Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[The Shrike]

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.

But that is your logic in this post:

"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?"

This statement from you ignores the insights to be gained from comparative anatomy, by implying that I'm out of line to expect certain anatomical features to be present in a bipedal hominid without the benefit of having dissected one.

It is also disingenuous (at best) to direct this statement at mine without also directing it at every claim 'footers make about anatomy they see in the film as "consistent with a bipedal hominid." I've seen many many such claims and never once saw one followed by an admonishment from you that they have no idea what they're seeing without the benefit of a dissected squatch to examine.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Seriously, if a counter argument to Munns was made you'd listen? You've already ignored several counter arguments on here.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

But that is your logic in this post:

"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?"

This statement from you ignores the insights to be gained from comparative anatomy, by implying that I'm out of line to expect certain anatomical features to be present in a bipedal hominid without the benefit of having dissected one.

It is also disingenuous (at best) to direct this statement at mine without also directing it at every claim 'footers make about anatomy they see in the film as "consistent with a bipedal hominid." I've seen many many such claims and never once saw one followed by an admonishment from you that they have no idea what they're seeing without the benefit of a dissected squatch to examine.

Nope, I was merely pointing out you made a statement that you are unable to know. Knowledge of the unknowable isn't allowed in my view by anyone on either side. Next.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Seriously, if a counter argument to Munns was made you'd listen? You've already ignored several counter arguments on here.

Of course I'd listen. I was not there that day the footage was shot. I'm open to both sides of the argument. So far, Bill Munns has put together a very good presentation for the existence of a biological being in that film, other than good ole Bob H. I've read thru the thread here on the advice another JREF member and I do not see anything credible that points to Bob H in a suit.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Not many mermaid dissections either.

That's diversion isn't it.

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

I've read thru the thread here on the advice another JREF member and I do not see anything credible that points to Bob H in a suit.

Maybe you could try perusing the previous threads. Or even the two threads dedicated to this aspect of the PGF - split from the main PGF threads (of which the previous 3 hold more information, part 4 seems to have almost become a chatroom)

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty


Part 1 2 3

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

That's a word which Munns knows has no application in the real world. It's not repeatable because nobody will be given access to the source material. He has already said that Patricia Patterson gave him exclusive access to filmstrips and enlargements and won't be giving it to anybody else. That means it isn't really repeatable in any meaningful sense. Skeptics aren't going to be given access to good early versions. It probably needs to be common knowledge that you are going to approve the PGF before you are allowed to examine it.

It was already very obvious that Munns would never look at anybody's coveted film copy and then say "Oh my, after I saw this good version I decided that it was a hoax after all." No, everybody knew that that was never gonna happen.

Nobody will ever really know if Munns cheated because nobody will get their hands on the evidence he used. But he still wants to call it science. People like you get on the Internet and say it is repeatable.

Well that's it then. I've wasted my time here looking for a skeptical counter to Bill Munns' presentation only to learn there never will be such because Bill has all the goodies locked up. Thank You. Unfortunate for the skeptic that the only argument left to defend a hoax theory is "I heard" " Somebody said" "That doesn't look right." etc.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Unfortunate for the skeptic that the only argument left to defend a hoax theory is "I heard" " Somebody said" "That doesn't look right." etc.

Then I'm sure you will present your evidence for why the subject in the PGF is a real Bigfoot, and not just what ' Somebody said '...

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Maybe you could try perusing the previous threads. Or even the two threads dedicated to this aspect of the PGF - split from the main PGF threads (of which the previous 3 hold more information, part 4 seems to have almost become a chatroom)

I've read them. About the only thing I've learned as factual there is alot of folks here voice their opinion as fact but only based on opinion, downright denial, not skepticism, is ripe. And for some reason there seems to be a real hatred for Bill Munns expressed by a few here. There's really no need to get personal just because you disagree with someone.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Then I'm sure you will present your evidence for why the subject in the PGF is a real Bigfoot, and not just what ' Somebody said '...

Once again you are mistaken. I'm not here to prove anything for you. I came here to see what was posted about the P/G film that would compare to the Munns presentation. There is nothing to compare here, nothing credible that is.

 

[GT/CS]

As soon as Munns posts something worth our time we'll be happy to address it. This group explained his 15mm issues to him with such detail and clarity even he should have been able to understand it.

Are you going to respond to my other post?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

Sorry, I was on my wife's laptop, my fat fingers do not mix with tiny keyboards.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

If anyone's in denial here, Chris, then it's you, mate. You're already a lost cause when you chat that kinda pish. Sort it out.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

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

I think the size of the head or mask looks very interesting , also the old subduction by hip wader issue is addressed effectively IMO the hip wader theory has been put to rest. The changing color of the fur on the upper thigh was also interesting to me. Another mark against the hip wader theory IMO. There were several valid points made throughout the presentation with the use of human models. The breast shape during footfall was also interesting. The shape of the underarm. To me, the presentation was very compelling.

I've already noticed some here starting to gently shy away from the hip wader argument likely because of Bill Munns' presentation. Things are starting to be said like: "I think I read somewhere Bob H didn't say they were hip waders, he said they looked kinda like that."

If one part is wrong the rest is wrong IMO.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

If anyone's in denial here, Chris, then it's you, mate. You're already a lost cause when you chat that kinda pish. Sort it out.

Well, for me personally there is no going back and unseeing what I have seen. But, I'm discussing the P/G film here. More particularly looking for responses to the Munns presentation.


edited to add: "pish" was a new one on me. Thank you. I had to look it up to know exactly what was meant. lol

 

[GT/CS]

I think the size of the head or mask looks very interesting , also the old subduction by hip wader issue is addressed effectively IMO the hip wader theory has been put to rest. The changing color of the fur on the upper thigh was also interesting to me. Another mark against the hip wader theory IMO. There were several valid points made throughout the presentation with the use of human models. The breast shape during footfall was also interesting. The shape of the underarm. To me, the presentation was very compelling.

I've already noticed some here starting to gently shy away from the hip wader argument likely because of Bill Munns' presentation. Things are starting to be said like: "I think I read somewhere Bob H didn't say they were hip waders, he said they looked kinda like that."

If one part is wrong the rest is wrong IMO.

People have made the "like hip waders" quote for a long time, well before Munns, because that is what Bob said and many of the folks here are sticklers for details.
If you want to discuss details you'll find the folks here ready to debate the issues with you but if you want to talk about generalities, feelings, or half-truths, or just throw around insults you'll be in for a rough time.

Munns' presentation didn't show anything to any of us that we find interesting or worth debating, which is quite surprising with this group, and that may tell you just how bad we think the presentation was.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

Well that's it then. I've wasted my time here looking for a skeptical counter to Bill Munns' presentation only to learn there never will be such because Bill has all the goodies locked up. Thank You. Unfortunate for the skeptic that the only argument left to defend a hoax theory is "I heard" " Somebody said" "That doesn't look right." etc.

Hi Bill.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

People have made the "like hip waders" quote for a long time, well before Munns, because that is what Bob said and many of the folks here are sticklers for details.
If you want to discuss details you'll find the folks here ready to debate the issues with you but if you want to talk about generalities, feelings, or half-truths, or just throw around insults you'll be in for a rough time.

Munns' presentation didn't show anything to any of us that we find interesting or worth debating, which is quite surprising with this group, and that may tell you just how bad we think the presentation was.

It may also say something as to the atmosphere here. I am truly openminded. I know the sasquatch exists because I've been witness to a few. I don't know if "Patty" is a sasquatch or not. My point is that the Munns presentation goes a long way to show Patty as a biological creature.

I also know that since I have seen what I have, the likeliness of a feeding frenzy was to be expected here. For the record I do not throw around insults. I say exactly what I mean, the truth. If one is a skeptic I will acknowledge them as such. There is a big difference between skepticisim and denialism as you well know I'm sure.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Hi Bill.

Sorry to disappoint but you are incorrect about this as well. My name is Chris Bennett of the Bigfoot Research Project of Kentucky.Co-host Squatchdetective Radio and former Admin of the BFF. My phone number is on the home page of my website.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Why not tell us about your encounters over in the appropriate thread? I'd likd to see what made u believe. Re: Munns, pfffffft.