of the video do you find most compelling?

Please go to post 441 and wade (pun intended) through the posts from there to here.

Thanks